Scrolls of Lore Forums  

Go Back   Scrolls of Lore Forums > Scrolls of Lore > Halls of Lordaeron

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #32351  
Old 03-13-2015, 10:15 AM
Ganishka Ganishka is offline

Elune
Ganishka's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 8,282
BattleTag: Ganishka #1520

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pajamasalad View Post
I don't think ISIS murders Iraqis and sells Iraqi women into sex slavery because of the United States. That is a cop out that denies them their own agency. They kill people to make them afraid of standing up to them and they sell women into sex slavery because they are horny and think women are worthless. The culture and institutions weren't there in Iraq yet to prevent that sort of thing from happening. They don't have that sense of patriotism that would compel them to defend the victims of ISIS even with their own lives.
They do all of that because their religion demands it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantus View Post
The problem began when we destabilized the region by invading Iraq in the first place. We exacerbated it by destroying large swaths of infrastructure (physical, social, and political) without a plan to fix it.

Then came Maliki. What he did was alienate internal factions and cause the rise of Daesh to become inevitable. Because of him, our troops ended up becoming no different than fascistic bulldogs to segments of the Iraqi people. This, coupled with a continuous mismanagement of PR there, meant that when people saw US troops, they saw their own death coming (by our forces or the forces who violently opposed us, letting civilians get caught in the cross-fire).

Staying in Iraq as a complete occupation force was no longer viable after Maliki essentially destroyed the Sunni/Shia peace, and Daesh's initial mad dash through Iraq is the perfect example of this. There wasn't any stability to be made because we were simple a lid barely holding the pressure cooker together. It had to come off eventually, and when it did, it would only do so violently.

Removing ourselves from that equation, letting the Iraqis see that we weren't the cause of their problems, that it wasn't "American Imperialism" they should hate, was and remains absolutely necessary to the future stability of that region. When we (Genesis, Kellick, and myself) talk about American meddling, this is exactly what we're saying. That internal tensions in these nations are already at a breaking point due to their history, and America showing up in a major military capacity provides them with an excuse to become extremists without being alienated by their followers.

I've said it before. I'll say it again. There was no right way to exit Iraq just as there isn't one for Afghanistan. There are less incorrect ways to do it however, and one of them was to remove the majority of our ground troops and let Iraq handle its own security. This isn't just because they needed to take responsibility for their nation's security, but also to cull out leaders like Maliki who were only able to remain in power because they could rely on vilification of the US as a means of distracting from their own failures.
How very deterministic of you. You act like they don't have their own personal goals or ambitions, and that they can't be antithetical to our own. The international stage is not "America acts on the poor defenseless third-worlders and they only react to our actions". The international stage is "everyone acts on everyone else for their own benefit". It is a hedron collider in the form of nations and is true all the way down to the individual basis in society. Your way of thinking is why Obama's foreign policy of constantly apologizing for the US to countries like Egypt or Iran has never worked: it assumes that all of the blame in the world is due to the US/Israel/the West, rather than everyone being equally responsible.

What, you think that because America did something, that that is the reason why there are Islamic terrorists? They sell Yazidi women and girls into sex slavery as "war booty", and forcibly convert all of the men to Islam. Last time I checked, they aren't doing that because of some political or economic tensions. The only reason they do what they do, is because they have an ideological drive to do so, not because of "them evil American Fascists" or whatever.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Baras
A blind, deaf, comatose, lobotomy patient could feel MY ANGER!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowordfun
The next time you feel like you're about to be triggered, put the barrel in your mouth.
Reply With Quote
  #32352  
Old 03-13-2015, 11:30 AM
Cantus Cantus is offline

Ethermancer - Admin
Cantus's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: DC, U.S.
Posts: 11,079
BattleTag: Cantus#1700

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pajamasalad View Post
That is wonderful and all Cantus but just because someone deviates from that line of reasoning doesn't mean they only do so because they have a fetish for the Republican party. Leon Panetta was a Democrat and he had those same concerns. I was relieved when someone like that spoke out against those policies because while it is still possible to dismiss everything that doesn't subscribe to such a narrow minded view it makes it more difficult. Leon Panetta was one of their own.

