US forces bomb militia facilities discussion (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    I understand your point and I don't agree. We shouldn't be in Syria using Al-Qaeda and other terrorists as our proxy ground force to support regime change. I'm skeptical of their claim about who they were targeting considering the Pentagon fully supports us being in Syria.
    That's fine, if that is your opinion. And I won't argue with it.

    However, then you could have just used your own words instead of reposting a similar tweet highlighting the same thing you said earlier as if it was anything close to a rebuttal to what I said.
     
    Do you think there is a problem with out never ending wars movement and how the military industrial complex enriches itself while we waste our money and get our troops killed or injured?
    I'm not a pro war guy. I do see the need for certain actions however.

    That being said, there is an argument that the massive weapons development we do has saved tens of thousands of US troops, by allowing targeted strikes without ground forces.

    We lost very few lives in our last few conflicts compared to Vietnam, WWII, Korea, etc.
     
    That's fine, if that is your opinion. And I won't argue with it.

    However, then you could have just used your own words instead of reposting a similar tweet highlighting the same thing you said earlier as if it was anything close to a rebuttal to what I said.
    I thought it was a very important detail to highlight. That sentence alone seems like enough to sound the alarm that this should be looked at skeptically and in greater detail.
     
    I thought it was a very important detail to highlight. That sentence alone seems like enough to sound the alarm that this should be looked at skeptically and in greater detail.
    And it may very well be a reason why Biden decided on those targets and not others, since they are used by other known terrorist groups too.

    And I do think it is fair to be a bit skeptical. However, I can also see why the NYT headline isn't exactly inaccurate either.
     
    Well, there IS an argument for pulling out, and not interfereing ?

    If the USA and EU did this, then Iran would take control of Iraq and the Lebannon, Saudi would invade and occupy Qatar and Yemen, and Russian influence in the region would increase. But... does any of this really matter ?
     
    Well, there IS an argument for pulling out, and not interfereing ?

    If the USA and EU did this, then Iran would take control of Iraq and the Lebannon, Saudi would invade and occupy Qatar and Yemen, and Russian influence in the region would increase. But... does any of this really matter ?

    Yes, unless you think people don't matter. :shrug:
     
    Well, there IS an argument for pulling out, and not interfereing ?

    If the USA and EU did this, then Iran would take control of Iraq and the Lebannon, Saudi would invade and occupy Qatar and Yemen, and Russian influence in the region would increase. But... does any of this really matter ?

    There are more people living in Iraq, Lebanon, Qatar, and Yemen than there are in the UK.
     
    then Iran would take control of Iraq

    Iran and Iraq have been getting closer over the years. It was a few years ago, but I seem to recall Iran asked, or maybe was offered help with isis by Iran. And I want to say, although not 100% sure (since it was years ago), that Iran even had some of their generals in Iraq helping coordinate counters to isis. Which is actually sad because the US spent (probably) a few billion in training and equipment for Iraq, but when faced by isis, the Iraqi military had the propensity to just run off and leave all the equipment behind for isis to scoop up
     
    Iran and Iraq have been getting closer over the years. It was a few years ago, but I seem to recall Iran asked, or maybe was offered help with isis by Iran. And I want to say, although not 100% sure (since it was years ago), that Iran even had some of their generals in Iraq helping coordinate counters to isis. Which is actually sad because the US spent (probably) a few billion in training and equipment for Iraq, but when faced by isis, the Iraqi military had the propensity to just run off and leave all the equipment behind for isis to scoop up

    Yes, but Iran and Iraq hate each other like Bama hates Auburn and vice versa. There may be some coordination/cooperation, but it's ultimately superficial and only will agree when their interests are aligned by a common enemy.
     
    Yes, unless you think people don't matter. :shrug:
    There are more people living in Iraq, Lebanon, Qatar, and Yemen than there are in the UK.
    Can America really afford to act as the worlds policeman ? Is it really in the USA's interests to remain in regions of the Middle East where they are the target of seemingly endless "terrorist" attacks ?

