ISIL is not Islamic

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:his middle name is hussein; so he might be a sympathizer.

confuzzled dude wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:his middle name is hussein; so he might be a sympathizer.

Chickenhawks are getting what they want hope this won't end up as a sequel of Iraq war. Can they get Saudi & Turkey troops to participate?

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:his middle name is hussein; so he might be a sympathizer.

Chickenhawks are getting what they want hope this won't end up as a sequel of Iraq war. Can they get Saudi & Turkey troops to participate?

>>>This is your takeaway on the need for this engagement?

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:his middle name is hussein; so he might be a sympathizer.

Chickenhawks are getting what they want hope this won't end up as a sequel of Iraq war. Can they get Saudi & Turkey troops to participate?

>>>This is your takeaway on the need for this engagement?

But as President Obama prepares to send the United States on what could be a years long military campaign against the militant group, American intelligence agencies have concluded that it poses no immediate threat to the United States. Some officials and terrorism experts believe that the actual danger posed by ISIS has been distorted in hours of television punditry and alarmist statements by politicians, and that there has been little substantive public debate about the unintended consequences of expanding American military action in the Middle East.

Daniel Benjamin, who served as the State Department’s top counterterrorism adviser during Mr. Obama’s first term, said the public discussion about the ISIS threat has been a “farce,” with “members of the cabinet and top military officers all over the place describing the threat in lurid terms that are not justified.”

“It’s hard to imagine a better indication of the ability of elected officials and TV talking heads to spin the public into a panic, with claims that the nation is honeycombed with sleeper cells, that operatives are streaming across the border into Texas or that the group will soon be spraying Ebola virus on mass transit systems — all on the basis of no corroborated information,” said Mr. Benjamin, who is now a scholar at Dartmouth College.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:The war should be along the lines of Bush 1991, except it should be completed and ISIL should annihilated.

Simply put Obama should do a Beant Singh on the ISIL.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:his middle name is hussein; so he might be a sympathizer.

Chickenhawks are getting what they want hope this won't end up as a sequel of Iraq war. Can they get Saudi & Turkey troops to participate?

>>>This is your takeaway on the need for this engagement?

What's your takeaway, would you mind elucidating?

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:his middle name is hussein; so he might be a sympathizer.

Chickenhawks are getting what they want hope this won't end up as a sequel of Iraq war. Can they get Saudi & Turkey troops to participate?

>>>This is your takeaway on the need for this engagement?

What's your takeaway, would you mind elucidating?

>>>>ISIL is a group of marauding rapacious, murderous thugs that is a major danger to the world. All the nonsense about them being a danger to only the arab world or their immediate geography is wishful thinking. If America has any doubts about the scalability of thuggery if left unchecked, that would be incredibly naïve*. This is not an issue that should be circumscribed by liberal/conservative conflict in American politics. I was and am puzzled that you see this as a concession to "chickenhawks". I  am not a big fan of involvement in the middle east if it affects only that neighborhood and has no impact on the rest of the world, but this ISIL scum needs to be shut down as soon as possible.


*Hint: Neville Chamberlain

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:what if the so called syrian rebels become al qaeda 3.0 ten years from now? the history of the US taking sides in a conflict is not very good (cue the afghan mujahideens from the 70s).

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
Chickenhawks are getting what they want hope this won't end up as a sequel of Iraq war. Can they get Saudi & Turkey troops to participate?

>>>This is your takeaway on the need for this engagement?

What's your takeaway, would you mind elucidating?

>>>>ISIL is a group of marauding rapacious, murderous thugs that is a major danger to the world. All the nonsense about them being a danger to only the arab world or their immediate geography is wishful thinking. If America has any doubts about the scalability of thuggery if left unchecked, that would be incredibly naïve*. This is not an issue that should be circumscribed by liberal/conservative conflict in American politics. I was and am puzzled that you see this as a concession to "chickenhawks". I  am not a big fan of involvement in the middle east if it affects only that neighborhood and has no impact on the rest of the world, but this ISIL scum needs to be shut down as soon as possible.


