• 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!

Out of Yemen, U.S. is Hobbled in Terror Fight

Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

matchlight said:
It's obviously not desirable no longer to have 125 members of the special forces training the forces of Yemen's nominal government to fight jihadists. But I don't see how they could have been gathering intelligence. And Djibouti is still available as a drone base, as are U.S. ships. If the U.S. wanted to kill a jihadist in Shabwa province, a Fire Scout launched from a destroyer could do the job.

There must be locals in Yemen who can be recruited, for pay, to let us know what is going on there. I would think friendly Arab countries like Jordan or Oman might also be able to send someone who could blend in there and report back. After all, they have an interest in what is happening there, too. And obviously Saudi Arabia will have someone in Yemen watching events. This does harm the credibility of Mr. Obama's policy in the area, but how much credibility did it have to begin with?
Click to expand...



Heya Matchlight. :2wave: Its more of a problem than BO and his team is letting on. Parties are split 3 ways and with the supporters of Selah in the mix.



WASHINGTON (AP) — Once hailed by President Barack Obama as a model for fighting extremism, the U.S. counterterrorism strategy in Yemen has all but collapsed as the country descends into chaos, according to U.S. and Yemeni officials. Operations against militants have been scaled back dramatically amid the fall of the American-backed government and the evacuation of U.S. personnel. What had been consistent pressure on Yemen's dangerous al-Qaida affiliate has been eased, the officials say, and a safe haven exists for the development of an offshoot of the Islamic State group.

It's a swift and striking transformation for an anti-terror campaign Obama heralded just six months ago as the template for efforts to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. The shift has left Obama open to criticism that he failed to anticipate the risks of a light footprint strategy that aims to put fragile governments and beleaguered local security forces, not the U.S. military, at the forefront.

"Certainly, repositioning our forces out of Yemen will make our fight against AQAP more difficult. There is no question about that," Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren said Tuesday. Former CIA director Michael Hayden told Congress that U.S. intelligence relationships in Yemen "will erode over time because of our lack of physical presence in the county.".....snip~

US counterterrorism strategy in Yemen collapses amid chaos - AP News 3/24/2015 12:41 PM
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

iliveonramen said:
There's only been two major strategies in the war on terror as it's only been around for two presidents. One used boots on the ground and American forces to directly involve itself in the fight against terror organizations and the Obama administration has used partnerships, drone attacks, and a much less direct involvement of ground troops.

I personally prefer the seconds as the first hasn't exactly been a smashing success and the US has spent a lot of blood and treasure for those results.

As for Libya, I'm not sure MMC, I remember conversations about Libya and I was against intervention, I believe you were as well, but every argument floated was based on humanitarian reasons. What exactly are you saying was the reason we deposed Gadhafi? That we were pandering to Shiite's?
Click to expand...


No.....to the Saud and Sunni, we virtually were handing the country over to them. Problem came in with all the Jihadists and Berber Tribes, that were living in and around Benghazi. While what took place with Assad was going on.
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

MMC said:
No.....to the Saud and Sunni, we virtually were handing the country over to them. Problem came in with all the Jihadists and Berber Tribes, that were living in and around Benghazi. While what took place with Assad was going on.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know enough to debate whether that's true or not so I will have to read up on it before discussing
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

iliveonramen said:
I honestly don't know enough to debate whether that's true or not so I will have to read up on it before discussing
Click to expand...


Here is a little bit on it.


Moammar Gadhafi of Libya was elected Monday as leader of the African Union, a position long sought by the eccentric dictator pushing his oil-rich nation into the international mainstream after years of isolation. Some African leaders offered tepid praise for the choice of Gadhafi, who grabbed power in a 1969 coup. Rights groups called him a poor model for Africa at a time when democratic gains are being reversed in countries such as Mauritania and Guinea.

Terrorism renounced

Gadhafi renounced terrorism in 2003 and Libya has paid out over a billion dollars to the families of the Lockerbie victims. Libya has also entered into deals with major oil companies for exploitation of its reserves and re-established diplomatic ties with the U.S. Gadhafi has also been involved in mediating the conflict in Darfur with little success. He has mediated between Chad and Sudan — both have accused each other of supporting the other's rebel groups. The Libyan leader's mediation has resulted in deals between Chad and Sudan, which have later been violated. Libya has never held the chairmanship in the 46-year-history of the African Union and its predecessor, the Organization of African Unity. This contributed to his being denied the chairmanship of the Organization of African Unity in 1982.....snip~

Gadhafi pledges 'United States of Africa' - World news - Africa | NBC News



Guess who will be next to fall?




