Wars

[MilesAway]

The USA hasn't won a war since WW2.

Are MOAB's a waste that can never be used? They can't be used because the international public hates massive civilian deaths by smart bombs operated by dumb bombardiers.

Does the Pentagon start, or provoke, or create false flag attacks to ensure the inception of wars just for the purposes of military training and to dispose of munitions that are expiring and would have to be disposed of in the USA?

MOAB requires a large, slow plane to deliver it. That means that you have to send in an advance force to clear the skies. MOAB is not something you send over to send a message without preparation.

Politicians are much nicer than I would be. I would fight a war to win and save American lives, and I wouldn't rebuild the enemy or pay reparations like we do in Japan. Every war we "lose" is "lost" by politicians tying our hands, not our troops.

You can't just take at the end of war or you risk retaliation on your children.

War justs ends up with a peace negotiation: and that becomes very very important as to how the futures of all parties involved evolves.

 

[Lols]

President Donald Trump s as a military honor guard carries the remains of Scott Wirtz, a civilian employee of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency killed along with three members of the U.S. military during a recent attack in Syria, past during a dignified transfer ceremony at Dover Air Force Base, in Dover, Delaware, U.S., January 19, 2019.

How could this be?

Trump claimed total victory over ISIS.

The goal was to take away the ground they controlled, which, at their height, was much of eastern Syria and virtually all of western Iraq. That goal has been achieved, and that is the victory.


It is unrealistic to expect that every last ISIS member could be killed, and clearly, terrorist cells will be an ongoing problem for the Syrians and Iraqis.

So Trump "took away the ground ISIS controlled" and they moved to the ground USA controls?

Wasn't the Pentagon bussing ISIS terrorists around Syria at one time?

ISIS evolved from Saudi Arabian jihad ideology and were financed and armed by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states to destabilize Iraq.

The U.S. should never have involved itself with Syria's civil war. If the U.S. hadn't done that, we wouldn't need to ask what the U.S. did in Syria. What I do know is that the Obama administration gave weapons and support to what they believed (or purported to believe) were "pro-democracy rebels." This support undermined the Syrian government and helped to create a loss of governance over a broad area of Syria. In this power vacuum, ISIS was able organize and take territory. ISIS was originally an Iraqi Al Qaeda (AQI) organization.

The specifics of what the U.S. did or didn't do are somewhat shrouded in secrecy. But what we know is that the U.S. gave lethal assistance and thereby helped fuel the civil war. I personally do not think the U.S. gave arms to known AQ or ISIS groups, but in the chaos, there is no doubt whatsoever that some U.S. arms ended up in their possession.

Obama ran for a president on a platform that the Iraq War was wrong and that he would quickly pull our troops out of Iraq. So his decisions to destroy Libya and to fuel a civil war in Syria utterly baffle me, and I was totally against both from Day 1.

I completely support Trump's intent to remove our troops from Syria. Other than knocking down ISIS, we have no business in Syria. I agree that our withdrawal should include some security guarantees for the Kurds. But we are capable of enforcing that security without boots on the ground, and so our troops should be withdrawn as soon as possible.

Our job there is done. Our troops in the air and on the ground have accomplished their mission, and I have nothing but the highest respect for them. Now, bring 'em home.

Totally agree! I have been saying it for years!

 

[jovialmo]

North v South was also about tariffs, to suit the mercantilist north or the agrarian south?

Need to look a bit deeper.

 

[Squire]

Stopping wars is like trying to stop bushfires. The gentlest breeze that disturbs the momentum of extinguishment causes the fire to flare again, sometimes in a different direction, and sometimes burning back on the firefighters.

 

[johnsmith]

President Donald Trump s as a military honor guard carries the remains of Scott Wirtz, a civilian employee of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency killed along with three members of the U.S. military during a recent attack in Syria, past during a dignified transfer ceremony at Dover Air Force Base, in Dover, Delaware, U.S., January 19, 2019.

How could this be?

Trump claimed total victory over ISIS.

The goal was to take away the ground they controlled, which, at their height, was much of eastern Syria and virtually all of western Iraq. That goal has been achieved, and that is the victory.


It is unrealistic to expect that every last ISIS member could be killed, and clearly, terrorist cells will be an ongoing problem for the Syrians and Iraqis.