*Hint: Neville Chamberlain

I guess tv hosts & war monger senile bastards who should have retired 10 years know more than our intelligence experts. Bringing up chamberlain is illogical & outdated nonsense if we were to go by that philosophy we would in wars with North Korea & Iran

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:what if the so called syrian rebels become al qaeda 3.0 ten years from now? the history of the US taking sides in a conflict is not very good (cue the afghan mujahideens from the 70s).

Kris wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:what if the so called syrian rebels become al qaeda 3.0 ten years from now? the history of the US taking sides in a conflict is not very good (cue the afghan mujahideens from the 70s).

>>>Agree with the myopia in dealing with these conflicts. The ISIL situation however has urgency and is a tactical move rather than strategic.

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>This is your takeaway on the need for this engagement?

What's your takeaway, would you mind elucidating?

>>>>ISIL is a group of marauding rapacious, murderous thugs that is a major danger to the world. All the nonsense about them being a danger to only the arab world or their immediate geography is wishful thinking. If America has any doubts about the scalability of thuggery if left unchecked, that would be incredibly naïve*. This is not an issue that should be circumscribed by liberal/conservative conflict in American politics. I was and am puzzled that you see this as a concession to "chickenhawks". I  am not a big fan of involvement in the middle east if it affects only that neighborhood and has no impact on the rest of the world, but this ISIL scum needs to be shut down as soon as possible.


*Hint: Neville Chamberlain

I guess tv hosts & war monger senile bastards who should have retired 10 years know more than our intelligence experts. Bringing up chamberlain is illogical & outdated nonsense if we were to go by that philosophy we would in wars with North Korea & Iran

>>>So if they get a hold of your citizens and behead them in rapid succession, it is just clowning around and they don't mean business? There is nothing illogical about the Chamberlain example. He also bought into the nonsense that his country was immune from a marauding killing machine.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:what if the so called syrian rebels become al qaeda 3.0 ten years from now? the history of the US taking sides in a conflict is not very good (cue the afghan mujahideens from the 70s).

>>>Agree with the myopia in dealing with these conflicts. The ISIL situation however has urgency and is a tactical move rather than strategic.

That logic never worked & never will; they need to tighten the screws on turkey and tell turkey that they will face severe & immediate sanctions if they don't stop buying oil from isil and warn Saudi to stop screwing around else get ready for a full blown war. Till now no one has done that and current govt is just started pushing them

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:what if the so called syrian rebels become al qaeda 3.0 ten years from now? the history of the US taking sides in a conflict is not very good (cue the afghan mujahideens from the 70s).

>>>Agree with the myopia in dealing with these conflicts. The ISIL situation however has urgency and is a tactical move rather than strategic.

That logic never worked & never will; they need to tighten the screws on turkey and tell turkey that they will face severe & immediate sanctions if they don't stop buying oil from isil and warn Saudi to stop screwing around else get ready for a full blown war. Till now no one has done that and current govt is just started pushing them

>>>What aspect of it won't work? Nipping al-queda or an ISIL or groups like that in the bud is more do-able and more tightly scripted than to get into strategic moves in the middle east. I am not saying they are wrong strategically. They are just much, much more involved and therefore more prone to unintended consequences. The stupidity with Al queda was outsourcing a bunch of the work to Pakistan and going off to fight an unrelated war in Iraq. Saddam may have been a thug, but if there was intel that he was harmful to the west, the solution would have to cultivate  west-friendly thug rather than put boots on the ground there. In the meantime, the opportunity cost was not nipping AQ.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:the desert people have been at each other's throats in the name of their prophet for a thousand years. a few american bombs aren't going to change their ways. let them be. let them reform themselves.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
What's your takeaway, would you mind elucidating?

>>>>ISIL is a group of marauding rapacious, murderous thugs that is a major danger to the world. All the nonsense about them being a danger to only the arab world or their immediate geography is wishful thinking. If America has any doubts about the scalability of thuggery if left unchecked, that would be incredibly naïve*. This is not an issue that should be circumscribed by liberal/conservative conflict in American politics. I was and am puzzled that you see this as a concession to "chickenhawks". I  am not a big fan of involvement in the middle east if it affects only that neighborhood and has no impact on the rest of the world, but this ISIL scum needs to be shut down as soon as possible.


