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 -

U.S is pulling out of middle east, thoughts?


spartan max2

The U.S.A pulling out of the middle east, good or bad?  

43 members have voted

  1. 1. What do you think of the U.S reducing involvement in the middel east?

    • I think it is a good thing
      20
    • I think it is a bad thing
      5
    • I am neutral or unsure if it is good or bad
      6
    • I think it is mostly good, but alittle bad
      7
    • I think it is mostly bad, but alittle good
      3
    • I do not care
      3


Recommended Posts

 
10 hours ago, Setton said:

Which would be a reasonable position if we hadn't just spent the last 20 years utterly mangling their countries to the point of being ungovernable....

Hmm.. which is worse ? Ungovernable countries, or governed countries with leaders like Saddam Hussein and Ghaddaffi ? 

10 hours ago, Setton said:

.....If we pull out now, it goes 2 ways. 

1. The Iraqi security forces aren't up to tackling ISIS permanently. ISIS makes use of the ungoverned space to restart its caliphate. This time it overruns virtually all of Iraq without Shia militias to stop it. Having regained territory, we see a return to the levels of attacks we saw in 2014-17.

2. (More likely) Same scenario but the Shia militia do rise up again and stop ISIS. They fully integrate into government and Iran has a continuous permissive space all the way to the Israeli border. They attack and we choose to abandon our ally or go back to war in a worse position. 

1) So what ? Let them form their caliphate. It's not as though they can threaten Europe or America. They are primitives who can only thrive in the absence of organised opposition. They wouldn't get very far against Jordan or Saudi Arabia, let alone Israel. 

2) Iraq doesn't have a border with Israel ? Not even close. Your hypothetical "Shia government" would have to take control of (Sunni) Syria for that to happen ? 

I'm pretty relaxed about the Middle East, and I'm a great believer in "leave them alone". After all, the Arab invasion of Israel in 1973 would have failed before it had even begun if it hadn't been for Soviet interference. Ditto the formation of the PLO.

In terms of more modern groups like HAMAS and Hezbollah... hey.. what ARE those assault rifles they are carrying with the curved magazines ? M16's ? AR-80's ? FAMAS-F1's ? Oh gosh no.. they're Russian design AK-47's, aren't they ? 

I'd restrict military action in the Middle East to enforcing a weapons embargo. 

Edited by RoofGardener
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm.. which is worse ? Ungovernable countries, or governed countries with leaders like Saddam Hussein and Ghaddaffi ? 

A decent point except we already made the decision. Can't turn back the clock. 

Quote

1) So what ? Let them form their caliphate. It's not as though they can threaten Europe or America. They are primitives who can only thrive in the absence of organised opposition. They wouldn't get very far against Jordan or Saudi Arabia, let alone Israel. 

Have you already forgotten the Bataclan? Or Manchester? They can and they will. The only reason they don't anymore is because they have no territory to organise in. 

Quote

2) Iraq doesn't have a border with Israel ? Not even close. Your hypothetical "Shia government" would have to take control of (Sunni) Syria for that to happen ? 

1. The 'hypothetical' Shia government already exists. The ruling coalition in Iraq is the political wings of various militia. 

2. These militia already operate freely in Syria. 

3. They would not need to take over Syria, only have the support of the Syrian government. 

4. Syria's population may be predominantly Sunni, but its leadership is Shia. 

Quote

I'm pretty relaxed about the Middle East, and I'm a great believer in "leave them alone". After all, the Arab invasion of Israel in 1973 would have failed before it had even begun if it hadn't been for Soviet interference. Ditto the formation of the PLO.

Again, this would be a good idea if we hadn't already interfered. Russia is not going to back off out of politeness if we do.

We have to deal with the situation as it stands today. And that is a situation where we must choose to stay where we aren't wanted, allow terrorists the freedom to attack us, or abandon our closest regional ally. 

Or, as the UK, we could continue discussions with the Iraqi government to maintain a presence for the purposes of training and counter terrorism support. The US doesn't have that option anymore. Not since openly declaring they're using Iraqi territory to spy on Iran. 

Quote

In terms of more modern groups like HAMAS and Hezbollah... hey.. what ARE those assault rifles they are carrying with the curved magazines ? M16's ? AR-80's ? FAMAS-F1's ? Oh gosh no.. they're Russian design AK-47's, aren't they ? 

