Hi, my name is Dillon Hatton. I'm currently enrolled in a college journalism class, and my instructor wants me to ask what some people think about the conflict with ISIS. What are your opinions on troop movements? Should we send more troops, or pull out completely? Is there anything that has been done well? Is there anything that has been done badly? Is there anything that they haven't done that they SHOULD have done? If you could leave yteour name, age, and place you live, that would be appreciated.
Well, first off you are likely to not get the information you are wanting. For example, we generally do not like to give our real names for various reasons. For me, it is because I am still in the military. For others, there have actually been threats made in places like this and most of us have become rather paranoid about some of the unstable posters we meet. But to try and answer what you seem to want and not what you are actually asking, let me answer it in this way. I think the conflict with ISIS is very much like what it was between the Taliban and Northern Alliance in 2001. On one side you have extremists who want to create a model theocracy and do not care for the rights or lives of anybody who does not support them. They feel they have no restrictions and can behave however they feel, because "God is on their side". Well, everybody claims that is the case - but in reality God is only on the side of half of those in conflict. And that is generally the side of the eventual winner. And God does not get involved, he does not aim bombs or point where to fire the missiles so being on his side really matters little to none, it is all just propaganda. Should we send more troops? Yea, because movements like this can not be eliminated otherwise. Either we can go in and eliminate them as a threat, or we can simply contain them as much as possible and wait for them to eventually burn themselves out. The only question then becomes how many must die while waiting for that to happen. And to give an idea, in the 4 years the Khmer Rouge controlled Cambodia before Vietnam drove them from power, between 2 and 3 million were killed. These movements never "die out" on their own, they must be removed. The question then becomes does anybody have the fortitude to go in and remove them. Because unless somebody sends in "boots on the ground", the region will continue to fester and people will continue to die. Pulling out completely will simply condemn tens of thousands if not ultimately millions of locals to death. Nazi Germany, Cambodia, German South-West Africa, Haiti Massacre, the Armenian-Greek-Kurdish genocides of the Young Turks, the multiple Soviet Genocides, former Yugoslavia, the lists simply go on and on. So it becomes the moral question of how many people must die before somebody steps in and takes action. As for what has been done well, the assembly of a primarily local coalition to try and at least curtail them has had some success. However, ultimately boots on the ground to eliminate them will be required. What was done badly, that would be in pulling out the previous coalition before Iraq was once again a stable and self-protecting nation. The collapse of both governmental and military forces and structure show how ill-prepared they were for their returning independence. Ultimately what should they have done? Well, I think the biggest mistake was in trying to "spread democracy" into a country and region that have no experience in democracy. In that region anything "democratic" beyond the tribal-village level is largely mob rule, where the largest and strongest (most guns) of the mobs makes all of the rules and dominates all of the others. Instead a return of Hashemite Kings under a Constitutional Monarchy would probably have been much more successful. Then a gradual transition to more parliamentary form of government (think the evolution of the British Government) would have had a good chance for success. I will not give my name, but you can identify me as Mushroom, a serving member of the US Army. Living near San Francisco (Baghdad by the Bay is an old nickname of the city), and am 50 years old.
pull out completely. everything was gone badly, without America, there would be no ISIS, Saddam would be government and Iraqis would profit from their resources the same as Saudis are doing. remember that osama bin laden was trained by Americans to use him against soviet union? well, later he turned against Americans. the same as drug lords in mexico, they were earlier soldiers and trained by americans to fight drugs, but later they changed side and became drug lords. I am against wars for energy resources, against foreign mixing who will be government in which country, almost 40 years old, atheist, from former yugoslavia, living in scandinavia.
The very FIRST thing the POTUS should do is get us all on the same page with regard to the threat of Islam. And no opinions about Islam, just the facts as judged by the Koran, Sira and Hadith and by the Prophet himself. His words, deeds and commands. Let's stop the deception by so called moderate Muslims and the self deception by our government and the media. Once we are all in agreement about what Islam is then we can judge whether ISIS is Islamic or not. If it is Islamic then we would have to consider the ramifications of going to war against a Muslim Caliphate. Up until ISIS our Islamic battlefield enemies have been nationalists (Saddam's loyalists), Mujahideen &Jihadists (Taliban & Afghans) and trained military soldiers of a nation (Iraq). We have yet to experience all of the repercussions which might follow a serious US campaign to destroy an actual army of Islamic warriors. Those warriors who are fighting for the Caliph, for the perpetuation of the Caliphate and in obedience to Mohammed's orders to expand Islam's effective reach and power until Islam controls all people on Earth.
If you journalism professor allows you to find "interviews" on an anonymous message board you should ask for the money back that you paid for the class.
Ahem! "If you could leave your name, age, and place you live, that would be appreciated." Snicker! Bwahahahahahaha! Good one! But still in the interest of furthering the process of a George Soros funded journalism class (look it up) I will generate a brief reply. I believe that only a double-standards sort of fellow could possibly have run on cleaning up the mess that G.W. Bush made with Iraq and then so utterly screw up the turnover process that within two years after declaring that everything was just hunky dory, the ISIS Junior Varsity war band rose to power and dominance over a vast section of the middle east. The really slimy part of it then coming into play when said scum bag president immediately points the trembling finger of blame rightward and shrieks, "It's all Bush's fault!" That sort of thing requires a genuine weasel for a Leftist president. Oh and for your requirements? Sure thing! Barack Obama, age 53, and you can always find me at any spiffy looking Golf Course. Fore!
