• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. to begin to train and equip moderate Syria rebels

TheDemSocialist said:
Big hypothetical example. So what do you think that should be done?
Click to expand...

It's not as far fetched as you may think though. Just look at the current demographic trends in Europe. Very similar to the US where the population is growing darker, so is Europe. As the majority white population grows older and end up having less children. On the other hand, you have a large influx of Arab immigrants coming in that are having children at a much larger rate than their White European counter parts. Eventually, the same thing that will happened in a generation or two in the US will happened in Europe. Except, instead of it being Latino immigrants and blacks that for the most part do assimilate into our culture, it will be Arabs that overtake the whites and Islam will become the dominant religion, followed shortly thereafter by Sharia law like you see in the Middle East.

As far as what should be done? We need to stop treating Islam on equal terms, and expose it for the cancer it is. Maybe some day down the line Islam (specifically in the Middle East where most of these immigrants are coming from) can reform to a status that Christianity is today (basically cut out all the intolerance ****, or at the very least the forcing the intolerance **** and killing anyone who disagrees), but for now, it needs to be shown for the sharlitan it is and stop making excuses for it. We need to redouble our efforts to get off of foreign oil, the quickest means is to do a combination of increasing our production capacity while finishing the work to make clean energy affordable and practical to cut off the money to these governments. And finally, we prepare for war. Not openly, but we need to be ready for when they come because they will.
 
jonny5 said:
.......did the President consult with congress before putting US soldiers in harms way, as is required by law? And will he seek authorization as required by law?

How many wars is this now? Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia. You might say its one big war on terror.
Click to expand...

American said:
Yeah, where's the Declaration of War from Congress? :2razz:
Click to expand...

See here:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) <<NOTE: President.>> In General.--That the President is
authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any
future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.


http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/html/PLAW-107publ40.htm
Click to expand...

SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution....

SEC. 5. (b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces

War Powers Resolution of 1973
Click to expand...

:yt

....You might say its one big war on terror....
Click to expand...

:peace
 
Hamster Buddha said:
It's not as far fetched as you may think though. Just look at the current demographic trends in Europe. Very similar to the US where the population is growing darker, so is Europe.
Click to expand...

So this is about skin color?

As the majority white population grows older and end up having less children. On the other hand, you have a large influx of Arab immigrants coming in that are having children at a much larger rate than their White European counter parts. Eventually, the same thing that will happened in a generation or two in the US will happened in Europe. Except, instead of it being Latino immigrants and blacks that for the most part do assimilate into our culture, it will be Arabs that overtake the whites and Islam will become the dominant religion, followed shortly thereafter by Sharia law like you see in the Middle East.
Thats quite the jump. What Ive learned. 1.)Why dont you want to be a minority? Is it like they are treated differently? 2.)Somehow people practicing Islam equates to "Shariah law!?".? Ummm around 24% of the world practices Islam ,24% of the world is not ruled by Shriah law...

As far as what should be done? We need to stop treating Islam on equal terms, and expose it for the cancer it is. Maybe some day down the line Islam (specifically in the Middle East where most of these immigrants are coming from) can reform to a status that Christianity is today (basically cut out all the intolerance ****, or at the very least the forcing the intolerance **** and killing anyone who disagrees), but for now, it needs to be shown for the sharlitan it is and stop making excuses for it. We need to redouble our efforts to get off of foreign oil, the quickest means is to do a combination of increasing our production capacity while finishing the work to make clean energy affordable and practical to cut off the money to these governments. And finally, we prepare for war. Not openly, but we need to be ready for when they come because they will.
Click to expand...
My religion is better than yours, and we need to prepare for war against a religion. Wow.......
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Had to clean up your post quotes, hope you didn't mind:

TheDemSocialist said:
So this is about skin color?
Click to expand...

TheDemSocialist said:
Thats quite the jump. What Ive learned. 1.)Why dont you want to be a minority? Is it like they are treated differently? 2.)Somehow people practicing Islam equates to "Shariah law!?".? Ummm around 24% of the world practices Islam ,24% of the world is not ruled by Shriah law...
Click to expand...

