US forces bomb militia facilities discussion (2 Viewers)

[DaveXA]

Continued from the thread stated in the SR EE board.

US bombs Syria facilities used by Iran-backed militia; first airstrikes under Biden

U.S. airstrikes targeted "Shia militants that conducted the strikes," referring to a Feb. 15 rocket attack in Iraq that killed one civilian contractor and wounded a U.S. service member.

www.usatoday.com

 

[SaintForLife]

Everyone in the Middle East affected by our policy decisions there. Our responsibility is to being careful how we exert power and influence in areas we've been in. Some people don't give a shirt about those who live in the ME, or really anywhere else. I understand why some have that sentiment. But, I do care about them, and not only our own citizens there though.

It's not about if one gives a shirt about the people in the ME. We shouldn't have been there to begin with and we definitely shouldn't still be there. Afghanistan was fine, but it should have been a very limited time we were there and not 20 freaking years!

We are still in Iraq is because of Iran, but there isn't any good reason why we are still in Afghanistan besides to enrich the military industrial complex. We need to get out of Syria as well and end the crippling sanctions that are hurting their citizens.

 

[SaintForLife]

So, this administration seems to be willing to make concessions through the bipartisan legislation we just talked about and released a statement saying this:

“We are committed to working with Congress to ensure that the authorizations for the use of military force currently on the books are replaced with a narrow and specific framework that will ensure we can protect Americans from terrorist threats while ending the forever wars,"

I get it that people can be cynical, but both you and especially SFL seem to be banging away on a narrative based on past administrations without acknowledging these signals. That is certainly your right to do so, but you run the risk of having your righteous indignation seem a bit performative.

They put out a PR talking point that totally contradicts the action they just took in Syria and that's okay to you?

 

[DaveXA]

It's not about if one gives a shirt about the people in the ME. We shouldn't have been there to begin with and we definitely shouldn't still be there. Afghanistan was fine, but it should have been a very limited time we were there and not 20 freaking years!

We are still in Iraq is because of Iran, but there isn't any good reason why we are still in Afghanistan besides to enrich the military industrial complex. We need to get out of Syria as well and end the crippling sanctions that are hurting their citizens.

And that's a fair point of view. There's really no reason to have been involved in these messes this long.

That said, as long as we are there, our troops should be able to defend themselves. And I stated as much in an earlier post.

 

[MT15]

When actual legislation is passed and signed into law that will limit the Executive Branch’s powers to go to war without Congress will that even register with you? Supporting active legislation is hardly a PR talking point.

This strike was judged as needed to protect American soldiers. We can debate whether they should be there, but that’s immaterial. They are there and should be protected, or maybe you don’t agree with that?

I don’t generally like our presence in the ME, and I certainly don’t like killing random people.

I get that you guys both want to find fault with Biden, and I get that you‘re both jaded because of past history, but it’s only been what, five weeks since we had a person in the WH who was totally unfit for office and actively harming the US. I’m not going to agitate over the past right now. I’m just darn thankful we made it through the past 4 years.

 

[Heathen]

I get that you guys both want to find fault with Biden, and I get that you‘re both jaded because of past history, but it’s only been what, five weeks since we had a person in the WH who was totally unfit for office and actively harming the US. I’m not going to agitate over the past right now. I’m just darn thankful we made it through the past 4 years.

I would respectfully ask that you address my post instead of this reactionary response about me or anyone else simply rent to “find fault” with Biden that has quite honestly nothing to do with what we are discussing.

 

[Heathen]

And that's a fair point of view. There's really no reason to have been involved in these messes this long.

That said, as long as we are there, our troops should be able to defend themselves. And I stated as much in an earlier post.

Completely agree. And I don’t think being opposed to policy decisions or a continuation thereof should be grounds for animosity.

I simply believe that what is in place now with reference to the way our military functions is harmful to abroad and as it translates to domestic matters. That sure doesn’t mean I think I am completely right on that front. That’s why I think to debate it is healthy.

 

[DaveXA]

Completely agree. And I don’t think being opposed to policy decisions or a continuation thereof should be grounds for animosity.