The muscular display of power and pageantry at the inauguration in Washington may be watched by envious eyes around the world. Not least among those who yearn to build another USA – the United States of Africa – under a single president.

Such was the dream of Muammar Gaddafi, a quixotic project that appeared to have died with the Libyan dictator but has now been rekindled by the Zimbabwean president, Robert Mugabe.

Speaking in Harare after meeting Benin's president, Thomas Boni Yayi, who is the outgoing African Union (AU) chairman, Mugabe argued that a figurehead is needed to move Africa beyond regional blocs and into the global superleague.....snip~

Mugabe revives Gaddafi's United States of Africa dream | World news | The Guardian



This goes against the Sauds vision of a United States of Islam.....hence their version of a Democratic Caliphate, Naturally with their King in Charge. While ISIL's is about their version of a Caliphate. Which of course then there is the Shia's version of a Caliphate under Sharia Law.



Oh, and here is a Libyan Timeline. You can start from 2008 when BO peep entered into the picture.

2008 January - Libya takes over one-month rotating presidency of the UN Security Council in a step back to respectability after decades as a pariah of the West.....snip~

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-13755445
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

Grant said:
Everything flows from Obama's decision, against all advice, to remove the military from the Middle East. There should be upwards of 50,000, plus coalition troops, to stop the spread of ISIS and maintain some order. Now everything is getting far worse than when he pulled the troops in 2011 and more deaths and chaos will certainly follow.
Click to expand...



One of few posts that recognize the advance across several nations since that pull out. Of course that was George Bush's fault [sarcasm] for having set that date years before , but it is clearly a classic blunder signalling again terrorists can go nuts.

But, when you brush off a terrorist attack on a US Embassy killing four Americans about the same time you have "ended the war in Iraq", given unconditional support of Arab Spring until it was evident it was not a good thin and proposed to attack Syria..

Well, I'd say they got to feeling awfully bold now Dubya was gone...and while Obama was waring with his real enemies, Republicans, they kind of took over....

And why not? There's little to stop them.
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

matchlight said:
All true. And that happened under Limpwrist's administration.



I think you have that part just backwards. It was B. Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton who helped usher in Mohammed Morsi's brief rule. The Belle of Benghazi's go-between with the Muslim Brotherhood in doing this was her adviser Huma Abedin, aka Mrs. Anthony Weiner, several members of whose family in Egypt have extensive connections with the Brotherhood. I suspect the fact both of them were married to men who were obsessed with showing their private parts to any woman who would look made them sympathetic to each other.



I agree with all that. And I believe it is more than just incompetence at work. This is the first president in U.S. history who plainly dislikes the very country whose interests he is supposed to be upholding. Mr. Obama has a chip on his shoulder about whites and about America in general, and I think he gets a secret frisson out of seeing this country brought down a notch or two. That partly explains his appeasement of our adversaries, and I don't doubt for a moment that Mr. Putin sees what Obama is about and is trying to take advantage of it. The danger is that Russia may make some aggressive move--against Estonia, for example--that even Obama will not be able to ignore.
Click to expand...

I don't believe President Obama is leading a conspiracy, but I do believe he's intellectually lazy and the Middle East doesn't interest him at all. Fights with Congress and his personal life interest him far more. As a result, he has no focus on what's happening in the world as a result of his laziness.

I also don't think he's smart enough to plan and pull off some grand scheme.
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

CanadaJohn said:
I don't believe President Obama is leading a conspiracy, but I do believe he's intellectually lazy and the Middle East doesn't interest him at all. Fights with Congress and his personal life interest him far more. As a result, he has no focus on what's happening in the world as a result of his laziness.

I also don't think he's smart enough to plan and pull off some grand scheme.
Click to expand...



"Intellectually lazy" exactly describes him. The stories of his glassy eyed boredom at finance meetings, his uneven handling of the middle east, all of it points to a relatively bright guy being stupid.


I have said before he pays lip service to the details of world affairs and sees foreign policy the same as domestic, he can call allies names because that's what you do. And he does love fighting with Republicans and places that as his administrative priority while his foreign policy is on one day and off the next, like restoring relations with Cuba....one meeting
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

iliveonramen said:
This is an issue I have with this line of thought. It seems like people in the West and people in countries hostile to the US have the same viewpoint. That the US pulls strings and has the power to dictate how events play out. In Iraq and Afghanistan a decade long occupation, tons of money, and a situation where the US was able to exert maximum influence outside of a puppet scenario we end up with a Kharzi that is anti-west when talking to his people and a Maliki. Both are poster boys of bad rule and even then they are limited in their influence. It doesn't even stop there. The Contra war raging in central America lasted for a long time and that's a country that is close to the US and has a fraction of the population of these countries.