*Hint: Neville Chamberlain

I guess tv hosts & war monger senile bastards who should have retired 10 years know more than our intelligence experts. Bringing up chamberlain is illogical & outdated nonsense if we were to go by that philosophy we would in wars with North Korea & Iran

>>>So if they get a hold of your citizens and behead them in rapid succession, it is just clowning around and they don't mean business? There is nothing illogical about the Chamberlain example. He also bought into the nonsense that his country was immune from a marauding killing machine.

Chamberlain argument is a dumbass argument that is invoked by chickenhawks at every opportunity whether or not presented to them. Isil is not a well trained military nor has the resources like Germany so that comparison holds no water

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:what if the so called syrian rebels become al qaeda 3.0 ten years from now? the history of the US taking sides in a conflict is not very good (cue the afghan mujahideens from the 70s).

>>>Agree with the myopia in dealing with these conflicts. The ISIL situation however has urgency and is a tactical move rather than strategic.

That logic never worked & never will; they need to tighten the screws on turkey and tell turkey that they will face severe & immediate sanctions if they don't stop buying oil from isil and warn Saudi to stop screwing around else get ready for a full blown war. Till now no one has done that and current govt is just started pushing them

>>>What aspect of it won't work? Nipping al-queda or an ISIL or groups like that in the bud is more do-able and more tightly scripted than to get into strategic moves in the middle east. I am not saying they are wrong strategically. They are just much, much more involved and therefore more prone to unintended consequences. The stupidity with Al queda was outsourcing a bunch of the work to Pakistan and going off to fight an unrelated war in Iraq. Saddam may have been a thug, but if there was intel that he was harmful to the west, the solution would have to cultivate  west-friendly thug rather than put boots on the ground there. In the meantime, the opportunity cost was not nipping AQ.

What I & I believe Max were alluding to was how president Reagan's freedom fighters became Taliban and helped plot an attack on the US

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>>ISIL is a group of marauding rapacious, murderous thugs that is a major danger to the world. All the nonsense about them being a danger to only the arab world or their immediate geography is wishful thinking. If America has any doubts about the scalability of thuggery if left unchecked, that would be incredibly naïve*. This is not an issue that should be circumscribed by liberal/conservative conflict in American politics. I was and am puzzled that you see this as a concession to "chickenhawks". I  am not a big fan of involvement in the middle east if it affects only that neighborhood and has no impact on the rest of the world, but this ISIL scum needs to be shut down as soon as possible.


*Hint: Neville Chamberlain

I guess tv hosts & war monger senile bastards who should have retired 10 years know more than our intelligence experts. Bringing up chamberlain is illogical & outdated nonsense if we were to go by that philosophy we would in wars with North Korea & Iran

>>>So if they get a hold of your citizens and behead them in rapid succession, it is just clowning around and they don't mean business? There is nothing illogical about the Chamberlain example. He also bought into the nonsense that his country was immune from a marauding killing machine.

Chamberlain argument is a dumbass argument that is invoked by chickenhawks at every opportunity whether or not presented to them. Isil is not a well trained military nor has the resources like Germany so that comparison holds no water

>>>No, it does. There is such a thing as momentum. It gathers rapidly when acts of thuggery like those of ISIL go unchecked and are seen as that. This group is creating visuals in the media  and it is axiomatic that assorted thugs will join up with them creating dangerous synergies.

President Obama is right: There is no military solution.

Military actions will not set the stage for political solutions; they will prevent those solutions from taking hold.

Escalating military actions against this violent extremist organization is not going to work.

The bottom line is there is no immediate action that will make ISIS disappear, even if U.S. airstrikes manage to get the right target somewhere and take out an APC or a truckload of guys with RPGs or whatever.

You can't destroy an ideology — or even an organization —through bombing (look at the efforts to do so with Al Qaeda . . . lots of members killed in Afghanistan, but the organization took root in a bunch of other countries).

Arming the so-called “moderate” opposition in Syria doesn’t mean supporting the good guys. It means sending arms to the Free Syrian Army which, according to the New York Times, “went on to behead six ISIS fighters…and then posted the photographs on Facebook.”

A military strike might bring some immediate satisfaction, but we all know revenge is a bad basis for foreign policy, especially when it has such dangerous consequences.