Not sure about HAMAS and Lebanese Hezbollah but the Iraqi militias have highly advanced equipment, a lot of it of Western manufacture. Because we gave it to the Iraqis and other groups to fight ISIS, ISIS took it from them and the PMF took it from the Iraqi army and ISIS. 

Quote

I'd restrict military action in the Middle East to enforcing a weapons embargo. 

And if Russia continues to supply weapons (which they will because we will continue supplying Israel), how do you plan to enforce this? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, and then said:

Unfortunately, there's that whole, "destroy America and Israel" Lobby in Tehran.

Yes there is, that's how you chant against those who conspire against you for 40 years but Iranian officials have said, on many occasions, that they have no problem with people of Israel but with Zionist regime as they call it. I do not like to discuss empty accusations.

19 hours ago, and then said:

Until Iran's leaders desire peace with the Jewish state there won't be any chance of accommodation.

Why should they? Should state of affairs with Jewish state determine the future of whole countries and people in them? That's sick if you ask me. Wan't enemies? Be enemies or whatever but to dictate something like that is sick if you ask me. And that's exactly what prideful Iranian civilization is against.

15 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

here IS no "axis of resistance". If "The West" wanted to colonise the middle east, it could do it within a few weeks

It's not so easy anymore because now if someone would like to 'colonise' it would mean great price in blood for every side involved not only for local population. Vietnam was catastrophe because army can not fight against militias and guerrilla tactics, as Vietcong knew. One more important thing, precision weapons, bombs, rockets... There are those weapons in many hands now, especially after ISIS debacle which turned it's western weapons into Syrian and Hezbollah hands. Axis of resistance is alive and real, if they call themselves that way who are we to say that they do not exist? But anyways that's all different topic and some interesting points you did make here.

15 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

However, the fact of the matter is that NO Western country has any interest in 'colonising' the region. Theyd rather put their hands in a mincing machine. 

Wait if few OPEC countries leave petrodolar... :) Since 1973 situation is relatively calm but only because deal which was made back then. Hell whole October war was orchestrated for those purposes. If economy fails (which seems likely with every new day) then all bets are on the table.

15 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Pulling out might cause SOME problems. But staying in would be worse. Let them fester in their own bile. 

I would agree with this, but decades ago now it's complicated. As i said, for American people it would be best to leave but for the future of American people, something constructive has to be done in other areas, not just military way... It surely ain't working.

But Syria, hell there we have learned a lot, who wanted to see between the lines and by researching history of that land.

Syria has strong leadership there, USA doesn't need to be in Syria but it seems that it won't pull out of Syria. After all there is co-owned pieces of business in occupied Golan which Syrian government is to take back, rightly so. Meanwhile Afghan debacle is continuing, because of heroine or because of liberty i am not sure anymore...

Take a look of pictures of Mosul and Raqqa after ''liberation'' by the coalition forces... Even year after there are still bodies on the streets and nothing else, scenes from nuclear disaster. Then look at pictures of liberated Aleppo. Words are not important in this case, just look and realize it was never about liberty, freedom or civilians but only about power projection in most inhumane way. Who knows what next couple of weeks hold about this, we shall see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Why should they?

No one said they have to.  I just made a simple statement.  UNTIL the Iranians desire peace with Israel, they can expect to be treated as the adversaries they are.  At some point, the Islamic fundies in Tehran will either make peace or they'll finally convince themselves they can eliminate Israel - as they often state the desire to do.  When that day comes, that prideful "civilization" may just cease to exist as a functioning entity.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, and then said:

No one said they have to.  I just made a simple statement.

Exactly, they are sovereign nation aren't they?

3 minutes ago, and then said:

UNTIL the Iranians desire peace with Israel, they can expect to be treated as the adversaries they are.

Indeed they are but why ;) As i said Iran have problem with Zionist regime and not with people of Israel. Israel and the US say that they are friends :D of Iranian people (even tho sanctions for 40 years say otherwise). I guess it's ''Venezuela'' kind of friendship. Anyhow it's irrelevant, both claims, one from Iran and those from US and Israel.  

