- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
ISIS.. Iraq, Iran, and the US. Understanding the issues
Posted on 6/22/14 at 10:59 pm
Posted on 6/22/14 at 10:59 pm
Another thread was high jacked, and I apologize for that. So here is a thread to talk and debate about the lack of a foreign policy and where we should go from here.
ISIS will become our greatest threat if allowed to stand. Most take that as getting involved in a religious civil war. I do not see it that way at all. ISIS is a terrorist organization that happens to be sunni.
For comparison:
LINK
Read that slowly. This is not what some here are making it out to be. This isn't strickly a sunni vs other factions. This is a terrorist organization taking over and imposing their will.
Let me add another source.
LINK
Look at the link address. Asharq Al-Awsat is the world’s premier pan-Arab daily newspaper, Then read:
Once again, this is not a Sunni vs other factions. IT's a terrorist organization seizing control.
Again, this is not a war of Islamic factions. This is a terrorist group seizing power and land and money.
SO what does the US do? Do we allow ISIS to take control, recruit, gain more weapons and then carry out their plans?
ISIS will become our greatest threat if allowed to stand. Most take that as getting involved in a religious civil war. I do not see it that way at all. ISIS is a terrorist organization that happens to be sunni.
For comparison:
LINK
quote:
When al-Qa’ida in Iraq, the forerunner of Isis, insisted on local women marrying their fighters during the Sunni-Shia civil war between 2004 and 2008, they alienated much of the Sunni community. They killed even minor government employees. “I would rather have my door kicked in by American soldiers than by al-Qa’ida because, with the Americans, I would stand a better chance of staying alive,” a young Sunni man in Baghdad said at the time. Such feelings enabled the Americans to create Sahwa, an anti-al-Qa’ida force among the Sunni.
Read that slowly. This is not what some here are making it out to be. This isn't strickly a sunni vs other factions. This is a terrorist organization taking over and imposing their will.
Let me add another source.
LINK
Look at the link address. Asharq Al-Awsat is the world’s premier pan-Arab daily newspaper, Then read:
quote:
Sunni blocs strengthen rejection of ISIS
quote:
Iraq’s largest Sunni parliamentary bloc has strongly denounced the Islamist militant group the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and its extremist ideology, as reports came in that the militant group had seized three further towns in the restive Western Anbar province overnight.
Once again, this is not a Sunni vs other factions. IT's a terrorist organization seizing control.
quote:
Parliament Speaker Osama Al-Nujaifi, who heads the Sunni Mutahidoun bloc which won 33 seats in the last elections, has stressed that both the leaders and grassroots supporters of the bloc are completely against ISIS and its “takfirist” ideology.
quote:
He also noted that there are “unsuccessful attempts” to blame terrorism on Sunnis, “although Sunnis are hit the hardest by the crimes of terrorism.”
In this context, Essam Al-Obaidi, a senior figure in the Mutahidoun bloc, told Asharq Al-Awsat that people in the western parts of the country are “paying the price of crimes committed by ISIS gangs and all terrorist organizations, which we have always warned the government about, but it [the government] failed to secure the country’s borders, making it a pass for all gangs and militias going to Syria under the pretext of defending holy places and those coming from it [Syria] in various ways”.
Again, this is not a war of Islamic factions. This is a terrorist group seizing power and land and money.
SO what does the US do? Do we allow ISIS to take control, recruit, gain more weapons and then carry out their plans?
6
Posted on 6/22/14 at 11:03 pm to darkhorse
We'll be fine. Relax.
Posted on 6/22/14 at 11:04 pm to darkhorse
Let the frickers burn. I do not wish to see one more American life lost defending a society which insists on residing in the 8th century.
Call me once they figure out how long range ballistics work.
Call me once they figure out how long range ballistics work.
Posted on 6/22/14 at 11:07 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Let the frickers burn. I do not wish to see one more American life lost defending a society which insists on residing in the 8th century.
How about illegals who we could send and give them citizenship upon their arrival back being alive and all?
Posted on 6/22/14 at 11:12 pm to StrangeBrew
Yeah, because that would go over so well 
Besides, I value the lives of our illegals a lot more than the lives of Iraqis. Illegals are useful and keep costs down on domestic goods. Iraq is full of terrorists and ungrateful troglodytes who insist their way is better than ours.
frick them. frick them so very hard.
Besides, I value the lives of our illegals a lot more than the lives of Iraqis. Illegals are useful and keep costs down on domestic goods. Iraq is full of terrorists and ungrateful troglodytes who insist their way is better than ours.
frick them. frick them so very hard.
Posted on 6/22/14 at 11:15 pm to StrangeBrew
quote:
SO what does the US do?
Gives them more guns.
Posted on 6/22/14 at 11:16 pm to ninthward
quote:
How about illegals who we could send and give them citizenship upon their arrival back being alive and all?
We already do this.
Posted on 6/22/14 at 11:16 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Yeah, because that would go over so well
So you do not think this is part of the current makeup of the US military?
Posted on 6/22/14 at 11:17 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
I do not wish to see one more American life lost defending a society which insists on residing in the 8th century.
You think that's what we're doing? Defending a society?
Posted on 6/22/14 at 11:20 pm to StrangeBrew
quote:
So you do not think this is part of the current makeup of the US military?
Of course, but only because it's passively done. If we started actively recruiting illegals and only illegals explicitly for the purpose of killing a bunch of unhinged camel jockeys, people would lose their shite. The right would bitch about granting them citizenship on principle, and the left would bleed to death.
Posted on 6/22/14 at 11:22 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
You think that's what we're doing? Defending a society?