As horrifying as the beheading of the two U.S. journalists was, revenge is never a good basis for foreign policy. We should keep in mind that Matthew Olson, the outgoing head of the National Counterterrorism Center, said last week that “there is no credible information that [ISIS] is planning to attack the United States,” and there is “no indication at this point of a cell of foreign fighters operating in the United States – full stop.”

Instead, we have to recognize that military solutions really don’t work. Have we forgotten the failures of the U.S. wars in the Middle East over these many years?

A 30-year-old FSA fighter from Idlib who did not want to give his name, agreed: "I don't really understand this sudden fuss about Isis. They killed people, but Bashar has been killing for the last three years. But nobody seems to be interested in that anymore."

Al Bakhour was worried that concerted air strikes targeting Isis would alienate opposition fighters. "Many of my men told me that they would change sides and join Isis should the US start bombing them instead of ousting Assad", he said. "They feel betrayed and disillusioned."

Basil, 38, a shop owner from Raqqa, the self-declared capital of the Islamic State, also voiced vehement disapproval of the planned US-led operation: "Isis is in Raqqa, a big city full of people. How can they bomb them there?" He came to Turkey to look for a flat for his family in Gaziantep and said he was not involved in any political activities: "We have seen so much violence over the past years. We are tired. How will even more violence and even more death bring a solution?"

confuzzled dude wrote:

A 30-year-old FSA fighter from Idlib who did not want to give his name, agreed: "I don't really understand this sudden fuss about Isis. They killed people, but Bashar has been killing for the last three years. But nobody seems to be interested in that anymore."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/12/syrian-rebels-obama-bombing-wont-deter-isis

-> America has a knack for pissing the world off with their self-proclaimed moral authority. Until they learn to show some respect to the lives of citizens of other countries, they're not gonna win over any ideology.

The Islamic State threat is overstated

The United States has a tradition of misinterpreting the Middle East.

A more accurate assessment would be that U.S. military intervention has tremendous propaganda value for the Islamic State, helping it to rally other jihadists to its cause, possibly even Salafists who have so far rejected its legitimacy. Moreover, to the extent that the group poses any threat to the United States, that threat is magnified by a visible U.S. military role. Obama’s restraint in the use of military power in recent years has helped keep the Islamic State’s focus regional — on its efforts to establish an Islamic caliphate in the Middle East rather than on launching attacks against the United States. It’s only with the U.S. military’s return to Iraq and the prospect of U.S. intervention in Syria that the group’s focus has begun to shift.

But Americans are misreading the recent Islamic State successes, which speak less to the group’s invincibility and inevitability than they do to external factors beyond its control. Despite its territorial gains and mastery of propaganda, the Islamic State’s fundamentals are weak, and it does not have a sustainable endgame. In short, we’re giving it too much credit.

confuzzled dude wrote:

The Islamic State threat is overstated

The United States has a tradition of misinterpreting the Middle East.

A more accurate assessment would be that U.S. military intervention has tremendous propaganda value for the Islamic State, helping it to rally other jihadists to its cause, possibly even Salafists who have so far rejected its legitimacy. Moreover, to the extent that the group poses any threat to the United States, that threat is magnified by a visible U.S. military role. Obama’s restraint in the use of military power in recent years has helped keep the Islamic State’s focus regional — on its efforts to establish an Islamic caliphate in the Middle East rather than on launching attacks against the United States. It’s only with the U.S. military’s return to Iraq and the prospect of U.S. intervention in Syria that the group’s focus has begun to shift.

But Americans are misreading the recent Islamic State successes, which speak less to the group’s invincibility and inevitability than they do to external factors beyond its control. Despite its territorial gains and mastery of propaganda, the Islamic State’s fundamentals are weak, and it does not have a sustainable endgame. In short, we’re giving it too much credit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-islamic-state-threat-is-overstated/2014/09/12/acbbebb2-33ad-11e4-8f02-03c644b2d7d0_story.html?hpid=z6

When you've a hammer in your hand everything looks like a nail; With all those shiny things sitting in their military-industrial complex they can't wait to use them.

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

The Islamic State threat is overstated

The United States has a tradition of misinterpreting the Middle East.

