International Jihadis and the West's Response

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Aggv wrote:
Just because obama is black, and everyone is out to get him. Totally logical explanation for everything that cant still be blamed on Bush. [/quote]

In that long post that addressed several issues, you pull the one reference to Obama to discredit it. I made no mention of race or Bush for that matter, and none of that has anything to do with the points I was making. I’m not even blaming Obama or Bush or ANYONE for anything so your reply post makes no fucking sense. Blame has nothing to do with my post. What was I blaming Bush for?

I don’t give a shit about Obama or his race or whatever disagreements people have with him. I have several myself. The reference to Obama wasn’t even about him. It was about the truth that the American public does not have the will for another war in Iraq at this moment. Obama’s airstrikes are to placate people by showing that America has built a coalition with regional partners and is taking action without resorting to full scale war which the majority of Americans do not want. Because these airstrikes don’t amount to much, Iran has taken the role as the lead nation in the fight against ISIS. This is my point, which has nothing to do with Obama being black or blaming Bush.

102

While I agree with the last points in your last post, are you saying the US government should not be concerned about Iran’s growing influence in Iraq?

Edit, not your LAST post, but the last one on the other page, about how the US took out two of Iran’s enemies.

103

(Excellent post as usual, BPCorso…)

I most certainly would never try to speak for many of the knowledgeable posters in PWI (heck…I was ignorant of the Orthodox Rabbis feelings about Israel…)…

If I read correctly what BPC wrote…it isn’t that we shouldn’t be concerned…but that it’s incorrect to believe that Iran’s influence in Iraq was somehow a result of U.S. forces pulling out.

Their (Iran’s) influence pre-dates the arrival of U.S. forces…and was bolstered by the toppling of both the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.

Mufasa

104

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
(Excellent post as usual, BPCorso…)

I most certainly would never try to speak for many of the knowledgeable posters in PWI (heck…I was ignorant of the Orthodox Rabbis feelings about Israel…)…

If I read correctly what BPC wrote…it isn’t that we shouldn’t be concerned…but that it’s incorrect to believe that Iran’s influence in Iraq was somehow a result of U.S. forces pulling out.

Their (Iran’s) influence pre-dates the arrival of U.S. forces…and was bolstered by the toppling of both the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.

Mufasa
[/quote]

Neturei Karta do not represent “Orthodox Rabbis”. They’re a couple of hundred activists worldwide. Just some fringe nuts. The largest Orthodox sect is Chabad-Lubavitch and they’re staunch supporters of Israel. Some Orthodox Jews even believe the modern state of Israel to be the fulfilment of prophecy. Neturei Karta are a small group of activists within one particular sect. As I said, they’re the fringe and don’t represent Orthodox Judaism.

Edit: They’re like the Westboro Baptist of Judaism. Neturei Karta represent Orthodox Judaism about as much as Westboro Baptist represents Christianity or the Baptist church.

105

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]treco wrote:
Is having Iran stuck in a war against ISIS a bad thing?

Nope[/quote]

It’s not a bad thing, but Iran is no friend of the west. [/quote]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.[/quote]

Sometimes, the enemy of your enemy is also your enemy.
[/quote]

In the case of Iran, this is not true, it’s very, very true.
I don’t mind if Iran battles ISIS though, independently of the coalition. One thing I have realized in this war against terror, it’s a lot easier to deal with states than it is dealing with independent rogue elements. You simply have more options in dealing with a state then you do an ISIS. You can opt for sanctions on a country, where your only option in dealing with ISIS is militarily.

106

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:
Just because obama is black, and everyone is out to get him. Totally logical explanation for everything that cant still be blamed on Bush. [/quote]

In that long post that addressed several issues, you pull the one reference to Obama to discredit it. I made no mention of race or Bush for that matter, and none of that has anything to do with the points I was making. I’m not even blaming Obama or Bush or ANYONE for anything so your reply post makes no fucking sense. Blame has nothing to do with my post. What was I blaming Bush for?