How would the US stop the Muslim Brotherhood from taking over in a democratic election? If the US intervenes than we basically strengthen any group that can pander to arab nationalism and anti-western sentiment.

It's US intervention in the region and overall western intervention that has led to mistrust of the west in the first place...and it's worked out horribly for the US! We overthrew the Iranian government and it resulted in the Ayatollah taking over. We provided material support to Iraq to check expanding Iranian influence and strengthened Saddam. We overthrew Saddam which has resulted in the expansion of power by Iran and the rising of religious fundamentalist in Iraq.

These are all situation where the US took an active role in intervening and it turned into an even worse situation, not to mention created a lot of animosity towards the US as a kicker. If intervention was some tried and true way to influence the region I might support it but it's led to one disaster after another.


You can point to any instance in the world and say the President could of acted differently and created some perfect situation but that's just not true. I can name you a laundry list of things that happened in the world that turned out badly under every President in spite of their actions. I'm not saying that presidents are absolved of any responsibility of the foreign policy decisions but the constant "he should of intervened more" is just faulty logic. Intervention has led to some of worse foreign policy blunders in history.


I think Bush was horrible, I think he's the poster boy for why constant intervention backfires and should be taken with extreme caution.
Click to expand...

I'd just make a couple of points:

1. We clearly have different takes on similar issues - that's to be expected.

2. I don't believe for a minute that Carter orchestrated the ouster of the Shah of Iran and the rise of the Ayatollahs there. I'd say it's the exact opposite. The Shah was a friend of the US, strongly supported by the US, and if I'm not mistaken, his family came to the US after their ouster. Carter did not orchestrate the revolution taking over the US embassy in Tehran and the hostage crisis lasting more than a year and effectively ending his Presidency.

3. The British have an old saying "in for a penny, in for a pound" - effectively, that means never do anything half assed. Either get in and mean what you say to the end or don't get in. Ask many of the peoples in the Middle East or perhaps even around the world and they'll tell you that they no longer feel that America, under Obama, is a friend they can trust and rely upon. That is toxic when it comes to getting countries to support serious joint action.
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

CanadaJohn said:
I don't believe President Obama is leading a conspiracy, but I do believe he's intellectually lazy and the Middle East doesn't interest him at all. Fights with Congress and his personal life interest him far more. As a result, he has no focus on what's happening in the world as a result of his laziness.

I also don't think he's smart enough to plan and pull off some grand scheme.
Click to expand...



Heya CJ. :2wave: All I know is the World is burning.....Iran is on fire and we are being tested outright knowing they can step over the line more and more. Then Russia and Putin. Then 3 different terrorist organizations all into Islam growing rapidly and spreading thru the same region. Terrorist Attacks off in Europe, Australia, Canada, France, Britain, and others.

Supporters, financiers, enablers.....and all BO peep can do is threaten Israel? It makes no sense at all. I think after he just warned Israel yesterday. That it is time.....to grab him by the scruff of his shirt collar and drag him before Congress for Censure!

Humiliation time and sent off as a disgrace.
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

CanadaJohn said:
I'd just make a couple of points:

1. We clearly have different takes on similar issues - that's to be expected.

2. I don't believe for a minute that Carter orchestrated the ouster of the Shah of Iran and the rise of the Ayatollahs there. I'd say it's the exact opposite. The Shah was a friend of the US, strongly supported by the US, and if I'm not mistaken, his family came to the US after their ouster. Carter did not orchestrate the revolution taking over the US embassy in Tehran and the hostage crisis lasting more than a year and effectively ending his Presidency.
Click to expand...

The US didn't overthrow the Shah, it overthrew a constitutional monarch and installed the Shah into power in order to ensure a pro-west leader that would continue to keep Iranian oil open to US companies.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-...s/csi-studies/studies/vol48no2/article10.html

Most of the CIA's acknowledged efforts of this sort have shown that Washington has been more interested in strongman rule in the Middle East and elsewhere than in encouraging democracy. The result is a credibility problem that accompanied American troops into Iraq and continues to plague them as the United States prepares to hand over sovereignty to local authorities. All the Shah's Men helps clarify why, when many Iraqis heard President George Bush concede that "ixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe,"15 they may have reacted with more than a little skepticism
Click to expand...