Don't be so dense Dem, this is about a demographic and culture change. You're (I assume) intelligent enough to know the difference.

You know why this isn't an issue in the US? Because we don't have the same issue with a assimilating new cultures as the Europeans do. I mean, I don't have to worry about Latino Catholics chopping off heads of any Muslims in the US, now do I? So don't bring up Straw-man arguments like that. Second, if you payed close attention to my post I was very specific to limit to the Islam in the Middle East. It is true that it is far less of a concern, say in Indonesia or in the US. That is the brand of Islam that is being spread to Europe, and polls have regularly shown that Muslims in the Middle East support the application of Sharia, as well as the barbaric ideas that go along with it including the poor treatment of women, converts, and anyone who disagrees with their religion. If you don't believe me, why don't you go and ask Raif Badawi.

TheDemSocialist said:
My religion is better than yours, and we need to prepare for war against a religion. Wow.......
Click to expand...

Again, another Straw Man argument. This has never been a discussion of whose religion is better than another, but about one religion that is willing to go to whatever means necessary to achieve it's goals. It's not just about the fringe that do the attacks, or larger (yet still minority) that support or agree with such violence but don't commit it. It's about a religion that isn't assimilating that is bringing an archaic worldview over that is incompatible with the west. I'm going to assume you're not going to support that we should allow flogging of individuals who openly challenge clerics, which means at some point down the line, you'll have to do what everyone else will have to decide; capitulate to the demands of Islam and allow these populations to grow until they usurp you, or do something to stop it.

I'll end with a simple reminder that the majority of Germans weren't Nazis. That didn't seem to stop them from assuming power and plunging the world into the deadliest conflict in human history... now did it?
 
US Conservative said:
Its going to happen-there will be a large scale conflict (maybe this is the start of it-ceding Iraq to terrorists and whats happening in Syria). I think when it does most westerners will prefer to fight there rather than fight in europe and elsewhere.

I wasn't around in the years before WW2, but I can't help but note the same feeling-everyone knows war is coming-the question is when and where and why.
Click to expand...

One big problem for the Allies then was that their enemies were advanced industrial countries with real, formidable armies, air forces, and navies. Much of their weaponry was better than our own. That made for battles that were far more even than we would have liked, resulting in a lot of U.S. and British servicemen being killed, and things were even worse for the Russians. It's much better to make the battles we put our forces into as unfair as we can possibly make them.

We should try to avoid fighting Muslim jihadists with infantrymen and rifles as much as possible, because even though our forces are far better trained, equipped, and led, and could count on being heavily supported by armed aircraft, sophisticated reconnaissance, armor, and so forth, things would still be even enough in many cases that our forces would suffer quite a few casualties. Sometimes, in some parts of the world, that may be the only way, but even then friendly local forces, if they are good enough to be a help, might do some of the soldiering.

The U.S. should try to make more use of very powerful weapons the jihadists don't have and can't counter. One example is heavy bombers. I realize that these are not well suited to small, dispersed targets, but in Syria and Iraq, the jihadists seem to be operating our of cities, e.g. Raqqa, Mosul, Tikrit, and Ramadi. No one wants innocent people to be killed in bombing raids, but this country accepted in WWII that those deaths were unavoidable. We may have to accept it in fighting jihadists, too.They are very likely sheltering in cities because they believe people here could never stomach bombing those cities.

But we should remember that the laws of war don't make war criminals like them immune to attack just because they fight from civilian areas. We cannot afford to let them to make cities in Syria and Iraq their safe havens. We may have to harden ourselves to doing some very unpleasant things to make the point that needs to be made to the jihadists: You cannot depend on Americans always to be as fastidious and humane as we usually have been. At some point, the effort to win the hearts and minds of Muslims has to be scrapped, and Iraqis, for example, who allow jihadist war criminals to operate amongst them warned to drive these people out themselves, or risk being bombed along with them.

I'm well aware Barack Obama will never do any of this, but in two years he'll be gone. If we can wait that long to get serious about the enemy we are facing.
 
matchlight said:
One big problem for the Allies then was that their enemies were advanced industrial countries with real, formidable armies, air forces, and navies. Much of their weaponry was better than our own. That made for battles that were far more even than we would have liked, resulting in a lot of U.S. and British servicemen being killed, and things were even worse for the Russians. It's much better to make the battles we put our forces into as unfair as we can possibly make them.