A more accurate assessment would be that U.S. military intervention has tremendous propaganda value for the Islamic State, helping it to rally other jihadists to its cause, possibly even Salafists who have so far rejected its legitimacy. Moreover, to the extent that the group poses any threat to the United States, that threat is magnified by a visible U.S. military role. Obama’s restraint in the use of military power in recent years has helped keep the Islamic State’s focus regional — on its efforts to establish an Islamic caliphate in the Middle East rather than on launching attacks against the United States. It’s only with the U.S. military’s return to Iraq and the prospect of U.S. intervention in Syria that the group’s focus has begun to shift.

But Americans are misreading the recent Islamic State successes, which speak less to the group’s invincibility and inevitability than they do to external factors beyond its control. Despite its territorial gains and mastery of propaganda, the Islamic State’s fundamentals are weak, and it does not have a sustainable endgame. In short, we’re giving it too much credit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-islamic-state-threat-is-overstated/2014/09/12/acbbebb2-33ad-11e4-8f02-03c644b2d7d0_story.html?hpid=z6

When you've a hammer in your hand everything looks like a nail; With all those shiny things sitting in their military-industrial complex they can't wait to use them.

>>>So the strategy should be to let them rape and murder and behead till they come up short on their endgame?

While some military action is necessary to defeat the Islamic State, that effort should be driven by regional actors, not a Western power. The United States is far better positioned to assume an active diplomatic role, facilitating consensus and cooperation among local and regional players. If the common threat could compel these actors toward local collaboration, national compromise and regional rapprochement, there may emerge an opportunity to bring them together to finally settle the civil wars plaguing the Middle East.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

The Islamic State threat is overstated

The United States has a tradition of misinterpreting the Middle East.

A more accurate assessment would be that U.S. military intervention has tremendous propaganda value for the Islamic State, helping it to rally other jihadists to its cause, possibly even Salafists who have so far rejected its legitimacy. Moreover, to the extent that the group poses any threat to the United States, that threat is magnified by a visible U.S. military role. Obama’s restraint in the use of military power in recent years has helped keep the Islamic State’s focus regional — on its efforts to establish an Islamic caliphate in the Middle East rather than on launching attacks against the United States. It’s only with the U.S. military’s return to Iraq and the prospect of U.S. intervention in Syria that the group’s focus has begun to shift.

But Americans are misreading the recent Islamic State successes, which speak less to the group’s invincibility and inevitability than they do to external factors beyond its control. Despite its territorial gains and mastery of propaganda, the Islamic State’s fundamentals are weak, and it does not have a sustainable endgame. In short, we’re giving it too much credit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-islamic-state-threat-is-overstated/2014/09/12/acbbebb2-33ad-11e4-8f02-03c644b2d7d0_story.html?hpid=z6

When you've a hammer in your hand everything looks like a nail; With all those shiny things sitting in their military-industrial complex they can't wait to use them.

>>>So the strategy should be to let them rape and murder and behead till they come up short on their endgame?

While some military action is necessary to defeat the Islamic State, that effort should be driven by regional actors, not a Western power. The United States is far better positioned to assume an active diplomatic role, facilitating consensus and cooperation among local and regional players. If the common threat could compel these actors toward local collaboration, national compromise and regional rapprochement, there may emerge an opportunity to bring them together to finally settle the civil wars plaguing the Middle East.

Kris wrote:
>>>>We have seen this movie before. It never ends well in the middle east. I am not in favor of full scale involvement in the middle east, probably for different reasons than you. That is not a movie that ends well either. There is no cultural gravitas to sustain a peaceful  open system of governance. We must resign ourselves to supporting one hoodlum or another, purely out of self-interest. In the case of ISIL, I see a time bomb which can have a drastic aftermath. What I am far is a tactical approach to shut it down and back to business as before after that. In the long run, the west needs to disengage by reducing its oil dependency.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>>We have seen this movie before. It never ends well in the middle east. I am not in favor of full scale involvement in the middle east, probably for different reasons than you. That is not a movie that ends well either. There is no cultural gravitas to sustain a peaceful  open system of governance. We must resign ourselves to supporting one hoodlum or another, purely out of self-interest. In the case of ISIL, I see a time bomb which can have a drastic aftermath. What I am far is a tactical approach to shut it down and back to business as before after that. In the long run, the west needs to disengage by reducing its oil dependency.

