Orange Duce

[a fan]

The alternative was to not give the Cairo speech, seat the Muslim Brotherhood in the front row, then call for regime change in Egypt & abandon Mubarak.

The alternative was not to call for regime change & encourage the Syrians to overthrow Assad if we weren't going to support them (prompting our Amb to resign).

The alternative was not to support anti-Quadaffi rebels in Libya if we were just going to lead from behind & support them in the aftermath.

The alternative was to not withdraw a residual force from Iraq & leave the door wide open for ISIS.

First of all, how is it that you think that the above is anywhere close to simply getting out of the region?

You're basically griping about all the things that Obama did to interject America IN to the ME. That's not leaving. We've never tried that.

And out of all the stuff Obama did, drawing the idiots in ISIS out into the open for a mass slaughter because they thought this was their chance to have their own country was the best thing he's done. How many of them did we kill? Tens of thousands of the most radical elements in the ME are now pushing up daisies. That's great, right?

Not to mention that you have an entire generation of radicals who now know that they can never have that.....they'll be wiped out if they try. Pretty good dividends considering how few American casualties were needed to wipe out that many potential terrorists.

In short, you just told me that nope, we never tried another path. Obama took the same stupid, pointless, ridiculous path that his predecessors did: the ol' "we just need to arm the right guys" game. Calling for regime change. And you didn't mention all the droning Obama did.

That's NOT withdrawal. Not even close.

[old salt]

So leaving a stable Iraq & drawing ISIS out, so they could overrun Iraq & Syria, before we go back & kill thousands more (with hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, caught in the crossfire) was a good strategy ?

This is hopeless. Can't argue with logic like that.

Obama had to go back in because his initial policy failed.

[dislaxxic]

..

[HooDat]

Obama had to go back in because his initial policy failed.

Obama did not HAVE to do anything.

He, and every single one of his relevant predecessors CHOSE to involve US troops and agents in the middle east.

Most of his predecessors did so because we had to have access to their oil. W and Obama had other options if they were willing to admit/understand it. Obama even more so, as the shale oil boom was firmly established during his administration. We no longer had a strategic reason to be there and yet we continued to be.

Why?

My take is there were two reasons: 1) the military industrial complex wanted their sales, and 2) the idiots putting themselves forward as diplomatic and military experts know one thing - hawkish activism..... When all you are is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.....

[old salt]

Obama had to go back in because his initial policy failed.

Obama did not HAVE to do anything.

He, and every single one of his relevant predecessors CHOSE to involve US troops and agents in the middle east.

Most of his predecessors did so because we had to have access to their oil. W and Obama had other options if they were willing to admit/understand it. Obama even more so, as the shale oil boom was firmly established during his administration. We no longer had a strategic reason to be there and yet we continued to be.

Why?

My take is there were two reasons: 1) the military industrial complex wanted their sales, and 2) the idiots putting themselves forward as diplomatic and military experts know one thing - hawkish activism..... When all you are is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.....

When did the shale boom kick in ? You can't just unwind everything that happened since 1991. There was never a clear exit ramp. Are you ready to abandon our Arab allies, who rely on our support, to hold off Iran & their proxies ? You think the potential fallout in economic terms & potential terrorism won't impact us if the region devolves even further ?

[CU77]

Most of his predecessors did so because we had to have access to their oil. W and Obama had other options if they were willing to admit/understand it. Obama even more so, as the shale oil boom was firmly established during his administration. We no longer had a strategic reason to be there and yet we continued to be.

This is not quite correct. As I'm sure you know, oil is traded on a worldwide market. If ME oil is significantly disrupted, the price for all oil will shoot up, harming the world economy, most definitely including the US. In principle the US govt could seize "our" oil by nationalizing the domestic oil industry (or otherwise preventing sale of domestic oil on the world market by dictatorial fiat), but that's a leftist play that center rightists like Bush and Obama and Trump would never go for ...

[runrussellrun]

What if everyone just picked up their guns, got on a chopper or plane and LEFT the ME?

then what?

seriously, what would happen?