I don’t give a shit about Obama or his race or whatever disagreements people have with him. I have several myself. The reference to Obama wasn’t even about him. It was about the truth that the American public does not have the will for another war in Iraq at this moment. Obama’s airstrikes are to placate people by showing that America has built a coalition with regional partners and is taking action without resorting to full scale war which the majority of Americans do not want. Because these airstrikes don’t amount to much, Iran has taken the role as the lead nation in the fight against ISIS. This is my point, which has nothing to do with Obama being black or blaming Bush.[/quote]

I think issuing airstrikes for the reason of placating an American public is a pretty dumb reason and way to carry on with a military campaign. If your goal isn’t to destroy an enemy that is hell bent on destroying you, then you are in it for the wrong reasons. I find half measures always worse and more dangerous to everybody involved than setting a clear goal and achieving it in the shortest amount of time possible.
While the airstrikes are working fairly well for now, we are not going to defeat this enemy without broader military action. We will need boots on the ground at some point. If not a combat role, at least performing an intelligence role to find more significant targets for the air strikes. For the air strikes to be maximally effective we need to know where to point the bombs. And I would like to see 100 sorties a day, rather than 120 a month. The only way to fold their tent is to pound them relentlessly.

107

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]treco wrote:
Is having Iran stuck in a war against ISIS a bad thing?

Nope[/quote]

It’s not a bad thing, but Iran is no friend of the west. [/quote]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.[/quote]

Sometimes, the enemy of your enemy is also your enemy.
[/quote]

In the case of Iran, this is not true, it’s very, very true.
I don’t mind if Iran battles ISIS though, independently of the coalition. One thing I have realized in this war against terror, it’s a lot easier to deal with states than it is dealing with independent rogue elements. You simply have more options in dealing with a state then you do an ISIS. You can opt for sanctions on a country, where your only option in dealing with ISIS is militarily. [/quote]

^Definitely a valid point, and even if sanctions/diplomacy failed the US military capability is still better equipped to deal with symmetrical warfare than yet another gorilla war. However, if I was Iran right now I’d be in there. They have an opportunity to further win the support of the Shi’ites in Iraq, and probably anyone currently suffering under IS control if they roll up IS. The enemy of your enemy is one thing, but the perceived liberator? That would win some hearts and minds. I think Iran will position itself to annex the Shi’ite areas of Iraq and some oil rich ground in the process.

I have generally been for exiting the ME as much as we could, but ISIL is like something Hollywood would come up with. We have a clear enemy, bent on destruction of anyone, Muslim or Westerner who doesn’t agree with them. The smart move in this movie plot would be to kick some ass, would some more schools and be done with it. Instead, we’re going hem and haw until Iran does, embarrasses us for our inaction and reaps the benefits.

108

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
While I agree with the last points in your last post, are you saying the US government should not be concerned about Iran’s growing influence in Iraq?

Edit, not your LAST post, but the last one on the other page, about how the US took out two of Iran’s enemies.[/quote]

Iran is an enemy country so the USA needs to be concerned with any instance of Iran’s growing influence. My point in those long posts was that Iran’s growing influence in Iraq was inevitable and a reversion to the historical norm, and the USA can’t do much about it without spending enormous amounts of money and resources. With the end result being temporary at best. Money and resources that could be put to more productive use in other initiatives. The USA attempted to combat this growing influence for a great price, and eventually Tehran just convinced Baghdad to demand full troop withdrawal, to the USA’s chagrin.

Like I said the USA needs to be concerned, but is it such a great concern that it’s worth the lives of soldiers and treasure/higher taxes? Iraq is thousands of miles away and doesn’t have much to offer the USA. Saddam Hussein was the USA’s best weapon against Iran’s influence in Iraq, and we know what happened to him.

109

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
(Excellent post as usual, BPCorso…)

I most certainly would never try to speak for many of the knowledgeable posters in PWI (heck…I was ignorant of the Orthodox Rabbis feelings about Israel…)…

If I read correctly what BPC wrote…it isn’t that we shouldn’t be concerned…but that it’s incorrect to believe that Iran’s influence in Iraq was somehow a result of U.S. forces pulling out.