I beg to differ; we just took the bait presented to us and playing right into their hands or trying to justify the tradition of proliferating arms.

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>>We have seen this movie before. It never ends well in the middle east. I am not in favor of full scale involvement in the middle east, probably for different reasons than you. That is not a movie that ends well either. There is no cultural gravitas to sustain a peaceful  open system of governance. We must resign ourselves to supporting one hoodlum or another, purely out of self-interest. In the case of ISIL, I see a time bomb which can have a drastic aftermath. What I am far is a tactical approach to shut it down and back to business as before after that. In the long run, the west needs to disengage by reducing its oil dependency.

I beg to differ; we just took the bait presented to us and playing right into their hands or trying to justify the tradition of proliferating arms.

>>>Meanwhile back at the ranch:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/13/world/meast/isis-haines-family-message/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

confuzzled dude wrote:Is that sympathizer talk?

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>>We have seen this movie before. It never ends well in the middle east. I am not in favor of full scale involvement in the middle east, probably for different reasons than you. That is not a movie that ends well either. There is no cultural gravitas to sustain a peaceful  open system of governance. We must resign ourselves to supporting one hoodlum or another, purely out of self-interest. In the case of ISIL, I see a time bomb which can have a drastic aftermath. What I am far is a tactical approach to shut it down and back to business as before after that. In the long run, the west needs to disengage by reducing its oil dependency.

I beg to differ; we just took the bait presented to us and playing right into their hands or trying to justify the tradition of proliferating arms.

>>>Meanwhile back at the ranch:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/13/world/meast/isis-haines-family-message/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:what if the so called syrian rebels become al qaeda 3.0 ten years from now? the history of the US taking sides in a conflict is not very good (cue the afghan mujahideens from the 70s).

>>>Agree with the myopia in dealing with these conflicts. The ISIL situation however has urgency and is a tactical move rather than strategic.

That logic never worked & never will; they need to tighten the screws on turkey and tell turkey that they will face severe & immediate sanctions if they don't stop buying oil from isil and warn Saudi to stop screwing around else get ready for a full blown war. Till now no one has done that and current govt is just started pushing them

>>>What aspect of it won't work? Nipping al-queda or an ISIL or groups like that in the bud is more do-able and more tightly scripted than to get into strategic moves in the middle east. I am not saying they are wrong strategically. They are just much, much more involved and therefore more prone to unintended consequences. The stupidity with Al queda was outsourcing a bunch of the work to Pakistan and going off to fight an unrelated war in Iraq. Saddam may have been a thug, but if there was intel that he was harmful to the west, the solution would have to cultivate  west-friendly thug rather than put boots on the ground there. In the meantime, the opportunity cost was not nipping AQ.

What I & I believe Max were alluding to was how president Reagan's freedom fighters became Taliban and helped plot an attack on the US

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Mian Confuz Ud Daud (aka Confused Dude) and Maulana T Al-Akbari and Maulana Gaywala applaud this act in their own inimical smirky way - by not commenting and act as if they never heard about this.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

>>>Agree with the myopia in dealing with these conflicts. The ISIL situation however has urgency and is a tactical move rather than strategic.

That logic never worked & never will; they need to tighten the screws on turkey and tell turkey that they will face severe & immediate sanctions if they don't stop buying oil from isil and warn Saudi to stop screwing around else get ready for a full blown war. Till now no one has done that and current govt is just started pushing them

>>>What aspect of it won't work? Nipping al-queda or an ISIL or groups like that in the bud is more do-able and more tightly scripted than to get into strategic moves in the middle east. I am not saying they are wrong strategically. They are just much, much more involved and therefore more prone to unintended consequences. The stupidity with Al queda was outsourcing a bunch of the work to Pakistan and going off to fight an unrelated war in Iraq. Saddam may have been a thug, but if there was intel that he was harmful to the west, the solution would have to cultivate  west-friendly thug rather than put boots on the ground there. In the meantime, the opportunity cost was not nipping AQ.

What I & I believe Max were alluding to was how president Reagan's freedom fighters became Taliban and helped plot an attack on the US

you should get on a time machine, go back to 1980 and give reagan your future vision glasses that tells him exactly how things will turn out 20 yrs from then. 1980s america misses your profound genius so much

truthbetold wrote:CD

You keep repeating CIA trained taliban and al queida.  

