Should The US and/or West Invade The Middle East, Again?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Huntn, Nov 17, 2015.

?

Should the US or West invade the a Middle East again?

Poll closed May 17, 2016.
  1. Yes, full scale.

    6 vote(s)
    18.8%
  2. Yes, limited (specify in a post).

    6 vote(s)
    18.8%
  3. No, project power from afar.

    13 vote(s)
    40.6%
  4. No, adopt an isolationist position.

    4 vote(s)
    12.5%
  5. Undecided

    3 vote(s)
    9.4%
  1. Huntn, Nov 17, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2015

    Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #1
    If your answer is conditional, please explain it in a post. Sorry for the typo in the poll question. :-/

    I listened to Mike Huckabee on Morning Joe when he was asked if you had President Obama's mic at the G20 summit what would you have said?

    His answer, "We should stand shoulder to shoulder with the French and if they are willing to go to war, then we should go to war too".

    I believe the implication is we should commit ground troops as we are all ready militarily engaged and have been engaged for the last 12 YEARS. I'll counter that as I've said several times recently in this forum, been there, done that. We've taken a toll and squandered the resilience of our Army and our National resolve with the invasion and 10 year occupation of Iraq and achieved NOTHING significant besides all most bankrupting the country. Sure, we should help, but this should primarily be the regional countries' ball game, not ours. If France wants to invade Syria, we should support them.

    He also said we have a leadership role (rah rah). I'll criticize this kneejerk mantra to go to war with absolutelyno consideration of how we'll pay for it. Regarding refugees and States saying they don't want immigrants, besides the terrorist concerns, because according to Huckabee, we can't afford it, afford to pay to house, feed, and educate these people.

    If so, let's be responsible and raise taxes to cover our commitments. How do we expect to pay for never-ending war? I suggest a $2000 per year (or appropriate amount), per citizen war tax, and our gun-ho citizens can volunteer to double that. The point is our politicians and citizens must come to terms with paying our debts, not thinking we can put it on our national credit card into perpetuity unless we want to become the next Greece.
     
  2. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #2
    I selected "No, project power from afar."

    Power is DIME (diplomatic, information, military, and economic).

    We can do much more with the D, I, and the E.

    Huckleberry is a douche.
     
  3. keysofanxiety macrumors 604

    keysofanxiety

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    #3
    Nah, no point in risking lives on a ground-to-ground assault when those cowards happily use women and children as shields, and put bombs full of nails on every roadside. Just bomb them into oblivion from afar, that's fine by me.
     
  4. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #4
    There is quite a lot of "gray area" between "projecting power from afar" and a limited involvement. And thats why I voted for "limited involvement."

    From a purely logistical standpoint, we need local bases from which to launch drone strikes. Running bombing sorties from the US or Western Europe is going to sorely tax our air force. I also believe that, if we are to be effective in this fight, only the US has the combination of equipment, training, technology, and personnel to fight a 21st century battle.

    That doesn't mean we ought to have US infantry or armored units in a combat role. That would be a mistake. At most, our "boots on the ground" ought to be limited to force-protection; and training and advising our allies.

    But no matter what - the US cannot "go it alone" - or even go in with just the French. We have to have a multination coalition: one that includes the Russians, Saudis, Iranians, Iraqis, Jordan, Egypt, and Turkey. (Israel will help us by just sitting quietly on the sidelines.) If we can assemble that coalition to work towards the common goal of eradicating ISIL, then we will be successful.
     
  5. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #5
    notice al of the GOP candidates want to bomb but no offers on how to pay for it. well the poor and old will pay of course. can't get big business to pay their share of taxes for it.
     
  6. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
  7. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #7
    I have no desire to go back to any islamic nation unless I am on vacation.

    I think the only war we should engage in is an energy war. Our achilles tendon is oil. Reduce our demand enough and the the entire politics of the region will have to change. Sure if there is an HVT, blow is his ass up, but the Muslim problem is really too fluid for symmetric warfare.
     
  8. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #8
    we only get about 16% oil from there, the petro dollar is why we engage in genocide.
     
  9. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #9
    how are Hillary and Sanders going to pay for it? even Sanders wants to stay in Afghanistan.
     
  10. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #10
    Raise taxes we want war raise taxes not cut them.
     
  11. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
  12. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #12
    just what we need, more ***** taxes.
     
  13. Crazy Badger macrumors 65816

    Crazy Badger

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Location:
    Scotland
    #13
    Based on recent history, the simple answer to this is NO.

    A radically different approach is needed to try and resolve the issues across the middle east, and I don't think anyone had the political will to even start the discussion about what's actually required. They've been talking about trying to resolve the issues in Isreal for years, with little progress, and ultimately this will need to be resolved to fix some of the other problems.

    On that basis, best just leave it alone and spend the money protecting your home.
     
  14. Technarchy, Nov 17, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2015

    Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #14
    I'm not so sure anymore that we can unless are willing to go full genocide and wipe Islam off the planet nearly completely.

    Islam = Global terror. That can't be dealt with by invading the middle east again, even though I do love watching JTAC's at work. It's downright comedic sometimes. Still, another invasion will probably just create another group of well financed nuts blowing stuff up in Berlin, or London, or Rome.

    AQ and ISIS have shown they can project force as well. Then there is ****tards like Nidal Hassan, Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. It's clear it doesn't take much to hit us wherever at this point.
     
  15. haxrnick macrumors 6502a

    haxrnick

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Location:
    Seattle
    #15
    I'm going to start charging you every time I have to read those two words.
     
  16. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #16
    We need to wipe IS off the face of the map now. Yes, there will be civilian casualties. "Collateral damage." But as they expand, the number of innocents grows with them. Better a limited collateral damage now, than a large scale slaughter of innocent civilians later.
     
  17. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #17
    petro dollar
    petro dollar
    petro dollar
    petro dollar
    petro dollar

    petro dollar

    petro dollar
    petro dollar
    petro dollar
    petro dollar

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar
     
  18. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #18
    That's what we thought about AQ. There is no wiping the problem off the map unless we are willing to engage in genocide.
     
  19. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #19
    It's not genocide if you don't kill them all. I'm not suggesting simply killing all Muslims. Just carpet bomb the IS in the ME.
     
  20. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #20
    [​IMG]

    you need to take out a ton of civilians for that to happen, no democrat or republican for that matter will go for that.
     
  21. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #21
    It's a ton of civilians now, or 1000 tons of them later after IS has expanded.
     
  22. ericgtr12 macrumors 6502a

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #22
    Each star represents an American military base. It's safe to say we've already invaded.

    Iranbases.png
     
  23. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #23
    ISIS is contained, Obama said so, last thing HE is going to do is carpet bomb as you just suggested.
     
  24. tshrimp macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #24
    There needs to be an "Other". Reason is...It doesn't matter if we want to from what I understand per our NATO agreement.

    "The issue at hand is whether France would invoke Article 5 of NATO'sfounding treaty, which says an armed attack against a member state "shall be considered an attack against them all." Such an invocation would call on the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom and others to assist in the effort to "restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

    If the US keep its word and holds true to its commitments, and France invokes then we would have no choice.

    Edit: How do we "Project Power from Afar?
     
  25. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #25
    we draw imaginary lines & tell them we will unfriend them of facebook.
     

Share This Page