How about Saudi Arabia - the nation that was mostly responsible. Neither Iran or Iraq attacked us on 911. Why should we have gone into Iran or Iraq ?
No it doesn't. It is the ideology that needs to be killed. Regardless - we spent most of this decade arming and supporting Al Qaeda - and other radical Islamist groups of the same ilk - not killing them. We also spent more time and energy on arming and supporting ISIS rather than killing them. We were allies with ISIS - why would we want to kill our allies ?
Think there might be more than meets the eye on that one but OK . - Why though did we go into Iraq ?- and why should have we gone into Iran after 911 (which is what the poster was suggesting)
I saw the same scenario before with the great Roman Empire, but nowadays the rebels of countries and lands invaded and conquered were just subtly called terrorist but actually called barbarians before. It's all about influence and the expansion of power and commerce, but backfired because of strong religious beliefs.
You provide an excellent recitation of government and media talking points. Sorry for no link, but do you remember the Ford pickup they were seen driving that still had a company name from Houston? Some (I think) plumber from Houston commented on it having been his truck all those years ago. Tulsi Gabbard talked about our support for them some years back, blowing the mind of the talking head who was interviewing her. Our helicopters have ferried their leaders. Israel provided medical care for their wounded. We've been deceived, again.
You must not have noticed, but it's been quite clear for years that cultures in that part of the world LIKE dictatorships. At least Saddam's "dictatorship" kept the electricity on and the water and sewer working. We went in and "rescued" them from him, turning the country into a mess.
If people really liked dictatorships, dictatorships wouldn’t be necessary. Would they? Think about it.
Two white guys in the US like you and me don't really understand how other cultures think. From the outside looking in, the Mideastern cultures think differently than you and I. For whatever reason, they seem to like dictators.
Islam? The conflict between the 7th and the 21st centuries? Lots of things caused this system, not the least of which is selfish resistance to change.
The term is Imsallah.. The devotion to the master, and the ability to obfuscate given no ability to be definitive. Hence, there is no such thing as a binding contract or agreement, only if god wills, does anything happen. It makes for a whole lot of unwillingness to be accountable to oneself or others..
The Syrian problem was always a quagmire. There were (& are) so many tribal divisions, & ALL OF THEM anti-democratic & anti-western, that we couldn't find any of them we could feel comfortable working with. Obama tried. I boiled down to the basic truth than no matter which combatant won in Syria, it would be harmful to the values we stood for, so we tried to stay as neutral & inactive as possible. The Kurds in Syria were extremists too (along with everyone else), but their cousins in Iraq & Turkey were less so. Kurds in Iraq became valuable combat allies. Naturally, that relationship gradually spread to Syria as well, based on the Kurdish belief that America would support them in the Kurdish dream of having their own country down the road. America did nothing to discourage that belief. But Trump's abrupt & unannounced pullout from Syria, leaving the Kurds in jeopardy, was a tragic betrayal of a strong ally by America, & one that will reverberate down the years as a deep scar on the integrity of America as a nation, leader & friend.
The whole Syrian conflict has always been a total quagmire. The Obama administration often remarked how impossible it was to even find a party involved in that conflict with whom we had anything remotely in common. Some in our government, actively looked for potential allies there, with whom we could partner, but were unable to identify anyone. There are no good guys in Syria. We ultimately settled on the Kurds because their cousins in Iraq became such dependable combat allies there. But the Syrian Kurds were more extreme politically, than Kurds in Iraq. Honestly, there were no comfortable answers in Syria.
Then put your money where your mouth is. Go to Syria and join the rebellion. Nothing is standing in your way except your own lack of conviction.
Nice try. But don't you know, tricks are for the gullible. Whether I stay, or whether I go, this is something even a simpleton ought to know--Assad's a dictator, and to hell he will go...and the quicker the better, the vile piece of human excrement.
"better to be in 'hell' with honest, straightforward folk, then 'heaven' with coddling dotes full of pretense" ~ Blaster3
Feel free to go. Of course, if you were honest, you wouldn't be in hell defending Assad, would you? You’d be on Earth condemning him, wouldn’t you? if you were honest.
The cure may be in the Constitutionality of "Declaration of War" as opposed to the recently more frequent and wus "War Powers Acts" with $ $ $ . Iraq. Syria. Afghanistan. Vietnam. etc. Worth it? Moi Jefferson started it! Tripoli. With a proper, Declaration of War, of course Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
Yes indeed, and everything you've posted strongly suggests that an intelligent leader would ask "why in hell should we invade?" The honest leader, the one concerned with his own country, would say "we are not going to invade there because we have no business being there." And so, why are we there? We are there because of AIPAC influence in the federal government. We are there to advance the perverted notion of Greater Israel.