Their (Iran’s) influence pre-dates the arrival of U.S. forces…and was bolstered by the toppling of both the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.

Mufasa
[/quote]

Yes, this was what I was trying to convey. I have poor skills for explaining my points succinctly. Even before US forces pulled out, Iran’s influence was there. Saddam Hussein’s removal was the real turning point.

110

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
While I agree with the last points in your last post, are you saying the US government should not be concerned about Iran’s growing influence in Iraq?

Edit, not your LAST post, but the last one on the other page, about how the US took out two of Iran’s enemies.[/quote]

Iran is an enemy country so the USA needs to be concerned with any instance of Iran’s growing influence. My point in those long posts was that Iran’s growing influence in Iraq was inevitable and a reversion to the historical norm, and the USA can’t do much about it without spending enormous amounts of money and resources. With the end result being temporary at best. Money and resources that could be put to more productive use in other initiatives. The USA attempted to combat this growing influence for a great price, and eventually Tehran just convinced Baghdad to demand full troop withdrawal, to the USA’s chagrin.

Like I said the USA needs to be concerned, but is it such a great concern that it’s worth the lives of soldiers and treasure/higher taxes? Iraq is thousands of miles away and doesn’t have much to offer the USA. Saddam Hussein was the USA’s best weapon against Iran’s influence in Iraq, and we know what happened to him.[/quote]

It’s not about their geographic location nor their potential benefit to us. It’s about the threat that ISIS and the other islam extremists who pose harm and threat to us and our allies. Terrorists have long arms who are not constrained by borders and they can hit us where we live.
This isn’t a situation where you can ignore it and hope it goes away. If unchecked they will hit us. It’s only a matter of time.

111

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:
Just because obama is black, and everyone is out to get him. Totally logical explanation for everything that cant still be blamed on Bush. [/quote]

In that long post that addressed several issues, you pull the one reference to Obama to discredit it. I made no mention of race or Bush for that matter, and none of that has anything to do with the points I was making. I’m not even blaming Obama or Bush or ANYONE for anything so your reply post makes no fucking sense. Blame has nothing to do with my post. What was I blaming Bush for?

I don’t give a shit about Obama or his race or whatever disagreements people have with him. I have several myself. The reference to Obama wasn’t even about him. It was about the truth that the American public does not have the will for another war in Iraq at this moment. Obama’s airstrikes are to placate people by showing that America has built a coalition with regional partners and is taking action without resorting to full scale war which the majority of Americans do not want. Because these airstrikes don’t amount to much, Iran has taken the role as the lead nation in the fight against ISIS. This is my point, which has nothing to do with Obama being black or blaming Bush.[/quote]

I think issuing airstrikes for the reason of placating an American public is a pretty dumb reason and way to carry on with a military campaign. If your goal isn’t to destroy an enemy that is hell bent on destroying you, then you are in it for the wrong reasons. I find half measures always worse and more dangerous to everybody involved than setting a clear goal and achieving it in the shortest amount of time possible.
While the airstrikes are working fairly well for now, we are not going to defeat this enemy without broader military action. We will need boots on the ground at some point. If not a combat role, at least performing an intelligence role to find more significant targets for the air strikes. For the air strikes to be maximally effective we need to know where to point the bombs. And I would like to see 100 sorties a day, rather than 120 a month. The only way to fold their tent is to pound them relentlessly. [/quote]

And I agree with you. Your post shows you’re thinking about this logically. But I think there have been enough polls showing that most Americans do not want boots on the ground right now, so which politician is going to support that stance? Other things you say corroborate what I was posting about earlier, that these air strikes are not effective enough. That is part of my logic as to why Iran has real incentive to be involved in this war.

112

[quote]TheKraken wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]treco wrote:
Is having Iran stuck in a war against ISIS a bad thing?