I know one thing that would NOT happen. No more promising US young men and women would die over there......

But, according to AFAN, these HS grads that didn't study (remember john kerry's joke, what a fng jerk) would be on welfare anyway.

[runrussellrun]

Not everything is so B&W..... if you think past the immediate. If for one minute you believe we do not need West Point, then you clearly do not "fully" understand all that goes into these institutions.

Mortise and tenon.......

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... age-215563

and

https://www.militarytimes.com/2016/08/1 ... an-3-to-1/

Defense Department contractors in Afghanistan still outnumber U.S. troops by a 3-to-1 margin according to new research released this week, raising questions again about the role those workers play in the ongoing wars overseas and the oversight they receive.

The data, compiled by the Congressional Research Service and first reported by Politico, shows contractor numbers in both Iraq and Afghanistan dating back to fiscal 2007. Combined, the Defense Department spent more than $220 billion on contractors in both war zones for a variety of services and support.

[a fan]

So leaving a stable Iraq & drawing ISIS out, so they could overrun Iraq & Syria, before we go back & kill thousands more (with hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, caught in the crossfire) was a good strategy ?

This is hopeless. Can't argue with logic like that.

This from the guy who thinks that removing the leader of his nation, and replacing him with US Marines was a brilliant long term idea, and Obama "wrecked" this super awesome plan.

How hard do you suppose the Mullahs in Iran were laughing as they watched Bush wipe out their rival? Now you're telling me that the Irans are lording over the region...and instead of blaming Bush for removing their rival, you want to put it all on Obama.



This is why you and I can't agree on anything. You want to put 100% of the problems in the ME on Obama. It's absurd. Further, you want to cite his "withdrawal" ....even though he didn't do that....as evidence that we need to go further in, injecting the US military into every single conflict in every single country in the region.

I'm sorry, but this reasoning is insane. We'd still be in Vietnam using this logic. I'm sick of the US casualties, and these discussions bring out the worst in me....sorry.

[a fan]

This is not quite correct. As I'm sure you know, oil is traded on a worldwide market. If ME oil is significantly disrupted, the price for all oil will shoot up, harming the world economy,

Respectfully, you're assuming that the price of oil is directly related to supply and demand. It's not.

And you're also assuming that ME "stability" has anything to do with oil prices. RR and others are arguing that the entire region was in flames under Obama after the troops were pulled from Iraq. How were gas prices in those years?

Exactly.

It wouldn't harm the world economy the the point of a Depression if we stopped buying from the region. This is a flawed premise that led to all our ME shenanigans. We would simply move our energy demands elsewhere. BFD.

Gas prices are how much higher in the EU than in the US? And they get along just fine.

[runrussellrun]

notice all the comments at the end of the Politico article.

No one cares about spending more and killing. not one comment.

A stormy daniels story has 54 comments.

We get tRump b/c we ARE him. trash

[old salt]

RR and others are arguing that the entire region was in flames under Obama after the troops were pulled from Iraq. How were gas prices in those years?

You can thanks the US Navy for keeping the Straits of Hormuz open & the oil flowing, just as they have since 1979.

You can thank our US military planners whose air strike targeting avoided oil production & transportation infrastructure,
...even including that which was captured & operated by ISIS, precluding the need to rebuild it after their defeat.

[runrussellrun]

So leaving a stable Iraq & drawing ISIS out, so they could overrun Iraq & Syria, before we go back & kill thousands more (with hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, caught in the crossfire) was a good strategy ?

This is hopeless. Can't argue with logic like that.

This from the guy who thinks that removing the leader of his nation, and replacing him with US Marines was a brilliant long term idea, and Obama "wrecked" this super awesome plan.

How hard do you suppose the Mullahs in Iran were laughing as they watched Bush wipe out their rival? Now you're telling me that the Irans are lording over the region...and instead of blaming Bush for removing their rival, you want to put it all on Obama.