I don't think ISIS murders Iraqis and sells Iraqi women into sex slavery because of the United States. That is a cop out that denies them their own agency. They kill people to make them afraid of standing up to them and they sell women into sex slavery because they are horny and think women are worthless. The culture and institutions weren't there in Iraq yet to prevent that sort of thing from happening. They don't have that sense of patriotism that would compel them to defend the victims of ISIS even with their own lives.
You seem to have gotten the wrong narrative from my argument. Daesh was an inevitable consequence of destabilization, no matter how that destabilization occurred. Their rise to power was a product of Maliki's mismanagement. Our failure was in having no initial plan except force to reduce tempers, and thereafter the plans we did implement that were peaceful weren't adequate considering what Maliki and his faction were doing.

We either needed to spend trillions to put the country back together over the course of fifty years or we needed to get out and let the blame fall on the people who were actually causing trouble. The US couldn't do the former after the Syrian revolution started because of the chaos leaking from that nation's borders. Thus the only other option was to force the Iraqi's to clean their own house by removing the majority of US forces from the theater so that we didn't continue the common Mid East belief that we were the primary reason for their woes

We lost the propaganda war, so instead of continuing to present a face that could be targeted, we let the real problem groups show theirs. It's not a matter of who was or is right, it's a matter of not continuing to let people use us so they can do wrong and get away with it.
__________________

Rationalizing the irrational since 2005.
Reply With Quote
  #32353  
Old 03-13-2015, 01:33 PM
Genesis Genesis is offline

Guru of Gilneas
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 13,164

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pajamasalad;1276964[url
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/07/world/middleeast/ex-defense-secretary-panetta-tells-of-frustrations-with-obama.html?_r=0[/url]

Is Lean Panneta, a Democratic appointee of Obama, just a blind partisan that wants to hurt the egos of the cult of personality for Obama? Maybe some of these things are genuine concerns?
I'm sure some of these things are legitimate concerns, and conflicts of personality do happen in the Oval Office. Surprise! Now which ones are legitimate concerns? I also find some of Panetta's ideas that he claims to have supported in that article pretty bad, namely the fact that he wanted to help arm the Syrian rebels, which is an idiotic practice that has historically rarely worked out for the US. In fact, it usually comes back to bite us in the ass.

Here's one of the things that the article you linked highlights:
Quote:
Mr. Obama grew more reticent, in Mr. Panetta’s view, because his legitimacy has been challenged more than any of his predecessors by accusations like the unsubstantiated claim that he was not born in the United States.
Who do you think has been constantly challenging Obama's legitimacy instead of cooperating with him? The Tea Party and Republicans in Congress perhaps? Panetta admits that Obama's stubbornness is likely a by-product of the opposition constantly trying to delegitimize him. Do you honestly think that the Republican congressmen sending that letter to Iran undermining presidential authority would make any sitting president more or less likely to be cooperative with Congress?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pajamasalad View Post
I don't think ISIS murders Iraqis and sells Iraqi women into sex slavery because of the United States. That is a cop out that denies them their own agency. They kill people to make them afraid of standing up to them and they sell women into sex slavery because they are horny and think women are worthless. The culture and institutions weren't there in Iraq yet to prevent that sort of thing from happening. They don't have that sense of patriotism that would compel them to defend the victims of ISIS even with their own lives.
Aren't we lucky then that the Iraqi government and the Kurds are standing up against ISIL and pushing them back mostly on their own? That said, I don't think anyone is denying ISIL's agency or culpability in their own wrong-doing. History, culture, socio-politics, and economics provide the groundwork for their actions. Their own historical context informs the decision-making of their moral agency.
Reply With Quote
  #32354  
Old 03-13-2015, 01:44 PM
Dithon1 Dithon1 is offline

Needs A Hug
Dithon1's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Over the hills and far away.
Posts: 6,127

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torch View Post
(Though I do kinda get the high ammo magazines and gas masks and such in conjunction... Just, well, yeah")
In most cases "high cap" magazines are just factory standard, and often they're the cheapest option. Aluminum 30rd AR magazines go for something like $6-10, and steel 30rd AK mags go for about the same.

More reliable aftermarket mags cost more (pmags and such), but you generally get what you pay for. Surplus USGI AR mags tend to feed poorly.



As for the gas masks, well...

Some people have very specific fetishes. Also STALKER cosplays.
Reply With Quote
  #32355  
Old 03-13-2015, 02:12 PM
Genesis Genesis is offline

Guru of Gilneas
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 13,164

Default

Also, here's a guy who is critical of President Obama and Iran who nevertheless points out the real scandal of the Cotton letter, particularly as it applies to the authority of the Republican Congress.