So Trump "took away the ground ISIS controlled" and they moved to the ground USA controls?

Wasn't the Pentagon bussing ISIS terrorists around Syria at one time?

ISIS evolved from Saudi Arabian jihad ideology and were financed and armed by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states to destabilize Iraq.

The U.S. should never have involved itself with Syria's civil war. If the U.S. hadn't done that, we wouldn't need to ask what the U.S. did in Syria. What I do know is that the Obama administration gave weapons and support to what they believed (or purported to believe) were "pro-democracy rebels." This support undermined the Syrian government and helped to create a loss of governance over a broad area of Syria. In this power vacuum, ISIS was able organize and take territory. ISIS was originally an Iraqi Al Qaeda (AQI) organization.

The specifics of what the U.S. did or didn't do are somewhat shrouded in secrecy. But what we know is that the U.S. gave lethal assistance and thereby helped fuel the civil war. I personally do not think the U.S. gave arms to known AQ or ISIS groups, but in the chaos, there is no doubt whatsoever that some U.S. arms ended up in their possession.

Obama ran for a president on a platform that the Iraq War was wrong and that he would quickly pull our troops out of Iraq. So his decisions to destroy Libya and to fuel a civil war in Syria utterly baffle me, and I was totally against both from Day 1.

I completely support Trump's intent to remove our troops from Syria. Other than knocking down ISIS, we have no business in Syria. I agree that our withdrawal should include some security guarantees for the Kurds. But we are capable of enforcing that security without boots on the ground, and so our troops should be withdrawn as soon as possible.

Our job there is done. Our troops in the air and on the ground have accomplished their mission, and I have nothing but the highest respect for them. Now, bring 'em home.

I'd agree with all of that

also, I wonder how much of the reasoning for the US getting involved was to prevent the Russians gaining a foothold.

 

[pinkeye]

jeez JS I said that multiple pages ago. See I have a very peculiar memory.

OBVIOUSLY it was/is about US/Russia.

 

[SethBullock]

President Donald Trump s as a military honor guard carries the remains of Scott Wirtz, a civilian employee of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency killed along with three members of the U.S. military during a recent attack in Syria, past during a dignified transfer ceremony at Dover Air Force Base, in Dover, Delaware, U.S., January 19, 2019.

How could this be?

Trump claimed total victory over ISIS.

The goal was to take away the ground they controlled, which, at their height, was much of eastern Syria and virtually all of western Iraq. That goal has been achieved, and that is the victory.


It is unrealistic to expect that every last ISIS member could be killed, and clearly, terrorist cells will be an ongoing problem for the Syrians and Iraqis.

So Trump "took away the ground ISIS controlled" and they moved to the ground USA controls?

Wasn't the Pentagon bussing ISIS terrorists around Syria at one time?

ISIS evolved from Saudi Arabian jihad ideology and were financed and armed by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states to destabilize Iraq.

The U.S. should never have involved itself with Syria's civil war. If the U.S. hadn't done that, we wouldn't need to ask what the U.S. did in Syria. What I do know is that the Obama administration gave weapons and support to what they believed (or purported to believe) were "pro-democracy rebels." This support undermined the Syrian government and helped to create a loss of governance over a broad area of Syria. In this power vacuum, ISIS was able organize and take territory. ISIS was originally an Iraqi Al Qaeda (AQI) organization.

The specifics of what the U.S. did or didn't do are somewhat shrouded in secrecy. But what we know is that the U.S. gave lethal assistance and thereby helped fuel the civil war. I personally do not think the U.S. gave arms to known AQ or ISIS groups, but in the chaos, there is no doubt whatsoever that some U.S. arms ended up in their possession.

Obama ran for a president on a platform that the Iraq War was wrong and that he would quickly pull our troops out of Iraq. So his decisions to destroy Libya and to fuel a civil war in Syria utterly baffle me, and I was totally against both from Day 1.

I completely support Trump's intent to remove our troops from Syria. Other than knocking down ISIS, we have no business in Syria. I agree that our withdrawal should include some security guarantees for the Kurds. But we are capable of enforcing that security without boots on the ground, and so our troops should be withdrawn as soon as possible.

Our job there is done. Our troops in the air and on the ground have accomplished their mission, and I have nothing but the highest respect for them. Now, bring 'em home.