Nope[/quote]

It’s not a bad thing, but Iran is no friend of the west. [/quote]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.[/quote]

Sometimes, the enemy of your enemy is also your enemy.
[/quote]

In the case of Iran, this is not true, it’s very, very true.
I don’t mind if Iran battles ISIS though, independently of the coalition. One thing I have realized in this war against terror, it’s a lot easier to deal with states than it is dealing with independent rogue elements. You simply have more options in dealing with a state then you do an ISIS. You can opt for sanctions on a country, where your only option in dealing with ISIS is militarily. [/quote]

^Definitely a valid point, and even if sanctions/diplomacy failed the US military capability is still better equipped to deal with symmetrical warfare than yet another gorilla war. However, if I was Iran right now I’d be in there. They have an opportunity to further win the support of the Shi’ites in Iraq, and probably anyone currently suffering under IS control if they roll up IS. The enemy of your enemy is one thing, but the perceived liberator? That would win some hearts and minds. I think Iran will position itself to annex the Shi’ite areas of Iraq and some oil rich ground in the process.

I have generally been for exiting the ME as much as we could, but ISIL is like something Hollywood would come up with. We have a clear enemy, bent on destruction of anyone, Muslim or Westerner who doesn’t agree with them. The smart move in this movie plot would be to kick some ass, would some more schools and be done with it. Instead, we’re going hem and haw until Iran does, embarrasses us for our inaction and reaps the benefits. [/quote]

It’s already happening. This is playing very well for Tehran’s propaganda machine. It’s turning out very poorly for its rivals Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

I disagree with the annexation part, though. For many reasons but I think the obvious one is that Baghdad is already a client of Iran. The rest of the world would flip out if that happened, and rightfully so. It would not be worthwhile move, and no matter what you think of the Iranian regime, it’s shrewd and is good at surviving.

113

[quote]pat wrote:

It’s not about their geographic location nor their potential benefit to us. It’s about the threat that ISIS and the other islam extremists who pose harm and threat to us and our allies. Terrorists have long arms who are not constrained by borders and they can hit us where we live.
This isn’t a situation where you can ignore it and hope it goes away. If unchecked they will hit us. It’s only a matter of time. [/quote]

ISIS and other Islamic extremists pose absolutely no existential threat to us. They may be capable of causing another attack on the scale of 9/11 (unlikely imo, given that the extremists hate us more than ever but have failed at pretty much every attempt at a terrorist attack on U.S. soil in the last 14 years), and it is absolutely absurd to even consider that they can actually hurt us. As horrible as 9/11 was, at the end of the day it didn’t harm us as a country. In fact, our reaction to it harmed us far more than the incident itself.

Frankly speaking, the fact that they pose a threat to us is irrelevant. Just because they are dangerous doesn’t mean that we need to take action immediately. This type of argument is what you would expect from people who want a nanny state (soda is bad for you and can cause significant health problems- ban it! Your kid can get kidnapped if they’re playing alone outside! Ban kids staying alone!). The only difference is that you folks are applying it to foreign policy whereas the nanny state folks apply it to domestic policy.

114

[quote]magick wrote:
ISIS and other Islamic extremists pose absolutely no existential threat to us. They may be capable of causing another attack on the scale of 9/11 (unlikely imo, given that the extremists hate us more than ever but have failed at pretty much every attempt at a terrorist attack on U.S. soil in the last 14 years), and it is absolutely absurd to even consider that they can actually hurt us. As horrible as 9/11 was, at the end of the day it didn’t harm us as a country. In fact, our reaction to it harmed us far more than the incident itself.
[/quote]

That might be the single most retarded thing i’ve ever read on this forum. Congrats and internet high five.

116

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

It’s not about their geographic location nor their potential benefit to us. It’s about the threat that ISIS and the other islam extremists who pose harm and threat to us and our allies. Terrorists have long arms who are not constrained by borders and they can hit us where we live.
This isn’t a situation where you can ignore it and hope it goes away. If unchecked they will hit us. It’s only a matter of time. [/quote]

ISIS and other Islamic extremists pose absolutely no existential threat to us. They may be capable of causing another attack on the scale of 9/11 (unlikely imo, given that the extremists hate us more than ever but have failed at pretty much every attempt at a terrorist attack on U.S. soil in the last 14 years), and it is absolutely absurd to even consider that they can actually hurt us. As horrible as 9/11 was, at the end of the day it didn’t harm us as a country. In fact, our reaction to it harmed us far more than the incident itself.

Frankly speaking, the fact that they pose a threat to us is irrelevant. Just because they are dangerous doesn’t mean that we need to take action immediately. This type of argument is what you would expect from people who want a nanny state (soda is bad for you and can cause significant health problems- ban it! Your kid can get kidnapped if they’re playing alone outside! Ban kids staying alone!). The only difference is that you folks are applying it to foreign policy whereas the nanny state folks apply it to domestic policy.[/quote]

Wow…The fact that the pose a threat to us is irrelevant? Just wow. Pretty much the most relevant thing on Earth.
And your nanny state analogy does not work at any level.

117

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/03/05/yemeni-boys-reportedly-reenact-isis-burning-death-jordanian-pilot/?intcmp=latestnews&intcmp=latestnews

118

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
While I agree with the last points in your last post, are you saying the US government should not be concerned about Iran’s growing influence in Iraq?

Edit, not your LAST post, but the last one on the other page, about how the US took out two of Iran’s enemies.[/quote]

Iran is an enemy country so the USA needs to be concerned with any instance of Iran’s growing influence. My point in those long posts was that Iran’s growing influence in Iraq was inevitable and a reversion to the historical norm, and the USA can’t do much about it without spending enormous amounts of money and resources. With the end result being temporary at best. Money and resources that could be put to more productive use in other initiatives. The USA attempted to combat this growing influence for a great price, and eventually Tehran just convinced Baghdad to demand full troop withdrawal, to the USA’s chagrin.

Like I said the USA needs to be concerned, but is it such a great concern that it’s worth the lives of soldiers and treasure/higher taxes? Iraq is thousands of miles away and doesn’t have much to offer the USA. Saddam Hussein was the USA’s best weapon against Iran’s influence in Iraq, and we know what happened to him.[/quote]

It’s not about their geographic location nor their potential benefit to us. It’s about the threat that ISIS and the other islam extremists who pose harm and threat to us and our allies. Terrorists have long arms who are not constrained by borders and they can hit us where we live.
This isn’t a situation where you can ignore it and hope it goes away. If unchecked they will hit us. It’s only a matter of time. [/quote]

I don’t even disagree with you though. Iran and the USA will continue to battle ISIS independent of each other. The USA does have an interest in degrading/destroying ISIS. I don’t have an argument against that. That’s not my point of the post you replied to.

One of my points was that Iran has a legitimate reason to be involved with the war against ISIS. In their backyard, direct threat, etc. The other major point I had was that it’s a fools errand to try and prevent Iran’s influence in Iraq. It was inevitable, and historically, it’s normal. Iran never demanded that the USA halt its airstrikes, either directly or through its clients in Baghdad. Baghdad being a client of Tehran doesn’t prevent the USA from carrying out its current strategy.

ETA: To be clear, when I’m saying “what benefit does the USA get from having the most influence in Baghdad?” That’s independent of battling ISIS. The two points are related because ISIS is in Iraq, but they’re still separate issues.

119

[quote]Aggv wrote:

That might be the single most retarded thing i’ve ever read on this forum. Congrats and internet high five.[/quote]

Why thank you!

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I wonder how many others honestly believe this fantasy.[/quote]

I bet you a million internet dollars that I do not believe in whatever fantasy you’re thinking of.

[quote]pat wrote:
Wow…The fact that the pose a threat to us is irrelevant? Just wow. Pretty much the most relevant thing on Earth.
And your nanny state analogy does not work at any level.[/quote]

Why doesn’t the nanny state analogy work?

The “irrelevant” statement is admittedly hyperbole. But the point I wanted to make is that the existence of a threat in of itself doesn’t mean that we have to work completely and totally to extinguish it immediately.