The true scandal of the GOP senators’ letter to Iran

Quote:
The document was crafted by a senator with two months of experience under his belt. It was signed by some members rushing off the Senate floor to catch airplanes, often with little close analysis. Many of the 47 signatories reasoned that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s endorsement was vetting enough. There was no caucus-wide debate about strategy; no consultation with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who has studiously followed the nuclear talks (and who refused to sign).
Quote:
In this particular situation, paradoxically, the main result is not a weakened presidency but a weakened legislature. Corker has been toiling with the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Robert Menendez (N.J.), to craft legislation that would require Senate approval of an Iran deal. Before the Cotton letter, Corker was two votes away from a veto-proof, bipartisan majority. Now Obama and Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are using the letter to argue that Republicans are engaged only in partisan games. Peeling even a few Democrats off the Corker/Menendez approach could prove decisive. If the Corker bill fails narrowly, Obama might have Cotton’s missive to thank.
Quote:
The Cotton letter creates the impression that Senate Republicans are rooting for negotiations to fail — which would complicate our attempt to maintain strong sanctions if negotiations end up failing.
Reply With Quote
  #32356  
Old 03-13-2015, 04:51 PM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
I'm sure some of these things are legitimate concerns, and conflicts of personality do happen in the Oval Office. Surprise! Now which ones are legitimate concerns? I also find some of Panetta's ideas that he claims to have supported in that article pretty bad, namely the fact that he wanted to help arm the Syrian rebels, which is an idiotic practice that has historically rarely worked out for the US. In fact, it usually comes back to bite us in the ass.
Just because you don't personally agree with them doesn't mean that he is doing just because he is a blind partisan. He believes in what he says. They are genuine concerns as a prior Democratic congressmen and Obama appointee. Someone that is actually in a position to be informed. He wasn't the only one high up in the DoD to speak out against Obama. I am really not sure if there is anything that could possible change your mind and that is part of the problem in my opinion. I just feel like your perspective would be different if you had a different vantage point but beyond that your faith is unshakable. If someone disagrees with you and doesn't think they can persuade you what do you think they should do?
Quote:
Here's one of the things that the article you linked highlights:
Who do you think has been constantly challenging Obama's legitimacy instead of cooperating with him? The Tea Party and Republicans in Congress perhaps? Panetta admits that Obama's stubbornness is likely a by-product of the opposition constantly trying to delegitimize him. Do you honestly think that the Republican congressmen sending that letter to Iran undermining presidential authority would make any sitting president more or less likely to be cooperative with Congress?
What exactly is the point of congress if they don't try to get compromises and concessions from the executive branch? Congress has been very impotent at being a check against Obama. Judges have had more success at stopping him from doing things. If someone doesn't agree with Obama should they just accept the fact that he knows best and not use the democratic system to challenge him?
Quote:
Aren't we lucky then that the Iraqi government and the Kurds are standing up against ISIL and pushing them back mostly on their own? That said, I don't think anyone is denying ISIL's agency or culpability in their own wrong-doing. History, culture, socio-politics, and economics provide the groundwork for their actions. Their own historical context informs the decision-making of their moral agency.
I don't think so Genesis. I think we are going to have to go back to Iraq. There are already boots on the ground. Obama may push it off until his term is over but the next president could be forced to send troops there after ISIS has become more powerful and entrenched.
Reply With Quote
  #32357  
Old 03-13-2015, 05:15 PM
Genesis Genesis is offline

Guru of Gilneas
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 13,164

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pajamasalad View Post
Just because you don't personally agree with them doesn't mean that he is doing just because he is a blind partisan. He believes in what he says. They are genuine concerns as a prior Democratic congressmen and Obama appointee. Someone that is actually in a position to be informed. He wasn't the only one high up in the DoD to speak out against Obama. I am really not sure if there is anything that could possible change your mind and that is part of the problem in my opinion. I just feel like your perspective would be different if you had a different vantage point but beyond that your faith is unshakable. If someone disagrees with you and doesn't think they can persuade you what do you think they should do?
Find where I either state, imply, or infer that he is a blind partisan or that he does not believe in what he says, and I'll send you $50 in the mail. Take your time, but I feel secure that I will not be $50 poorer as a result of this wager. Hopefully when you get back to me about all this, you'll finally understand why I accuse you of being a miserable reader who is too quick to jump the gun with unsubstantial accusations about my arguments and puts words into my mouth.

