White House: U.S Won't Be Responsible For Security Situation In Iraq

Discussion in 'Politics Discussion' started by Rainman, Jun 2, 2015.

  1. Rainman

    Rainman Senior Investor

    Joined:
    Jun 2014
    Posts:
    1,587
    Likes Received:
    4
    Now that truth finally is out. The U.S admits albeit indirectly that the war against ISIS is at best failing and by saying they won't be responsible for any outcome the government is admitting that the terrorists are winning.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/28/white-house-isis-strategy/

    The new strategy is to train and arm all terrorist groups in Iraq. Considering the fact that Shia militias have taken over the Iraqi army what will follow once Sunnis are given weapons is a sectarian war which never will end. Guess who'll be smiling as they watch from the sidelines? Israel.
     
  2. CarpeNemo

    CarpeNemo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2015
    Posts:
    64
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's the eighties all over again!

    First Russia, then us, then us again, and now it's going to get bloodier than ever before. We shouldn't have stepped in, in the first place. Every step the US took to arm people there to defend themselves has only created more combatants for them to fight, and we're leaving the country worse than it was before we intervened in the first place.
     
  3. SteakTartare

    SteakTartare Senior Investor

    Joined:
    Mar 2014
    Posts:
    857
    Likes Received:
    11
    Obama's incompetence on foreign policy is only rivaled by Carter in the postwar period. I think one can make a good case he's the worst in that time frame. The rise of ISIS, Russia goose-stepping into the Ukraine, Red China building up in the South China Sea, Iran on the verge of achieving nuclear club status, and the unchecked wackiness of North Korea all come to mind. Well done.:rolleyes:
     
  4. JR Ewing

    JR Ewing Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2014
    Posts:
    4,950
    Likes Received:
    39
    Agreed. And he's now claiming that "everybody hated us" 7 years ago, and that "everybody loves us" now. :rolleyes:

    Our enemies no longer fear us and our allies no longer trust us. And we don't have the respect we had a decade ago - and I'd rather be respected and feared than "liked" and not feared nor respected.
     
  5. crimsonghost747

    crimsonghost747 Senior Investor

    Joined:
    Mar 2014
    Posts:
    1,722
    Likes Received:
    6
    I think what they are trying to say is more along the lines of: we won't be sending a huge amount of troops to deal with this anymore. Which is probably a good choice, it really isn't their war. (and never was, but that's a whole other topic to discuss)
     
  6. Fredrick Jones

    Fredrick Jones Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2015
    Posts:
    156
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, USA is still hated :) Well that is because USA's foreign policy is bipolar. One day they are best friends with someone, next day they all of a sudden hate the guy and he is public enemy number 1. Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussien are two good examples of this.

    Iraq under Saddam Hussien lost over 1 million men fighting Iran, this was helping USA since it kept the radical Muslims under control in Iran. After losing 1 million men, Saddam needed something to show his people, so he decided to take over Kuwait. Whether Saddam runs Kuwait or the royal family runs it does not really matter USA will get the oil regardless. Saddam always alleged that he had USA's permission to take Kuwait.

    All of a sudden USA turns psycho on Saddam and wants to kill the guy. Don't get me wrong, Saddam was a bad guy but compared to ISIS or the radical muslims running Iran this guy is a saint.

    Go back to Vietnam, same story. Ho Chi Minh was actually a good US ally, and he actually wrote many articles praising USA, saying all sorts of great things about George Washington. During WW2 Ho Chi Minh helped USA fight the Japanese. After WW2 ended he needed something to show his soldiers, USA as usual turns psycho and want to wipe him out.

    Comically enough, 30+ years after the Vietnam war ended, USA is one of the largest investors in Vietnam. And now USA is helping Vietnam clean up the unexploded ordinance and agent orange they sprayed all over the place.

    Modern USA foreign policy is bipolar.
     
  7. JoshPosh

    JoshPosh Guest

    Joined:
    Sep 2014
    Posts:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    I like that fact that they are leaving it to the Iraq's to take charge of their own affairs. What I don't like is that we are giving them million of dollars worth of equipment to support the war effort. They already lost a city and the equipment we left them there. Why should we give them more?
     
  8. Fredrick Jones

    Fredrick Jones Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2015
    Posts:
    156
    Likes Received:
    0
    It keeps the military industrial complex going, and they have a large budget for lobbying. Never mind that none of these things do anything to benefit the US economy. The exact amount that the wars have cost in Iraq and Afghanistan is unknown, this is because of udetermined liabilities. One has to calculate future costs which is extremely difficult to do. The wear and tear on USA military equipment is one, possible future liabilities for pensions.

    Either way the cost of the war in in the range of trillions, which has directly contributed to the US debt. Dropping bombs on stuff does not spur the US economy, that is a broken window fallacy.
     
  9. SteakTartare

    SteakTartare Senior Investor

    Joined:
    Mar 2014
    Posts:
    857
    Likes Received:
    11
    I too saw that speech. One has to marvel at the self-deluded world he must live in. Sad and disturbing at the same time considering he is currently head of state.
     

Share This Page