3. The British have an old saying "in for a penny, in for a pound" - effectively, that means never do anything half assed. Either get in and mean what you say to the end or don't get in. Ask many of the peoples in the Middle East or perhaps even around the world and they'll tell you that they no longer feel that America, under Obama, is a friend they can trust and rely upon. That is toxic when it comes to getting countries to support serious joint action.
Click to expand...
I agree with that saying, but I don't think it applies to the fact that every action should be all in to get the best outcome possible. To ensure that Libya had a pro-west regime does that mean we should go as far to land troops in that country if it ensures that we get the regime we want? Should we of kept troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future irregardless of whether Iraqi's want us and are willing to provide soldiers immunity from prosecution? What happens when the first soldier is prosecuted by Iraqi law? We sure as hell won't hand him over, what's the result of that?

If a situation requires decisive actions and the stakes are high enough you should go all in, but our problems stem from the fact that the stakes are always sky high and require an all in mentality.
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

MMC said:
Heya Matchlight. :2wave: Its more of a problem than BO and his team is letting on. Parties are split 3 ways and with the supporters of Selah in the mix.



WASHINGTON (AP) — Once hailed by President Barack Obama as a model for fighting extremism, the U.S. counterterrorism strategy in Yemen has all but collapsed as the country descends into chaos, according to U.S. and Yemeni officials. Operations against militants have been scaled back dramatically amid the fall of the American-backed government and the evacuation of U.S. personnel. What had been consistent pressure on Yemen's dangerous al-Qaida affiliate has been eased, the officials say, and a safe haven exists for the development of an offshoot of the Islamic State group.

It's a swift and striking transformation for an anti-terror campaign Obama heralded just six months ago as the template for efforts to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. The shift has left Obama open to criticism that he failed to anticipate the risks of a light footprint strategy that aims to put fragile governments and beleaguered local security forces, not the U.S. military, at the forefront.

"Certainly, repositioning our forces out of Yemen will make our fight against AQAP more difficult. There is no question about that," Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren said Tuesday. Former CIA director Michael Hayden told Congress that U.S. intelligence relationships in Yemen "will erode over time because of our lack of physical presence in the county.".....snip~

US counterterrorism strategy in Yemen collapses amid chaos - AP News 3/24/2015 12:41 PM
Click to expand...

This looks like another example of the more general problem of how to fight jihadists who shelter in nations where no government has full control. Libya is like that. So is Somalia. So is Pakistan. And obviously so are Syria and Iraq. At one time a few hundred or even a few thousand lightly armed fanatics running around butchering people in some foreign hellhole, savage and evil as they were, did not pose any threat to our security. But with jet travel and instant communications, as we saw on 9/11, it doesn't take many of these bastards to do us a lot of harm.

We might be able to learn something from the strategy the British used in India to put an end to the Thugs. There were thousands of them, no one knew just who or where they were, or how they were organized, and for centuries they had secretly been murdering people--hundreds of thousands of them--in the name of their god. But a few were caught, and threatened with hanging if they did not inform on others. And the ones they informed on were then given the same choice. Some Muslim jihadists may not be afraid to die, but I am sure that's not true of all of them. The Japanese during WWII were even more fanatic than Muslim jihadists, and yet after a while, not enough volunteers could be found to fill the need for kamikaze missions.
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

Travis007 said:
Obama is the best friend a terrorist ever had..

if he only treated terror harboring countries with the hatred he has for the Jews and Israel
Click to expand...

It's the joos fault we're in the mess to start with, since they took down the WTC. :mrgreen:
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

CanadaJohn said:
I'd just make a couple of points:

1. We clearly have different takes on similar issues - that's to be expected.

2. I don't believe for a minute that Carter orchestrated the ouster of the Shah of Iran and the rise of the Ayatollahs there. I'd say it's the exact opposite. The Shah was a friend of the US, strongly supported by the US, and if I'm not mistaken, his family came to the US after their ouster. Carter did not orchestrate the revolution taking over the US embassy in Tehran and the hostage crisis lasting more than a year and effectively ending his Presidency.

3. The British have an old saying "in for a penny, in for a pound" - effectively, that means never do anything half assed. Either get in and mean what you say to the end or don't get in. Ask many of the peoples in the Middle East or perhaps even around the world and they'll tell you that they no longer feel that America, under Obama, is a friend they can trust and rely upon. That is toxic when it comes to getting countries to support serious joint action.
Click to expand...



