Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Why don't we stay out of the Mid East?


miserablewithlife
 Share

Recommended Posts

...Should the US have interfered with Hitler, or just let you guys figure it out?

Initially there were attempts to appease Hitler (the Sudatenland was surrendered) and for a long time other countries did have the attitude that it was 'someone elses problem'. We all know how that played out in the end.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As in the world, we are all in our backyards. Economy, health, destruction, polution, etc.

Sorry, if a group is mass killing, it is all of its neighbors responsibility to help stop it.

A commanding oficer today, knowing his town is next, and almost taken over, knows mass killings are next for the people there.

he said :

" where is the rest of the world? "

The Earth is OUR responsibility when it comes to certain things.

Should the US have interfered with Hitler, or just let you guys figure it out?

As for the US involvement in the Second World War it took you long enough to arrive, war started in 1939 - Not 1941 and then it was only because of the attack on pearl Harbour. and lets not hold tongues here, you made a fair few Dollars out of us. (friend) We gave you territory, Gold, and Money, the last of which was paid off in 2008. Thanks for the help, but thank god for the Russians hey, the ones who actually won the War. (this is not directed at those who fought in the war in Europe for which we are forever grateful for the sacrifice they made) more US government Policy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember when Obama came onto the scene and everybody around the world welcomed him because he wasnt BUSH? My god. Whats happened to common sense.

:whistle:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Youll take the tears? Youll send your children to this battle? Have you completely forgotten the 5000 body bags returned to the USA fromIraq? Remember the daily protests outside the White House leading up to the 2008 election? Remember when Obama came onto the scene and everybody around the world welcomed him because he wasnt BUSH? You remember thise times?

And now you say youll take the tears?

My god. Whats happened to common sense.

It's one thing to be outraged by injustice and another to stick your head in the sand and pretend you can just dismiss reality. Did you ever imagine that maybe the tears aren't optional now? We ARE going to have to deal with it, like it or not?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

Thread cleaned

Let's keep the comments civil and on topic please - this section of the forums is way too volatile at the best of times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should the US have interfered with Hitler, or just let you guys figure it out?

It was Hitler who declared war on you guys. And he was butchering people for eight years before he did it.

Only saying. :)

Edited by Eldorado
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was Hitler who declared war on you guys. And he was butchering people for eight years before he did it.

Only saying. :)

Learn from our mistakes....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because of a giant albatross hung around our necks collectively known as Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isis is taking over another town, really I can`nt see how people can stand back and let these thugs hurt more people with their savagery.

http://www.foxnews.c...turkish-border/

a few good men

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3825457875001/us-citizen-joins-kurdish-fighters-in-battle-against-isis/?intcmp=obnetwork#sp=show-clips

Edited by docyabut2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something I've been wondering: If all western nations just up and leave the ME does this mean that ISIS will stop it's murderous rampage against all other religious groups? Will beheadings and their plans for terrorism abroad will be halted? Will ISIS respect the other soverign nations of the area? Basically, will ISIS then put aside their holy war and be a nice peaceful organization?

ISIS hasnt attacked any other countries. The assumption is they could unless the West intervenes. The surrounding countries will eventually do what they want to do regardless of western interference today. Western influence at the end of the day is simply that: Western intervention. It wont change the true thinking of locals living there or anywhere outside interference directs a society through the use of force. I wish more people would realize this.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isis is taking over another town, really I can`nt see how people can stand back and let these thugs hurt more people with their savagery.

http://www.foxnews.c...turkish-border/

a few good men

http://video.foxnews...k#sp=show-clips

I know its shocking isn't it how the Arab neighbours just sit there and do nothing. Just look at Turkey's actions, the Town of Kobane is right on their border. a stones throw away, you can see Turkish troops in the distance, doing nothing, and then blames the US Coalition for the influx of refugees crossing into Turkey from Kobane - leaving it to the poor Kurds, of whom Turkey killed 12 of them while protesting in Turkey. See the whole thing is complex, Turkey doesn't like the Kurds. they don't want the possibility of the Kurds establishing a nation state -Kurdistan.

And you have to admit the way the Kurds are fighting on the ground, means its takes the pressure off the USA to commit their own ground troops, so, you can see in the future America will support the Kurdish peoples claims to establishing a Independent nation state. as a thank you for helping fight ISIS. and Turkey wont agree to that. so they drag their feet.

The strikes take place as the Obama administration is reported to be increasingly frustrated by what it sees as Turkey's excuses for not doing more to intervene militarily.

"There's growing angst about Turkey dragging its feet to act to prevent a massacre less than a mile from its border," a senior administration official was quoted by the New York Times as saying.