I'd agree with all of that

also, I wonder how much of the reasoning for the US getting involved was to prevent the Russians gaining a foothold.

Gaining a foothold? They already had a foothold. They had had it for decades. They have a naval base on Syrian territory. They had friendly diplomatic relations. They have provided Syria with arms and advisors. This friendly cooperation between Syria and Russia had been the status quo for a long, long time, extending back to the 1950s/1960s era.

I think some of the strategic hawks in the U.S. government may have had dreams of a scenario wherein the Russians lost their foothold in Syria. Among them would be Hillary Clinton of the Democratic Party and Lindsey Graham and John McCain of the Republican Party.

This is my opinion, but I don't think that hope was what motivated Obama.

No, I think Obama had a rosy belief (much like his predecessor did) that the people's of these Islamic countries would embrace democracy if only they were given a chance. You may recall that, shortly before the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq at the end of 2011, Iraq had been mostly pacified. The insurgency had been mostly broken, and there was relative peace. U.S. casualties were very low in that final year in Iraq. Iraq had a new Constitution that insured power sharing. People were voting. Remember the blue thumbs and happy faces of voters? There was optimism. Vice President Biden even crowed that Iraq represented a "great achievement" of the Obama administration.

Meanwhile, in 2011, the "Arab Spring" protests and uprisings were in full swing in Egypt. The Obama administration took a tacitly supportive position of the "Arab Spring" upheaval in Egypt and the resulting change of power to Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Concurrently, there was an uprising in Libya, and this time the U.S. took an active role, bombing the Libyan military relentlessly, until finally we dropped a guided missile on Gadaffi's motorcade, leading to his death.

And concurrently, the Syrian uprising began, and we know that the Obama administration lent diplomatic support, weapons, and training to the rebels, fueling that conflict.

John, what I believe is that Obama believed that all of these were noble uprisings with noble goals of freedom and democracy. I think he believed the people's of these areas were yearning to throw off the shackles of oppression and to enter into a new era of freedom, peace, tolerance, and prosperity. We know that Obama held a great respect for the religion of Islam and the goodness of the people's in Muslim countries. Early in his presidency he gave a long speech at the U.N. extolling that goodness, and he received a Nobel Peace Prize for giving that speech. So I don't think this was about Russia's foothold in Syria to Obama. The close relationship between Syria and Russia was simply coincidental, but his core belief was in the purity and legitimacy of these uprisings. Surely, his actions and statements back up that view.

Sadly, these idealistic beliefs have been obliterated by the events that have taken place since then in all of these countries. I regard his policy toward these uprisings as one of worst miscalculations of his presidency. And I think these core beliefs Obama held led him to make a huge flip-flop that he should never have made. A key part of his campaign when he first ran was that the Iraq War was wrong and a mistake, and he wanted to order a rapid withdrawal of our forces as soon as he was elected. And yet, as President, he did the things he did in Libya and Syria. I think that if he were completely honest and didn't let his pride get in the way, he would agree that his policies and actions in the middle east were failures. Unfortunately, in life, we cannot go back in time and get "do-overs". But I am confident that if Obama could go back in time with 20-20 hindsight, he would not repeat these mistakes he made. But we cannot do that, so the next best thing is to learn and not repeat the same old mistakes over and over.

Being patriotic, I wanted to be supportive of my country when we first invaded Iraq in 2003. My son fought there and was wounded. I wanted this to have a positive outcome. I hoped for it.

But we know how it all turned out, don't we? Democracy didn't last in Egypt. Libya is a lawless mess. Syria is a hellhole. The Shiite-led Iraqis persecuted the Sunnis, fecklessly paving the way for a takeover by ISIS, and Iraq was powerless to stop them until the U.S. interceded. And, as we speak, Afghanistan is gradually slipping away, back to the taliban.

What I learned from all of this is that in the future we need to defend ourselves and our closest allies only. And, meanwhile, if these middle eastern countries want to have their wars and civil wars, that is their business, not ours. I learned that no matter how noble and benign our goals may be, we cannot overcome ancient sectarian hatreds that exist in these countries. I have learned that sectarian tribalism outweighs nationalism, tolerance, compromise, negotiation, and cooperation in these countries. Sadly, these countries have demonstrated that they may have peace and security when it is forced upon them at the point of a gun, either by their own dictator or a foreign power. But left to their own devices, peace, security, prosperity, and hope for the future simply all disintegrate into chaos and blood. That is a sad assessment, but I think it's an evidence-based assessment.

