- 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
Why can't the US, UK, France etc. GTFO out the middle east?
Posted on 6/5/17 at 11:29 am
Posted on 6/5/17 at 11:29 am
Will that stop these mindless terrorist attacks? Jeez....
11
Posted on 6/5/17 at 11:30 am to iPadThai
Because we're married to the petro dollar
Posted on 6/5/17 at 11:31 am to iPadThai
Because none of them actually have anything resembling a desire to leave the Middle East. Britain and France caused this mess at the end of the First World War, with basically our support.
Posted on 6/5/17 at 11:32 am to bamarep
quote:
Because we're married to the petro dollar
Posted on 6/5/17 at 11:32 am to iPadThai
Military Industrial Complex / Washington DC lobbyists / Israel keep us there.
Eisenhower warned us about this being the biggest risk to post-WWII America. He saw the writing on the wall.
The fact that Obama quickly became subservient to the MIC and Deep State / Lobbyists shows how strong this group is. JFK and RFK were possibly taken out because of their opposition to MIC.
Trump has so far walked a tightrope between showing overtures of placation to the MIC and keeping us out of significant new conflicts and honouring his "America First" promise.
Eisenhower warned us about this being the biggest risk to post-WWII America. He saw the writing on the wall.
The fact that Obama quickly became subservient to the MIC and Deep State / Lobbyists shows how strong this group is. JFK and RFK were possibly taken out because of their opposition to MIC.
Trump has so far walked a tightrope between showing overtures of placation to the MIC and keeping us out of significant new conflicts and honouring his "America First" promise.
This post was edited on 6/5/17 at 11:34 am
Posted on 6/5/17 at 11:32 am to ILeaveAtHalftime
quote:
Because none of them actually have anything resembling a desire to leave the Middle East. Britain and France caused this mess at the end of the First World War, with basically our support.
Well said.
Posted on 6/5/17 at 11:33 am to iPadThai
Oil and Israel.
In other words: money.
In other words: money.
Posted on 6/5/17 at 11:34 am to iPadThai
Involvement in international markets doesn't mean you should allow millions of Muslims within your borders.
Posted on 6/5/17 at 11:34 am to iPadThai
quote:
Why can't the US, UK, France etc. GTFO out the middle east?
Because of ExxonMobil and BP British Petroleum.
What one product is most essential to a country's, particularly a modern industrial power's, autonomy, their sanctity, security and stability.
Why were battles fought in North Africa during WW II so strategically critical?
Posted on 6/5/17 at 11:35 am to Superior Pariah
I think some of you are overrating oil. Infrastructure and defence contracts are much bigger fish to fry than oil. But at least you're on the right track.
Posted on 6/5/17 at 11:35 am to iPadThai
earl
i mean orerl
i mean oerral,
oh shittttt...
cheap gas!
i mean orerl
i mean oerral,
oh shittttt...
cheap gas!
Posted on 6/5/17 at 11:35 am to iPadThai
quote:there's still so much oil though
Will that stop these mindless terrorist attacks? Jeez....
Posted on 6/5/17 at 11:37 am to iPadThai
The world is far more complex than people like to think. When President Obama pulled us out of Iraq, ISIS was what moved in to fill the power vacuum left in our departure.
If the West pulled completely out of the Middle East, what greater monstrosity might move in to take the place of such a large departure?
Or would the governments there all become more Saddam-like in their approaches to radicalism and keep it tamped down through the only responsive language such zealots understand?
It comes down to a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario and which is the greater damnation.
If the West pulled completely out of the Middle East, what greater monstrosity might move in to take the place of such a large departure?
Or would the governments there all become more Saddam-like in their approaches to radicalism and keep it tamped down through the only responsive language such zealots understand?
It comes down to a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario and which is the greater damnation.
Posted on 6/5/17 at 11:37 am to iPadThai
(no message)
This post was edited on 11/17/21 at 6:13 pm
Posted on 6/5/17 at 11:39 am to Superior Pariah
quote:
Oil and Israel
This is what I always assumed. Don't know what other reasons there'd be.
Posted on 6/5/17 at 11:41 am to scrooster
quote:
Why were battles fought in North Africa during WW II so strategically critical?
A)Because Rommel's Afrika Korps was threatening Egypt and therefore the Suez Canal, the lifeline of the British Empire.
B) French Algeria and Morocco was essentially a practice run for massive naval invasions. We moved the entire force across the Atlantic, and our action there was important in learning lessons for the DDay invasions
C) Britain had just lost A large portion of its European equipment when they left it on the beaches at Dunkirk. We had no army in Britain. There simply wasn't an option to fight in Europe that early. It would be until June of 44 before the Allies had enough logistics in place to reopen the western front.
Going into North Africa was the only way to fight Germans in the mean time
The strategic decision was made to fight in North Africa in order to drive the Germans into the Med and attack the "soft underbelly" of Europe through Italy.
The North African campaigns in World War Two were not fought over what is today considered the Middle East. They concentrated along the Sinai and Libya at their greatest eastward extent. And our involvement was almost entirely in Algeria and Tunisia.
This post was edited on 6/5/17 at 11:44 am
Posted on 6/5/17 at 11:44 am to iPadThai
Your post makes no sense. US, UK, French aren't committing acts of terrorism in the ME. People of ME origins are commuting those acts in the US, UK, and France. Wouldn't it make more sense to remove them?
Posted on 6/5/17 at 11:54 am to Dawgfanman
The more important question, of course, is why the frick can't essentially the entire world defeat these motherfrickers?
And the answer is painfully obvious.
We , of course, could "defeat" ISIS and or Al Queda , or any other terrorist group at any time of our choosing, but it would require WWII level war to do so.
We hear crying and screaming about Trump wanting an additional 5,000 troops in the "Stan? Please, if we really wanted to win over there, we' send 100K troops fully combat geared, and you better be prepared for civilian casualties as well.
It would have to be no fricks given war like we brought to Europe against Hitler. It would involve US casualties.
But that is how we could win over there.
Short of that, I don't know why we don't just get the frick out.
And the answer is painfully obvious.
We , of course, could "defeat" ISIS and or Al Queda , or any other terrorist group at any time of our choosing, but it would require WWII level war to do so.
We hear crying and screaming about Trump wanting an additional 5,000 troops in the "Stan? Please, if we really wanted to win over there, we' send 100K troops fully combat geared, and you better be prepared for civilian casualties as well.
It would have to be no fricks given war like we brought to Europe against Hitler. It would involve US casualties.
But that is how we could win over there.
Short of that, I don't know why we don't just get the frick out.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News