That's the rouse we went with. I care neither for the stated mission nor the financial benefits.
Posted on 6/22/14 at 11:29 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
That's the rouse we went with. I care neither for the stated mission nor the financial benefits.
It's not even the 'rouse' (get real with this jerk-off vocab stuff) we went with, is it? Didn't we go there for weapons of mass destruction, and didn't we get involved in the region to hunt down Osama and exterminate terrorism?
Posted on 6/22/14 at 11:37 pm to Sleeping Tiger
This isn't an issue of nation building. This is a threat to the US directly.
ISIS has stated they will attack the US directly. They plan on using people with US passports. They will train them and send them here.
Not one single person on any political side disagrees that ISIS controlling the area they do is a good thing. They all know that it enables them to recruit easily.
The only people I see labeling this as a inner Iraqi civil war has been a few on this board.
ISIS has stated they will attack the US directly. They plan on using people with US passports. They will train them and send them here.
Not one single person on any political side disagrees that ISIS controlling the area they do is a good thing. They all know that it enables them to recruit easily.
The only people I see labeling this as a inner Iraqi civil war has been a few on this board.
Posted on 6/22/14 at 11:40 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
We'll be fine. Relax.
I believe that's close to what the admin told Albright when she wanted to take out Laden.
Posted on 6/22/14 at 11:42 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Let the frickers burn. I do not wish to see one more American life lost defending a society which insists on residing in the 8th century.
Opportunities being lost. Same as with the Taliban.
quote:
Call me once they figure out how long range ballistics work.
Because that's what Al Qaeda used. Isis has already used chemical agents. Why are you against dealing with them now? Why would it mean massive troop build up?
Posted on 6/22/14 at 11:49 pm to darkhorse
quote:
ISIS has stated they will attack the US directly. They plan on using people with US passports. They will train them and send them here.
I started a thread recently on this topic
I was told that most of the posters on this board are aware that the US has funded and supported ISIS.
We were just their allies in Syria.
How do you feel about that?
Posted on 6/23/14 at 2:39 am to darkhorse
This guy disagrees with you
And this guy
LINK
As does Saudi Arabia
But this guy agrees with you
Hmmmm considering you've been wrong on everything else, I'm on the other team
quote:LINK
Far from it: direct military intervention by a Western state -- even if Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is requesting it -- would dramatically worsen the situation, and ISIS, contrary to what pro-interventionists might say, would inevitably come out on top.
And this guy
quote:
Eleven years on, western leaders should hang their heads in shame at what they have created. And surely now, Tony Blair must lose his job as envoy for peace in the Middle East.
LINK
As does Saudi Arabia
quote:LINK
We also absolutely oppose all foreign intervention and interference. So the call by the Iraqi foreign minister for President Obama and the US government to launch air strikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (Isis) rebels is beyond our comprehension
But this guy agrees with you
quote:
"There is no scenario where we can stop the bleeding in Iraq without American air power," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters after a closed Armed Services Committee briefing with Defense Department officials. Read more: https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/06/congress-divided-iraq-airstrikes-white-house-pressure.html##ixzz35RhHpo4x
Hmmmm considering you've been wrong on everything else, I'm on the other team
Posted on 6/23/14 at 3:00 am to Vegas Bengal
ISIS will never become our biggest threat as long as there are Shiites to kill.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 3:07 am to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
I started a thread recently on this topic
This topic is what to do about Isis. Not so much as how they came to be. The article you linked to was horrible. The writer could not form sentences:
quote:
Once the U.S. military is able to freely conduct operations in Syrian territory getting the regime change that they will be much, much easier.
What?? Seriously bad.
quote:
I was told that most of the posters on this board are aware that the US has funded and supported ISIS.
Second, your article makes a huge leap in saying we funded and armed ISIS. The linked article to back up what the writer asserts states the leader of the SRF is not fighting Al Qaeda. It also says we gave the SRF aid to fight ISIS:
quote:
when the SRF was the recipient of significant aid from the US and its allies in order to fight the ultra-extremist and one-time al-Qa’ida affiliate Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis).
With help from the Salafi Islamic Front and Aleppo-based Islamist Army of the Mujahedin, the SRF has forced Isis to retreat to its stronghold in the Aleppo provincial city of Raqqa, to Jarabulus on the Turkish border and to the Iraqi border.
So your article does not prove we funded ISIS. Your article CLEARLY linked to another article that CLEARLY stated that we gave AID to the people who pushed ISIS back.
Not one link in that complete article states we armed ISIS.
Now, if you want to talk about why Obama is destabilizing all of the ME.... start a thread.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 3:25 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:
This guy disagrees with you
quote:
Far from it: direct military intervention by a Western state -- even if Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is requesting it -- would dramatically worsen the situation, and ISIS, contrary to what pro-interventionists might say, would inevitably come out on top.
Then he turns around and says:
quote:
But even if it is not our place to carry out military action, this is not to say that military intervention is categorically inappropriate. Indeed, if the Iraqi national army cannot pull itself together, I would argue it is absolutely necessary.
Now how do either of those quotes disagree with me?
quote:
And this guy
quote:
Eleven years on, western leaders should hang their heads in shame at what they have created. And surely now, Tony Blair must lose his job as envoy for peace in the Middle East.
And where's the disagreement?
quote:
But this guy agrees with you
quote:
"There is no scenario where we can stop the bleeding in Iraq without American air power," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters after a closed Armed Services Committee briefing with Defense Department officials
Where's the agreement?
quote:
Hmmmm considering you've been wrong on everything else, I'm on the other team
I'm not going to play this game with VB. Either we have a conversation and you drop the playground antics, or I simply will ignore your posts.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News