Quote:
What exactly is the point of congress if they don't try to get compromises and concessions from the executive branch? Congress has been very impotent at being a check against Obama. Judges have had more success at stopping him from doing things. If someone doesn't agree with Obama should they just accept the fact that he knows best and not use the democratic system to challenge him?
It's one thing to disagree with President Obama, but hostility and constantly trying to undermine the authority he does have certainly doesn't help. The Republican Congress has been trying to shut him down lock and step at every turn. You can't lay fault at President Obama's feet alone without looking at how the Republicans have so frequently attempted to thwart everything he has done from the outset.

Quote:
I don't think so Genesis. I think we are going to have to go back to Iraq. There are already boots on the ground. Obama may push it off until his term is over but the next president could be forced to send troops there after ISIS has become more powerful and entrenched.
I doubt it. The American public does not want to go back. We have neither the will nor the interest. It would be political suicide, especially for either a presidential candidate or a first term president, including among Republicans. As I said, right now the Iraqi government, the Kurds, and even Iran are pushing ISIL back. Will they become more entrenched? Maybe.
Reply With Quote
  #32358  
Old 03-13-2015, 05:27 PM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
Find where I either state, imply, or infer that he is a blind partisan or that he does not believe in what he says, and I'll send you $50 in the mail. Take your time, but I feel secure that I will not be $50 poorer as a result of this wager. Hopefully when you get back to me about all this, you'll finally understand why I accuse you of being a miserable reader who is too quick to jump the gun with unsubstantial accusations about my arguments and puts words into my mouth.
You didn't but Cantus and Shaman said people that think faulting Obama for not keeping troops in Iraq were just trying to score political points against the president. My first post was in response to them and then you responded to it. It was a collective 'you.' As in anyone that disagrees with a certain policy that Obama endorses isn't doing it just because Obama is doing it. They aren't doing it just because they have a Republican fetish. They match their policy to the politician not the other way around. I am sorry if that offended you.
Quote:
It's one thing to disagree with President Obama, but hostility and constantly trying to undermine the authority he does have certainly doesn't help. The Republican Congress has been trying to shut him down lock and step at every turn. You can't lay fault at President Obama's feet alone without looking at how the Republicans have so frequently attempted to thwart everything he has done from the outset.
They didn't control congress from the outset. Obama's policies caused a backlash at the polls and he lost control of the house in 2010. If the PPACA had passed with even as much Republican votes as the Iraq war received Democrat ones than it chances of survival would of been higher. If Obama had governed differently he wouldn't have lost control of the house or so many state legislatures in 2010. The Democrats were able to win 6 seats in 2006 but the Republicans won 9 in 2014. A president can not govern the way Obama does and maintain control of congress.
Quote:
I doubt it. The American public does not want to go back. We have neither the will nor the interest. It would be political suicide, especially for either a presidential candidate or a first term president, including among Republicans. As I said, right now the Iraqi government, the Kurds, and even Iran are pushing ISIL back. Will they become more entrenched? Maybe.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/m...olls/24276663/

I don't think we are winning as well as we need to be.


Apparently only one more vote is needed to override an Obama veto over Iran.
Reply With Quote
  #32359  
Old 03-13-2015, 05:34 PM
Ragnahar Ragnahar is offline

Poor Soldier
Ragnahar's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 12,430
BattleTag: Mathias#1221

Default

The gains in Iraq against ISIS really aren't all that spectacular, really, when you look at the influence they are gaining.
__________________
Game over, man. Game over.
Reply With Quote
  #32360  
Old 03-13-2015, 05:43 PM
Genesis Genesis is offline

Guru of Gilneas
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 13,164

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pajamasalad View Post
They didn't control congress from the outset. Obama's policies caused a backlash at the polls and he lost control of the house in 2010. If the PPACA had passed with even as much Republican votes as the Iraq war received Democrat ones than it chances of survival would of been higher. If Obama had governed differently he wouldn't have lost control of the house or so many state legislatures in 2010. The Democrats were able to win 6 seats in 2006 but the Republicans won 9 in 2014. A president can not govern the way Obama does and maintain control of congress.
Democrats won 6 seats under Bush when his popularity was waning? And Republicans won 9 seats under Obama when his popularity was waning in 2014? Shocker! You say that it has to do with the popularity of his policies? Ha! I say that it happens to deal a lot with national political trends that coincide with presidencies. I have been jaded about these sorts of things for years now, ever since my introductory poli sci course that was all about public opinion, polls, political trends, etc. I could have told you that the Republicans would have won seats during Obama's second midterm election back in 2008. No joke.

