So, apparently we're about to go to war . . .

[Just_A_Guy]

. . . again.

 

1.  Thoughts?

2.  Wasn't it just eighteen months ago that we seriously considering going to war against Syria in order to help Syrian rebels--including ISIS--against the big, bad Assad?

[Guest MormonGator]

Horrible idea. While ISIS are monsters, they don't warrant a US invasion

[Guest]

 

Can we please just clean up our own house before we pay for the maids to go clean someone else's?

[skalenfehl]

This has been the pattern for centuries. Private financiers create war and profit from it. It is far more profitable to finance kings and tyrants than private individuals/businesses. This is what our founding fathers tried to quash. 

[yjacket]

Why I don't like either party, spend like drunken sailors and fight everyone who crosses them.

[Palerider]

I am more concerned if and how many Isis camps are in our country.

[Guest]

I have no problem with the US going to war.  I have a big problem with the US going to war to keep their voters.

[carlimac]

In some past wars it wasn't really about the US and perhaps we should have stayed out of it. But American citizens butchered by these people? There is no question they are out to wreak havoc with our country. They need to be wiped out!

[MarginOfError]

In some past wars it wasn't really about the US and perhaps we should have stayed out of it. But American citizens butchered by these people? There is no question they are out to wreak havoc with our country. They need to be wiped out!

 

I actually think we should stay out of this one a bit, and that going to war would be expensive.  ISIS has done something no other similarly motivated group has managed to do.  They've ticked off not only the US and Israel, but Syria, Iran, Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.  At the rate they are going, they could very well cause all of the middle eastern countries to coalesce a union to exterminate them.  I think it would be prudent to allow the Middle East to deal with their problem on their own terms rather than go in and clean up their mess for them.

[yjacket]

In some past wars it wasn't really about the US and perhaps we should have stayed out of it. But American citizens butchered by these people? There is no question they are out to wreak havoc with our country. They need to be wiped out!

 

Well the US created ISIS, so we only have ourselves to blame. To fight a war one needs money and weapons; ISIS has lots of money and state of the art military weaponry.  If you look at pictures of ISIS fighters, they have M1-Abram tanks . . .I wonder how they got those???  We spent over 61 billion on Iraqi reconstruction projects and we know that at least 6 billion is unaccounted for.  

 

Yes they are bad dudes, but to be honest whatever US "aid" workers ('cus I can guarantee that a lot of "aid" workers aren't really "aid" workers - spooks can't make like they are the Red Cross, but they can sure act like humanitarian "aid" workers) .are over in Syria/Iraq/etc. they are taking their own lives at risk.

 

The middle-East is the US's miniature version of 1984 . . . perpetual war

[carlimac]

Well the US created ISIS, so we only have ourselves to blame. To fight a war one needs money and weapons; ISIS has lots of money and state of the art military weaponry.  If you look at pictures of ISIS fighters, they have M1-Abram tanks . . .I wonder how they got those???  We spent over 61 billion on Iraqi reconstruction projects and we know that at least 6 billion is unaccounted for.  

 

Yes they are bad dudes, but to be honest whatever US "aid" workers ('cus I can guarantee that a lot of "aid" workers aren't really "aid" workers - spooks can't make like they are the Red Cross, but they can sure act like humanitarian "aid" workers) .are over in Syria/Iraq/etc. they are taking their own lives at risk.

 

The middle-East is the US's miniature version of 1984 . . . perpetual war

 

Wow! That's the most cynical attitude I've encountered about this crisis.  So...in other words the US thought up a  plan for a coalition of radical Muslims, gave them money, guns, bombs and a bloodthirsty mentality to capture and kill, mutilate, rape, crucify, starve, behead and burn Christians alive.  And those who volunteer to help the refugees fleeing by the hundreds of thousands are not there to help but are really traitors of the US or suicidal interlopers who deserve to die. 

[yjacket]

Wow! That's the most cynical attitude I've encountered about this crisis.  So...in other words the US thought up a  plan for a coalition of radical Muslims, gave them money, guns, bombs and a bloodthirsty mentality to capture and kill, mutilate, rape, crucify, starve, behead and burn Christians alive.  And those who volunteer to help the refugees fleeing by the hundreds of thousands are not there to help but are really traitors of the US or suicidal interlopers who deserve to die. 

 

It's the truth, in the words of Jack Nicholson "You can't handle the truth!!!"