Here is the total context.   USA fight to push soviets out of Afghanistan required local help and they found some in religious mujaheddin. The objective was achieved. But an unholy by product resulted from that fight.

A section of mujaheddin became radical muslims and alqueida.  You remind us about it daily on such. But what you conveniently forget is that there another major consequence of soviet defeat in afghanistan.  Just about the time of emergence of taliban,  a major event shook the world. Soviet union collapsed. Historians say that the loss of afghanistan war played not an insignificant role in the decay and death of soviet union. 

So you weigh the consequences.  Collapse of soviet union and collapse of communism. vs training a portion of radical islamism. 

truthbetold wrote:CD

You keep repeating CIA trained taliban and al queida.  

Here is the total context.   USA fight to push soviets out of Afghanistan required local help and they found some in religious mujaheddin. The objective was achieved. But an unholy by product resulted from that fight.

A section of mujaheddin became radical muslims and alqueida.  You remind us about it daily on such. But what you conveniently forget is that there another major consequence of soviet defeat in afghanistan.  Just about the time of emergence of taliban,  a major event shook the world. Soviet union collapsed. Historians say that the loss of afghanistan war played not an insignificant role in the decay and death of soviet union. 

So you weigh the consequences.  Collapse of soviet union and collapse of communism. vs training a portion of radical islamism. 

Another example is that of breaking up of Pakistan.  The humiliating defeat and loss of east pakistan in 1971 led to west pakistan's generals to rethink the strategy to fight India and led to the strategy of death by thousands cuts.  Musharraf explained the the strategy to weaken india by internal strife and regional strife. This strategy developed in 1970s before Afghanistan's war and more importantly before modi even left his wife. Those ISI ideas were helped along by the lessons of CIA guerrilla tactics learned during afghan war. 

So should India not have split the pakistan?  

In Rumsfeld's words, there are known unknowns and there are unknown unknown's. I agree one should be prudent about a major decision such as war .  Obama is as careful an american president as you can get. He has to act based on available information after weighing the consequences.  He did. There are going to be consequences but what would be the cost of inaction?

truthbetold wrote:CD

You keep repeating CIA trained taliban and al queida.  

Here is the total context.   USA fight to push soviets out of Afghanistan required local help and they found some in religious mujaheddin. The objective was achieved. But an unholy by product resulted from that fight.

A section of mujaheddin became radical muslims and alqueida.  You remind us about it daily on such. But what you conveniently forget is that there another major consequence of soviet defeat in afghanistan.  Just about the time of emergence of taliban,  a major event shook the world. Soviet union collapsed. Historians say that the loss of afghanistan war played not an insignificant role in the decay and death of soviet union. 

So you weigh the consequences.  Collapse of soviet union and collapse of communism. vs training a portion of radical islamism. 

Another example is that of breaking up of Pakistan.  The humiliating defeat and loss of east pakistan in 1971 led to west pakistan's generals to rethink the strategy to fight India and led to the strategy of death by thousands cuts.  Musharraf explained the the strategy to weaken india by internal strife and regional strife. This strategy developed in 1970s before Afghanistan's war and more importantly before modi even left his wife. Those ISI ideas were helped along by the lessons of CIA guerrilla tactics learned during afghan war. 

So should India not have split the pakistan?  

In Rumsfeld's words, there are known unknowns and there are unknown unknown's. I agree one should be prudent about a major decision such as war .  Obama is as careful an american president as you can get. He has to act based on available information after weighing the consequences.  He did. There are going to be consequences but what would be the cost of inaction?

confuzzled dude wrote:
Really! TBT, rise of radical islam is less dangerous than communism?! You take Kashmir, Taliban, Al-Qaeda over a communist regime.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
That logic never worked & never will; they need to tighten the screws on turkey and tell turkey that they will face severe & immediate sanctions if they don't stop buying oil from isil and warn Saudi to stop screwing around else get ready for a full blown war. Till now no one has done that and current govt is just started pushing them

>>>What aspect of it won't work? Nipping al-queda or an ISIL or groups like that in the bud is more do-able and more tightly scripted than to get into strategic moves in the middle east. I am not saying they are wrong strategically. They are just much, much more involved and therefore more prone to unintended consequences. The stupidity with Al queda was outsourcing a bunch of the work to Pakistan and going off to fight an unrelated war in Iraq. Saddam may have been a thug, but if there was intel that he was harmful to the west, the solution would have to cultivate  west-friendly thug rather than put boots on the ground there. In the meantime, the opportunity cost was not nipping AQ.