So the potential has all of the Republicans on board, and you're honestly telling me this isn't a partisan power play?
Reply With Quote
  #32361  
Old 03-13-2015, 05:49 PM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
Democrats won 6 seats under Bush when his popularity was waning? And Republicans won 9 seats under Obama when his popularity was waning in 2014? Shocker! You say that it has to do with the popularity of his policies? Ha! I say that it happens to deal a lot with national political trends that coincide with presidencies. I have been jaded about these sorts of things for years now, ever since my introductory poli sci course that was all about public opinion, polls, political trends, etc. I could have told you that the Republicans would have won seats during Obama's second midterm election back in 2008. No joke.
9 is a bigger number than 6 so the Democrats will have to change more in order to win those votes back. The parties themselves have to evolve to keep winning elections. I am sure there are many Republicans who want the Supreme Court to strike down one-man/one-woman marriage laws so they can not feel like they betrayed evangelicals and still have a better shot at millennial voters. A bigger loss hopefully means more reflection and more changes for the better.
Quote:
So the potential has all of the Republicans on board, and you're honestly telling me this isn't a partisan power play?
I think they don't like Iran and want to weaken it. They believe a weaker Iran will stop them from hurt American interests in the middle east and killing NATO troops. There are several Democrats on board too. The leading Democrat is even under an investigation by Obama's DoJ for some reason coincidentally.
Reply With Quote
  #32362  
Old 03-13-2015, 06:07 PM
HlaaluStyle HlaaluStyle is offline

Elune
HlaaluStyle's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Tradegate, the Outlands
Posts: 12,465
BattleTag: DAllicant#1203

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragnahar View Post
The gains in Iraq against ISIS really aren't all that spectacular, really, when you look at the influence they are gaining.
Da'esh's staying power is worrisome. The primary problem isn't that they're tough, so much as that it's difficult to reach and control the territory they currently occupy.

Kurds: The Peshmerga want to protect Kurdish interests. They don't have much interest in trying to control an area full of potentially hostile Arabs. Likewise, they have no legal jurisdiction in Syria.

Iraq/Iran: Their armed forces have a lot of problems, and include some pretty fanatical Shi'ite militias. Still better than Da'esh. In a certain sense, they're the best choice for driving Da'esh out of Iraq. However, the Iraqi government needs to adopt a conciliatory tone toward the Sunni; otherwise, something like Da'esh will happen again.

They still can't do much about Da'esh in Syria without launching an invasion, which Iraq is in no shape to do. Iran will probably drop its support of any such invasion (and potentially block it entirely), since Damascus currently benefits from Da'esh.

Assad: Assad benefits from Da'esh at the moment. Eventually, he might be forced to turn against them, but he might be content to use them as a buffer against the Free Syrian Army.

Free Syrian Army: Not really in much shape to do anything about Da'esh.

Jordan: Much like the Kurds, Jordan has no real interest in trying to occupy Eastern Syria/Western Iraq. Any large force they send will be interpreted as an invasion by Damascus or Baghdad.

Turkey: Isn't going to get involved, because it'd rather have Da'esh as a buffer against Iran/Kurdistan. Some in Turkey also benefit from buying Da'esh oil.

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States: See Jordan.

The US: The US has the ability to project force and remove Da'esh from Western Iraq. However, this will burden the US with the task of reconstruction and occupation. This will take decades if not longer. It may also legitimize Da'esh in certain quarters. Assad and Iran may run interference. As long as they have a haven in Syria, Da'esh will be able to use that as a place to hide and a location from which to gather support, much like the Taliban did with Pakistan. This could lead to a gradual hemorrhaging of resources and personnel.

While I don't necessarily oppose increased US involvement, the US can't kid itself into thinking it'll be quick or easy. I tend to agree with Ragnahar in that it was a bad idea to go into Iraq back in '03, and a bad idea to leave when we did. Da'esh would have arisen in Syria regardless, but the US may have been able to prevent its spread into Western Iraq.

I support the US assisting the Peshmerga and the Iraqi army as best it can. However, they can't do much about Da'esh in Syria. Iraq will need to strengthen its control of the country's Western regions, and gain the support of its population to get any kind of meaningful foothold. This might at least limit Da'esh's scope.

I somewhat regret the clinical sound of this post. Da'esh is a horrible organization that's built on one atrocity after another. Their monstrousness cannot be overstated. In a better world, every single country would happily unite in their destruction. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world.