And so now, I want our people out of Syria. It saddens me that 4 Americans were killed in that damn country recently. I hope Trump brings 'em all home soon.

Seth

 

[johnsmith]

How could this be?

Trump claimed total victory over ISIS.

The goal was to take away the ground they controlled, which, at their height, was much of eastern Syria and virtually all of western Iraq. That goal has been achieved, and that is the victory.


It is unrealistic to expect that every last ISIS member could be killed, and clearly, terrorist cells will be an ongoing problem for the Syrians and Iraqis.

So Trump "took away the ground ISIS controlled" and they moved to the ground USA controls?

Wasn't the Pentagon bussing ISIS terrorists around Syria at one time?

ISIS evolved from Saudi Arabian jihad ideology and were financed and armed by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states to destabilize Iraq.

The U.S. should never have involved itself with Syria's civil war. If the U.S. hadn't done that, we wouldn't need to ask what the U.S. did in Syria. What I do know is that the Obama administration gave weapons and support to what they believed (or purported to believe) were "pro-democracy rebels." This support undermined the Syrian government and helped to create a loss of governance over a broad area of Syria. In this power vacuum, ISIS was able organize and take territory. ISIS was originally an Iraqi Al Qaeda (AQI) organization.

The specifics of what the U.S. did or didn't do are somewhat shrouded in secrecy. But what we know is that the U.S. gave lethal assistance and thereby helped fuel the civil war. I personally do not think the U.S. gave arms to known AQ or ISIS groups, but in the chaos, there is no doubt whatsoever that some U.S. arms ended up in their possession.

Obama ran for a president on a platform that the Iraq War was wrong and that he would quickly pull our troops out of Iraq. So his decisions to destroy Libya and to fuel a civil war in Syria utterly baffle me, and I was totally against both from Day 1.

I completely support Trump's intent to remove our troops from Syria. Other than knocking down ISIS, we have no business in Syria. I agree that our withdrawal should include some security guarantees for the Kurds. But we are capable of enforcing that security without boots on the ground, and so our troops should be withdrawn as soon as possible.

Our job there is done. Our troops in the air and on the ground have accomplished their mission, and I have nothing but the highest respect for them. Now, bring 'em home.

I'd agree with all of that

also, I wonder how much of the reasoning for the US getting involved was to prevent the Russians gaining a foothold.

Gaining a foothold? They already had a foothold. They had had it for decades. They have a naval base on Syrian territory. They had friendly diplomatic relations. They have provided Syria with arms and advisors. This friendly cooperation between Syria and Russia had been the status quo for a long, long time, extending back to the 1950s/1960s era.

I think some of the strategic hawks in the U.S. government may have had dreams of a scenario wherein the Russians lost their foothold in Syria. Among them would be Hillary Clinton of the Democratic Party and Lindsey Graham and John McCain of the Republican Party.

This is my opinion, but I don't think that hope was what motivated Obama.

No, I think Obama had a rosy belief (much like his predecessor did) that the people's of these Islamic countries would embrace democracy if only they were given a chance. You may recall that, shortly before the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq at the end of 2011, Iraq had been mostly pacified. The insurgency had been mostly broken, and there was relative peace. U.S. casualties were very low in that final year in Iraq. Iraq had a new Constitution that insured power sharing. People were voting. Remember the blue thumbs and happy faces of voters? There was optimism. Vice President Biden even crowed that Iraq represented a "great achievement" of the Obama administration.

Meanwhile, in 2011, the "Arab Spring" protests and uprisings were in full swing in Egypt. The Obama administration took a tacitly supportive position of the "Arab Spring" upheaval in Egypt and the resulting change of power to Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Concurrently, there was an uprising in Libya, and this time the U.S. took an active role, bombing the Libyan military relentlessly, until finally we dropped a guided missile on Gadaffi's motorcade, leading to his death.

And concurrently, the Syrian uprising began, and we know that the Obama administration lent diplomatic support, weapons, and training to the rebels, fueling that conflict.

John, what I believe is that Obama believed that all of these were noble uprisings with noble goals of freedom and democracy. I think he believed the people's of these areas were yearning to throw off the shackles of oppression and to enter into a new era of freedom, peace, tolerance, and prosperity. We know that Obama held a great respect for the religion of Islam and the goodness of the people's in Muslim countries. Early in his presidency he gave a long speech at the U.N. extolling that goodness, and he received a Nobel Peace Prize for giving that speech. So I don't think this was about Russia's foothold in Syria to Obama. The close relationship between Syria and Russia was simply coincidental, but his core belief was in the purity and legitimacy of these uprisings. Surely, his actions and statements back up that view.

Sadly, these idealistic beliefs have been obliterated by the events that have taken place since then in all of these countries. I regard his policy toward these uprisings as one of worst miscalculations of his presidency. And I think these core beliefs Obama held led him to make a huge flip-flop that he should never have made. A key part of his campaign when he first ran was that the Iraq War was wrong and a mistake, and he wanted to order a rapid withdrawal of our forces as soon as he was elected. And yet, as President, he did the things he did in Libya and Syria. I think that if he were completely honest and didn't let his pride get in the way, he would agree that his policies and actions in the middle east were failures. Unfortunately, in life, we cannot go back in time and get "do-overs". But I am confident that if Obama could go back in time with 20-20 hindsight, he would not repeat these mistakes he made. But we cannot do that, so the next best thing is to learn and not repeat the same old mistakes over and over.

Being patriotic, I wanted to be supportive of my country when we first invaded Iraq in 2003. My son fought there and was wounded. I wanted this to have a positive outcome. I hoped for it.

But we know how it all turned out, don't we? Democracy didn't last in Egypt. Libya is a lawless mess. Syria is a hellhole. The Shiite-led Iraqis persecuted the Sunnis, fecklessly paving the way for a takeover by ISIS, and Iraq was powerless to stop them until the U.S. interceded. And, as we speak, Afghanistan is gradually slipping away, back to the taliban.

What I learned from all of this is that in the future we need to defend ourselves and our closest allies only. And, meanwhile, if these middle eastern countries want to have their wars and civil wars, that is their business, not ours. I learned that no matter how noble and benign our goals may be, we cannot overcome ancient sectarian hatreds that exist in these countries. I have learned that sectarian tribalism outweighs nationalism, tolerance, compromise, negotiation, and cooperation in these countries. Sadly, these countries have demonstrated that they may have peace and security when it is forced upon them at the point of a gun, either by their own dictator or a foreign power. But left to their own devices, peace, security, prosperity, and hope for the future simply all disintegrate into chaos and blood. That is a sad assessment, but I think it's an evidence-based assessment.

And so now, I want our people out of Syria. It saddens me that 4 Americans were killed in that damn country recently. I hope Trump brings 'em all home soon.

Seth

I'm not up to date on Syria so had no idea Russia had a military base their. Interesting.
I agree with you that we should stop trying to bring democracy to the M.E. It doesn't work. They need their blood thirsty dictators to keep control of the even more blood thirsty populations. When the majority of their populations are ready for democracy, they'll fight for it themselves just like the west did eons ago. Until they really want it, it will never work.
I've been saying for years that the west needs to get out of the ME and stay out. leave them to it.

 

[SethBullock]

The goal was to take away the ground they controlled, which, at their height, was much of eastern Syria and virtually all of western Iraq. That goal has been achieved, and that is the victory.


It is unrealistic to expect that every last ISIS member could be killed, and clearly, terrorist cells will be an ongoing problem for the Syrians and Iraqis.

So Trump "took away the ground ISIS controlled" and they moved to the ground USA controls?

Wasn't the Pentagon bussing ISIS terrorists around Syria at one time?

ISIS evolved from Saudi Arabian jihad ideology and were financed and armed by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states to destabilize Iraq.

The U.S. should never have involved itself with Syria's civil war. If the U.S. hadn't done that, we wouldn't need to ask what the U.S. did in Syria. What I do know is that the Obama administration gave weapons and support to what they believed (or purported to believe) were "pro-democracy rebels." This support undermined the Syrian government and helped to create a loss of governance over a broad area of Syria. In this power vacuum, ISIS was able organize and take territory. ISIS was originally an Iraqi Al Qaeda (AQI) organization.