The take over of the Embassy was because the Shah was given sanctuary by Carter.
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

matchlight said:
This looks like another example of the more general problem of how to fight jihadists who shelter in nations where no government has full control. Libya is like that. So is Somalia. So is Pakistan. And obviously so are Syria and Iraq. At one time a few hundred or even a few thousand lightly armed fanatics running around butchering people in some foreign hellhole, savage and evil as they were, did not pose any threat to our security. But with jet travel and instant communications, as we saw on 9/11, it doesn't take many of these bastards to do us a lot of harm.

We might be able to learn something from the strategy the British used in India to put an end to the Thugs. There were thousands of them, no one knew just who or where they were, or how they were organized, and for centuries they had secretly been murdering people--hundreds of thousands of them--in the name of their god. But a few were caught, and threatened with hanging if they did not inform on others. And the ones they informed on were then given the same choice. Some Muslim jihadists may not be afraid to die, but I am sure that's not true of all of them. The Japanese during WWII were even more fanatic than Muslim jihadists, and yet after a while, not enough volunteers could be found to fill the need for kamikaze missions.
Click to expand...



We are dealing with more than just Jihadists.....we are dealing with former generals and colonels that have years of experience in conventional warfare. Some are from Saddam Hussein's Army and forces. Others are coming from other places. Their hackers are sophisticated enough to keep getting around others cyber security. Same with AQ and their Intel Officers coming in. Taliban from Both Pakistan and Afghanistan.


Now we have an Iranian Quds force Officer running things inside Iraq with the Shia.....and here Iran turns BO's Template into nothing more than Tic Tac Toe. While in negotiation with the Nuke talks.
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

iliveonramen said:
The US didn't overthrow the Shah, it overthrew a constitutional monarch and installed the Shah into power in order to ensure a pro-west leader that would continue to keep Iranian oil open to US companies.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-...s/csi-studies/studies/vol48no2/article10.html




I agree with that saying, but I don't think it applies to the fact that every action should be all in to get the best outcome possible. To ensure that Libya had a pro-west regime does that mean we should go as far to land troops in that country if it ensures that we get the regime we want? Should we of kept troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future irregardless of whether Iraqi's want us and are willing to provide soldiers immunity from prosecution? What happens when the first soldier is prosecuted by Iraqi law? We sure as hell won't hand him over, what's the result of that?

If a situation requires decisive actions and the stakes are high enough you should go all in, but our problems stem from the fact that the stakes are always sky high and require an all in mentality.
Click to expand...

With respect to Iran, the Shah and his predecessors had been in place for decades before the Ayatollahs took over and would have remained in power with the support of the US had the US been able to convince the Shah to alter his rule - similar situation to Mubarak in Egypt.

With respect to Iraq, I'll simply say that the US left troops in South Korea and South Korea is vibrant and successful both economically and democratically. The US abandoned Vietnam and it's basically a backwater to this day. The US has left troops on site in virtually every country where it has conducted military operations and has troops all over the world. Leaving a force in Iraq would have been the only logical thing to do as current events show. It's debatable whether or not it could be done or simply that Obama, as per a campaign promise, didn't want it done. Fact remains, it's been a disaster and countries such as my own are now back into Iraq to fight a bigger problem.
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

CanadaJohn said:
OK, but it wasn't because the US was trying to overthrow the Shah, which was my original point.
Click to expand...

No absolutely not. The point we are both countering is that Carter was responsible for the overthrow of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, in fact in 1979 Carter was on record as supporting him as had presidents since FDR.

He was the Saddam Hussein of his day, peace, order and strong oil prices through cruelty and torture
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

MMC said:
We are dealing with more than just Jihadists.....we are dealing with former generals and colonels that have years of experience in conventional warfare. Some are from Saddam Hussein's Army and forces. Others are coming from other places. Their hackers are sophisticated enough to keep getting around others cyber security. Same with AQ and their Intel Officers coming in. Taliban from Both Pakistan and Afghanistan.


Now we have an Iranian Quds force Officer running things inside Iraq with the Shia.....and here Iran turns BO's Template into nothing more than Tic Tac Toe. While in negotiation with the Nuke talks.
Click to expand...

Some time I'll talk about a little covert war President Bush waged involving senior Al Qods force leaders that scared hell out of the regime in Tehran. Just say we know how to deal with mutts like them.
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

CanadaJohn said:
With respect to Iran, the Shah and his predecessors had been in place for decades before the Ayatollahs took over and would have remained in power with the support of the US had the US been able to convince the Shah to alter his rule - similar situation to Mubarak in Egypt.
Click to expand...

