ISIS Defeated?

[jj22]

Trump and Pence are desperately trying to cover their lie in the face of 3 Americans killed by ISIS this week.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/18/politics/syria-attack-americans-killed/index.html

Pence doubled down on the lie (very Christian like) even yesterday while the news was breaking.

Further proof these two are compromised by Russia as it looks more and more like they were told to leave Syria in one of those secret meetings with Putin.

ISIS defeated? Tell that to these poor families (again).

Trump: “We have defeated ISIS.”

Pence: “We have defeated ISIS.”

ISIS kills 16 people in Syria including 2 US troops & 2 US civilians. @realDonaldTrump does not know “more than the generals.” He knows how to put our troops in danger with his reckless rhetoric and careless lies.

[jj22]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pence-declares-isis-is-defeated-hours-after-attack-kills-us-troops/2019/01/16/ecc8d1e6-7967-4446-8ed0-afc282e03181_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.487e4609657f

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/16/politics/pence-isis-defeated/index.html

Even Republicans are criticizing this lie now that they are forced to acknowledge the truth given the news reports of recent ISIS attacks.

[Au165]

ISIS is essentially an ideology like most terrorism. While it was one that did manifest in more of a standing army than others we have seen it is still very much an ideology. Waging wars on ideologies like ISIS or terrorism, or even drugs for that matter, are all wars that can't be won in any real way. It always looks good on the news or in papers but it's really not a feasible goal.

[GMDino]

(01-18-2019, 10:48 AM)Au165 Wrote: ISIS is essentially an ideology like most terrorism. While it was one that did manifest in more of a standing army than others we have seen it is still very much an ideology. Waging wars on ideologies like ISIS or terrorism, or even drugs for that matter, are all wars that can't be won in any real way. It always looks good on the news or in papers but it's really not a feasible goal.

This is how I felt about our war in Iraq.

The "war" didn't last long...it's the never ending battles that keep us there.

And if we pulled every person/troop out tomorrow or 100 years from now someone from the other side will jump out of a cave and yell they "won".

The larger problem, for me, is a president that makes these grand moves and announcements without consulting the people who have to do the work or an consideration for the negative things it may create.  DJT does not believe he ever makes a bad decision.  And as a businessman all that meant was he would go further in debt and he wouldn't pay the honest people working for him.  As President it means people's lives and OUR money is being wasted.  Truthfully though he either doesn't care or doesn't understand.  Maybe a little of both.

[jj22]

(01-18-2019, 10:48 AM)Au165 Wrote: ISIS is essentially an ideology like most terrorism. While it was one that did manifest in more of a standing army than others we have seen it is still very much an ideology. Waging wars on ideologies like ISIS or terrorism, or even drugs for that matter, are all wars that can't be won in any real way. It always looks good on the news or in papers but it's really not a feasible goal.

Well said. And very true.

[Au165]

(01-18-2019, 10:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: This is how I felt about our war in Iraq.

The "war" didn't last long...it's the never ending battles that keep us there.

And if we pulled every person/troop out tomorrow or 100 years from now someone from the other side will jump out of a cave and yell they "won".

The larger problem, for me, is a president that makes these grand moves and announcements without consulting the people who have to do the work or an consideration for the negative things it may create.  DJT does not believe he ever makes a bad decision.  And as a businessman all that meant was he would go further in debt and he wouldn't pay the honest people working for him.  As President it means people's lives and OUR money is being wasted.  Truthfully though he either doesn't care or doesn't understand.  Maybe a little of both.

We have seen it in Afghanistan though we battled the Taliban and they are still around today, maybe less brazen, but they are still functioning. We cannot defeat these foreign born organization based inside their own countries but no one wants to say we quit. I don't hold the "we won" thing to be a huge deal more so than a PR spin. Many wanted out and as you said you can never really leave or else it'll revert back so you can say we give up or we won, but the end result is us leaving which many do actually want. 

[Yojimbo]

I find it incredibly fishy that every time the intent of leaving Syria or Afghanistan is mentioned, there's a random attack that gives the MIC reason to stay, the media sells it and the public laps it up and cheers for more war. Which, the MIC is happy to oblige, right after they finish counting their money.

Our military simply being there helps ISIS and the Taliban recruit and add to their ranks, we are feeding their growth. Leaving is the only way to stop that cycle. If there is strife in the ME it is the problem of the U.N. and the ME to figure out.

[jj22]

Tell that to the men and women who sacrifice in places fighting the enemy on their turf to keep us safe at home.

[*Nately120*]

(01-18-2019, 12:24 PM)jj22 Wrote: Tell that to the men and women who sacrifice in places fighting the enemy on their turf to keep us safe at home.

Trump stands for the anthem, what the hell else could those people ask of him?  Geez.

[Au165]

(01-18-2019, 12:24 PM)jj22 Wrote: Tell that to the men and women who sacrifice in places fighting the enemy on their turf to keep us safe at home.