This is why you and I can't agree on anything. You want to put 100% of the problems in the ME on Obama. It's absurd. Further, you want to cite his "withdrawal" ....even though he didn't do that....as evidence that we need to go further in, injecting the US military into every single conflict in every single country in the region.

I'm sorry, but this reasoning is insane. We'd still be in Vietnam using this logic. I'm sick of the US casualties, and these discussions bring out the worst in me....sorry.

I still blame Carter and his doctrine. This Irish alzeihmers (where you don't forget ANYTHING ) makes for strong nilhilism

[runrussellrun]

This is not quite correct. As I'm sure you know, oil is traded on a worldwide market. If ME oil is significantly disrupted, the price for all oil will shoot up, harming the world economy,

Respectfully, you're assuming that the price of oil is directly related to supply and demand. It's not.

And you're also assuming that ME "stability" has anything to do with oil prices. RR and others are arguing that the entire region was in flames under Obama after the troops were pulled from Iraq. How were gas prices in those years?

Exactly.

It wouldn't harm the world economy the the point of a Depression if we stopped buying from the region. This is a flawed premise that led to all our ME shenanigans. We would simply move our energy demands elsewhere. BFD.

Gas prices are how much higher in the EU than in the US? And they get along just fine.

Comparing Europe to the USA is, well....

..........would love to take the train to Sugarbush or Sunday River......but alas, HAVE to drive. At least there IS a train to Mary Jane, CO and Truckee, Cali. No trains to Aspen, but Ive heard there's a private jet landing strip.

[runrussellrun]

RR and others are arguing that the entire region was in flames under Obama after the troops were pulled from Iraq. How were gas prices in those years?

You can thanks the US Navy for keeping the Straits of Hormuz open & the oil flowing, just as they have since 1979.

You can thank our US military planners whose air strike targeting avoided oil production & transportation infrastructure,
...even including that which was captured & operated by ISIS, precluding the need to rebuild it after their defeat.

Who was going to close the ocean?

I don't own any oilfields in the ME, does anyone else in the USA? Sounds like we outta subsidize these poor oil companies, what with all the danger of having an entire ocean being "closed". Sounds like General Smedley was correct............thank you NAVY for protecting my interests.

[Typical Lax Dad]

RR and others are arguing that the entire region was in flames under Obama after the troops were pulled from Iraq. How were gas prices in those years?

You can thanks the US Navy for keeping the Straits of Hormuz open & the oil flowing, just as they have since 1979.

You can thank our US military planners whose air strike targeting avoided oil production & transportation infrastructure,
...even including that which was captured & operated by ISIS, precluding the need to rebuild it after their defeat.

Who was going to close the ocean?

I don't own any oilfields in the ME, does anyone else in the USA? Sounds like we outta subsidize these poor oil companies, what with all the danger of having an entire ocean being "closed". Sounds like General Smedley was correct............thank you NAVY for protecting my interests.

Commodore Schmidlapp was going to close the ocean!

[a fan]

RR and others are arguing that the entire region was in flames under Obama after the troops were pulled from Iraq. How were gas prices in those years?

You can thanks the US Navy for keeping the Straits of Hormuz open & the oil flowing, just as they have since 1979.

You can thank our US military planners whose air strike targeting avoided oil production & transportation infrastructure,
...even including that which was captured & operated by ISIS, precluding the need to rebuild it after their defeat.

Ah, so you're arguing that we DON'T need a stable Middle East, and you cede my point? Clear sea lanes is enough.

Well that just got a whole lot easier. And cheaper.

Great. Let's continue all discussions with this in mind.

[youthathletics]

Not everything is so B&W..... if you think past the immediate. If for one minute you believe we do not need West Point, then you clearly do not "fully" understand all that goes into these institutions.

Mortise and tenon.......

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... age-215563

and

https://www.militarytimes.com/2016/08/1 ... an-3-to-1/

Defense Department contractors in Afghanistan still outnumber U.S. troops by a 3-to-1 margin according to new research released this week, raising questions again about the role those workers play in the ongoing wars overseas and the oversight they receive.