We should try to avoid fighting Muslim jihadists with infantrymen and rifles as much as possible, because even though our forces are far better trained, equipped, and led, and could count on being heavily supported by armed aircraft, sophisticated reconnaissance, armor, and so forth, things would still be even enough in many cases that our forces would suffer quite a few casualties. Sometimes, in some parts of the world, that may be the only way, but even then friendly local forces, if they are good enough to be a help, might do some of the soldiering.

The U.S. should try to make more use of very powerful weapons the jihadists don't have and can't counter. One example is heavy bombers. I realize that these are not well suited to small, dispersed targets, but in Syria and Iraq, the jihadists seem to be operating our of cities, e.g. Raqqa, Mosul, Tikrit, and Ramadi. No one wants innocent people to be killed in bombing raids, but this country accepted in WWII that those deaths were unavoidable. We may have to accept it in fighting jihadists, too.They are very likely sheltering in cities because they believe people here could never stomach bombing those cities.

But we should remember that the laws of war don't make war criminals like them immune to attack just because they fight from civilian areas. We cannot afford to let them to make cities in Syria and Iraq their safe havens. We may have to harden ourselves to doing some very unpleasant things to make the point that needs to be made to the jihadists: You cannot depend on Americans always to be as fastidious and humane as we usually have been. At some point, the effort to win the hearts and minds of Muslims has to be scrapped, and Iraqis, for example, who allow jihadist war criminals to operate amongst them warned to drive these people out themselves, or risk being bombed along with them.

I'm well aware Barack Obama will never do any of this, but in two years he'll be gone. If we can wait that long to get serious about the enemy we are facing.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think its understood that this will be an asymmetrical conflict, no arab military has won against a modern western military. Any conventional force would be quickly destroyed (like iraq) and any heavy weapons captured by islamists would not last long.

I hate to say it-but when one side is not willing to adhere to the laws of war, at times the response must be brutal to resolve things. As for the ugliest fighting we should be right behind our arab allies-and let them as arabs fight by arab rules.
 
US Conservative said:
I agree. I think its understood that this will be an asymmetrical conflict, no arab military has won against a modern western military. Any conventional force would be quickly destroyed (like iraq) and any heavy weapons captured by islamists would not last long.

I hate to say it-but when one side is not willing to adhere to the laws of war, at times the response must be brutal to resolve things. As for the ugliest fighting we should be right behind our arab allies-and let them as arabs fight by arab rules.
Click to expand...

matchlight said:
One big problem for the Allies then was that their enemies were advanced industrial countries with real, formidable armies, air forces, and navies. Much of their weaponry was better than our own. That made for battles that were far more even than we would have liked, resulting in a lot of U.S. and British servicemen being killed, and things were even worse for the Russians. It's much better to make the battles we put our forces into as unfair as we can possibly make them.

We should try to avoid fighting Muslim jihadists with infantrymen and rifles as much as possible, because even though our forces are far better trained, equipped, and led, and could count on being heavily supported by armed aircraft, sophisticated reconnaissance, armor, and so forth, things would still be even enough in many cases that our forces would suffer quite a few casualties. Sometimes, in some parts of the world, that may be the only way, but even then friendly local forces, if they are good enough to be a help, might do some of the soldiering.

The U.S. should try to make more use of very powerful weapons the jihadists don't have and can't counter. One example is heavy bombers. I realize that these are not well suited to small, dispersed targets, but in Syria and Iraq, the jihadists seem to be operating our of cities, e.g. Raqqa, Mosul, Tikrit, and Ramadi. No one wants innocent people to be killed in bombing raids, but this country accepted in WWII that those deaths were unavoidable. We may have to accept it in fighting jihadists, too.They are very likely sheltering in cities because they believe people here could never stomach bombing those cities.