After all the fulminating about Syria's humanitarian catastrophe, they're inventing reasons not to act to avoid another catastrophe," the official said.

"This isn't how a Nato ally acts while hell is unfolding a stone's throw from their border."

the BBC's Paul Adams, on the Syria-Turkey border, says Only a ground operation, or significant military assistance from Turkey could carry any guarantee of success, and the prospects for this seem remote. Turkey's conditions are not ones the US seems ready to accommodate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29526783

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

In spite of the provocation (with the beheadings)...and the sheer awfulness of the situation....

I am reluctant to support sending British troops to fight on the ground....for now anyway..

Because I'm wondering what good it would do (at the moment)...it seems that 'IS' want

ground troops to be sent in so that the conflict escalates and they can focus on the 'enemy'...

they (IS) would love to have the British and Americans etc.there to get into bloody battles...

taking every opportunity to kidnap, capture and publically behead the soldiers (in uniform?)

The logistics are a nightmare....

At first I thought we should 'go in' and sort them out...because 'we' facilitated the chaos and suffering..(IMO)

but now I'm wondering if that would actually work out well....or is realistically possible...dunno..

or would it be a massive recruitment drive for Islamic militants....

What's happening to the Kurds is a heartbreaker....

It's also a heartbreaker for all the families of the soldiers who died in Iraq ...British, US and others

and the wounded and the traumatised...that their efforts and sacrifice virtually handed the Middle East

to the Islamic Jihadists...on a plate...

<_<

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Islamic State would like nothing better than for people to compare them to Hitler and for people to say that if good men do nothing they will take over then world. Never in the cause of human conflict has the world been so eager to bend over backwards to shower the other side with so many compliments. They've been able to sweep all before them because the puppet Iraqi government and their army was an incompetent bunch of cowards, because the Syrian army had been weakened by the civil war that the West was at the very least very keen to cheer on, and because the Turkish government would be quite happy to see them do what they'd like to do themselves. So i don't think we should do nothing; i think we should give them a real bloody nose to puncture their myth of invincibility. And then kick Turkey out of Nato and take back the equipment that has been supplied to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Islamic State would like nothing better than for people to compare them to Hitler and for people to say that if good men do nothing they will take over then world. Never in the cause of human conflict has the world been so eager to bend over backwards to shower the other side with so many compliments. They've been able to sweep all before them because the puppet Iraqi government and their army was an incompetent bunch of cowards, because the Syrian army had been weakened by the civil war that the West was at the very least very keen to cheer on, and because the Turkish government would be quite happy to see them do what they'd like to do themselves. So i don't think we should do nothing; i think we should give them a real bloody nose to puncture their myth of invincibility. And then kick Turkey out of Nato and take back the equipment that has been supplied to them.

in order to give them a bloody nose, that would require troops on the ground, whose troops? in order to give them that bloody nose, that would mean sending thousands of troops into Syria. Lets not hype ISIS up here, they are small fry, made to look more dangerous than the sum of their parts thanks to a over zealist Western Media 24 hour news reporting, which gives the news media their big headlines and flashing BREAKING NEWS banners and ticker tapes at the bottom of the TV screen.

ISIS could be wiped out tomorrow by the tribes in Eastern Iraq. If they chose to do so, in fact i'll go as far to say ISIS is welcomed by these tribes, If these tribes didnt want ISIS, they'd attack ISIS just like the insurgents in Iraq targeted Western troops whilst in Iraq. Our troops couldn't do a thousand meter patrol without coming under attack. yet ISIS less organised, less equipt we're led to believe has free rein. Its simply rubbish, the Iraqis in these ISIS areas are allowing them there. because they don't believe in the government from Iraq.

It was well established before ISIS hit our headlines that Iraq was on the verge of splitting, - Its clear in the way in which we the West have removed the former Iraqi Prime minister Al, Al Maliki. (who was democratically elected) and has since been replaced by al-Abadi. who was not elected, and was simply chosen by the West to try and ease the countries woes and stop the splitting of Iraq and the sectarian violence, So this highlights the bigger picture at play here.

So lets take a look back at ISIS are they really the big threat our media and government's say? No, is the answer. they are not as dangerous as Al Qaeda, ISIS are not even in the same league. ISIS don't even pose a threat beyond the towns boundaries that they occupy in Iraq or Syria. the only way ISIS can strike in a western country is if they have sympathisers who live in the west already, ISIS isn't going to march out of Syria and onto our cities in great numbers.