EDIT: Regarding Boko Haram, my understanding is that one of the problems lies in the fact that Nigeria is refusing any kind of assistance, and isn't coordinating well with neighboring governments.

Boko Haram is another example of a relatively weak army punching well above its weight due to disorganization and corruption in local governments.

Going back to the Middle East, states in that region have often been relatively weak. This makes it easy for organizations like Da'esh and Al Qaeda to arise.
__________________
See WoW in a way you've never imagined it.

"He came to Ahn'qiraj for the strife... instead, he found a wife! She's my qiraji love-bride, next on Sick Sad World of Warcraft!"

Last edited by HlaaluStyle; 03-13-2015 at 06:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #32363  
Old 03-13-2015, 06:38 PM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Killing Osama Bin Laden was important but he was just one man. Being able to keep an eye on and respond to these kind of groups like ISIS in the region is important to stop them from getting their hands on weapons or forming plots that can hurt a lot of people. Helping maintain stable governments that are friendly to the west does a lot to help too. The Iraq and Afghanistan government actually work with us now to fight terrorists. Helping these people isn't just humanitarian but it helps protect our interests too.
Reply With Quote
  #32364  
Old 03-13-2015, 06:56 PM
Taintedmage Taintedmage is offline

Eternal
Taintedmage's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,790

Default

I think I've said it before but it begs to be repeated.'
Sure going into Iraq to protect your interests in the region is a sound idea...
but you don't really have the finances for it.

You can talk about it all you want but America right now is still bleeding money from what I've seen.

Right now, The UK has a budget surplus while Canada is mainly being mired from the revenues due to the oil prices (almost at a surplus).

When America has learned to effectively balance projecting power with keeping its financed in order, then you can do that but until then...
Going to have to wait a tad I think.
Reply With Quote
  #32365  
Old 03-13-2015, 07:00 PM
Cantus Cantus is offline

Ethermancer - Admin
Cantus's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: DC, U.S.
Posts: 11,079
BattleTag: Cantus#1700

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pajamasalad View Post
Killing Osama Bin Laden was important but he was just one man. Being able to keep an eye on and respond to these kind of groups like ISIS in the region is important to stop them from getting their hands on weapons or forming plots that can hurt a lot of people. Helping maintain stable governments that are friendly to the west does a lot to help too. The Iraq and Afghanistan government actually work with us now to fight terrorists. Helping these people isn't just humanitarian but it helps protect our interests too.
Our current help in both Iraq and Afghanistan is exactly the kind of help we need to give, which is training, strategy, and access to America's most important asset, massive reconnaissance and logistics resources. Putting US troops on the ground undermines narrative that Iraq is protecting and stabilizing itself.

Now when I say troops on the ground, I mean full on combat brigades. I'm all for special forces teams to enter, assist, and actively engage Da'esh, but that's because they're not acting as the primary face of resistance, but a partner in it. Without that sense of American partnership instead of dominance, Da'esh will obtain more recruits who fall prey to their propaganda.

We don't need to wage full-scale invasions in order to affect the world.
__________________

Rationalizing the irrational since 2005.
Reply With Quote
  #32366  
Old 03-13-2015, 07:09 PM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantus View Post
Our current help in both Iraq and Afghanistan is exactly the kind of help we need to give, which is training, strategy, and access to America's most important asset, massive reconnaissance and logistics resources. Putting US troops on the ground undermines narrative that Iraq is protecting and stabilizing itself.

Now when I say troops on the ground, I mean full on combat brigades. I'm all for special forces teams to enter, assist, and actively engage Da'esh, but that's because they're not acting as the primary face of resistance, but a partner in it. Without that sense of American partnership instead of dominance, Da'esh will obtain more recruits who fall prey to their propaganda.

We don't need to wage full-scale invasions in order to affect the world.
Who is asking for a full-scale invasion. :/ I want ISIS to stop killing people and don't want them to simply bid their time to become a bigger threat up until Obama leaves office. We should have extended the status of force agreement and not sat on our hands as long as we did when ISIS started to undo so many gains we have made in the past. There is a residual force in a lot of nations in the world. The troops in South Korea aren't constantly in combat but they serve a valuable purpose.
Reply With Quote
  #32367  
Old 03-13-2015, 07:27 PM
Cantus Cantus is offline

Ethermancer - Admin
Cantus's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: DC, U.S.
Posts: 11,079
BattleTag: Cantus#1700

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pajamasalad View Post
Who is asking for a full-scale invasion. :/ I want ISIS to stop killing people and don't want them to simply bid their time to become a bigger threat up until Obama leaves office. We should have extended the status of force agreement and not sat on our hands as long as we did when ISIS started to undo so many gains we have made in the past. There is a residual force in a lot of nations in the world. The troops in South Korea aren't constantly in combat but they serve a valuable purpose.
So do I, but every modern war we've fought that involves fighting an enemy with home-turf advantage, high level propaganda, and the ability to run into territory we can't follow has proven that we cannot operate there in a traditional way.