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/robcrilly/100137827/how-the-cias-fake-aid-projects-put-real-humanitarian-workers-at-risk-in-pakistan/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/9084312/US-secret-agents-used-Kashmir-earthquake-as-cover-for-al-Qaeda-intelligence-work.html

 

No, I never said they were traitors or suicidal interlopers who deserve to die . . .only that any US citizen traveling to a war-torn area that already dislikes US citizens should have no expectation of safety.  It's like some US tourists traveling into the middle of the worst places of  Mexico City, he gets killed and everyone gets up in arms about it.  If you want to do aid in those countries, you better bring your own private army . . . the US has no business protecting humanitarian aid workers.

 

Some places aren't safe to be, if you want to go there fine, but you are taking your life in your own hands. That we should go to war with another country or group b/c they have killed US citizens is quite frankly bloodlust. The US borders do not extent to everywhere there is a US citizen; US borders extend to the states, territories and Embassies. Now if they attack an embassy that is some justification.  Even when Iran took attacked the US embassy we didn't attack back.

 

The US and the middle-East has a very long sordid history going back to at least 1953.  And if you fail to understand that history, you fail to understand what is driving ISIS. The US's relationship in those countries is crap.  It is known as the big bully and "Satan" for a reason . . . and it doesn't have to do with b/c they are Christian.

 

Fox News and whatever else news station are always trying to drive up ratings and selling news of ISIS killing Christians is good for business. American news is highly filtered and biased.

 

For example, did you know that in the Ukrainian war the separatists are winning, they have major Ukrainian military units surrounded? U.K. soldiers of fortune are fighting there? Ukraine is losing and it's why the Obama is pushing to send weapons and money?

 

Rather than just take Fox News/CNBC/etc hook, line, and sinker, develop some alternate reputable news sources, expand your horizon and figure out how the rest of the world actually thinks, perceives and understand why they think the way they do.  It ain't all black and white, "U.S. #1, best in the world, the right Hand of God, anyone who opposes US is evil" crap.

 

ISIS isn't good, but the US has enabled them to do what they are doing . . . please refute my point that ISIS has US weapons and money.  

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/29/al-qaeda-makes-a-play-for-the-u-s-allies-the-war-against-isis-depends-on.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/06/spies-warned-white-house-don-t-hit-al-qaeda-in-syria.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/12/15/al-qaeda-faction-in-syria-claims-to-have-u-s-supplied-anti-tank-weapon/

 

When the US first started the proxy war in Syria to overthrow Bashad, the US funded Al-Qaeda in Syria! What do you think Bengazi was all about? It was a gun-running operation to supply weapons to terrorists who were fighting for the US at the time in Libya.  ISIS formed from parts of Al-Qaeda in Syria and Al-Qaeda in Iraq, i.e. the US directly funded ISIS. ISIS and Al-Qaeda are now enemies, but not before 2014 . . . when we were supplying them in Syria to fight against Bashad.

 

It is a tangled web that only leads to more bloodshed, more money for government military contractors, more "Nationalism", and nothing good.  The best thing the US could do is simply to stop meddling in the Middle-East!

Edited February 12, 2015 by yjacket

[carlimac]

It's the truth, in the words of Jack Nicholson "You can't handle the truth!!!"

 

 

 

Is this comment directed at me?   I certainly can handle the truth. I'm an investigator of truth in a number of arenas. I know this country has it's hands dirty in certain escapades.  I'm no fainting lily when it comes to the truth. 

 

I haven't had time to read all the blogs you cite. Dentist apt- ack! and a very crowded schedule today. I may get to it later But I still think you're way off base.  It seems naive to think that ISIS is only offended because we have meddled in their affairs. Remember we are a primarily Christian nation, still. We are infidels. And there is great reward for them (supposedly) for destroying us.  

 

The other thing that seems  backward is the notion that if we just get out of the Middle East, just leave them alone, they will leave us alone. That's a laugh!!    Haven't you heard it's better to put a fence at the top of the cliff than an ambulance down at the bottom.  We need to at least maintain our appearance of strength ( something the current POTUS has been attempting to weaken). the rest of the world looks to us for leadership. If we wuss our then it's open season on America and the rest of the Christian and even atheistic leaning nations.

 

 As for strengthening our fences at the top of the cliff, again,the current administration seems to have very little interest in strengthening our borders. There are thousands of ways the enemy can get into our country and try to destroy us from within,   I have no doubt they are attempting and making plans to do just that.   That's why we need to wipe as many of them out in on their own turf before they can get here. 

