Iraq and ISIS Discussion

[Marauder06]

I should have added to that statement, "...especially if you're not willing to go "do something" yourself."

Many of my friends are up in arms about Aleppo, wondering why "we" aren't doing something. Well, I'm not eager to go out and start "doing something" because I've already seen how that movie ends. If you feel so strongly about it, I'm happy to refer you to a good Army recruiter or a mercenary outfit, or if pewpewpew isn't your thing, there are dozens of NGOs on the ground doing good work in the region. And in the meantime, maybe you find a way to motivate all those MAM refugees living fat and happy in Europe to go back and fight for their country. Because I'm no longer in that business.

 

[benroliver]

I should have added to that statement, "...especially if you're not willing to go "do something" yourself."

Many of my friends are up in arms about Aleppo, wondering why "we" aren't doing something. Well, I'm not eager to go out and start "doing something" because I've already seen how that movie ends. If you feel so strongly about it, I'm happy to refer you to a good Army recruiter or a mercenary outfit, or if pewpewpew isn't your thing, there are dozens of NGOs on the ground doing good work in the region. And in the meantime, maybe you find a way to motivate all those MAM refugees living fat and happy in Europe to go back and fight for their country. Because I'm no longer in that business.

Seems like damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[Etype]

...find a way to motivate all those MAM refugees living fat and happy in Europe to go back and fight for their country...

Marauder06 2020- vote early, vote often.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

I should have added to that statement, "...especially if you're not willing to go "do something" yourself."

Many of my friends are up in arms about Aleppo, wondering why "we" aren't doing something. Well, I'm not eager to go out and start "doing something" because I've already seen how that movie ends. If you feel so strongly about it, I'm happy to refer you to a good Army recruiter or a mercenary outfit, or if pewpewpew isn't your thing, there are dozens of NGOs on the ground doing good work in the region. And in the meantime, maybe you find a way to motivate all those MAM refugees living fat and happy in Europe to go back and fight for their country. Because I'm no longer in that business.

I've posted a few times in the past that I think our strategy should be, PID terrorism networks, hit them hard where they may be found and get the fuck out (Counterterrorism, etc). Although I know that is not always practical throughout the world, where possible I prefer the concept over committing ground forces for occupation style world police operations. Obviously this would exclude much of the SOF missions with regards to FID and UW.

I firmly believe conventional forces (with regards to Army ground forces) should be reserved for conventional warfare the like of Desert Shield/Storm and quick operations the likes of Urgent Fury and Just Cause. Let the Marines do their thing with regards to expeditionary missions, let SOF do their mission's and leave the large scale forces for the "we are going to come smash your shit" mission.

In other words, use the right tool for the right job, and with agreement to both your statements, stay out of other nations problems, whenever and wherever possible. Especially the likes of Syria and Iraq.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Punitive style expeditions have their purpose, we seem to have forgotten that.

I should have added to that statement, "...especially if you're not willing to go "do something" yourself."

Many of my friends are up in arms about Aleppo, wondering why "we" aren't doing something. Well, I'm not eager to go out and start "doing something" because I've already seen how that movie ends. If you feel so strongly about it, I'm happy to refer you to a good Army recruiter or a mercenary outfit, or if pewpewpew isn't your thing, there are dozens of NGOs on the ground doing good work in the region. And in the meantime, maybe you find a way to motivate all those MAM refugees living fat and happy in Europe to go back and fight for their country. Because I'm no longer in that business.

Because we shouldn't have been mucking around there in the first place. War is hell, fighting in Syria just to fight is the dumbest of things I've heard. Syria may not be a friend, but Assad ain't trying to hit us anywhere.

 

[CDG]

I don't disagree with an isolationist strategy when it comes to foreign affairs. I don't believe we have a responsibility to fight other countries' battles for them, or to be a world police force. That being said, there is always a pull from seeing atrocities committed that makes you want to "do something". I am still working out exactly what my opinion is on this article, but I found it to be a good read,

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...immelman-images-of-aleppo.html?ref=world&_r=0

 

[ThunderHorse]

I don't disagree with an isolationist strategy when it comes to foreign affairs. I don't believe we have a responsibility to fight other countries' battles for them, or to be a world police force. That being said, there is always a pull from seeing atrocities committed that makes you want to "do something". I am still working out exactly what my opinion is on this article, but I found it to be a good read,

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...immelman-images-of-aleppo.html?ref=world&_r=0

It's a pretty good read. I don't think we should be isolationists, but I also do not think we need to execute "police-actions" all across the globe either. We cannot continue to waste blood and treasure that goes against our grand-strategy in a multi-polar war. Our Foreign Policy needs to be a concerted effort, and to an extent needs continuity from President to President.

What should our foreign policy be? Jocko Willink says it pretty simply: Strength. What does that require though? It requires a ready force, prepared to execute punitive expeditions, an active duty force-structure that allows for rapid expansion with the call-up of professional reserve forces. But that is for another topic.

