BF2S Forums The War In The Middle East Just Expanded.

ATG wrote:

We have a responcibility to the region and our own soul not to abandon the area to chaos.

I disagree.  We had a responsibility to stay the heck out of Iraq, but we screwed that up.  As for our souls...  Well, that's kind of a lost cause really.  First, "souls" probably don't even exist in the metaphysical sense, and in the figurative sense, we really don't have a soul.  We invaded Iraq, when Darfur was clearly in much greater need of our help.

Very little of what we do in the world is based on compassion.  Aiding the tsunami victims was one of the few humanitarian things we've done in recent years.

sunnis is the majority of islamic people, you are wrong about that ATG

ATG wrote:

You apparently don't think long term. You might have missed that I advocated bombing Iran, something I have refrained from in multiple threads for over a year until now.
The United States is at a pivotal moment, and the way forward, sadly for some, is not to carpet bomb yet.

We have to lead by example, something we have walked the edge of. We didn't go in there and start pumping the oil into U.S. tankers wholesale, like some conquering armies would have, but we did have twisted sexual mistreatment of prisoners. We haven't wiped out Sadr city, something I have advocated, and we build as we destroy.
It may be that they don't want a western style democracy, but it may also be that the survival of humanity cannot afford a world wide conversion at gunpoint to Islam. So we have to fight. There may come a time, and hopefully soon, when we unlease the dogs of war again in Iraq. Hopefully, a strong enough show of force will help us avoid the carpet bombing you desire.

     I've said before, rivers of blood will flow before this is through, but a measured, rational approach is what we need. I've said before, we look weak right now we need to fix that.

I've said before, good to see you again Spit.

Well...  Here's how I see it...

After WW2, the Middle East was continually manipulated by the West and by the Soviets.  We had our friends, they had theirs.  In the midst of all this, some of our friends were militant Islamists.  Probably one of the biggest mistakes we made was removing Mossadegh from power in Iran.  Iran had been moving in a Western democratic direction, but we blew it in favor of a dictator that was more friendly to our business interests (the Shah).

The one thing that seems to ring true about our relations with the Middle East is that we are willing to compromise everything we believe in for the sake of capitalism.  We are willing to back dictators, Islamists, or anyone else if it means the government is Pro-U.S. or the economy is favorable to our trade.

Of course, it's not just America that does this.  Most of Western Europe does the same.  So much of the Middle East is in turmoil because of the repercussions of how America and Europe fucked with the Middle East for the last 100 years.  It doesn't look like things will change any soon either.  We'll likely prop some puppet government up in Iraq before we leave, and then Iran will try to do the same, while Saudi Arabia funds an insurgency.

The sad result of all this is that the people rally behind the insane ideals of fundamentalist Islam because they see it as a strong force against the West.  They understandably hate us, but they just make their own lives worse by adhering to a completely nonsensical worldview.

In the end, Spittle's idea might just be the most honest thing we could do at this point.  We obviously don't really give a shit about these people, and they don't seem to give a shit about each other, so if we obliterated them outright, we'd almost be fast forwarding to what's going to happen in the near future anyway.

I mean, it really does seem to have come down to the idea that we might as well kill the fuckers and take the oil for ourselves.  There's no point in pretending like we think Islam is going to actually evolve into something sensible.  Even if most of the people aren't fundamentalist, if this same majority is unwilling to combat the extremists in their midst, then they might as well be dead.  We'd be putting them out of their misery at this point....

Turquoise wrote:

ATG wrote:

You apparently don't think long term. You might have missed that I advocated bombing Iran, something I have refrained from in multiple threads for over a year until now.
The United States is at a pivotal moment, and the way forward, sadly for some, is not to carpet bomb yet.

We have to lead by example, something we have walked the edge of. We didn't go in there and start pumping the oil into U.S. tankers wholesale, like some conquering armies would have, but we did have twisted sexual mistreatment of prisoners. We haven't wiped out Sadr city, something I have advocated, and we build as we destroy.
It may be that they don't want a western style democracy, but it may also be that the survival of humanity cannot afford a world wide conversion at gunpoint to Islam. So we have to fight. There may come a time, and hopefully soon, when we unlease the dogs of war again in Iraq. Hopefully, a strong enough show of force will help us avoid the carpet bombing you desire.