This is always difficult as you could argue our involvement in Desert Storm is what resulted in America being attacked on 9/11. Ending the cycle sounds good in theory but we have substantial interest in the ME that we won't ever abandon. Osama Bin Laden took offense to our stationing troops in Saudi Arabia for Desert Storm and declared a Jihad on the U.S. . Something like that could happen again tomorrow based on our involvement in ME issues and we could have another terrorist organization born from it, or maybe that has already happened. That group then attacks us domestically or somewhere in the world, then that attack would require a response that again would trigger possibly another generation of terrorists. 

It's a cycle that simply may not have a solution in terms of ME engagement. What you can't do is abandon the ideal that we won't protect allies or innocent people around the world. We can't let dictators slaughter people and be okay with that, which means there will come another time in the future we will once again have to deploy military assets. 

[Dill]

(01-18-2019, 10:59 AM)Au165 Wrote: We have seen it in Afghanistan though we battled the Taliban and they are still around today, maybe less brazen, but they are still functioning. We cannot defeat these foreign born organization based inside their own countries but no one wants to say we quit. I don't hold the "we won" thing to be a huge deal more so than a PR spin. Many wanted out and as you said you can never really leave or else it'll revert back so you can say we give up or we won, but the end result is us leaving which many do actually want. 

Let me tweak this a bit, Au.

We did defeat a "foreign born organization," the Taliban, in their own country.  This is is not unprecedented. 

And it is arguable that the US could have led a basic reconstruction which prevented the return of the Taliban as an effective force. 

Briefly, the Taliban were created by insecurity, specifically the anarchy and violence of warlords unrestrained by any code of justice. Offer the Afghans a third choice and most would take it--or would have in 2002.

When the US drove them out, there was a chance for a redo. Even though A-stan is not a real country with a functioning federal government, support of tribal and community leadership, plus aid for schools and roads--directed by the military, not contractors--could have eliminated the conditions which bred the Taliban.  Instead the US decided against "nation-building" and returned the warlords to power, an especially bad move in the Helmand and Kandahar, where the Taliban got their start.  The warlords private prisons opened again. A third to a half the occupying force was removed to Iraq in 2003, opening vast swaths of A-stan to returning Taliban. And when they began returning, US attack helicopters and drones began shooting "insurgents" everywhere.  

As far as leaving now, not only are Al Qaeda and the Taliban re-rooted in A-stan, but also ISIS.  Now staying is not about saying "we won"; it is about preventing another 9/11.

[Yojimbo]

(01-18-2019, 12:24 PM)jj22 Wrote: Tell that to the men and women who sacrifice in places fighting the enemy on their turf to keep us safe at home.

Yeah, you’re talking to a veteran buddy. Please don’t lecture me on what the men and women are doing in the ME. I’ve been on their turf, they don’t want us there.

[Dill]

(01-18-2019, 01:20 PM)Au165 Wrote: This is always difficult as you could argue our involvement in Desert Storm is what resulted in America being attacked on 9/11. Ending the cycle sounds good in theory but we have substantial interest in the ME that we won't ever abandon. Osama Bin Laden took offense to our stationing troops in Saudi Arabia for Desert Storm and declared a Jihad on the U.S. . Something like that could happen again tomorrow based on our involvement in ME issues and we could have another terrorist organization born from it, or maybe that has already happened. That group then attacks us domestically or somewhere in the world, then that attack would require a response that again would trigger possibly another generation of terrorists. 

It's a cycle that simply may not have a solution in terms of ME engagement. What you can't do is abandon the ideal that we won't protect allies or innocent people around the world. We can't let dictators slaughter people and be okay with that, which means there will come another time in the future we will once again have to deploy military assets. 

Better said, you could argue that our REMAINING in Saudi Arabia was one trigger for 9/11.  Our support for the Saudi regime, and Mubarak in Egypt, were probably more substantial causes.  These governments suppressed Al Qaeda with US munitions, drove them from their countries, and become central pillars (along with Iraq and Kuwait) of an international economic order extracting value from Gulf countries to the detriment of their populations. That, plus the "pollution" of Arab Muslim culture by Western commercial and lifestyle mores, has always been primary to Al Qaeda's appeal for justice and its own legitimacy in the region.

I think Desert Storm is still a model for successful foreign intervention. That I separate from other bad policy choices, beginning with the overthrow of a democractically elected Mossadegh in Iran and support for dictators like Mubarak, and, worst of all, the invasion of Iraq. 

Rather than just throwing up our hands and saying "we can't ever get it right" and "nothing works," we might take a bit more time understanding the politics and history specific to each of the countries we are dealing with, for once listen to regional experts, and finally side with democracy where the choice actually presents itself--even when that doesn't help our oil companies.

[Au165]

(01-18-2019, 02:13 PM)Dill Wrote: Let me tweak this a bit, Au.

We did defeat a "foreign born organization," the Taliban, in their own country.  This is is not unprecedented. 

