Could the Middle East be the 1914 Balkans of the 21st Century

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Not nuclear of course but we do have reduced capabilites to prevent war. Our prestige has leaked away as has our resolve. We are neither feared nor respected in many parts of the world.

No, but most of the world considers the US the greatest threat to world peace...

Maybe we just need to blow them up too!

Then we'll get the respect and fear you believe we deserve as the world's cop.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by bojulay

News reports say that al qaeda is gaining more control in Iraq every day.

Our decision to go into Iraq will probably end up going down as the biggest
blunder in modern history. Maybe as much of one as our underestimating
Hitler before WWII

What do you suppose is going to happen in Afghanistan after we leave?

[BJerk]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Good. We do not need to "prevent war" around the world. That is an impossible task anyway. Let the rag heads slaughter each other.

We only need to protect our own limited interests. We have more than enough military to do that. Stop spending so much on the DoD.


No. We are simply smarter about what we can and cannot do. You cannot use the military to civilize religious savages. So, stop wasting money trying.


That has always been true and always will be true - both for us and every other world power. So why do you think now is any different?

Smart post, though calling them names is inappropriate and racist.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

We should have invade Mexico you dumb fuck. They were about as responsible as Iraq. Plus Cancun is much nicer than Bagdad.

I wasn't asking you, limpdick. Your expertise in foreign policy is limited to having breakfast at the International House of Pancakes.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Bert Jones

...calling them names is inappropriate and racist.

Right, we mustn't call them ragheads, that's politically incorrect.

Let the cockroaches slaughter each other.

FTFA.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

What do you suppose is going to happen in Afghanistan after we leave?

It's up to Karzai. If he stops jacking us off and signs a status of forces agreement, we can keep the taliban at bay. Otherwise all bets are off.

[JD Barleycorn]

Can we keep the Taliban at bay? Imagine the occupation of Germany after World War II with 700 Americans being killed every year. How long would that have lasted? We are losing Iraq, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, and we lost Iran under Jimmy Carter. The Pakistani have ties to North Korea, Iran has ties to Russia as does Syria. Your other comments demonstrate that you do not understand how fundemental Islam works. They don't care about their country or people that way that you think. They care more about that pesky 13th Iman more. If they can bring about the descent of the Iman at the cost of their people they will do it. Now that everyone has had a chance to comment I will bring you the source;

Professor Margaret MacMillan of Cambridge is the source. That's right a recognized, big time historian who has more knowledge in her vulva that most of you have in your heads. So maybe you won't take my word for it but try her on for size.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...n-9039184.html

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

What do you suppose is going to happen in Afghanistan after we leave?

Same kind of thing probably, the radical elements in Islam are just too strong
and gain more strength everyday throughout the middle east.

America and/or the UN will never be able to control or change it unless we remained
ever present in the situation, so much so as to be the controlling force, and
we are not willing to do that.

They see it as the greatest honor to die for their cause, how do you ever defeat
a enemy with such a mentality.

I am afraid all our involvement in the middle east has served to do is further strengthen
all the radical elements. Things would probably be a lot better off if Russia had taken
Afghanistan back in the 80s and Saddam was still running Iraq.

We may find out that the middle east dictators were the best case scenario.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by bojulay

Same kind of thing probably, the radical elements in Islam are just too strong
and gain more strength everyday throughout the middle east.

America and/or the UN will never be able to control or change it unless we remained
ever present in the situation, so much so as to be the controlling force, and
we are not willing to do that.

They see it as the greatest honor to die for their cause, how do you ever defeat
a enemy with such a mentality.

I am afraid all our involvement in the middle east has served to do is further strengthen
all the radical elements. Things would probably be a lot better off if Russia had taken
Afghanistan back in the 80s and Saddam was still running Iraq.

We may find out that the middle east dictators were the best case scenario.

+1 on that.

The entire scenario of war changes when you are faced with an enemy that is willing, no make that wants to die for his cause.

We faced the same problem with the Kamikazi pilots of WW-2. They caused considerable damage and loss of American Lives because they changed the entire equation of combat.

Think about the typical terrorist soldier. He has a Imam telling him that he will enter his version of Heaven as a martyred hero if he is willing to take as many infidels with him as he can. The only answer we can have for that type of mentality is to kill them before they can get close enough to carry out the deed.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

I wasn't asking you, limpdick. Your expertise in foreign policy is limited to having breakfast at the International House of Pancakes.

Was going to war with Iraq the correct thing to do? I sure the fuck did not think so. My guess is you did.

[JD Barleycorn]

It's worse. Did anyone see the story about the eight year old Afghan girl who was discoverd with a suicide vest? Her brother, a Taliban commander, put it on her and sent her out to die. What do they do with her? If you were a 20 year old soldier from Kansas and she was approaching, what would you do?

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/socie...-year-old-girl

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Can we keep the Taliban at bay? ... Your other comments demonstrate that you do not understand how fundemental Islam works. They don't care about their country or people that way that you think. They care more about that pesky 13th Iman more. If they can bring about the descent of the Iman at the cost of their people they will do it.

The Taliban are Sunni. Only the Shia believe in the 13th Imam.

[JD Barleycorn]

Maybe that was confusing. I was talking more about the theocracy of Iran than I was the Taliban in Afghanistan at that point. Iran will likely get the nukes and be able to exchange millions of lives for their religious beliefs.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

It's worse. Did anyone see the story about the eight year old Afghan girl who was discoverd with a suicide vest? Her brother, a Taliban commander, put it on her and sent her out to die. What do they do with her? If you were a 20 year old soldier from Kansas and she was approaching, what would you do?

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/socie...-year-old-girl

We all know what you would do...click your Ruby Reds together and run back to Kansas.

JD is wtf is wrong with this country. He supports a war when it is led by one party and talks shit when it is led by another party.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

The entire scenario of war changes when you are faced with an enemy that is willing, no make that wants to die for his cause.

We faced the same problem with the Kamikazi pilots of WW-2. They caused considerable damage and loss of American Lives because they changed the entire equation of combat.

You greatly exaggerate. Kamikaze pilots did not "cause considerable damage" in WWII. Their impact was more psychological than tangible. The US Navy quickly adjusted its tactics to shoot most of them down before they could crash into our ships.

US soldiers are professionally trained to kill the enemy, not themselves. They believe in giving the enemy every possible opportunity to die for his cause or his country. If an enemy is reckless or desperate or ideological and wants to die, that often just makes it easier. I'm glad our soldiers prefer to stay alive. That allows us to kill more of them. Who would you rather have fighting for you?