     I've said before, rivers of blood will flow before this is through, but a measured, rational approach is what we need. I've said before, we look weak right now we need to fix that.

I've said before, good to see you again Spit.

Well...  Here's how I see it...

After WW2, the Middle East was continually manipulated by the West and by the Soviets.  We had our friends, they had theirs.  In the midst of all this, some of our friends were militant Islamists.  Probably one of the biggest mistakes we made was removing Mossadegh from power in Iran.  Iran had been moving in a Western democratic direction, but we blew it in favor of a dictator that was more friendly to our business interests (the Shah).

The one thing that seems to ring true about our relations with the Middle East is that we are willing to compromise everything we believe in for the sake of capitalism.  We are willing to back dictators, Islamists, or anyone else if it means the government is Pro-U.S. or the economy is favorable to our trade.

Of course, it's not just America that does this.  Most of Western Europe does the same.  So much of the Middle East is in turmoil because of the repercussions of how America and Europe fucked with the Middle East for the last 100 years.  It doesn't look like things will change any soon either.  We'll likely prop some puppet government up in Iraq before we leave, and then Iran will try to do the same, while Saudi Arabia funds an insurgency.

The sad result of all this is that the people rally behind the insane ideals of fundamentalist Islam because they see it as a strong force against the West.  They understandably hate us, but they just make their own lives worse by adhering to a completely nonsensical worldview.

In the end, Spittle's idea might just be the most honest thing we could do at this point.  We obviously don't really give a shit about these people, and they don't seem to give a shit about each other, so if we obliterated them outright, we'd almost be fast forwarding to what's going to happen in the near future anyway.

I mean, it really does seem to have come down to the idea that we might as well kill the fuckers and take the oil for ourselves.  There's no point in pretending like we think Islam is going to actually evolve into something sensible.  Even if most of the people aren't fundamentalist, if this same majority is unwilling to combat the extremists in their midst, then they might as well be dead.  We'd be putting them out of their misery at this point....

This makes me sad. Sad because it reminds me of the resolute retortic of people before world war one.
    Also because much of it rings true.
Again, I caution restraint, and judicious use of power. Winning hearts and minds is not done through wanton murder; it is through continualy offering the people a hand up.

     The turning point in this whole saga may well be out of reach, kind of like proving the existence of God. And as it is out of reach, we will devolve into the modern version of trench warfare until the redifining of moderne religion happens


No Jesus ( or insert deity here ) know peace.

May the Gods have mercy on my soul.

There is only one way to stop this.

Preemptive Strike.

Major_Spittle wrote:

Militant Islam provides the soldiers, Radical Islam provides the cause, Moderate Islam provides the conceilment, and the educated peaceful people of Islam provide the tolerence.

Great quote.  +1

May I also suggest that its the moderates that are funding them as well.

UON wrote:

In America:  The poor provide the soldiers, the super-rich own the weapons/oil companies and start the wars, the moderately rich run the companies and the educated peaceful people of America provide the tolerance.  Less concealment, more bureaucracy, more money, same morals.

Homer Simpson wrote:

Your ideas intrigue me, I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

ATG. Your suggestion that the US bombs Iran and then instates its own government for the area is fanciful.
Yes the USA could bomb Iran. But that would inflame the situation in the middle east making it worse. And the government idea, thats just crazy man. Are you suggesting we take the exiting model of Iraqi and expand that fuck up to more countries? The only way the USA could control Iran, Iraqi and Afghanistan at once would be to rule like the dictatorships your supposedly went their to remove in the first place. In fact you would have to be much more repressive and brutal. Arabs see us as the white men over messing in their affairs. If we try and rule them, you can guarantee they would take the war to the US homeland through disillusioned Arab American citizens watching the slaughter your over lordship would cause. I think you are rightly clutching at straws. The area is a mess the best thing for all would be to with draw completely and let the civil war run its course. Sounds harsh, but ffs a hundred people are dying every day, can it get any worse? Only thing is that civil war would be like throwing dice at the Oil Craps table, you never know who would end up in control of the oil, so that isn't going to happen.