Again, special forces are better here. They're trained to better work with allies on the ground, they can operate without presenting as many obvious targets to Da'esh, and they can utilize tactics that would otherwise be nixed due to international obligations. To go back to Bin Laden, that only occurred because we violated Pakistan's sovereign airspace. If the stealth helicopter hadn't crashed, we may have even been able to say "we killed him" without notifying Pakistan that were ever even there.

When talking about fighting Da'esh where they think they're safe (e.g. Syria) and where we can prove that it's Iraq and America together stopping killings (e.g. showcasing an American-Iraqi alliance as opposed to a puppet Iraq under American authority), it will create a better long-term peace there than if we resort to old tactics.
__________________

Rationalizing the irrational since 2005.
Reply With Quote
  #32368  
Old 03-13-2015, 08:39 PM
Shaman Shaman is offline

Site Staff - Admin
Shaman's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The Barrens
Posts: 12,442

Default

Pajamasald you know it was President Bush who signed the Status of Forces Agreement agreement in 2008 (i.e. withdrawal), right? And it was President Obama who ordered the international intervention in Iraq in 2014. I honestly don't know what you're criticizing here.

And in related good news: Iraqi forces 'hope to take Tikrit from IS in a week'

Last edited by Shaman; 03-13-2015 at 08:44 PM.. Reason: link
Reply With Quote
  #32369  
Old 03-14-2015, 06:58 AM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaman View Post
Pajamasald you know it was President Bush who signed the Status of Forces Agreement agreement in 2008 (i.e. withdrawal), right? And it was President Obama who ordered the international intervention in Iraq in 2014. I honestly don't know what you're criticizing here.
The Status of Force agreement end date didn't have to be final and I didn't expect Bush to establish one that lasts forever. It could of been extended and negotiated. That is why the generals on the ground had a different and slower withdrawal strategy than Obama did. Romney argued for it in the primaries and Panetta criticized Obama for not pursuing it in his memoir. There were people on the ground that did want to make a deal in order to continue troop presence. Obama didn't try hard enough to extend it because it was one of his major campaign promises. Bush couldn't extend it anymore because he wasn't president anymore.

There are status of force agreements with a lot of nations that have American troops and sometimes they have to be renewed and renegotiated. Even as recently as 2011 does the SoFA for South Korea say American troops can be trialed in a Korean court. When people like Panetta criticize Obama over the Iraq withdrawal it isn't simply because they didn't know Bush signed the initial one. They believe that Obama didn't give an honest effort in getting a Status of Force agreement that lasted longer. You don't think Panetta simply doesn't know that Bush signed the initial one right?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/leon-pan...aq-withdrawal/

http://archive.militarytimes.com/int...ts-ground-Iraq

Last edited by PajamaSalad; 03-14-2015 at 07:06 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #32370  
Old 03-14-2015, 08:13 AM
Yaskaleh Yaskaleh is offline

Eternal Watcher
Yaskaleh's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The heart of Scania
Posts: 18,625
BattleTag: Yaskaleh#1817

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HlaaluStyle View Post
Assad: Assad benefits from Da'esh at the moment. Eventually, he might be forced to turn against them, but he might be content to use them as a buffer against the Free Syrian Army.

Free Syrian Army: Not really in much shape to do anything about Da'esh.
The so called Free Syrian Army hasn't been around as a real thing for more than a year, their fighters having been absorbed by the Islamic Front, Al-Nusra etc. There's still some who calls themselves that but they'se several separate groups among a hundred or so rebel forces, few of them being firendly towards each others. They're almost as likely to fight each other as to attack Syria.
The Islamic Front and al-Nusra have joined forces and are busy absorbing various small rebel groups north of Hama and around Idlib. They're just barly better than IS but still a bunch of the worst humanity can produce. Which is one of the main reasons why Syria focuses on wrestling control of the southern border, so that they can better face IS and Al-nusra. If they gain control of Daraa and the border crossings and pacifies the region then the terrorist forces that comes from Jordan etc will be unable to just walk in.
__________________

