• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

$25 Billion down the drain

Embassy security is a thing now?

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
 
So I have been paying attention to this and it looks like there are no good or even non-bad options...am I right? Everyone wants to talk about who fucked up in the past (and there is plenty to talk about there) but no one is saying what we should do now. My Libertarianism makes me lean toward "let them figure it out" but that could really have bad consequences but we can't continue to step into the middle of civil wars and expect a good outcome.
 
SkinsNDeacs said:
So I have been paying attention to this and it looks like there are no good or even non-bad options...am I right? Everyone wants to talk about who fucked up in the past (and there is plenty to talk about there) but no one is saying what we should do now. My Libertarianism makes me lean toward "let them figure it out" but that could really have bad consequences but we can't continue to step into the middle of civil wars and expect a good outcome.
Click to expand...

The only right answer here is "let them figure it out". We broke the country, did our best and spent trillions trying to fix it, and then the Iraqi government wanted us out, so we left. Now they can't defend their own backyard. Tough shit.

If ISIS succeeds in setting up a Taliban-style crazy-state in the region, the message to them should be "live in medieval squalor if you want, but if you blow up any Americans the airstrikes and cruise missiles will be prompt and plentiful."

The major problem here is the possibility of a Saudi-Iranian proxy conflict turning into a real shooting war. Saudi money is funding some of the ISIS guys through Syria. Iran is coming in to fight against them. That could get weird.
 
Skins, plenty of Republicans are saying we need troops on the ground. McCain and Graham have made very public statements about whether or not to work with Iran.
 
Mike Baker ‏@MBCompanyMan · 3h
This current foreign policy team couldn't organize panic in a doomed submarine. Watch now as they remake Iraq into an Iranian subdivision.
 
Deacon923 said:
The only right answer here is "let them figure it out". We broke the country, did our best and spent trillions trying to fix it, and then the Iraqi government wanted us out, so we left. Now they can't defend their own backyard. Tough shit.

If ISIS succeeds in setting up a Taliban-style crazy-state in the region, the message to them should be "live in medieval squalor if you want, but if you blow up any Americans the airstrikes and cruise missiles will be prompt and plentiful."

The major problem here is the possibility of a Saudi-Iranian proxy conflict turning into a real shooting war. Saudi money is funding some of the ISIS guys through Syria. Iran is coming in to fight against them. That could get weird.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the right answer.

The next President who runs on a foreign policy agenda of "Build whatever you want, but if you threaten us life will be short and uncomfortable." secures my vote.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Mike Baker ‏@MBCompanyMan · 3h
This current foreign policy team couldn't organize panic in a doomed submarine. Watch now as they remake Iraq into an Iranian subdivision.
Click to expand...

I'm not impressed with the current foreign policy team, but that outcome was largely determined when President Bush and his merry band of neocons decided to destroy the Iraqi state and remove the principal regional counterbalance to Iran. This is a boulder rolling downhill. I suppose Team Obama could try and stop it by spending several billion dollars and some American lives deploying troops back to the sandbox, but how is that in the US national interest?
 
Deacon923 said:
I'm not impressed with the current foreign policy team, but that outcome was largely determined when President Bush and his merry band of neocons decided to destroy the Iraqi state and remove the principal regional counterbalance to Iran. This is a boulder rolling downhill. I suppose Team Obama could try and stop it by spending several billion dollars and some American lives deploying troops back to the sandbox, but how is that in the US national interest?
Click to expand...

Republicans want to goad Obama into another unwinnable situation to score political points.
 
jhmd2000 said:
This is exactly the right answer.

The next President who runs on a foreign policy agenda of "Build whatever you want, but if you threaten us life will be short and uncomfortable." secures my vote.
Click to expand...

Pro drone strikes then?
 
Since before it was cool.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
 
The sad thing about all of this is that it was totally predictable, and it fact, was predicted while Bush was playing his war games. One would think that mastermind NCAA football playoff member Con-di Rice could have explained that history might show there could be a future uprising.
 
Skydog Deac said:
The sad thing about all of this is that it was totally predictable, and it fact, was predicted while Bush was playing his war games. One would think that mastermind NCAA football playoff member Con-di Rice could have explained that history might show there could be a future uprising.
Click to expand...

This.

This is one instance where we can, and should, blame Bush over and over and over again.
 
Deacon923 said:
The only right answer here is "let them figure it out". We broke the country, did our best and spent trillions trying to fix it, and then the Iraqi government wanted us out, so we left. Now they can't defend their own backyard. Tough shit.

If ISIS succeeds in setting up a Taliban-style crazy-state in the region, the message to them should be "live in medieval squalor if you want, but if you blow up any Americans the airstrikes and cruise missiles will be prompt and plentiful."

The major problem here is the possibility of a Saudi-Iranian proxy conflict turning into a real shooting war. Saudi money is funding some of the ISIS guys through Syria. Iran is coming in to fight against them. That could get weird.
Click to expand...

Exactly. We need to protect our embassy and personnel, but nothing more. The Neo-Cons want the US to protect Sunnis by taking up arms against the Shia government that we installed. Good luck with that. Won't happen, but would like to see a vigorous debate in Congress for pols who want to do anything more. Would be sobering for McCain and Graham to realize/admit finally that nobody in their own party wants to get dragged back into Iraq.
 
PhDeac said:
Bill Kristol arguing vehemently for intervention in Iraq. It's amazing how of a dumbass he is here.
http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe
Click to expand...

Kristol is a huge mystery-graduated undergrad in three years and got a PhD, both from Harvard and was still an early supporter for Palin and refuses to back off being consistently wrong on Iraq. Same thing applies to Ted Cruz. Both are waaaaay too academically accomplished and well-educated to advocate for ridiculous positions consistently. Way more dangerous and inexcusable than idiots like Gohmert, Palin, and Bachmann.
 
The best/worst line was when he asked if the outcomes in Iraq and possible Afghanistan in the future were acceptable to all the troops who died in those wars.

He said that to people who were trying to prevent more people from dying.
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
Kristol is a huge mystery-graduated undergrad in three years and got a PhD, both from Harvard and was still an early supporter for Palin and refuses to back off being consistently wrong on Iraq. Same thing applies to Ted Cruz. Both are waaaaay too academically accomplished and well-educated to advocate for ridiculous positions consistently. Way more dangerous and inexcusable than idiots like Gohmert, Palin, and Bachmann.
Click to expand...

Is it possible that they simply disagree with the idea that we can run $17T in the red and pretend it is not a problem?
 
jhmd2000 said:
Is it possible that they simply disagree with the idea that we can run $17T in the red and pretend it is not a problem?
Click to expand...

What? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ran up a ton of debt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top