What I & I believe Max were alluding to was how president Reagan's freedom fighters became Taliban and helped plot an attack on the US

you should get on a time machine, go back to 1980 and give reagan your future vision glasses that tells him exactly how things will turn out 20 yrs from then. 1980s america misses your profound genius so much

That's right! I forgot that we should keep doing the same and expect different results.

truthbetold wrote:CD

From a USA point of view, the threat of soviet union (nuclear weapons) and communist ideology is far more menacing and existential than any other threat.  For USA , radical islam is a serious threat and poses disruption to its economic and political interests. It is not an existential threat.  

For India,  religious obscurantism in pakistan and middle eastern countries is a major threat and exceeds the risk posed by communism (even though Mr. man mohan singh thinks otherwise).  

But we are talking about India's perception of the world.  We are discussing USA 's  view of the world and the need for ISIS strategy of Obama administration.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>What aspect of it won't work? Nipping al-queda or an ISIL or groups like that in the bud is more do-able and more tightly scripted than to get into strategic moves in the middle east. I am not saying they are wrong strategically. They are just much, much more involved and therefore more prone to unintended consequences. The stupidity with Al queda was outsourcing a bunch of the work to Pakistan and going off to fight an unrelated war in Iraq. Saddam may have been a thug, but if there was intel that he was harmful to the west, the solution would have to cultivate  west-friendly thug rather than put boots on the ground there. In the meantime, the opportunity cost was not nipping AQ.

What I & I believe Max were alluding to was how president Reagan's freedom fighters became Taliban and helped plot an attack on the US

you should get on a time machine, go back to 1980 and give reagan your future vision glasses that tells him exactly how things will turn out 20 yrs from then. 1980s america misses your profound genius so much

That's right! I forgot that we should keep doing the same and expect different results.

ppl have been forming expedient alliances and turn around to fight them later on. that is the nature of humans. you towering intellectual geniuses with perfect 20-20  future vision glasses can see all the combinations of what might happen to eternity but most of ppl that are in responsible positions are hamstrung from that perspective. you should distill all your genius and wisdom developed from years of reading wapo into a wisdom source that future generations can use.

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:CD

From a USA point of view, the threat of soviet union (nuclear weapons) and communist ideology is far more menacing and existential than any other threat.  For USA , radical islam is a serious threat and poses disruption to its economic and political interests. It is not an existential threat.  

For India,  religious obscurantism in pakistan and middle eastern countries is a major threat and exceeds the risk posed by communism (even though Mr. man mohan singh thinks otherwise).  

But we are talking about India's perception of the world.  We are discussing USA 's  view of the world and the need for ISIS strategy of Obama administration.

LMAO this precisely is what our hawks have been selling the naive Americans for decades, to help out military-industrial complex. After the USSR collapse they got to find their new boogeyman and they did.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
What I & I believe Max were alluding to was how president Reagan's freedom fighters became Taliban and helped plot an attack on the US

you should get on a time machine, go back to 1980 and give reagan your future vision glasses that tells him exactly how things will turn out 20 yrs from then. 1980s america misses your profound genius so much

That's right! I forgot that we should keep doing the same and expect different results.

ppl have been forming expedient alliances and turn around to fight them later on. that is the nature of humans. you towering intellectual geniuses with perfect 20-20  future vision glasses can see all the combinations of what might happen to eternity but most of ppl that are in responsible positions are hamstrung from that perspective. you should distill all your genius and wisdom developed from years of reading wapo into a wisdom source that future generations can use.

Which is precisely why I'm against arming so called good rebels; It didn't take that long for the Afghan freedom fighters to turn around and bomb WTC, did it? Soviet-Afghan war ended in '89, they tried to blow away WTC in '93. Only fools don't want to learn the lessons from their previous experiences.