The US backed the Shah in a complete takeover of the government. In the 1950's Iran was ruled by a constitutional monarchy. The Parliament voted to nationalize the oil industry in Iran and with US and British backing the Shah staged a coup and overthrew the government and instituted a dictatorship. That was an action that fueled arab nationalism and distrust of the west. Due to economic concerns the US set the stage for a dictator that would eventually be overthrown by an extreme arab nationalist theocracy.

Is there a possibility that the Iranian revolution could of happened without US interference? That's always a possibility, but coup and takeover of the Shah as well as the view that the Shah was a puppet of the west definitely played a part in motivating the revolution.

With respect to Iraq, I'll simply say that the US left troops in South Korea and South Korea is vibrant and successful both economically and democratically. The US abandoned Vietnam and it's basically a backwater to this day. The US has left troops on site in virtually every country where it has conducted military operations and has troops all over the world. Leaving a force in Iraq would have been the only logical thing to do as current events show. It's debatable whether or not it could be done or simply that Obama, as per a campaign promise, didn't want it done. Fact remains, it's been a disaster and countries such as my own are now back into Iraq to fight a bigger problem.
Click to expand...
I want to point out that the troops left in South Korea were to protect South Korea from a foreign invasion. Those troops were not seen as occupiers and they weren't under threat by the same civilian population that they were there to protect. The Iraqi situation was a democratically elected government was calling for the removal of our troops. While the Prime Minister had the power to allow the US to extend troops involvement in the country any sort of immunity from prosecution would of required a vote in Parliament...and the votes weren't there.

I think the disaster was the initial invasion of Iraq in the first place. Hindsight is 20/20 but it was a very large undertaking and has completely changed the dynamics of the middle east in a lot of different ways.
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

Risky Thicket said:
Let that part of the world take care of itself.
Click to expand...

And a few years from now, it'll become our problem when the next major terrorist attack occurs on our soil.

You idiot Isolationists just don't get it. You can't just ignore the problem and hope it goes away. IT WON'T GO AWAY!
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

CanadaJohn said:
I don't believe President Obama is leading a conspiracy, but I do believe he's intellectually lazy and the Middle East doesn't interest him at all. Fights with Congress and his personal life interest him far more. As a result, he has no focus on what's happening in the world as a result of his laziness.
Click to expand...

If it doesn't involve golfing, he doesn't give a **** about it.
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

Montecresto said:
It appears the ongoing implication.
Click to expand...

I didn't imply that. You made an inaccurate inference based on information that did not originate from me or my posts. I don't mind if you make comments that have little to do with the information in my posts, but I would humbly ask that you refrain from quoting me when you do.
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

iliveonramen said:
The US backed the Shah in a complete takeover of the government. In the 1950's Iran was ruled by a constitutional monarchy. The Parliament voted to nationalize the oil industry in Iran and with US and British backing the Shah staged a coup and overthrew the government and instituted a dictatorship. That was an action that fueled arab nationalism and distrust of the west. Due to economic concerns the US set the stage for a dictator that would eventually be overthrown by an extreme arab nationalist theocracy.

Is there a possibility that the Iranian revolution could of happened without US interference? That's always a possibility, but coup and takeover of the Shah as well as the view that the Shah was a puppet of the west definitely played a part in motivating the revolution.


I want to point out that the troops left in South Korea were to protect South Korea from a foreign invasion. Those troops were not seen as occupiers and they weren't under threat by the same civilian population that they were there to protect. The Iraqi situation was a democratically elected government was calling for the removal of our troops. While the Prime Minister had the power to allow the US to extend troops involvement in the country any sort of immunity from prosecution would of required a vote in Parliament...and the votes weren't there.

I think the disaster was the initial invasion of Iraq in the first place. Hindsight is 20/20 but it was a very large undertaking and has completely changed the dynamics of the middle east in a lot of different ways.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with your take on the majority of your post but I did want to address your last point. In my view, the invasion of Iraq wasn't a disaster but the first couple of months, led by the US person in charge, Bremer, was a disaster. Bremer totally botched the victory. The Iraqi people did, indeed, meet the US forces as liberators and were very happy to see them. Bremer then proceeded to send the entire Iraqi military home with their arms and equipment with no jobs and nothing to do. He should have taken that military, with new leaders, and used it to secure large areas of Iraq and assist in the transition to a new democratic leadership. Instead, he created armed enemies of the new Iraqi leadership and in effect doomed the peace. 20/20 is hindsight, and if known, Bremer should never have set foot in Iraq.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom