quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:
So we abandon our commitments to other nations in the Middle East and allow Iran to dominate it? What about our agreements with Israel? Saudi Arabia? Jordan? What about our commitments to moderates in Iraq, including Sunnis and Kurds that depended upon our influence to save them from outright genocide?

What kind of influence will we have in the rest of the world if we turn tail and run from the Iranians? In Europe? In the Pacific region? What would restrain North Korea ...

Please see Items The Second and The Sixth, below:

Who's misrepresenting an argument? When you say we pull all our troops out of the Middle East, does that not mean we're complying with the dictates of our opponents? What kind of "middle ground" is that?

I'm not suggesting that there's only "two possibilities". The President provided reinforcements to insure our limited number of personnel (in the embassy and dealing with terrorists) had proper security. His actions contrasted distinctly with the shitshow which occurred when personnel in Benghazi were attacked. Do we agree that abandoning them was correct? What about the next embassy that come under siege?

Nah, I’m with Jones on this. I had a friend in college who did two tours in Iraq and got blown out of his humvee by a roadside IED. He used to frequently lament that for all the lives and money we’re spending on those people over there, they hate us and always will - that it’s a complete waste of both of those precious resources, and time as well.

You can “what about” until the cows come home and my answer is likely going to be “well, what about it?” On the night of the Benghazi attack, I got into a pretty heated fight with my father-in-law who made many of your same points after I remarked “we need to just out of that region.” That was seven and a half years ago. Have things gotten better since then? What have we got to show for any of it? Has it benefited the American people in any measurable way? These need to be our primary questions, not “what will everyone else think?” That needs to be an afterthought.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Whatever.

I don't question the necessity of keeping American service personnel as safe as possible, but I think there's a strong correlation between what's done on the streets to keep citizens safe in the U.S. form domestic crime (much of it related to narcotics usage, sales, and gang conflicts), and the foreign threats posed by countries that wish to impose their will on us and those who deal with us as allies.

Just using your own analogy: If all narcotics were legalized, obviously increases of thefts, robberies, assaults, and homicides would result, and have in California. It's not just a matter of drug usage or sales which present the threat. Addicts aren't readily employable. They don't just steal for the drugs themselves. Even if those were provided by the government, they'd steal for other needs. Either by necessity or simple desire to benefit their wants. Are we going to provide them with everything they can't or won't work to obtain???

Regarding Iran: Is it not better that they be confronted before they become a nuclear power, or afterwards (when their demands can become even more far reaching)?

There are many particulars that can and should be addressed, but I'm not in agreement that simply throwing up one's collective hands as a nation would work any better in the Middle East now than it did when we watched from afar as the Axis powers expanded their domination over Europe, Africa, China, and other areas of the Pacific.

I've been looking at a lot of news stories, opinion stuff & general thoughts from folks 'in the know' on new developments in Irag.

As a result of that, have actually been wondering if POTUS aim all along was to get us thrown out of Iraq. Would be a good development & 100% we should take the support $$ with us.

If the only thing they respect is force, show that as punishment when we're attacked. Otherwise, pull back.

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:
Who's misrepresenting an argument? When you say we pull all our troops out of the Middle East,

Which you followed-up with suggesting we support removing all of our support from everybody, everywhere. That is a classic straw man argument.

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:
does that not mean we're complying with the dictates of our opponents? What kind of "middle ground" is that?

That is not the point you made nor the one with which I'm arguing. That is another logical fallacy: Changing the subject.

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:
I'm not suggesting that there's only "two possibilities".

You surely did. Either we continue to fight and die for the un-winnable and throw money at people who "love" us only for our money, or we aid nobody. That was your analysis of our argument.

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:
The President provided reinforcements to insure our limited number of personnel (in the embassy and dealing with terrorists) had proper security. His actions contrasted distinctly with the shitshow which occurred when personnel in Benghazi were attacked. Do we agree that abandoning them was correct? What about the next embassy that come under siege?

Again the logical fallacies of a strawman (nobody suggested we should not defend our embassy personnel) and of changing the subject.

jljones, others and I are arguing we've thrown too much of our money and too many of our lives at people who do not appreciate our sacrifices and are, in fact, bitterly opposed to our way of life--many of whom would see our entire country a funeral pyre if they had the power.

No more. It's been too much, already.

And if, after getting the hell out, one of 'em takes a shot at us again: Well, we have ways of dealing with that that do not involve getting our young people killed in the name of nation building. A certain general who is no longer sharing our plane of existence comes to mind as a brightly shining example--even if only briefly.

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:
Just using your own analogy: If all narcotics were legalized, obviously ...

Strawman: That's not what he suggested. False Equivalence: The War On Some Drugs isn't the political and religious shit show that is the Mideast.

Keep goin'. You'll hit every logical fallacy in book at this rate.

I'm no ME expert, but I can't believe either answer is right. Our military is not a peace keeping force, a police force, or a construction crew and should not be used as such. They are a deterrent and a killing machine, that is how I think they should be used.

We have bases all over the Middle East in friendly(ish) locations. I think we should keep a check on our enemies through those. It's hard though for me to justify an endless non-engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq as there is no path to 'victory', they need to provide for their own security, sovereignty, and infrastructure. It's not my job to fund, and it's certainly not our soldiers job to fight their battles.

We can quickly launch attacks if need be from surrounding bases/countries to slap these idiots in the dick if need be. No need to be unwelcomed police force for them.

I am for a presence in ME, just not in the fashion we are doing now.

Solid, logical take on 'the experts' weighing-in along with the hypocrisy and irony pouring out.

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:
There are many particulars that can and should be addressed, but I'm not in agreement that simply throwing up one's collective hands as a nation would work any better in the Middle East now than it did when we watched from afar as the Axis powers expanded their domination over Europe, Africa, China, and other areas of the Pacific.

pulicords, I want to congratulate and thank you for attempting to address and explain a highly complex and controversial subject. When people talk of “failed policies,” they seem to think that the “Squash ’em like a bug” or “Just leave them to settle things on their own” policies of the past have been any more successful. By coincidence I’m reading Blood on the Border by Clarence C. Clendenen that documents the history of our southern border after the Mexican-American War. That war was a resounding success for the U.S. and resulted in our gaining a large swath of Mexican territory. It also resulted in nearly 70 years of recurring cross-border raids and bloodshed in the area.

Many people will never understand that simplistic measures are seldom the solution to humanity’s problems that have existed for generations, but you deserve credit for daring to express an unpopular view and trying to educate us.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

jljones, others and I are arguing we've thrown too much of our money and too many of our lives at people who do not appreciate our sacrifices and are, in fact, bitterly opposed to our way of life --many of whom would see our entire country a funeral pyre if they had the power.

No more. It's been too much, already.

Thanks for demonstrating that you don't generalize or are simplifying these issues.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:
There are many particulars that can and should be addressed, but I'm not in agreement that simply throwing up one's collective hands as a nation would work any better in the Middle East now than it did when we watched from afar as the Axis powers expanded their domination over Europe, Africa, China, and other areas of the Pacific.

pulicords, I want to congratulate and thank you for attempting to address and explain a highly complex and controversial subject. When people talk of “failed policies,” they seem to think that the “Squash ’em like a bug” or “Just leave them to settle things on their own” policies of the past have been any more successful. By coincidence I’m reading Blood on the Border by Clarence C. Clendenen that documents the history of our southern border after the Mexican-American War. That war was a resounding success for the U.S. and resulted in our gaining a large swath of Mexican territory. It also resulted in nearly 70 years of recurring cross-border raids and bloodshed in the area.

Many people will never understand why simplistic measures are seldom the solution to humanity’s problems that have existed for generations, but you deserve credit for daring to express an unpopular view and trying to educate us.

Thank you. I truly wish there was a simple answer for where and how this country should present itself on the world stage. Our President has shown far greater flexibility than his opponents ever thought possible, because he's looking at a very broad spectrum of consequences for every action taken.

^^^

Ironic, that the very man who has been one of the very best at dealing with the entire spectrum(use of force and diplomacy), and being very successful, is loathed by so many that owe much of their security, financial gain on investments, in their personal and professional lives and a stronger place on the world stage.

It reminds me of the movie scene where the guy is a swashbuckling swordsman, engaging multiple opponents, driving them back and all the while holding a dagger in his off hand to his rear, trying to keep "his own" from stabbing him in the back.

(and the pretty lady is standing offside, awaiting her turn...)

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:
Thanks for demonstrating that you don't generalize or are simplifying these issues.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, such as any state in the Mideast that has anything even remotely resembling an even half-way functioning form of democratic government that doesn't attempt to exterminate its opponents when it acquires power, feel free to hold forth.

Other than Israel, of course.

I recently read a book by Winston Churchill titled, "The Story of the Malakand Field Force", which describes a military campaign by the British army in what is now western Pakistan and eastern Afghanistan in 1897. It gives a good insight to what those people are like and it would appear that even back then loyalty from these middle eastern people was not something you took for granted. Being your friend one day and your enemy the next is just the way they are and to pull up stakes and bale out just because they suddenly didn't like us one day solves nothing.

Pulling out now will just create a vacuum that will suck in who knows what and that may be 10 times worse that what we have now.

Expenditure of ordinance creates a need for replenishment. That creates jobs. Trump and America wins again.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
Our military is not a peace keeping force

Trump calls them "Warfighters" to clearly identify their mission.

It's disgusting that a few are completely cool with financing terror.

Disgusting.

There's nothing the Iranians, Chinese, and Russians would be happier about. Just hand them the most strategically valuable region in the world.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
You know what? Good. Great!

President Trump should take full advantage of this and get us the hell out of there.

Agreed 100%. Enthusiastically. I'd love nothing more than to hear we're pulling out of the Mideast entirely.

Of course: As we depart every last bit of hardware we don't take with us and every facility we built for our use should be rendered permanently inoperable. Preferably in the most spectacular way possible.

quote:

Ask any parent of a fallen serviceman, and ask them if things are an ounce better than they were 20 years ago there?

Also ask if ANYTHING has significantly changed in the last 1800 years regarding how one tribe feels about the other.

You can’t change the way animals act. You watch, maybe photograph the non-dangerous ones and shoot the imminently dangerous ones if needed.