Back to the article, I would caution American journalists from attempting to bait the public to continuously call their Representative or Senator to force action upon a President. As a country we are not good at mobilizing "national thought", that is probably a good thing. But someone needs to explain to me coherently how replacing Assad with a Democratically-Elected government makes sense. It seems our appetite for sending troops down range always gets real high, but our stomach for conflict keeps shrinking. I can tell you that what we did in Afghanistan and Iraq was an utter failure when compared to the two models of Germany and Japan and then a third with South Korea. If we do not execute our long duration Wars as "Wars of Survival" we are doomed to fail. What did those conflicts take? Political Will that "tolerated" the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo...were the targets of military importance? Probably. The models of Germany, Japan, and Korea required massive "constablury" forces and 50 years of Post-War forward positioned forces The Japanese Parliament was pretty much controlled by the CIA for 20 years once they returned to home-rule. Replacing Assad just because he's a bad guy is not in the interests of us. Reducing the influence of Islamists and eradicating groups like ISIS are in our interests. Just like Rome was rebuilt, just like Washington was rebuilt, just like Atlanta and Petersburg (VA) were rebuilt, just like Tokyo and Berlin were rebuilt, so will Aleppo when this thing is over.

Berlin Reichstag 1945-
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uMOQMMz2b.../4Ys0FVIIGxA/s1600/Reichstag+Berlin,+1945.jpg

Bundestag Nowish-
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/DGX33H/aer...atz-der-republik-square-government-DGX33H.jpg

So as I've stated before, I don't think we should be doing a damn thing in Syria except for sending food and medical supplies via NGO routes. Rant over.

 

[Etype]

Replacing Assad just because he's a bad guy is not in the interests of us. Reducing the influence of Islamists and eradicating groups like ISIS are in our interests.

Unfortunately, once we become involved (and sometimes before) we try to impose our moral/legal/ethical standards on all parties involved.

It's a great opportunity for a moral absolutism discussion.

 

[Yosemite]

Unfortunately, I believe we are still involved in the middle east because of our obligation to protect OPEC nations. That's why we ignore the atrocities that occur in Saudi Arabia but not the ones in Iraq/Syria. We are a world police force to protect our oil, not to protect innocent people from Islamic terrorists.

 

[Etype]

Unfortunately, I believe we are still involved in the middle east because of our obligation to protect OPEC nations. That's why we ignore the atrocities that occur in Saudi Arabia but not the ones in Iraq/Syria. We are a world police force to protect our oil, not to protect innocent people from Islamic terrorists.

What would we do to Saudi Arabia? Should we go to war with them? Do you have an appetite for that? While we're at it, we might as well go to war with China, North Korea, and Iran for their human rights atrocities as well.

 

[Marauder06]

Unfortunately, I believe we are still involved in the middle east because of our obligation to protect OPEC nations. That's why we ignore the atrocities that occur in Saudi Arabia but not the ones in Iraq/Syria. We are a world police force to protect our oil, not to protect innocent people from Islamic terrorists.

We have no real obligation to protect OPEC nations just because they're in OPEC. Iran is an OPEC nation. So is Venezuela. So is Libya, Ecuador, and Gabon. Focusing on OPEC is myopic. I agree we are involved in the area because the Middle East is strategically and economically significant to our national interests. Protecting "innocent people" who aren't Americans is way, way down the list of national priorities, as it should be.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Unfortunately, I believe we are still involved in the middle east because of our obligation to protect OPEC nations. That's why we ignore the atrocities that occur in Saudi Arabia but not the ones in Iraq/Syria. We are a world police force to protect our oil, not to protect innocent people from Islamic terrorists.

The idea that we need Saudi for her oil needs to be smashed into oblivion. This isn't 1975. We need Saudi and some of those other ME countries for one reason...controlling the market price of oil Hell, once fracking costs go way down...it's not going to matter if oil goes back to $30/barrel, because although our prices won't be their $10/barrel to produce, we'll be about $20/barrel.

 

[Yosemite]

What would we do to Saudi Arabia? Should we go to war with them? Do you have an appetite for that? While we're at it, we might as well go to war with China, North Korea, and Iran for their human rights atrocities as well.

I guess I didn't really articulate my thoughts very well. I do not think we should go to war or get involved with any conflict with Saudi Arabia. I was not trying to give a just reason to do so. I am saying that we can't because we are obligated to give them military protection and weapons because of our deal with OPEC. That is why we look the other way when they atrocious acts.

We have no real obligation to protect OPEC nations just because they're in OPEC. Iran is an OPEC nation. So is Venezuela. So is Libya, Ecuador, and Gabon. Focusing on OPEC is myopic. I agree we are involved in the area because the Middle East is strategically and economically significant to our national interests. Protecting "innocent people" who aren't Americans is way, way down the list of national priorities, as it should be.

Agreed. But OPEC must make all of their oil transactions with USD. If an OPEC nations tries to sell their oil in other currencies like Saddam or Gaddafi tried to do, it would have a huge negative impact on our economy and the USD. So we have to give those OPEC nations an incentive to continue selling in USD; one incentive is offering protection and arms. IMHO of course.