But we should remember that the laws of war don't make war criminals like them immune to attack just because they fight from civilian areas. We cannot afford to let them to make cities in Syria and Iraq their safe havens. We may have to harden ourselves to doing some very unpleasant things to make the point that needs to be made to the jihadists: You cannot depend on Americans always to be as fastidious and humane as we usually have been. At some point, the effort to win the hearts and minds of Muslims has to be scrapped, and Iraqis, for example, who allow jihadist war criminals to operate amongst them warned to drive these people out themselves, or risk being bombed along with them.

I'm well aware Barack Obama will never do any of this, but in two years he'll be gone. If we can wait that long to get serious about the enemy we are facing.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure me and Conservative have been over this but no war in the history of mankind has been won through Air Power alone. At some point you have to move in and secure the locations on the ground with troops you can count on. And as has been so clearly demonstrated, local militias can't cut the mustard. The only ones with the capability to handle such a job are professional, western troops. What ultimately we'll have to do is the same thing we did with Japan; and that is occupy the country and take down everything that is even connected with Islam, same as we did with the warrior cult in Japan.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
I'm pretty sure me and Conservative have been over this but no war in the history of mankind has been won through Air Power alone. At some point you have to move in and secure the locations on the ground with troops you can count on. And as has been so clearly demonstrated, local militias can't cut the mustard. The only ones with the capability to handle such a job are professional, western troops. What ultimately we'll have to do is the same thing we did with Japan; and that is occupy the country and take down everything that is even connected with Islam, same as we did with the warrior cult in Japan.
Click to expand...

Do we have to destroy every mosque?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Do we have to destroy every mosque?
Click to expand...

Yes. In the Middle East. Not now mind you, because there is still (faint) hope that a more enlightened and moderate Islam will develop. After an attack using a WMD that kills tens if not hundreds of thousands? Forget about it...
 
Hamster Buddha said:
I'm pretty sure me and Conservative have been over this but no war in the history of mankind has been won through Air Power alone. At some point you have to move in and secure the locations on the ground with troops you can count on. And as has been so clearly demonstrated, local militias can't cut the mustard. The only ones with the capability to handle such a job are professional, western troops. What ultimately we'll have to do is the same thing we did with Japan; and that is occupy the country and take down everything that is even connected with Islam, same as we did with the warrior cult in Japan.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The political winds may not be to that point yet-but the longer we wait the worse it will be.
 
US Conservative said:
If there are combatants operating out of there or anyone aiding the enemy-its a legitimate military target. Frankly after ISIS got there-they are used to mosques being destroyed. No more PC BS.
Click to expand...

I find it tragic that we have to destroy ancient buildings.

It is monte Cassino all over again.
 
US Conservative said:
If there are combatants operating out of there or anyone aiding the enemy-its a legitimate military target. Frankly after ISIS got there-they are used to mosques being destroyed. No more PC BS.
Click to expand...

Which is the reason you'd have to take a scorched earth approach to the religion in the region. But even beyond that, Islam has become a danger even to those who practice it. And by that, I mean all the sectarian differences. In the scenario that we go in and acts as a true occupying power (we haven't really done this, instead opting to take a more hands off approach to internal politics). We broke Japan of Shintoism, we can do the same with Islam in the Middle East. They key would be we'd have to show a better way by providing rebuilding effort not seen since the Marshall Plan.

Make no mistake, this will be the costliest endeavor in US History, and one which will have to have the cooperation of not just Europe and the US, but also other world powers affected by Islamic attacks such as Russia, China and even India. (as neither of those powers are going to be willing to sit back and allow NATO to carve up the Middle East without getting a cut). Again this solution isn't something that could be pulled off now of course, but only the worst comes to pass.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
I find it tragic that we have to destroy ancient buildings.

It is monte Cassino all over again.
Click to expand...

Monte Casino is nothing compared to what would be necessary. We would be bringing about an idea that is alien to this part of the world that we in the west have taken advantage of for hundreds of years: Separation of Church and State.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
I find it tragic that we have to destroy ancient buildings.

It is monte Cassino all over again.
Click to expand...

So do I, but to be fair-its the combatants that are occupying such buildings that would make that the case. What does it say of islamism that the west respects their religious and historical sites and hospitals more than they do?

From a historical perspective I always cringe when I hear about these things but Islamism may be more destructive to islamic history than the west.
 