6 minutes ago, and then said:

At some point, the Islamic fundies in Tehran will either make peace or they'll finally convince themselves they can eliminate Israel - as they often state the desire to do.

They would have done it long ago as they do have means. Conventional weapons would be enough and decade ago Mossad speculated that Iran could fire about 100.000 rockets under 10 minutes.

7 minutes ago, and then said:

When that day comes, that prideful "civilization" may just cease to exist as a functioning entity. 

That's disgusting but reminds me of quite a few events. As when nuclear armed jets were on the way to Cairo after USS Liberty event. Minutes were between death to millions of civilians. To punish someone like that, for whatever reason, is not humane, it's not civilized and it should be denounced, preemptive strike does not belong to this time.

I have no doubt that Iran is wise, strong and determined and USA did help to shape the face of Iran, which i just love as it is, enduring sanctions but having Space program and a lot more. Hey, did you know that one Museum in New York returned Persian artifact (very important one) to Tehran? People have no problem with each other it's interests of leading elites which make problems. Over 400 million $ worth of import of Persian carpets in the USA but i am sure that you do not buy them, nor any ordinary American for that matter. Those are for aristocracy.

I am very optimistic and expect peaceful solution for US-Iranian relationship, as Iran is growing it can not be treated as when CIA was deciding who will rule in Iran. 

PSSOqyo.jpg

Millions attending celebrations of Islamic revolution's 40 years. One of major founding rocks of international law is that no one can label all of population as terrorist or punish them for whatever the reason might be. Did you hear what Bibi said recently? I guess he was p***ed off by this show of unity among Iranian people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Setton said:

A decent point except we already made the decision. Can't turn back the clock. 

Have you already forgotten the Bataclan? Or Manchester? They can and they will. The only reason they don't anymore is because they have no territory to organise in. 

Those attacks where organised from Belgium, not Syria/Iraq. The existence - or otherwise - of a Caliphate wouldn't change terrorist attacks. 

3 hours ago, Setton said:

1. The 'hypothetical' Shia government already exists. The ruling coalition in Iraq is the political wings of various militia. 

2. These militia already operate freely in Syria. 

3. They would not need to take over Syria, only have the support of the Syrian government. 

4. Syria's population may be predominantly Sunni, but its leadership is Shia. 

Ah... I hadn't appreciated that. Nevertheless, I can't see al-Assad just allowing militias to wander around in his territory in the future ? 

3 hours ago, Setton said:

Again, this would be a good idea if we hadn't already interfered. Russia is not going to back off out of politeness if we do....And if Russia continues to supply weapons (which they will because we will continue supplying Israel), how do you plan to enforce this? ...

Fair point. Russia would have to co-operate with the embargo, or it wouldn't really work. 

3 hours ago, Setton said:

Not sure about HAMAS and Lebanese Hezbollah but the Iraqi militias have highly advanced equipment, a lot of it of Western manufacture. Because we gave it to the Iraqis and other groups to fight ISIS, ISIS took it from them and the PMF took it from the Iraqi army and ISIS. 

To which I can only say "DOH !". 

I'ts another reason NOT to get involved. You can't trust them. Half of the Iraqi army defected to ISIS, along with huge amounts of civilian support in the cities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Those attacks where organised from Belgium, not Syria/Iraq. The existence - or otherwise - of a Caliphate wouldn't change terrorist attacks. 

That's where they gathered, not where they trained. 

As for the second point, take a look at the attacks from when ISIS was establishing territory, when it had a stable territory and when it lost territory. There is a clear correlation between a secure territory and the scale of attacks in the west. 

Quote

Ah... I hadn't appreciated that. Nevertheless, I can't see al-Assad just allowing militias to wander around in his territory in the future ? 

Depends. He needs some friends in the region and the country is in chaos. I expect we'll see Iran establishing a Syrian version of the PMC in the near future. 

Quote

To which I can only say "DOH !". 

I'ts another reason NOT to get involved. You can't trust them. Half of the Iraqi army defected to ISIS, along with huge amounts of civilian support in the cities. 

Well, not quite half. Most just ran away. But fair point. Arming is a bad idea but training, if done properly, might be worthwhile. 

Anyway, again, we can't turn back the clock. They ARE well armed and we shouldn't underestimate them. 

Edited by Setton
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.