The data, compiled by the Congressional Research Service and first reported by Politico, shows contractor numbers in both Iraq and Afghanistan dating back to fiscal 2007. Combined, the Defense Department spent more than $220 billion on contractors in both war zones for a variety of services and support.

IMO you are proving my point. The Service Academies provide a niche that not many other institutions provide WRT to REAL LIFE teaching experiences. This translates into a pipeline of defense contractor employees with OJY Field experience and the tools to provide the essentials of war....for those blackwater types. You sure as heck aint gonna get that at JHU, UVA, ND,, HYP, etc.

[runrussellrun]

Look at all the bio's for Navy admirals. It's pretty shocking to see so many NON-USNA grads on the list.

https://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/bio_list.asp

3 of 12 of the Admirals whose last name begins with A went to the Naval Academy. That's 75% that did NOT play in pig grease plebe year. Not sure what the percentage is for other letters or overall. But, I kind of like the fact that our leadership comes from all kinds of random Universities.

9 of 25 for letter B are USNA grads.....36%

[HooDat]

This is not quite correct. As I'm sure you know, oil is traded on a worldwide market. If ME oil is significantly disrupted, the price for all oil will shoot up, harming the world economy,

Respectfully, you're assuming that the price of oil is directly related to supply and demand. It's not.

And you're also assuming that ME "stability" has anything to do with oil prices. RR and others are arguing that the entire region was in flames under Obama after the troops were pulled from Iraq. How were gas prices in those years?

Exactly.

It wouldn't harm the world economy the the point of a Depression if we stopped buying from the region. This is a flawed premise that led to all our ME shenanigans. We would simply move our energy demands elsewhere. BFD.

Gas prices are how much higher in the EU than in the US? And they get along just fine.

afan has given me a good head start. Oil NOW trades on a world-wide market and the US used to buy a lot of middle eastern (and Ven) oil. Until very recently it was against the law to export US oil. Oil trades on two very important indices: West Texas Intermediate (WTI) and Brent. WTI is the price of oil delivered to Cushing, OK. Brent is the price of crude delivered to Rotterdam. If we had turned out back on ME oil, the differential between Brent and WTI would have exploded. Would oil prices go up in the US - yep. Guess who wins out on that economic war-game? The USofA..... What do you think Trump's policies are preparing us for:

go ahead think a bit. Here are some clues:
- he is reducing/severing trading ties with China
- he is increasing US self-dependency in terms of transportation fuels
- he is trying to improve relations with Russia
- he is working to reinforce our border.

wonder why?

many folks will say it is because he is a racist pig. He is a pig, he is not a racist. You cold make the argument that he sees what is coming:

WHEN the middle east explodes - and at some point it has to - Brent is going to go well over $100/bbl. It might hit $200. What will that do?
- it will cripple global trade - because ships run on diesel/bunker fuel
- it will mean that those countries that are self-sufficient in terms of oil, will be far better off
- it will mean that Europe will have to look to Russia for its fuel
- it will mean that a lot of other countries will be facing incredible amounts of unrest and people will be pouring out of those countries creating a humanitarian crisis at our borders

When did the shale boom kick in ? You can't just unwind everything that happened since 1991. There was never a clear exit ramp. Are you ready to abandon our Arab allies, who rely on our support, to hold off Iran & their proxies ? You think the potential fallout in economic terms & potential terrorism won't impact us if the region devolves even further ?

George Mitchell began fracking in the 90's. It became widespread starting in the Barnett, spreading to the Haynesville, the Marcellus, then the Eagle Ford, the Bakken and the Permian. By 2006 it was clear what was coming. By 2014 the Boom was in high gear.

the exit ramp is very clear - leave. I suspect that if we really put our minds to it, we could pull everyone out of there in one night.

I'll answer one of your questions with a question - what Arab allies? The one's who flew panes into our buildings? Which allies is that exactly? So, YES I would.....