MMC said:
It appears BO still has not learned anything with these Rebel/Terrorists, huh?


U.S. strategy against Islamic State hits major hurdles.....

Senior U.S. military officers also privately warn that the so-called Syrian moderates that U.S. planners hope to recruit — opposition fighters without ties to the Islamic radicals — have been degraded by other factions and forces, including Assad's army, during the war.

We're not going to be able to build that kind of credible force in enough time to make a difference," said a senior U.S. officer who is involved in military operations against the militants and who asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly. "We've watched the moderate opposition dwindle and dwindle and now there's very little left."....snip~

U.S. strategy against Islamic State hits major hurdles - LA Times


1,000 Syrian rebels defect to Islamic State in sign it’s still strengthening
McClatchy Washington Bureau July 8, 2014
Read more here: GAZIANTEP, Turkey: 1,000 Syrian rebels defect to Islamic State in sign it’s still strengthening | Syria | McClatchy DC






The Free Syrian Army was said to be a “moderate” and “secular” force, which was used as the rationale by U.S. officials to supply the opposition force with weapons and training. Sources told Homs, Syria-based Zaman Alwasl newspaper that several factions within the FSA, including Ahl Al Athar, Ibin al-Qa’im, and Aisha have pledged to support the Islamic State.

The Obama administration has delivered weapons, supplies, and CIA-sponsored training to the Free Syrian Army. United States intelligence analysts estimate that the U.S. has had a hand in training as many as 20,000 FSA rebels. The U.S. reportedly provided the FSA with weapons such as rockets and TOW anti-tank missiles, which were supplied through back-channels in Qatar and Saudi Arabia......snip~

US-Backed 'Moderate' Free Syrian Army Factions Join ISIS Terror Group - Breitbart


U.S.-backed Syria rebels routed by fighters linked to al-Qaeda
(Washington Post) - The Obama administration’s Syria strategy suffered a major setback Sunday after fighters linked to al-Qaeda routed U.S.-backed rebels from their main northern strongholds, capturing significant quantities of weaponry, triggering widespread defections and ending hopes that Washington will readily find Syrian partners in its war against the Islamic State.

Moderate rebels who had been armed and trained by the United States either surrendered or defected to the extremists as the Jabhat al-Nusra group, affiliated with al-Qaeda, swept through the towns and villages the moderates controlled in the northern province of Idlib, in what appeared to be a concerted push to vanquish the moderate Free Syrian Army, according to rebel commanders, activists and analysts....snip~

U.S.-backed Syria rebels routed by fighters linked to al-Qaeda - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

May the most secular anti Assad side win!
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Which is the reason you'd have to take a scorched earth approach to the religion in the region. But even beyond that, Islam has become a danger even to those who practice it. And by that, I mean all the sectarian differences. In the scenario that we go in and acts as a true occupying power (we haven't really done this, instead opting to take a more hands off approach to internal politics). We broke Japan of Shintoism, we can do the same with Islam in the Middle East. They key would be we'd have to show a better way by providing rebuilding effort not seen since the Marshall Plan.

Make no mistake, this will be the costliest endeavor in US History, and one which will have to have the cooperation of not just Europe and the US, but also other world powers affected by Islamic attacks such as Russia, China and even India. (as neither of those powers are going to be willing to sit back and allow NATO to carve up the Middle East without getting a cut). Again this solution isn't something that could be pulled off now of course, but only the worst comes to pass.
Click to expand...

I hope you are wrong about the scorched earth policy, but I fear you might be right.
 
US Conservative said:
I believe that would be the FSA, but ironically Assad may be the most secular of the groups involved.
Click to expand...

If I could go back in time and share one thing with America, or it's leaders specifically, it would be this: We're better off with Ruthless Dictators who keep these people in line than with them ruling themselves. There's only been one exception to this statement; Morocco, and that's only because they chose to install a secular government. Everywhere else has only become more radicalized.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
If I could go back in time and share one thing with America, or it's leaders specifically, it would be this: We're better off with Ruthless Dictators who keep these people in line than with them ruling themselves. There's only been one exception to this statement; Morocco, and that's only because they chose to install a secular government. Everywhere else has only become more radicalized.
Click to expand...