    The USA has tried to impose liberal democratic standards on countries that seem to have no history, culture or interest in such concepts. And thus far, it hasn't worked too well ?

    The US's relationship with Kuwait increased significantly after it liberated them from the Iraqi invasion, but now less than half approve of the USA's involvement in the region.
     
    Can America really afford to act as the worlds policeman ? Is it really in the USA's interests to remain in regions of the Middle East where they are the target of seemingly endless "terrorist" attacks ?

    The USA has tried to impose liberal democratic standards on countries that seem to have no history, culture or interest in such concepts. And thus far, it hasn't worked too well ?

    The US's relationship with Kuwait increased significantly after it liberated them from the Iraqi invasion, but now less than half approve of the USA's involvement in the region.

    I don't support the air strikes Biden ordered. I don't think the President should be able to order military action unless there is an imminent threat to life.

    I was just responding to your comment "does any of this really matter?". When the countries you were talking about have a combined population higher than the country where you live. So yes, it does matter.
     
    I don't support the air strikes Biden ordered. I don't think the President should be able to order military action unless there is an imminent threat to life.

    I was just responding to your comment "does any of this really matter?". When the countries you were talking about have a combined population higher than the country where you live. So yes, it does matter.
    Yes, but they are not citizens of the UK, and they are thousands of miles away. And most of them hate us. Why SHOULD we get involved ? The UK has little real strategic interest in Iraq and the Yemen and Lebanon.
     
    Yes, but they are not citizens of the UK, and they are thousands of miles away. And most of them hate us. Why SHOULD we get involved ? The UK has little real strategic interest in Iraq and the Yemen and Lebanon.

    You said it doesn't matter. It matters.
     
    I don't support the air strikes Biden ordered. I don't think the President should be able to order military action unless there is an imminent threat to life.

    I was just responding to your comment "does any of this really matter?". When the countries you were talking about have a combined population higher than the country where you live. So yes, it does matter.

    Well, get back to me after you get hit by a rocket attack. I would think a rocket attack is an imminent threat to the safety of the soldiers on the ground in Iraq.

    It's fine to question why they're there in the first place, but, once they're there, they should be able to defend themselves. If they aren't allowed to respond in kind, they shouldn't be there.
     
    You're not providing any real reasoning for your disagreement. Why do you apparently think humanitarian considerations are irrelevant? Do you think humanitarianism really only applies to national citizens who are nearby and have expressed a favourable attitude to us as you seem to imply? 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?
     
    Yes, but they are not citizens of the UK, and they are thousands of miles away. And most of them hate us. Why SHOULD we get involved ? The UK has little real strategic interest in Iraq and the Yemen and Lebanon.

    Like I stated, people matter. Regardless, there are UK/US citizens and allies in the region for whatever reasons. Even if you didn't care about a soul in that entire region, there are people (UK and other citizens) who would be harmed by our actions, or lack therof.

    As for strategic interests, from a foreign policy standpoint, there's no denying the UK and allies have a strategic interest in the ME. I mean, you might not personally think so, but that certainly is far different from official UK policy.

    I care about what happens to people in the ME. I have friends from there, not to mention friends from the US who work there for a living. Their lives are directly impacted by our foreign policy decisions.
     
    You're not providing any real reasoning for your disagreement. Why do you apparently think humanitarian considerations are irrelevant? Do you think humanitarianism really only applies to national citizens who are nearby and have expressed a favourable attitude to us as you seem to imply? 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?
    Humanitarian considerations ?
    Well, depending how you measure it, there where up to a million 'excess deaths' resulting from the invasion of Iraq. That's a million people who would have been alive if we had not intervened.
    As for oil and natural gas.. only about 7% comes from the Middle East. And if we simply didn't interfere militarily, then there should be little change to our commercial ties.

    Returning to the discussion on humanitarianism; the UK is not entirely innocent. WE have continued to supply weapons - as well as special forces support - to the ongoing Saudi attacks on the Houthi. And now.. surprise surprise.. the UN is warning of an epic famine in Yemen !
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom