Random Politics & Religion #00

None of that is America's fault.

I keep forgetting that we aren't dealing with rational human beings in the Middle East. Or, that's the way you are making it sound like.

Yes, their religious difference will be there, and if they want to kill each other after we leave, so be it. But at least let's fix the problems we left them with instead of leaving them high and dry, ok?

Can we at least agree to that, or are you going to find faults in that? I have yet to see any solutions coming from either of you, just criticisms.

Wow.
So Bush's clinging to Maliki (who was he installed by again?) after he was informed that he worsens the Sunni and Shia relationships had no influence on the current situation?
Paul Bremer's actions like throwing out hundred thousands of armed soldiers into unemplyoment and complete ejection of the Ba'ath party members had no influence on the current situation?
Petraeus giving money to terrorists had no influence on the situation?
Not to mention the Invasion itself, supporting the stalemate of chaos in Syria, and there are a ton of things more which led to the current situation involving Americas Policy. Some of which were quite back in time.

Nice attempt to cherry pick my post and then try to attack something I wasn't referring to, but uh, it didn't work.

The problem is one of history and one of time. America is not willing to stay the period needed to create substantive change (decades at least) or apply the type of capital required in order to make it work. Because Iraq ain't worth it. Living under dictatorships and unstable governments, it's not surprising when people simply keep to themselves in small units. Small units that then get picked off by invading armies like ISIS.

At best we could attempt to go in, hit ISIS hard in an attempt to degrade their capabilities but even that could shape up to be a years long campaign, and im not talking about nation building. Syria again is a problem because the Islamic *State* spans the two countries.

Secondly would be to get state actors in the region to unite to defeat IS. It's not like this is impossible given countries like Jordan and Saudi Arabia have commit to a bombing campaign under the aid of the US but actual ground forces. That's the rub.

It isn't like bitter enemies haven't banded together against a common enemy before but honestly I feel like we're still waiting for a major ISIS victory to get peoples *** in gear. Bad as that sounds.

Either way it's gonna be alot of handwringing to get 'Murica back on the ground.

You were going the route that the local powers were at fault. I showed you how Americas Policy is responsible for the local powers either by installing them, supporting them, not supporting other groups or just pay some so that they shut down their activity for a while.

We spend more on our military than any other country

If we just cut our spending by 10% we could be out of our debt in around 5 years or so.

But spending doesn't really matter in war, it's the mindset and the Middle East has the mindset that no one really matters unless your a man and follow under the guidance of Allah in a time of war.

That's what makes war with them really terrifying, their lack of sympathy.

Vic meant that none of Iraq is Obama's fault. It's all Bush only, even when Bush isn't calling the shots anymore.

He's the poster child of "Pity Obama" campaign that's going on.

Dear New Mod:
Please never post this graph again or try to tie military spending to the debt, it doesn't work and we don't need another conspiracy theorist.

No, I didn't. I was referring to the current situation involving the state of the Iraqi forces and the fact that Iraqi's are solely responsible for said state.

Again, you don't want to attribute Obama's policies towards foreign affairs, especially the problems with the Middle East. Because that would tarnish your lord and savior boy's image.

We are all still waiting for you to actually tie a specific Obama action to the problems in Iraq instead of just continuing to use your personal feelings as a reason. What could he have done differently? The idea of "staying until the job was done" has been proven to not be an option, so, what does that leave?

You have a far rosier look at things than I do because no one's responsible unless they're held accountable. Not government, not corporations, not *people*.

Establish a real leader in charge of US policies towards foreign affairs. A real leader would be somebody who is able to understand international politics, cultural differences, and negotiations. Out of our current pool of "leaders" (I use this term very loosely in today's politics, as there are no leaders in Washington DC or any state government at all), nobody would fit the bill, so we have to expand our search towards somebody who understands such political and cultural differences and can negotiate with people, instead of creating conflict.

The top 3 people I can think of who can do the job are not US nationals, so they cannot be POTUS. The best person I know personally who deals with all 3 of the above would be Joe Gorder, but he wouldn't do that job, ever.

But assuming we have a real leader who can direct US policies towards foreign affairs, the next step is to recover parts of Iraq that have a strong ISIS presence. By doing so, we can recover some of the damage caused by those terrorists that we had a direct involvement from.

After that, we can then complete the training that was in place before Obama got wimpy and decided to abandon the region (yes, that is all on him) to save face in an election cycle. Complete training with armament on lease and help support the fight against the terrorists in the region.

While the training is commencing, have our real leader negotiate and settle with other countries in the region allowing us to fight ISIS and recover their lands from the terrorist group. We have some allies in the region, but we need to negotiate and compromise with the rest of the region, because we honestly have a singular enemy among ourselves. Iran may not see them as an enemy yet, but they will once they start turning against Iran in their crusade to control the region.

Hopefully we have at the time that the training is complete and our troops, under the aid of drones and actual working gear, help keep the terrorist at bay (not really taking over, but actually keeping them from creating more damage to the region than what they are doing currently), we can let the Middle East nations take back the region they have (or our allies in the region) and solve the problem themselves. Let them fight it out and keep us from having to come solve their problems for them.

Idealistic at the very least, but one that I think we can all agree with, letting the locals deal with local problems and ask for our help if needed, but not have us fight their wars for them. Fix our mistakes but don't do their job for them.

So, you hold nobody accountable for their actions. Got it.

Nope. I know people aren't taking responsibility unless there are consequences and people are held accountable for their actions.

It's the reasons bankers do shady ***and never see jail, why your pols are corrupt and don't care or why committing war crimes is whatever. Only powerless people are held to task for their actions, anyone with significant enough sway laughs at the idea of being taken to task.

Oh my. What a backread. Looks like the P&R machine is up and running again.

I wonder how the "Obama's not a great president and has a lot of legitimate problems, but we will defend every accusation made against him anyway" strategy is going to work out for the Dems' next candidate? Will it work without a cult of personality as a backup plan?

You make it sound like only Republicans are corrupt....

Shall I point to you the nearest city in your area? Hell, I can point to you Chicago and Detroit and that would take care of more than the number of Republicans in DC....