The specifics of what the U.S. did or didn't do are somewhat shrouded in secrecy. But what we know is that the U.S. gave lethal assistance and thereby helped fuel the civil war. I personally do not think the U.S. gave arms to known AQ or ISIS groups, but in the chaos, there is no doubt whatsoever that some U.S. arms ended up in their possession.

Obama ran for a president on a platform that the Iraq War was wrong and that he would quickly pull our troops out of Iraq. So his decisions to destroy Libya and to fuel a civil war in Syria utterly baffle me, and I was totally against both from Day 1.

I completely support Trump's intent to remove our troops from Syria. Other than knocking down ISIS, we have no business in Syria. I agree that our withdrawal should include some security guarantees for the Kurds. But we are capable of enforcing that security without boots on the ground, and so our troops should be withdrawn as soon as possible.

Our job there is done. Our troops in the air and on the ground have accomplished their mission, and I have nothing but the highest respect for them. Now, bring 'em home.

I'd agree with all of that

also, I wonder how much of the reasoning for the US getting involved was to prevent the Russians gaining a foothold.

Gaining a foothold? They already had a foothold. They had had it for decades. They have a naval base on Syrian territory. They had friendly diplomatic relations. They have provided Syria with arms and advisors. This friendly cooperation between Syria and Russia had been the status quo for a long, long time, extending back to the 1950s/1960s era.

I think some of the strategic hawks in the U.S. government may have had dreams of a scenario wherein the Russians lost their foothold in Syria. Among them would be Hillary Clinton of the Democratic Party and Lindsey Graham and John McCain of the Republican Party.

This is my opinion, but I don't think that hope was what motivated Obama.

No, I think Obama had a rosy belief (much like his predecessor did) that the people's of these Islamic countries would embrace democracy if only they were given a chance. You may recall that, shortly before the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq at the end of 2011, Iraq had been mostly pacified. The insurgency had been mostly broken, and there was relative peace. U.S. casualties were very low in that final year in Iraq. Iraq had a new Constitution that insured power sharing. People were voting. Remember the blue thumbs and happy faces of voters? There was optimism. Vice President Biden even crowed that Iraq represented a "great achievement" of the Obama administration.

Meanwhile, in 2011, the "Arab Spring" protests and uprisings were in full swing in Egypt. The Obama administration took a tacitly supportive position of the "Arab Spring" upheaval in Egypt and the resulting change of power to Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Concurrently, there was an uprising in Libya, and this time the U.S. took an active role, bombing the Libyan military relentlessly, until finally we dropped a guided missile on Gadaffi's motorcade, leading to his death.

And concurrently, the Syrian uprising began, and we know that the Obama administration lent diplomatic support, weapons, and training to the rebels, fueling that conflict.

John, what I believe is that Obama believed that all of these were noble uprisings with noble goals of freedom and democracy. I think he believed the people's of these areas were yearning to throw off the shackles of oppression and to enter into a new era of freedom, peace, tolerance, and prosperity. We know that Obama held a great respect for the religion of Islam and the goodness of the people's in Muslim countries. Early in his presidency he gave a long speech at the U.N. extolling that goodness, and he received a Nobel Peace Prize for giving that speech. So I don't think this was about Russia's foothold in Syria to Obama. The close relationship between Syria and Russia was simply coincidental, but his core belief was in the purity and legitimacy of these uprisings. Surely, his actions and statements back up that view.

Sadly, these idealistic beliefs have been obliterated by the events that have taken place since then in all of these countries. I regard his policy toward these uprisings as one of worst miscalculations of his presidency. And I think these core beliefs Obama held led him to make a huge flip-flop that he should never have made. A key part of his campaign when he first ran was that the Iraq War was wrong and a mistake, and he wanted to order a rapid withdrawal of our forces as soon as he was elected. And yet, as President, he did the things he did in Libya and Syria. I think that if he were completely honest and didn't let his pride get in the way, he would agree that his policies and actions in the middle east were failures. Unfortunately, in life, we cannot go back in time and get "do-overs". But I am confident that if Obama could go back in time with 20-20 hindsight, he would not repeat these mistakes he made. But we cannot do that, so the next best thing is to learn and not repeat the same old mistakes over and over.