After careful consideration, I feel that while Isis is a threat to all they need to be stopped by those they are infecting at this time. Saudi's have lots of money, in fact isis is supported by some of their citizens. Jordan, saudi, egypt, should foot the bill and hire a mercenary army of 50 to 100k. The U.S. could sell the arms and equipment necessary to defeat isis, but I feel it needs to be done by those that are affected. The iraqi's seem to be content to just run, so it's hard to help a country that refuses to help themselves. Those that didn't run needed arms to effectively fight but the lack of action when it was needed has led to their deaths and instead we are trainning more that will probably drop there weapons and run. We gave them the weapons and they gave them to the enemy so nothing has been done right. While I do not feel that we should send our boys there to die for cowards, we could help those who are at risk and fighting by providing some leadership and tactics to defeat them. I can honestly say I have never seen our country be so vulnerable before. Our president is like the kid in school thats being bullied and runs away, pretends it's not real. There is so much happening in the world at this time and we have no leadership. When you are pushed you have to push back. We look weak. If there is a plan or strategy it's beyond my comprehension. It's almost like we are being compromised from within our own government. Im 59 you can call me ray or you can call me jay. I am disgusted with our current leadership.
And who exactly was that American who convinced Congress to arm the Mujahideen ? It's not who the liberals kept blaming but it was one of their own, Rep. Charlie Wilson. (Liberal Democrat) Read the book and watch the movie "Charlie Wilson's War." The movie -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Wilson's_War The man, Charlie Wilson.
The biggest fail there is the simple fact that Osama bin Laden was not a member of the Mujahadeen, and the US never trained, provided assistance to, nor worked with him during their involvement in Afghanistan. The real Mujahadeen were Afghan nationals. OBL was a member of the group that was known as "Afghan-Arabs". They were very seperate from the Afghan fighters, and not trusted by the Afghans. To the Afghans, the war against the Soviets was for national liberation, the "Afghan-Arabs" saw it as a religious Holy War, and really did not care about Afghanistan at all. Those that perpetuate the lie that the "US aided OBL" are a combination of both very ignorant, and more then a little racist in my mind. To OBL, the US was already an enemy nation, and he wanted nothing to do with the US even at that point. His assistance came from Pakistan, not the US. It was this kind of support that was one of the main causes for the US to cut down drastically the support it funneled thought Pakistan and started to providde to the Mujahadeen directly (or through other channels). And this can be continued even further when the politics after the war was over is analyzed logically. The groups that the US backed would go on to form what is known as the "Northern Alliance", a US Friendly progressive organization primarily founded and run by Afghans. OBL would support and operate with the Taliban, largely influenced by foreigners, and an avowed enemy of the Northern Alliance. Whenever some moron comes out here with the "US supported OBL" crap, I immediately know that they do not have a freaking clue what they are talking about. The Soviet-Afghan War involved 4 major factions. The Soviets, the Pro-Soviet Afghans, the Mujahadeen Afghans, and then finally the Jihadist Afghans and Arabs. The US only supported 1 of those 4 groups, and it was not the one that OBL belonged to. Of course, I also bet that most of those that believe the "US supported OBL" crap also consider the Afghans, Iranians, and Libyans to be "Arabs" (and that all 3 are in the "Middle East").. That is how incredibly ignorant they are.
But if you listened to MSNBC and the progressive liberals, they tell history differently to further their political agenda. The Taliban was created by Pakistan intelligence service. The Taliban were not terrorist or the enemy on 9-11-01. But they protected Al Qaeda and allowed Al Qaeda to use Afghanistan for training camps. All one has to do is read Bin Laden's first fatwa that declared war on America and he explains why he thought he could get away attacking America on it's own soil (9-11-01) and believing that America's only response would be Tomahawk cruise missiles. Unfortunately for OBL on 9-11-01 Bill Clinton was no longer POTUS but G.W. Bush was. OBL got it wrong, G.W. Bush didn't just have the talk but the he had walk. Al Qaeda would no longer be a Clinton policy as just being a law enforcement issue directed by Madeline Albright, Susan Rice and Janett Reno. What if when the U.S. Army commander in Somalia when he requested armor and President Clinton would have listened to his military advisers instead of liberal civilians in the Clinton White House ? No naked American soldiers being dragged through the streets, no "Black Hawk Down." No Fatwa, no 9-11-01.
Well, yes and no. This has shades of fact and propaganda. The Taliban was supported by Pakistan, but not created by it. They largely saw it as a way to essentially get rid of their more radical citizens, by essentially sending them to go fight in Afghanistan. I really do not think Pakistan cared much who controlled Afghanistan, just so they were left alone. But the Taliban was an "enemy" of the US. Like Libya and Iraq and Lebanon decades prior, it directly aided and supported various terrorist groups and training camps. Much like the Libya supported attacks that the US responded to in the 1980's, the US was already in the process of striking camps in Afghanistan. And the Taliban was not about to turn over Al-Qaeda, because that group was acting as their Intelligence Service, as well as espionage and special operations arm. Do not forget, the first attack of what is now known as 9-11 was not in the US at all, but by Al-Qaeda on Ahmad Shah Massoud, a US supporter and leader of the Northern Alliance. That was on 9 September, and the Taliban had already initiated a new offensive against the Northern Alliance already underway on 9-11.
I knew who Ahmad Shah Massoud was probably back in 1978. Anyone who read Soldier of Fortune magazine knew who he was back then. It was around the same time Soldier of Fortune journalist got their hands on an AK-74 (with ammunition) that the CIA was trying to get their hands on for years. Then there was Sayed Jafar Naderi better known in the outlaw motorcycle world in America as Jeff Naderi who was the son of one of the Northern Alliance leaders. Some months before 9-11-01 Jeff returned to Afghanistan, the Taliban were out of control. I wonder what ever happened to him ?