 

I could list many many organizations that are working to aid people in need in those countries...including our own LDS Charities. We've aided in some incredibly dangerous and difficult circumstances.  I just read this morning how Doctors Without Borders are there on the ground in Syria trying to help in the ERs to take care of the endless number of civilians injured in bombings. Some people believe the risk is worth it. I'm profoundly impressed by those who don't shrink back, just because the area is dangerous. If they lose their lives to terrorists, even more reason to take out that evil group. 

 

What about the military who sign up to defend our nation...who go into these wars because they are true patriots, not just bloodthirsty warmongers? 

 

And lastly, one of the most dangerous areas as far as drug wars goes is in Juarez Mexico. There are LDS chapels and a mission ( a kid from our stake is there)  and even a temple dedicated in the year 2000.  We have gone in ther, and continue to be there to this day.

 

I just think it's a foolish outlook to think that people should not go to where people are in need, to selfishly close ranks and stay out of other people's business, especially when it's fellow Christians who are suffering at the hands of radical terrorists. 

[Blackmarch]

More worried about all the nuclear saber rattling that has been popping up recently.

[Palerider]

Always makes you feel good to know that our so called allies are supposedly funding ISIS.

[Guest]

yjacket, you have an admirable philosophy... but I respectfully disagree.

 

Coming from the Philippines whose survival against militant Islam depends entirely on the US, I would hope the US wouldn't stop "meddling in other country's business".

[lagarthaaz]

Jordan are pretty angry with ISIS right now and have been bombing them to smithereens  - instead of sending in US (and Allied) ground troops - give the funding to countries like Jordan for a while.

[NeuroTypical]

The middle-East is the US's miniature version of 1984 . . . perpetual war

 

That's hardly true - it took the US well over 20 years and a full presidency churn before Thomas Jefferson invaded Benghazi. 

 

Anyway, for anyone who figures yjacket is off base but not sure why, here's a very good read:

 

Inevitability of Foreign Entanglements

Edited February 13, 2015 by NeuroTypical

[yjacket]

That's hardly true - it took the US well over 20 years and a full presidency churn before Thomas Jefferson invaded Benghazi. 

 

Anyway, for anyone who figures yjacket is off base but not sure why, here's a very good read:

 

Inevitability of Foreign Entanglements

 

If there is anyone off base it's the writer of the article.  The first causality in any war is the truth.  

 

The Barbary Wars was a lot more complex then what you present.  A pretty good book that I recommend is http://www.amazon.com/The-Pirate-Coast-Jefferson-Marines/dp/140130849X.

 

1st off, the US refused to pay tribute and 2nd off Tripoli declared war on the US . . . not the other way around. 3rd. while Jefferson initially sent Eaton off on his secret mission, Jefferson's heart certainly wasn't in it as he did not finance the operation and Eaton couldn't even get reimbursed for his expenses. Jefferson basically called the whole thing off, but due to the communications at the time and Eaton's unwillingness to quit it didn't work out that way. 4th, Tripoli had captured a US navy ship due to stupidity on the part of the ships captain. The Navy ship was sent as an escort rather than as an attacker to Tripoli.  Basically he freaked when the ship ran aground ordered the ship burned and had everyone abandon ship when there wasn't any cause for it.  Tripoli "captured" US military officers by saving them (i.e. they all would have died had Tripoli not intervened).  Tripoli simply wanted ransom . . . they were pirates wanted money not bloodshed.  When Eaton was sent, he was pretty much sent on his own, with hardly any money. Eaton got involved in the internal politics of the Middle East, ended up banding with a banished son of the former leader (IIRC).  In the end the treaty was signed with Eaton's secret war really doing almost nothing. He hated Jefferson and brooded over the whole thing the rest of his life when it was over. 

 

As for the article. . . and the point is what? I never said we shouldn't trade with the rest of the world.  Non-intervention is not isolation.  It simply means we should not go around trying to tell everyone else how to live their lives. The author of that article certainly hasn't studied history nor really cares about it, nor does he care about the principles of what non-intervention means.

 

There was absolutely 0 justification to go into Iraq, 0 justification to be in Syrian, Libya, etc.  The US is the modern day equivalent of a colonial power.

Edited February 17, 2015 by yjacket