I simply believe that what is in place now with reference to the way our military functions is harmful to abroad and as it translates to domestic matters. That sure doesn’t mean I think I am completely right on that front. That’s why I think to debate it is healthy.

Well said.

 

[Nebaghead]

It cracks me up how everyone appears to be against the Iraq war. In 2003 you could t swing a dead cat without hitting someone who was gung ho to go after Iraq. I heard excuse after excuse of why. 9/11, humanitarian reasons, WMDs and so on. After each reason was debunked a new one would come up. Only after a few years did people start to hate it and realize it was not winnable.
I remember a couple of my friends talking about all the videos of the smart bombs and how we are dominating the Iraqi army. Then a few years later they are all Libertarians and don’t like war now. Get the fork out of here.

 

[DaveXA]

It cracks me up how everyone appears to be against the Iraq war. In 2003 you could t swing a dead cat without hitting someone who was gung ho to go after Iraq. I heard excuse after excuse of why. 9/11, humanitarian reasons, WMDs and so on. After each reason was debunked a new one would come up. Only after a few years did people start to hate it and realize it was not winnable.
I remember a couple of my friends talking about all the videos of the smart bombs and how we are dominating the Iraqi army. Then a few years later they are all Libertarians and don’t like war now. Get the fork out of here.

Well, hindsight is 20/20, and clearly, if we knew then what we know now, we probably never would have stepped foot in there after 9/11.

All I ever wanted was to go to Afghanistan/Pakistan to cripple OBL and his group and head back home. Of course, it took 10 years find and off OBL.

We had no problem winning battles in Iraq though. The losing part was staying and trying to play peacekeers and police. That's not really our military's strong suit anyway.

 

[insidejob]

And why do you think the UK has "no real strategic interest" in the stability of a region which accounts for nearly half of the world's proved oil reserves and which provides a large proportion of the UK's liquefied natural gas imports, and in which the UK has significant commercial interests, with the UK having significant trade with the Middle East, to mention just a few key factors?

"Why?"Like you'd ever get a genuine answer to that.

He's apparently not a bug picture kind of guy. If it doesn't affect him or the UK directly, it doesn't matter. (Unless it's US politics...he seems to have a fetish for all things MAGA and the aftermath of Trump.

 

[insidejob]

where

Dude, it's WERE. W. E. R. E. Where is not the same thing.

 

[Roofgardener]

Dude, it's WERE. W. E. R. E. Where is not the same thing.

 

[SFIDC3]

It cracks me up how everyone appears to be against the Iraq war. In 2003 you could t swing a dead cat without hitting someone who was gung ho to go after Iraq. I heard excuse after excuse of why. 9/11, humanitarian reasons, WMDs and so on. After each reason was debunked a new one would come up. Only after a few years did people start to hate it and realize it was not winnable.
I remember a couple of my friends talking about all the videos of the smart bombs and how we are dominating the Iraqi army. Then a few years later they are all Libertarians and don’t like war now. Get the fork out of here.

Well, myself and most of my friends and office mates were against it, especially after that pitiful dog and pony show with Colin Powell (I felt bad for him) that was supposed to prove Iraq had WMD and the US had to act soon. It proved neither....

Wasn't Obama on record as being against the war? There were plenty of people that were against it....

 

[Nebaghead]

Well, myself and most of my friends and office mates were against it, especially after that pitiful dog and pony show with Colin Powell (I felt bad for him) that was supposed to prove Iraq had WMD and the US had to act soon. It proved neither....

Wasn't Obama on record as being against the war? There were plenty of people that were against it....

I’m not saying people weren’t against it, just now everyone acts like they were against it. If as many politicians and people were against it in 2003 it would have never happened.
In my friend group not a single person was against it. Now they all hate what it is and act like they never supported it. About half of them claim to be Libertarian now which is their way of saying I’m a republican but won’t vote for a Trump or a Dem.

 

[MT15]

It’s not bad grammar, though. It’s just willfully using the incorrect word and pretending that the correct word doesn’t exist.

 

[Devildog]

I’m not saying people weren’t against it, just now everyone acts like they were against it. If as many politicians and people were against it in 2003 it would have never happened.
In my friend group not a single person was against it. Now they all hate what it is and act like they never supported it. About half of them claim to be Libertarian now which is their way of saying I’m a republican but won’t vote for a Trump or a Dem.