Being patriotic, I wanted to be supportive of my country when we first invaded Iraq in 2003. My son fought there and was wounded. I wanted this to have a positive outcome. I hoped for it.

But we know how it all turned out, don't we? Democracy didn't last in Egypt. Libya is a lawless mess. Syria is a hellhole. The Shiite-led Iraqis persecuted the Sunnis, fecklessly paving the way for a takeover by ISIS, and Iraq was powerless to stop them until the U.S. interceded. And, as we speak, Afghanistan is gradually slipping away, back to the taliban.

What I learned from all of this is that in the future we need to defend ourselves and our closest allies only. And, meanwhile, if these middle eastern countries want to have their wars and civil wars, that is their business, not ours. I learned that no matter how noble and benign our goals may be, we cannot overcome ancient sectarian hatreds that exist in these countries. I have learned that sectarian tribalism outweighs nationalism, tolerance, compromise, negotiation, and cooperation in these countries. Sadly, these countries have demonstrated that they may have peace and security when it is forced upon them at the point of a gun, either by their own dictator or a foreign power. But left to their own devices, peace, security, prosperity, and hope for the future simply all disintegrate into chaos and blood. That is a sad assessment, but I think it's an evidence-based assessment.

And so now, I want our people out of Syria. It saddens me that 4 Americans were killed in that damn country recently. I hope Trump brings 'em all home soon.

Seth

I'm not up to date on Syria so had no idea Russia had a military base their. Interesting.
I agree with you that we should stop trying to bring democracy to the M.E. It doesn't work. They need their blood thirsty dictators to keep control of the even more blood thirsty populations. When the majority of their populations are ready for democracy, they'll fight for it themselves just like the west did eons ago. Until they really want it, it will never work.
I've been saying for years that the west needs to get out of the ME and stay out. leave them to it.

The Russians have had their naval base at the seaport of Tartus on the Mediterranean since 1971. You can read about it here if you wish ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_naval_facility_in_Tartus

Their longstanding relationship with Syria has been much like the U.S. relationship with Israel or any other U.S. ally. So when I hear people in Washington or the media wringing their hands over the fear of the Russians gaining influence over Syria if we leave Syria, "giving it to Putin", I instantly know I'm hearing deliberate disinformation. It's complete bs.

Seth

 

[johnsmith]

So when I hear people in Washington or the media wringing their hands over the fear of the Russians gaining influence over Syria if we leave Syria, "giving it to Putin", I instantly know I'm hearing deliberate disinformation. It's complete bs.

I hadn't 'heard it' anywhere. I knew the Russians were involved and thought it a probable scenario. Like I said, at the time I wasn't aware the Russians have had a base there for years.

 

[SethBullock]

So when I hear people in Washington or the media wringing their hands over the fear of the Russians gaining influence over Syria if we leave Syria, "giving it to Putin", I instantly know I'm hearing deliberate disinformation. It's complete bs.

I hadn't 'heard it' anywhere. I knew the Russians were involved and thought it a probable scenario. Like I said, at the time I wasn't aware the Russians have had a base there for years.

Oh, I've heard that lots of times, like on the forum I came here from. They'll say, "Trump wants to give Syria to his buddy Putin", as if the Russians never had a relationship with Syria until the present day, and as if Syria was ours to give. That's hogwash.

 

[SethBullock]

There is a quiet war going on involving the U.S. It is in Somalia. It is not a secret war, but it is largely ignored by the media.

Al Shabaab is an islamist guerilla group that gives loyalty to Al Qaeda. It is, simply, Somalian Al Qaeda.

The U.S. has been striking this group since 2007. The number of reported strikes has risen dramatically in recent years. The statistics below have been tallied by the Long War Journal, an organization that tracks the War on Terror that was initiated after 9/11. The LWJ relies on public reports given by the Department of Defense, so the actual number of strikes could be different.


Most recently, U.S. forces conducted an airstrike on Shabaab forces, killing 52 of them.

A day after Shabaab ambushed Ethiopian forces in southern Somalia, a US airstrike reportedly killed 52 jihadists near the stronghold of Jilib. The bombing was conducted as Shabaab attacked a Somali military base.

“To support the Federal Government of Somalia’s continued efforts to degrade Al Shabaab, US forces conducted an airstrike targeting militants near Jilib, Middle Juba Region, Somalia,” US Africa Command’s (AFRICOM) statement reads. The US military further reported that it conducted the airstrike “in response to an attack by a large group of Al Shabaab militants against Somali National Army Forces.”