And it is arguable that the US could have led a basic reconstruction which prevented the return of the Taliban as an effective force. 

Briefly, the Taliban were created by insecurity, specifically the anarchy and violence of warlords unrestrained by any code of justice. Offer the Afghans a third choice and most would take it--or would have in 2002.

When the US drove them out, there was a chance for a redo. Even though A-stan is not a real country with a functioning federal government, support of tribal and community leadership, plus aid for schools and roads--directed by the military, not contractors--could have eliminated the conditions which bred the Taliban.  Instead the US decided against "nation-building" and returned the warlords to power, an especially bad move in the Helmand and Kandahar, where the Taliban got their start.  The warlords private prisons opened again. A third to a half the occupying force was removed to Iraq in 2003, opening vast swaths of A-stan to returning Taliban. And when they began returning, US attack helicopters and drones began shooting "insurgents" everywhere.  

As far as leaving now, not only are Al Qaeda and the Taliban re-rooted in A-stan, but also ISIS.  Now staying is not about saying "we won"; it is about preventing another 9/11.

The taliban was never gone. It had dwindled but it was NEVER gone. Which is my point it’s like cancer, it wasn’t cured only in remission. I stand by what I said we cannot defeat a foreign born organization inside their country. We can move them into remission but unless we plan to occupy every place indefinitely then it cannot be done. The ideology behind these organizations are deeply rooted in their own cultures and way off life in many cases. Guns and bombs can push it into hiding but it’s an ideology your really fighting.

[jj22]

(01-18-2019, 02:25 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: Yeah, you’re talking to a veteran buddy. Please don’t lecture me on what the men and women are doing in the ME. I’ve been on their turf, they don’t want us there.

And we don't want them here, so forgive me if I appreciate your service and understand your sacrifices to keep them there and not here......

Of course they don't want us there.

Let's not let Trump have good Vets forget their mission to keep America safe or the reason for their sacrifice. When that happens we are all in trouble.

[Au165]

(01-18-2019, 02:28 PM)Dill Wrote: Better said, you could argue that our REMAINING in Saudi Arabia was one trigger for 9/11.  Our support for the Saudi regime, and Mubarak in Egypt, were probably more substantial causes.  These governments suppressed Al Qaeda with US munitions, drove them from their countries, and become central pillars (along with Iraq and Kuwait) of an international economic order extracting value from Gulf countries to the detriment of their populations. That, plus the "pollution" of Arab Muslim culture by Western commercial and lifestyle mores, has always been primary to Al Qaeda's appeal for justice and its own legitimacy in the region.

I think Desert Storm is still a model for successful foreign intervention. That I separate from other bad policy choices, beginning with the overthrow of a democractically elected Mossadegh in Iran and support for dictators like Mubarak, and, worst of all, the invasion of Iraq. 

Rather than just throwing up our hands and saying "we can't ever get it right" and "nothing works," we might take a bit more time understanding the politics and history specific to each of the countries we are dealing with, for once listen to regional experts, and finally side with democracy where the choice actually presents itself--even when that doesn't help our oil companies.

Bin Laden flat out didn't want us there. In his interview he did with CNN he referenced the fact we were staging troops in Saudi Arabia during the war as one of the reasons he put a Jihad on us. Us staying didn't help, but us being there was a problem in itself.

My point was, we can't not intervene but our intervention at all could drive the next Bin Laden to come after us. It's possible that not all problems have realistic solutions.

[jj22]

Bin Laden was mad we quit providing him weapons. That's all that was about.

But you are making some good points throughout this thread.

[BengalHawk62]

I blame Obama and Hilary.    I mean who else can you blame?  They started this whole mess in the ME.  If it wasn't for them, we would never have been in Iraq or Syria or Israel for that matter.


Lock her up!


Lock her up!



Lock her up!


Lock her up! 

[Au165]

(01-18-2019, 03:02 PM)jj22 Wrote: Bin Laden was mad we quit providing him weapons. That's all that was about.

But you are making some good points throughout this thread.

That's probably true in a roundabout way. He felt it should have been Muslim forces defending the other Muslim nations not westerners. Now was that his way of saying he wanted to create a Muslim standing army? Possibly. I think it's also fair to say we contributed to that way of thinking in some part through the CIA basically doing that in Afghanistan to fend of Russia. The world is complex but when you take into account the amount of covert ops we do that sometimes go against what we do publicly things can get down right explainable. 

[Yojimbo]

(01-18-2019, 02:46 PM)jj22 Wrote: And we don't want them here, so forgive me if I appreciate your service and understand your sacrifices to keep them there and not here......

Of course they don't want us there.

Let's not let Trump have good Vets forget their mission to keep America safe or the reason for their sacrifice. When that happens we are all in trouble.

So, continue doing the same thing we’ve been doing for 60 years, that has been a miserable failure if less war and death is your goal or change strategies. I know which option I’m ready to try.