Hell, about a month into it me and most of my fellow Marines were against it. We were duped and lost a lot of good Marines because of that shirt show.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Hell, about a month into it me and most of my fellow Marines were against it. We were duped and lost a lot of good Marines because of that shirt show.

I'll admit I was for it initially - although my reasons were pretty convoluted. I wanted to get out of the Middle East, US troop presence in Saudi Arabia was causing a lot of agitation in the region, and we were only there to contain Saddam. So, in my head the only way to get out was to either have Saddam completely capitulate or remove him. I even went over there (as a civilian)... however, once we started talking about going it alone, and how it was going to be cheap, and pay for itself, and roses in the streets, etc, I started to sour on it.

This is a good debate. The problem is most of us now recognize the downsides to continued military presence in the ME (actually anywhere), however, there are actual reasons why we do what we do, and it isn't all - we love us some war, and want to support the military industrial complex (although that certainly biases US foreign policy). We have had a major dependence on Middle East stability to continue uninterrupted supply of oil on the world market - we have a major interest in continuing global supply chains. And we have a super low tolerance of any interruption in that. What do you think will happen after we leave, if the region starts to get consumed by war, and global oil supply gets cut off? Do you think we have the tolerance to take a major economic hit for years while that gets sorted out? Sure, we now produce more energy than we consume, but the prices are factored in with a global supply, when that goes, energy prices here will skyrocket because we now have international buyers to compete against. We could nationalize our energy sector to forbid selling it abroad, but that has consequences as well.

This is not say that I advocate for our current strategy - far from it. But it's not a simple, just get out and let them fend for themselves, kind of deal. Look at all the flak Obama took when he started withdrawing troops from Iraq (not his call actually but he was president at the time), and then ISIS took off, and he got tons of blame for letting that happen. Imagine that on a larger scale -- few presidents are going to risk that.

 

[Roofgardener]

I'll admit I was for it initially - although my reasons were pretty convoluted. I wanted to get out of the Middle East, US troop presence in Saudi Arabia was causing a lot of agitation in the region, and we were only there to contain Saddam. So, in my head the only way to get out was to either have Saddam completely capitulate or remove him. I even went over there (as a civilian)... however, once we started talking about going it alone, and how it was going to be cheap, and pay for itself, and roses in the streets, etc, I started to sour on it.

This is a good debate. The problem is most of us now recognize the downsides to continued military presence in the ME (actually anywhere), however, there are actual reasons why we do what we do, and it isn't all - we love us some war, and want to support the military industrial complex (although that certainly biases US foreign policy). We have had a major dependence on Middle East stability to continue uninterrupted supply of oil on the world market - we have a major interest in continuing global supply chains. And we have a super low tolerance of any interruption in that. What do you think will happen after we leave, if the region starts to get consumed by war, and global oil supply gets cut off? Do you think we have the tolerance to take a major economic hit for years while that gets sorted out? Sure, we now produce more energy than we consume, but the prices are factored in with a global supply, when that goes, energy prices here will skyrocket because we now have international buyers to compete against. We could nationalize our energy sector to forbid selling it abroad, but that has consequences as well.

This is not say that I advocate for our current strategy - far from it. But it's not a simple, just get out and let them fend for themselves, kind of deal. Look at all the flak Obama took when he started withdrawing troops from Iraq (not his call actually but he was president at the time), and then ISIS took off, and he got tons of blame for letting that happen. Imagine that on a larger scale -- few presidents are going to risk that.

A very good point UncleTrvlingJim. It is my understanding that the US presence in Saudi Arabia was the factor that turned Bin Laden against America, and ultimately resulted in the attacks of 9/11.

Iraq no longer has the power to threaten its regional neighbours. Iran may have, but is geographically distant. Saudi has built up its military and can resist any attempt at invasion. Therefore the Oil supply is reasonably stable. And anyway, neither the UK or the USA has a significant reliance on Middle East oil or gas (as has been discussed earlier in this thread).

So yes... pull out, and to hell with the politics !