So people please, stop and look at the evidence we have for ISIS. the Media is getting everyone all worked up, and its the same with Ebola. i dont know why the media don't just run a BREAKING NEWS banner with were all going to die.

But where is our Government in all this, they go along with the media, in fact its the government who are briefing the media hyping ISIS up, getting everyone hysterical, "oh we have do stop ISIS" the biggest "threat to national" security, "ISIS are a fight we cant opt of of " Its all a load of crap because the ultimate goal is to bomb Syria and remove Assad. it was in 2013 and it is in 2014.

This whole ISIS situation as about six different elements to it, and its no wonder the regional powers are not getting involved, because unlike use gullible Westerns driven by a Media circus they are actually reading the script.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am reluctant to support sending British troops to fight on the ground

But someone else's troops are ok?

What's happening to the Kurds is a heartbreaker....

Just not a big enough "heartbreaker" to want to support British troops on the ground?

It's also a heartbreaker for all the families of the soldiers who died in Iraq ...British, US and others

and the wounded and the traumatised...that their efforts and sacrifice virtually handed the Middle East

to the Islamic Jihadists...on a plate...

This does seem to be what the Obama administration wanted, doesn't it? I mean after all this is what they have succeeded in doing.

Edited by Ogbin
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont know why the media don't just run a BREAKING NEWS banner with were all going to die.

Awesome :lol:

the ultimate goal is to bomb Syria and remove Assad. it was in 2013 and it is in 2014.

And will be in 2015.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But someone else's troops are ok?

you missed off where I said...'for now anyway'.. :) ..I'm not a military strategist but I should imagine getting

soldiers to an area with the necessary facilities, equipment transport, etc ..takes quite a bit of planning..

it's not like the First or Second world wars where thousands...of men could be sacrificed...and sent to certain death

by the officers who planned operations.....war is conducted differently now..?

so I think helping to arm and train the Kurds and the Iraqi Army is the best avenue to take right now....

and if the situation changes for the worst...then reconsider...(and give the Syrian Army support as well)

The logistics of an International effort would require even more careful planning...

The numbers of soldiers needed couldn't just be dumped in the affected towns...

with the armed IS fighters waiting for them....

(but what do I know... ^_^ )

Just not a big enough "heartbreaker" to want to support British troops onthe ground?

see above...

This does seem to be what the Obama administration wanted, doesn't it? I mean after all this is what they have succeeded in doing.

I don't know.... :hmm:...it started with Bush and Blair and Iraq...

.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in order to give them a bloody nose, that would require troops on the ground, whose troops? in order to give them that bloody nose, that would mean sending thousands of troops into Syria. Lets not hype ISIS up here, they are small fry, made to look more dangerous than the sum of their parts thanks to a over zealist Western Media 24 hour news reporting, which gives the news media their big headlines and flashing BREAKING NEWS banners and ticker tapes at the bottom of the TV screen.

ISIS could be wiped out tomorrow by the tribes in Eastern Iraq. If they chose to do so, in fact i'll go as far to say ISIS is welcomed by these tribes, If these tribes didnt want ISIS, they'd attack ISIS just like the insurgents in Iraq targeted Western troops whilst in Iraq. Our troops couldn't do a thousand meter patrol without coming under attack. yet ISIS less organised, less equipt we're led to believe has free rein. Its simply rubbish, the Iraqis in these ISIS areas are allowing them there. because they don't believe in the government from Iraq.

It was well established before ISIS hit our headlines that Iraq was on the verge of splitting, - Its clear in the way in which we the West have removed the former Iraqi Prime minister Al, Al Maliki. (who was democratically elected) and has since been replaced by al-Abadi. who was not elected, and was simply chosen by the West to try and ease the countries woes and stop the splitting of Iraq and the sectarian violence, So this highlights the bigger picture at play here.

So lets take a look back at ISIS are they really the big threat our media and government's say? No, is the answer. they are not as dangerous as Al Qaeda, ISIS are not even in the same league. ISIS don't even pose a threat beyond the towns boundaries that they occupy in Iraq or Syria. the only way ISIS can strike in a western country is if they have sympathisers who live in the west already, ISIS isn't going to march out of Syria and onto our cities in great numbers.

So people please, stop and look at the evidence we have for ISIS. the Media is getting everyone all worked up, and its the same with Ebola. i dont know why the media don't just run a BREAKING NEWS banner with were all going to die.

But where is our Government in all this, they go along with the media, in fact its the government who are briefing the media hyping ISIS up, getting everyone hysterical, "oh we have do stop ISIS" the biggest "threat to national" security, "ISIS are a fight we cant opt of of " Its all a load of crap because the ultimate goal is to bomb Syria and remove Assad. it was in 2013 and it is in 2014.