AFRICOM claims at least 52 Shabaab militants were killed. In addition, the Somali military says it was able to kill 25 more jihadists during the fight. Garowe Online reports that a suicide car bomb was intended to detonate near the base’s perimeter, but failed to explode.

https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2019/01/us-airstrike-kills-dozens-of-shabaab-fighters-day-after-ethiopian-forces-ambushed.php

Some very graphic footage of the strike scene was taken by indigenous forces and posted.

WARNING: THIS FOOTAGE IS VERY GRAPHIC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o37tq_FOYjw&bpctr=1548300982

 

[Squire]

Wouldn't it just be easier for the US to cut off financing and arms supply to al-Shabaab by compelling Saudi Arabia and its Gulf States stooges to stop supporting al-Shabaab?

Wait minute! The US military industrial complex is making money from arms sales. Cutting off their arms is like cutting off Uncle Sam's nose to spite his face.

 

[pinkeye]

The USA hasn't won a war since WW2.

Are MOAB's a waste that can never be used? They can't be used because the international public hates massive civilian deaths by smart bombs operated by dumb bombardiers.

Does the Pentagon start, or provoke, or create false flag attacks to ensure the inception of wars just for the purposes of military training and to dispose of munitions that are expiring and would have to be disposed of in the USA?

MOAB requires a large, slow plane to deliver it. That means that you have to send in an advance force to clear the skies. MOAB is not something you send over to send a message without preparation.

Politicians are much nicer than I would be. I would fight a war to win and save American lives, and I wouldn't rebuild the enemy or pay reparations like we do in Japan. Every war we "lose" is "lost" by politicians tying our hands, not our troops.

You can't just take at the end of war or you risk retaliation on your children.

War justs ends up with a peace negotiation: and that becomes very very important as to how the futures of all parties involved evolves.

ur right there Bongalong. we just keep on doing the same thing

 

[pinkeye]

President Donald Trump s as a military honor guard carries the remains of Scott Wirtz, a civilian employee of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency killed along with three members of the U.S. military during a recent attack in Syria, past during a dignified transfer ceremony at Dover Air Force Base, in Dover, Delaware, U.S., January 19, 2019.

He is thinking about the next round of golf.. a liar and a truly dangerous maniac. Worship him at your peril.

 

[pinkeye]

Wouldn't it just be easier for the US to cut off financing and arms supply to al-Shabaab by compelling Saudi Arabia and its Gulf States stooges to stop supporting al-Shabaab?

Wait minute! The US military industrial complex is making money from arms sales. Cutting off their arms is like cutting off Uncle Sam's nose to spite his face.

Well TRUMP DID GO on international footage saying exactly that. Supply and Demand makes for BIG money.and POWER.

 

[SethBullock]

President Donald Trump s as a military honor guard carries the remains of Scott Wirtz, a civilian employee of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency killed along with three members of the U.S. military during a recent attack in Syria, past during a dignified transfer ceremony at Dover Air Force Base, in Dover, Delaware, U.S., January 19, 2019.

He is thinking about the next round of golf.. a liar and a truly dangerous maniac. Worship him at your peril.

Are you a perfect person? Or do you have flaws and faults? If you have flaws and faults, are there not good things about you as well?

I'm not perfect. I have flaws and faults. And yet, there are good things about me.

Trump is no different.

His faults are right out there in plain view for everyone to see. Most politicians go through pains to hide their faults, but not Trump. Well, not very much.

And he, like all the rest of us, has a personality that is bifurcated between the good and the bad. Both exist in all of us.

I know parents who have lost sons in battle. I've attended their funerals. I have been among our wounded in sacred places like the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, MD. I have witnessed their pain and struggles and their courage. Witnessing these things marks you forever, inevitably and irrevocably.

I believe Trump's feelings for our service members killed and wounded in battle, and for their loved ones, are sincere.

Seth

 

[pinkeye]

A free world
believe whatever you like
till you are locked away

 

[SethBullock]

A free world
believe whatever you like
till you are locked away

Locked away? By who? Trump?

Lol ...

 

[johnsmith]

Or do you have flaws and faults?

not I