Yes, but then we get to see the methods the dictators use to keep radicals in check. They are pretty inhumane. Further, I do not think that they can contain radicalism forever because such extreme measures also fuel radicalism. Sooner or later it could grass root and bring the dictator down and we do not get to influence them.

Perhaps we have been bringing down dictators right at the time when intelligence analysis showed that that is going to happen? So a quick liberating intervention both posits us as the helper (used for later influenced) as well as actually help and liberate the people.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
If I could go back in time and share one thing with America, or it's leaders specifically, it would be this: We're better off with Ruthless Dictators who keep these people in line than with them ruling themselves. There's only been one exception to this statement; Morocco, and that's only because they chose to install a secular government. Everywhere else has only become more radicalized.
Click to expand...

Well there have also been plenty of terrorists from morocco. France knows this.

But this is a hard subject for me as a westerner-because to advocate such rule would be to deprive people of their own voice. Even if that means there will be more conflict.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
I'm pretty sure me and Conservative have been over this but no war in the history of mankind has been won through Air Power alone. At some point you have to move in and secure the locations on the ground with troops you can count on. And as has been so clearly demonstrated, local militias can't cut the mustard. The only ones with the capability to handle such a job are professional, western troops.
Click to expand...

No,

Allied air force attacks combined with local troops can work. See how it worked in the Balkans as an example.

Hamster Buddha said:
What ultimately we'll have to do is the same thing we did with Japan; and that is occupy the country and take down everything that is even connected with Islam, same as we did with the warrior cult in Japan.
Click to expand...

A very costly proposal. Costly both in money and in blood.
 
DDD said:
Yes, but then we get to see the methods the dictators use to keep radicals in check. They are pretty inhumane. Further, I do not think that they can contain radicalism forever because such extreme measures also fuel radicalism. Sooner or later it could grass root and bring the dictator down and we do not get to influence them.

Perhaps we have been bringing down dictators right at the time when intelligence analysis showed that that is going to happen? So a quick liberating intervention both posits us as the helper (used for later influenced) as well as actually help and liberate the people.
Click to expand...

The saudi's are very totalitarian and they are so terrified of ISIS they are building a heavily fortified and armed wall to keep them out. I dont think that will work. If the house of saud goes down it will be horrifically bloody.
 
US Conservative said:
Well there have also been plenty of terrorists from morocco. France knows this.

But this is a hard subject for me as a westerner-because to advocate such rule would be to deprive people of their own voice. Even if that means there will be more conflict.
Click to expand...

There are terrorist from Morocco, but that comes more from the cancer that is within Islam today than any policies the state is enacting. I actually think that there's is a good model to work off of. The problem is that the infection may run so deep that eventually you have to deal with it.

DDD said:
Yes, but then we get to see the methods the dictators use to keep radicals in check. They are pretty inhumane. Further, I do not think that they can contain radicalism forever because such extreme measures also fuel radicalism. Sooner or later it could grass root and bring the dictator down and we do not get to influence them.

Perhaps we have been bringing down dictators right at the time when intelligence analysis showed that that is going to happen? So a quick liberating intervention both posits us as the helper (used for later influenced) as well as actually help and liberate the people.
Click to expand...

The problem is that this hasn't worked. I mean say what you will about Iraq, but the moment we took over, we were more than ready to hand over power to the Iraqis. And that just got blown up into a sectarian mess with Islam at the heart of it. Egypt ousted Mubarak, and what do the people do? They install the Muslim Brotherhood. We assist in the ousting in Lybia, and now that's a hot bed for Islamist. And Syria? Well, perhaps if we'd of kept our noses out of that, ISIS wouldn't of been a problem, especially of Saddam was still in power to prevent them from pushing as far in as they did. In every single circumstance we've given freedom to Muslims in the Middle East, it's blown up in our face (with the lone exception of Morocco).

Could it of eventually blown up in our faces down the road? Maybe, but maybe not. Every year we get closer to not having to rely so heavily on ME oil. And once we finally kick that habit, we can seal off the ME and let the whole place burn itself down. At the very least, it wouldn't be our problem anymore, so long as we aren't letting them into Europe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom