Selling More US Weaponary to Qatar

[Rudy]

Even if our Allies in the Middle East do what is necessary to eliminate radical islam, You have countries, like Iran who still spout the hateful rhetoric.  Even some of our Allies still have very strict interpretations which limit how progressive they can be. You have countries like Turkey, who are traditionally moderate, have a leader that starts trying to turn Turkey into a more hardline state.  The military tries to overthrow him, the government turns to the Imams who lie to the people, causing the citizens to turn on the military who was actually trying to preserve their rights.  The coup is put down, and now Turkey is starting to give more power to the government, and could turn into another Iran.  Pakistan and India are both US allies, and hate each other.  Egypt tried the hardline Islamic leadership, but said eff that, and quickly overthrew the muslim brotherhood.  Leaders like Sadam and Assad, while brutal dictators ruled with enough authority to keep radical islam in check.  Above all of that is the individual person.  As long as there is extremist material, or someone else to spread their hate, there will be individuals who radicalize themselves.  Those people are the hardest to track and stop.  There are even sympathizers who aren't even muslim who would help them plot attacks, or support them, simply because they hate the government of their country.

 

Short answer is, it's a cluster f. 

[BTG_Fan1]

9 hours ago, Rudy said:

Even if our Allies in the Middle East do what is necessary to eliminate radical islam, You have countries, like Iran who still spout the hateful rhetoric.  Even some of our Allies still have very strict interpretations which limit how progressive they can be. You have countries like Turkey, who are traditionally moderate, have a leader that starts trying to turn Turkey into a more hardline state.  The military tries to overthrow him, the government turns to the Imams who lie to the people, causing the citizens to turn on the military who was actually trying to preserve their rights.  The coup is put down, and now Turkey is starting to give more power to the government, and could turn into another Iran.  Pakistan and India are both US allies, and hate each other.  Egypt tried the hardline Islamic leadership, but said eff that, and quickly overthrew the muslim brotherhood.  Leaders like Sadam and Assad, while brutal dictators ruled with enough authority to keep radical islam in check.  Above all of that is the individual person.  As long as there is extremist material, or someone else to spread their hate, there will be individuals who radicalize themselves.  Those people are the hardest to track and stop.  There are even sympathizers who aren't even muslim who would help them plot attacks, or support them, simply because they hate the government of their country.

 

Short answer is, it's a cluster f. 

I do agree, but that is why the US should be supporting countries like Jordan and UAE more. And show to the people why those countries are improving!

[All About UNT]

17 hours ago, UNTLifer said:

Nope. Just asking since some admins like to take jabs at posts they don't agree with yet us regular folk get penalized. 

So, what is your insightful take on this situation?  

I think anyone who dismisses the US involvement in the current situation in the Middle East is a naive or just ignorant to the facts.  Lines were drawn in the sand long ago by building states without regard to the traditional sectarian and religious denominational differences of people living within them.  We have chosen a slew of foreign policy decisions that have made us enemies to just about everyone but Israel.  There are some inherently different realities of the people that live in the Middle East than here in the US and it isn't merely differences in religion.  Remember that we have propped up some serious shitty governments in our day.  This in turn causes animosity of large portions of people who feel us to be responsible for their suffering.  We have tried to do "the right thing" multiple times but it causes issues each and every time.  The faster we can depend less on the region for energy the better off and safer the US will be in the long run.  

Syria- We don't seriously go after Assad because we know that the alternative to a dictator is 20 years of strife between Kurds, Shia/Alawite, Turkmen & Sunnis.  In classic American fashion we started all bleeding heart once Assad's forces (SAA) started firing into crowds years ago.  We decided (like with other democracy movements in the past) to support the rebels against the tyranny of a dictatorship.  Problem is that the democracy craving rebels die out or tire of war and are replaced (or in some cases hijacked) by more radicalized agenda pushing "rebels" who really have sided with their tribe/branch of Islam.  Syrian Rebels are much like Iraqi Insurgents back in the day in that only a minority are actually from that country at this point.  There is no clear endgame in Syria except to temporarily fund the Kurds (SDF) push on Raqqa and force the Sunni insurgents (ISIS) further into the interior of the Marshlands between Syria and Iraq until they die-off.  Protection of the concept of a Kurdish state is a rough one in that their homeland is split between territories within Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran.  Getting those 4 states to be onboard with an independent Kurdistan is near impossible.   

Turkey-   Turkey's main issue and beef with the rest of the world lies in Nationalism.  The Turks yearn for being recognized as a powerful state like they thought they were as the Ottoman Empire or once that collapsed the dictatorship under Kemal Ataturk.  They are a proud people who have embraced the Nationalistic agenda of Erdogan and that has caused quite a few issues with it's traditional modern allies.  To think that Turkey is some religious hotbed is a bit of over-exaggeration.  They are Sunni Muslim but they hardly like the KOSA in their beliefs.  Erdogan has used religion as a tool to rile up his typically religious and belligerent support base.  There are a TON of Turks who dislike him but they get strong-armed by his thugs in the streets and of course he has gutted the military's hierarchy of anyone who would oppose him.  Ataturk always pushed for the military to be independent and secularist so that it could overthrow any government that went too far from the middle of the road (and they have multiple coup successes to their name).  Well since the military has been neutered that has basically taken away their form of checks and balances.  What you see now is a defacto dictatorship that will support most Sunni rebel groups that exist within the region.

Iraq- I think we all can recognize what happened here.  We threw the Sunnis out and replaced them with a Shiite government comprised of people who were considered second rate citizens for the last 60 years (maybe longer).  There was an obvious refusal from the new government to allow any Baathists to be allowed to participate in the politics.  Baathists were not isolated to just Iraq.... it was part of the wide-ranging Arab Nationalist identity that started post WWII and was the dominant political party of both Syria and Iraq.  I should also note that the founder of the movement was a Christian.  Should stress that Baathists are vehemently secular and do NOT feel that religion should play a big role in politics.  It was laughable when Saddam would pretend to be a Muslim from time to time.  Noone was buying it.  So anyway... we depose the secularists and they get replaced with Shiites who you can only guess who they held allegiance to.... that's right... Iran and the Ayatollah.  So it should come as a shock when we start fighting both Sunni Insurgents (Al Qaeda in Iraq which eventually becomes ISIS) on one side of the street and the Mahdi Army on the other side.  We had to fight both.  Eventually we realize the shit sandwich we created with the vacuum of power and of course hindsight tells us that we were better off (the US) leaving Saddam in power.  Also of note is that we funded Saddam's fight against Iran in the 80's and we were once VERY friendly with him and his party.  What we see now is a struggling Shiite dominated government trying to retake the areas captured by ISIS (Sunnis) AND at the same time convince the populace that they aren't out to get them.  Of course many of the Sunni remember how they were treated after Saddam was thrown out by the Shia and they aren't likely to forget it.  Imagine a powerful minority and how they would feel if one day they were marginalized by the people that they had been marginalizing for decades would feel.  They lost their political voice and so it was easy for a tribal based society to welcome a seemingly resurgent Sunni based movement (AQ in Iraq and later ISIS) into their cities.  We left them with no other options really.  Again remember that these people aren't your neighbors.  They don't have Sunday BBQs drinking a cool Shiner talking about the Rangers.  Life is cheap over there.  It doesn't have to make sense to you because these guys are more focused on things that we don't hold in high regard (tribal politics, blood feuds and so on).

Iran- This is where older Americans get a bit confused.  They seem to think that Iran is the primary enemy in the Middle East and that all things bad stem from them.  Mattis and Flynn are both believers in this thought.  They remember how the Iranian gov't not so secretly supplied the Madhi army with weapons and training to take Baghdad back and ensure that Shiites ran Iraq in the future.  Why wouldn't they?  They got attacked and f'in gassed by Saddam's army in the 80's and lost hundreds of thousands of soliders and civilians.  The US was a staunch supporter of the man that did that to them and so they will remember that.  The Shiites have been traditionally the underling and bastard child of the Muslim world.  There are far fewer of them than there are Sunnis and we have rarely casted our lot in favor of backing a Shiite based government.  The reasoning is that we have a hard time letting go of the revolution in 79'.  Saddam had our blessing and can easily be seen as our retribution against the new revolutionary government in Tehran.  The war stared just one year after the revolution began.  Read this Wiki and see for yourself what the grievances were with the Iranian people against the Shah and his government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution  I have a friend who's parents were both Iranian Olympians in the 70's before they fled to the US.  She lost one uncle to the Shah's secret police and another to the Revolutionary Guard.  The fact that the Revolution was popular with both secularists AND religious persons is pretty telling.  They were convinced that the Shah ran the country like he owned it (which is accurate) and that the US and Britain were his backers (also accurate).  The wealthy inner-elite in Tehran were selling Iran's oil for direct profit and giving scraps back to the people.  That is going to cause resentment in any country.  So we, as Americans, have been led to believe that Iran is the enemy and that the Sauds are our friends (Iran's primary enemy in the region).  Of course the Iranians also support Palestinians as well and that causes issue with our Jewish population as well.  

Saudi Arabia-  Home of Puritan Islam (Wahhabism).  Most who follow the Middle East can recognize that Saudi Arabia allowed for a rise in this strict interpretation of Islam to prevail within it's borders for decades now.  What you need to know is that this is what Al Qaeda and ISIS subscribe to.  Their teachers are almost all taught this form of interpretation within schools that exist in SA.  Can anyone name the last large-scale attack by a Shiite group against US interests?  Now name one from the Sunni Wahhabist school of thought.  The only reason we continue to ally with them is because of Oil and because they are "traditionally" our friend in Middle East.  They are responsible for every Sunni insurrection in the last 2 decades at least.  Their wealthy elite are hypocrites who indulge in the lifestyles they refuse their populace to have and then funnel money to these schools to preach Wahhabist teachings.  The Kingdom and the Royal Family cannot simply purge them from their lands and in fact I would argue that they support them in order to buy them off.  It is understood that their teachers will not call for the overthrow of the Saud Family but instead will take their agenda to other nations and areas of the world.  Combine that with a ruthless secret police within SA and you ensure that the Saud Family stays in power.  The alternative to that is probably a religious theocracy to the likes that we haven't seen since a true caliphate (1500s) was in existence.  So the Sauds serve a purpose but that doesn't mean we need to bend over backwards for them and pretend like other countries in the region are our only enemies.  These are your friends who talk shit about you as soon as you turn your back... and actually convince others to not like you while smiling and waving at you.

Alright... climbing off the soap box.

 

 

 

[DeepGreen]

On 6/18/2017 at 11:23 AM, All About UNT said:

Then sign back up and go play policeman. 

Read my sig-

"For those who have fought for it, Freedom has a taste the protected will never know".

Edited June 19, 2017 by DeepGreen

[HoustonEagle]

On 6/19/2017 at 2:37 PM, DeepGreen said:

Read my sig-

"For those who have fought for it, Freedom has a taste the protected will never know".

I will try my best to not offend as I am strong supporter of our military.  Still I have a problem with the notion that men and women of the armed forces get put in harms way to protect our freedoms.  By all means that should be the case but so few modern wars have anything to do with protecting American freedom.  I think it's a shame that so many lives are lost to the benefit of so few and rarely actually protect the American way of life.  When and when not to use American force has become a muddled picture.  I would like for it to become more black and white.  

[Rudy]

11 minutes ago, HoustonEagle said:

I will try my best to not offend as I am strong supporter of our military.  Still I have a problem with the notion that men and women of the armed forces get put in harms way to protect our freedoms.  By all means that should be the case but so few modern wars have anything to do with protecting American freedom.  I think it's a shame that so many lives are lost to the benefit of so few and rarely actually protect the American way of life.  When and when not to use American force has become a muddled picture.  I would like for it to become more black and white.  

I get what you're saying.  I think that many of these was are with the intent of protecting our freedom.  Look at Vietnam.  At the time, Communism was our biggest threat.  Now, did Vietnam directly threaten the US, no.  But the spread of communism did.  That's what we were there for.  To stop the spread.

[All About UNT]

1 hour ago, Rudy said:

I get what you're saying.  I think that many of these was are with the intent of protecting our freedom.  Look at Vietnam.  At the time, Communism was our biggest threat.  Now, did Vietnam directly threaten the US, no.  But the spread of communism did.  That's what we were there for.  To stop the spread.

and we see how that worked out.

[Rudy]

As I remember, didn't the US win the Cold War?

[All About UNT]

11 hours ago, Rudy said:

As I remember, didn't the US win the Cold War?

lol what a dumb correlation

Losing 58k American in Vietnam and pulling out in defeat = Winning Cold War.

 

[ChristopherRyanWilkes]

11 hours ago, Rudy said:

As I remember, didn't the US win the Cold War?

Yes communism was defeated. Luckily today the defeated Russians no long engage us in proxy wars (except that small one in Syria) and we have no problems left with any communist states (except that small one in the Korean Peninsula). I guess communist Vietnam and Cuba, among many others, also didn't get the memo that we won. 

[forevereagle]

14 hours ago, Rudy said:

I get what you're saying.  I think that many of these was are with the intent of protecting our freedom.  Look at Vietnam.  At the time, Communism was our biggest threat.  Now, did Vietnam directly threaten the US, no.  But the spread of communism did.  That's what we were there for.  To stop the spread.

Actually, Vietnam had nothing to do with communism. It was a French colony that they needed help in keeping under control. If we had stayed out of the conflict, there were plans for Vietnam to become more of a democracy. Our involvement changed the minds of the people and they went the other way. Vietnam was about preserving imperialism, not stopping the spread of communism.

[Rudy]

11 hours ago, All About UNT said:

lol what a dumb correlation

Losing 58k American in Vietnam and pulling out in defeat = Winning Cold War.

 

So, is it possible for you to not be a prick, or is that kind of your thing now? Or are you PMSing?

 

I wouldn't call pulling out of Vietnam winning the Cold War, but the break up of the Soviet Union and the destruction of the Berlin Wall was the victory.

 

[All About UNT]

2 hours ago, Rudy said:

So, is it possible for you to not be a prick, or is that kind of your thing now? Or are you PMSing?

 

I wouldn't call pulling out of Vietnam winning the Cold War, but the break up of the Soviet Union and the destruction of the Berlin Wall was the victory.

 

Not trying to be a prick just on a new mission where I see incorrect statements and/or correlations and I call them out. Just saying that JPII gets more deservable credit for the fall of the Iron Curtain and subsequently the Soviet Union than does the lives of 58k Americans in rice paddies in a shithole in SE Asia. Don't glamorize dying for our country unless we know we are there for a sensible reason. Killing Nazis ≠ Killing Charlie. Both parties suck but one was a threat to the world and the other became more hostile after foreign occupation. 

[Rudy]

It IS possible to disagree and carry a conversation without resorting to acting like a prick.

[All About UNT]

7 minutes ago, Rudy said:

It IS possible to disagree and carry a conversation without resorting to acting like a prick.

5 month ban for double usage of the word "prick" whilst describing a Mod's behavior.  Reference Section 413.1A of the GMG Code of Conduct

[Rudy]

So you can name call and insult, but no one else can?

Hell, in that case: If I'm getting a vacation:

 

BABABOOEY BAABOOEY BABABOOEY HOWARD STERN'S PENIS BABABOOEY BABABOOEY

Edited June 22, 2017 by Rudy

[All About UNT]

13 minutes ago, Rudy said:

So you can name call and insult, but no one else can?

Hell, in that case: If I'm getting a vacation:

 

BABABOOEY BAABOOEY BABABOOEY HOWARD STERN'S PENIS BABABOOEY BABABOOEY

It was a joke

[Rudy]

Just in case.....

[GreenMachine]

20 minutes ago, All About UNT said:

5 month ban for double usage of the word "prick" whilst describing a Mod's behavior.  Reference Section 413.1A of the GMG Code of Conduct

But section 413.1A subsection 4 states " no mod will be a prick or act in a pricklike manner."

You guys need to handle this MMA style.

 

[FirefightnRick]

On 6/20/2017 at 11:58 PM, Rudy said:

As I remember, didn't the US win the Cold War?

No, didn't you hear?  The Russians Ossoffed us in Georgia and South Carolina last night.

 

Rick

Edited June 22, 2017 by FirefightnRick