The idea that we need Saudi for her oil needs to be smashed into oblivion. This isn't 1975. We need Saudi and some of those other ME countries for one reason...controlling the market price of oil Hell, once fracking costs go way down...it's not going to matter if oil goes back to $30/barrel, because although our prices won't be their $10/barrel to produce, we'll be about $20/barrel.

I believe we do sir. We don't need the actual oil per se, but we need the benefits of the petro dollar to keep our economy stable. We have dug ourselves into such a large hole with the petro dollar system that once it either collapses or we try to reverse it, we will have a significant financial crisis on our hands.

Preparing for the Collapse of the Petrodollar System
Long read, but worth it if you are interested.

 

[Etype]

Agreed. But OPEC must make all of their oil transactions with USD. If an OPEC nations tries to sell their oil in other currencies like Saddam or Gaddafi tried to do, it would have a huge negative impact on our economy and the USD. So we have to give those OPEC nations an incentive to continue selling in USD; one incentive is offering protection and arms. IMHO of course.

GEN Haftar now controls most Libyan oil, have you researched him?

Hint- we chose NOT to endorse him as the next legitimate leader of Libya.

I find this to be particularly convincing evidence AGAINST OPEC international policy conspiracies.

Additionally, we were in no hurry to return Mosul and Bayji to Iraqi hands, they were the #1 and 2 producers of Iraqi oil.

I believe we do sir. We don't need the actual oil per se, but we need the benefits of the petro dollar to keep our economy stable. We have dug ourselves into such a large hole with the petro dollar system that once it either collapses or we try to reverse it, we will have a significant financial crisis on our hands.

Preparing for the Collapse of the Petrodollar System
Long read, but worth it if you are interested.

Did you base this whole argument on this article?

 

[Yosemite]

GEN Haftar now controls most Libyan oil, have you researched him?

Hint- we chose NOT to endorse him as the next legitimate leader of Libya.

I find this to be particularly convincing evidence AGAINST OPEC international policy conspiracies.

Additionally, we were in no hurry to return Mosul and Bayji to Iraqi hands, they were the #1 and 2 producers of Iraqi oil.


Did you base this whole argument on this article?

I have not researched him but will definitely look into it. Thank you for the insight.

I did not. A month or two ago I did a few weeks of researching on the topic and read countless articles and watched countless videos for both sides of the argument. I decided I was worrying too much about something not in my control and decided to drop it. I just found that article was the easiest to understand and laid out the most important points on the matter.

Once again, these are mostly opinion based because I know a lot of people that know about the issue are have split opinions.

 

[Marauder06]

Jihadi grinches trying to steal Christmas? From the State Dept:

“Credible information indicates the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or Da’esh), al-Qa’ida, and their affiliates continue to plan terrorist attacks in Europe, with a focus on the upcoming holiday season and associated events."

 

[Etype]

Jihadi grinches trying to steal Christmas? From the State Dept:

“Credible information indicates the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or Da’esh), al-Qa’ida, and their affiliates continue to plan terrorist attacks in Europe, with a focus on the upcoming holiday season and associated events."

View attachment 17525

Trying to shake up Christmas? Religious safe spacers???

I always knew Abu Baker was a SJW.

 

[ThunderHorse]

I believe we do sir. We don't need the actual oil per se, but we need the benefits of the petro dollar to keep our economy stable. We have dug ourselves into such a large hole with the petro dollar system that once it either collapses or we try to reverse it, we will have a significant financial crisis on our hands.

Preparing for the Collapse of the Petrodollar System
Long read, but worth it if you are interested.

Although the theory of the Petrodollar system has been around for a long time, I don't believe in it. It's not what currency it's traded in. It's the flow of it. How much oil do we have in storage, how much gasoline do we have in storage. The Oil market's factors are Oil Inventories, Rig Counts, Gasoline Inventories, Refinery Capacity, Pipelines on/offline, fires etc.

The value of our currency is all based on trade deficits and not oil. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Although the theory of the Petrodollar system has been around for a long time, I don't believe in it. It's not what currency it's traded in. It's the flow of it. How much oil do we have in storage, how much gasoline do we have in storage. The Oil market's factors are Oil Inventories, Rig Counts, Gasoline Inventories, Refinery Capacity, Pipelines on/offline, fires etc.

There are two standing agreements between the United States and OPEC, 1971 and 1973, that oil will be priced and traded in the USD. Petrodollar is a very real thing, and was the only way to secure our currency after Nixon took us off the gold standard in 1971.

The value of our currency is all based on trade deficits and not oil. But that's just my opinion.

It's not so much the trade deficit as it is supply and demand. The demand of the USD, and the supply availability of the USD, sets the worth of the USD. When OPEC set a price in USD and than requires the transaction to be traded in USD, it not only requires our dollars to go out for those purchases, it requires other country's to maintain a supply of USD for their own needs. When everyone requires our USD, it allows us to run a high trading deficit. However, when country's start to dump our dollars to revalue or manipulate their own countries currency the USD go's down in worth, while the host countries currency will go up in worth.

 

[Etype]

Does the transaction itself have to occur using USD? Or is the current USD equivalent in whatever currency?