This whole ISIS situation as about six different elements to it, and its no wonder the regional powers are not getting involved, because unlike use gullible Westerns driven by a Media circus they are actually reading the script.

ISIS (assuming one can believe ANYTHING being reported) has approx 2 billion in cash reserves. If they have even half that amount, they are far more well funded and therefore more dangerous than AQ. I've tried to make the point several times (obviously poorly) that the danger from ISIS isn't their current number of troops, tanks, or aircrafts. It is the fact that their ideology and methods could "catch the imagination" of a wider population in the Sunni world. These people don't look at the world as we do in the west. It's a lesson we never seem to learn. For them an enemy who will not fight is a coward and can be pushed. They don't appreciate restraint - they try to take advantage of it. Your scenario appears to rely on the region mending itself. Dear old Darwin tells us that the STRONG survive. So only the strongest of these types will be left at some point. Strong to them equals brutal. Our leaders seem content to wring hands anyway so I suspect the non intervention you seek will be the actual outcome - or very close to it. Excuses about why our policy failed will abound on the day after a major western city is struck with chemical, bio or nuke weapons. They won't matter much.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its just sad how many gave their lives for the people of the middle east to have a little taste of freedom from dictatorship and religious domination, all for to go back from ISIS taking over:(

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

seriously?

Who of us can say for sure what's going on...apart from speculation..

Iraq was thrown into chaos and violence due to the US/UK invasion...

This might not have been the actual plan and perhaps the instigators really believed successful democracy

could be introduced......in other words a gross miscalculation that didn't take into account the militant Islamic Jihadists..

Then in Libya...the country was thrown into chaos and violence by extensive bombing and maybe the 'West' thought

they were being clever using Jihadists to help them bring about regime change.... gross miscalculation again..

Then Syria...the country is half way to being engulfed in chaos and violence....again...did 'the West' think they were

being clever using the Jihadists as a proxy army to bring about regime change...?

Then all the destablizing backfires and a serious situation like the attempted creation of an Islamic State happens...

But this does seem to be rather a lot of gross miscalculations....so maybe the whole sorry affair is something to do with

the petrodollar...... :unsure2: ....dunno.....

.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only agree with your analysis, bee. I suppose the question is, which is the more plausible, error after misjudgment after *****up by administration after administration (after all, this all goes back at least to US support of the Mujahedeen when they were the Good Guys fighting the Russkies, and support or at least encouragement of Saddam when he was fighting iran, and probably much further than that to US support for the Shah), or is there a long-term plan behind it? Is conspiracy more likely than that so many adminstrations could make some many mistakes again and again and again? Could they really not anticipate that if they knocked out the infrastructure and administration of a country, deposed its leader and put a puppet in place, and either imposed a military occupation or just pulled out and hoped that they'd be so grateful for liberating them that they'd just embrace democracy out of sheer joy, not only might it be resented by the people you've freed, and they might not welcome your occupation or the new government you've kindly provided, but some groups or forces that are organised and powerful enough to exert influence might appear to fill the vacuum? Or is that what they wanted all along, since they felt that these groups might be useful to them in pursuit of their real long-term aims?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only agree with your analysis, bee. I suppose the question is, which is the more plausible, error after misjudgment after *****up by administration after administration (after all, this all goes back at least to US support of the Mujahedeen when they were the Good Guys fighting the Russkies, and support or at least encouragement of Saddam when he was fighting iran, and probably much further than that to US support for the Shah), or is there a long-term plan behind it? Is conspiracy more likely than that so many adminstrations could make some many mistakes again and again and again? Could they really not anticipate that if they knocked out the infrastructure and administration of a country, deposed its leader and put a puppet in place, and either imposed a military occupation or just pulled out and hoped that they'd be so grateful for liberating them that they'd just embrace democracy out of sheer joy, not only might it be resented by the people you've freed, and they might not welcome your occupation or the new government you've kindly provided, but some groups or forces that are organised and powerful enough to exert influence might appear to fill the vacuum? Or is that what they wanted all along, since they felt that these groups might be useful to them in pursuit of their real long-term aims?

Imagine Dramatic Chipmunk video here...... :w00t:

A while back I read something about some big oil finds in Syrian territory....but the development was hampered by sanctions..

Saddam was said to be threatening to drop the dollar in favour of the euro for oil transactions...

Gadaffi was said to be going to go against the petrodollar...

Saudi Arabia holds power over the US economy because of the petrodollar...???

(no one panic...just speculation :o )

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.