Say no to genocide!
Save the Nightborne!
Reply With Quote
  #32371  
Old 03-14-2015, 08:20 AM
Shaman Shaman is offline

Site Staff - Admin
Shaman's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The Barrens
Posts: 12,442

Slow

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pajamasalad View Post
The Status of Force agreement end date didn't have to be final and I didn't expect Bush to establish one that lasts forever. It could of been extended and negotiated. That is why the generals on the ground had a different and slower withdrawal strategy than Obama did. Romney argued for it in the primaries and Panetta criticized Obama for not pursuing it in his memoir. There were people on the ground that did want to make a deal in order to continue troop presence. Obama didn't try hard enough to extend it because it was one of his major campaign promises. Bush couldn't extend it anymore because he wasn't president anymore.

There are status of force agreements with a lot of nations that have American troops and sometimes they have to be renewed and renegotiated. Even as recently as 2011 does the SoFA for South Korea say American troops can be trialed in a Korean court. When people like Panetta criticize Obama over the Iraq withdrawal it isn't simply because they didn't know Bush signed the initial one. They believe that Obama didn't give an honest effort in getting a Status of Force agreement that lasted longer. You don't think Panetta simply doesn't know that Bush signed the initial one right?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/leon-pan...aq-withdrawal/

http://archive.militarytimes.com/int...ts-ground-Iraq
You can't occupy Iraq if Iraqis don't want you there. Sorry.
Reply With Quote
  #32372  
Old 03-14-2015, 08:25 AM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaman View Post
You can't occupy Iraq if Iraqis don't want you there. Sorry.
You don't listen very well. There were Iraqis that wanted the US to stay. A SoFA could of been established that was palatable to the Iraqis. It wasn't pursued aggressively enough because it would have broken Obama's campaign promise. That was the opinion of Leon Panetta who wasn't a Republican trying to score political partisan points. He was a prior Democratic representative and Obama appointee. Having appointees break ranks is a feature and not a bug of the executive's power to make them.
Reply With Quote
  #32373  
Old 03-14-2015, 08:44 AM
Shaman Shaman is offline

Site Staff - Admin
Shaman's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The Barrens
Posts: 12,442

Footman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pajamasalad View Post
You don't listen very well. There were Iraqis that wanted the US to stay. A SoFA could of been established that was palatable to the Iraqis. It wasn't pursued aggressively enough because it would have broken Obama's campaign promise. That was the opinion of Leon Panetta who wasn't a Republican trying to score political partisan points. He was a prior Democratic representative and Obama appointee. Having appointees break ranks is a feature and not a bug of the executive's power to make them.
Then I'll write it a third time because apparently I'm not only deaf but I also can't even write:


You don't get to occupy Iraq if Iraqis don't want you there.


You wanted President Obama to break an agreement to end a war by a previous President that already been agreed, against the wishes of the people and government that actually live in Iraq (and the soldiers who fought there if that's even important.) I'm sorry, a free and independent Iraq with self-determination is what was fought for and these are the kinds of decisions free people make.

Last edited by Shaman; 03-14-2015 at 08:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #32374  
Old 03-14-2015, 09:01 AM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaman View Post
Then I'll write it a third time because apparently I'm not only deaf but I also can't even write:


You don't get to occupy Iraq if Iraqis don't want you there.


You wanted President Obama to break an agreement to end a war by a previous President that already been agreed, against the wishes of the people and government that actually live in Iraq (and the soldiers who fought there if that's even important.) I'm sorry, a free and independent Iraq with self-determination is what was fought for and these are the kinds of decisions free people make.
There were Iraqis that wanted to extend the SoFA agreement. Extending the SoFA agreement is not the same thing as breaking it. I don't know why you don't think that is a point of contention and just seem to ignore the Iraqis that wanted a residual troop presence. There are many Iraqis with many different opinions even just among the government. The idea that they all wanted them to leave is just inaccurate. A SoFA could have been approved by the Iraqi government if more effort was put into the negotiations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/wo...-to-leave.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-rid-war.html
Reply With Quote
  #32375  
Old 03-14-2015, 09:05 AM
Ragnahar Ragnahar is offline

Poor Soldier
Ragnahar's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 12,430
BattleTag: Mathias#1221

Default

It is a very idealistic world some of us choose to live in.
__________________
Game over, man. Game over.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
politics, serious business, sylvanas for president

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.