Obama's strategy in Yemen once again proves successful

[MongGrel]

Stay in the air and let em kill each other.

Can always get the BUFFS out if needed.

:sneaky:

 

[Ns1]

When was the last time you heard about American troops dying in IED attacks? Yeah, thanks Obama.

our civilians get beheaded instead.

fair trade I guess?

 

[touchstone]

our civilians get beheaded instead.

fair trade I guess?

What civilians? The only people I've seen beheaded have been defense contractors, soldiers, and reporters. None of those qualifies as 'american civilians'.



I mean come on dude you know I'm right. There are way, way fewer americans dying overseas than say, April 2005. Are you gonna make me look up the numbers?

 

[dank69]

our civilians get beheaded instead.

fair trade I guess?

I don't often go with the personal responsibility line but if you voluntarily enter a war zone, well...sorry. Maybe Obama should have made it illegal to travel there? I mean, c'mon, be serious here.

 

[Ns1]

What civilians? The only people I've seen beheaded have been defense contractors, soldiers, and reporters. None of those qualifies as 'american civilians'.



I mean come on dude you know I'm right. There are way, way fewer americans dying overseas than say, April 2005. Are you gonna make me look up the numbers?

I'm not disagreeing with you. But there are tertiary consequences. What I personally fear is that this power vacuum in the middle east will lead to something more significant a few years down the line.

and if i'm not mistaken, Peter Kassig and James Foley were both american citizens.

 

[touchstone]

I'm not disagreeing with you. But there are tertiary consequences. What I personally fear is that this power vacuum in the middle east will lead to something more significant a few years down the line.

and if i'm not mistaken, Peter Kassig and James Foley were both american citizens.

That might be a problem down the line, but the way to 100% guarantee more Americans die is to put troops on the ground. There is nothing that stops us from intervening in the future if we see an imminent threat, but as a country we need to learn to butt out of situations that really don't directly affect us.


I am not opposed to aid to whichever crazy group (who will undoubtedly betray us the moment they see an advantage) you like, as long as it doesn't include troops on the ground.

 

[Ns1]

That might be a problem down the line, but the way to 100% guarantee more Americans die is to put troops on the ground. There is nothing that stops us from intervening in the future if we see an imminent threat, but as a country we need to learn to butt out of situations that really don't directly affect us.

but we're cool with drone strikes and the such?

I once again don't disagree with you, but isolationist policies have their own issues.

 

[MongGrel]

I don't often go with the personal responsibility line but if you voluntarily enter a war zone, well...sorry. Maybe Obama should have made it illegal to travel there? I mean, c'mon, be serious here.

+1

 

[senseamp]

Republicans: Let us fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here.
Democrats: Let them fight each other over there so we don't have to fight them over here.

 

[1prophet]

Republicans: Let us fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here.
Democrats: Let them fight each other over there so we don't have to fight them over here.

The real answer, an energy policy that not only looks at the immediate costs or savings of cheap oil, but the hidden long term costs we are now paying for dearly in the middle east and the hell-spawn that has come out of it.

Alternative energy doesn't seem so expensive now does it?

 

[wnied]

"...Obama/Clinton destabilization policies in the middle east during the disaster that was the 'arab spring'..."

Right, Bush / Cheney was better? Positioning the military to attack a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the group or attacks of 911. Outright lying to everyone and stating they knew there were caches of WMDs hidden all over Iraq? Attacking and running down a leader that had in the past been an ally to the US, creating a power vacuum and ultimately leading to the complete civil war chaos that it is today?

You're right, they did it so much better. When they fuck something up, they do it so that it can never be fixed.

 

[Ns1]

The real answer, an energy policy that not only looks at the immediate costs or savings of cheap oil, but the hidden long term costs we are now paying for dearly in the middle east and the hell-spawn that has come out of it.

Alternative energy doesn't seem so expensive now does it?

Who needs alternative energy when you have fracking?

 

[MongGrel]

Who needs alternative energy when you have fracking?

Yeah, drill baby drill.

I hope that was a joke

 

[Ns1]

Yeah, drill baby drill.

I hope that was a joke

July 4 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. will remain the world's biggest oil producer this year after overtaking Saudi Arabia and Russia as extraction of energy from shale rock spurs the nation's economic recovery, Bank of America Corp. said.Jul 4, 2014

Txt

 

[Screech]

Current US 'strategy' in the middle east is either a total clusterfck or actually very successful depending on what the actual goal is.....if the goal is to have stable countries existing peacefully then the current strategy is pretty bad, but if the goal is to have everyone who might dislike us busy killing each other without us having to spend a whole lot of money on it, we are doing pretty good.

 

[Ns1]

Current US 'strategy' in the middle east is either a total clusterfck or actually very successful depending on what the actual goal is.....if the goal is to have stable countries existing peacefully then the current strategy is pretty bad, but if the goal is to have everyone who might dislike us busy killing each other without us having to spend a whole lot of money on it, we are doing pretty good.

That's a fair assessment.

 

[nickqt]

Current US 'strategy' in the middle east is either a total clusterfck or actually very successful depending on what the actual goal is.....if the goal is to have stable countries existing peacefully then the current strategy is pretty bad, but if the goal is to have everyone who might dislike us busy killing each other without us having to spend a whole lot of money on it, we are doing pretty good.

Lets say your a member of the MIC, already have the US government paying nearly $1T into your industry, with the rest of the world also throwing in another $1.5T a year into your industry.

Is Yemen and the other 20+ major conflicts a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[sportage]

Yeah, like some republican president has a clue how to deal with the middle east, other than bomb bomb bomb Iran.
We had wars over there the day you were born, and will be wars up to the day you die.
Just hope some idiot republican doesn't send your kid to die over there, too.

Hey... I thought GW and all his gang told us we'd be LOVE U LONG TIME by invading Iraq?
Guess they didn't bring enough nylons and chocolate bars.

Wouldn't it be funny as hell to ditch negations and pursue war as the answer in Iran?
Getting the Soviet Union involved, leading to all out nuclear war?
Wouldn't that be hilarious as hell?
You have about 7 minutes left to laugh.

 

[Thebobo]

Only foolish people think we can successfully police the world.

 

[dank69]

Only foolish people think we can successfully police the world.

Only foolish people even want to police the world.

 

[werepossum]

Stay in the air and let em kill each other.

Can always get the BUFFS out if needed.

:sneaky:

Works for me. Let 'em fight to their hearts' content - and occasionally fly over and bomb the hell out of whichever side seems to be winning. For humanitarian reasons, of course.

Of course Obama's strategy for Yemen is failing miserably. Every strategy for Yemen is going to fail miserably. The only good side are the people not trying to kill or enslave one another, and there is absolutely no way to defeat either or both sides' combatants without also killing these good people.

I don't often go with the personal responsibility line but if you voluntarily enter a war zone, well...sorry. Maybe Obama should have made it illegal to travel there? I mean, c'mon, be serious here.

I see it as an intelligence test. Travelling to Yemen? Sorry, you failed an Intelligence roll. Now roll 3d6 against your Luck to see if your head remains attached.

 

[norseamd]

BUT, Al Qaeda is against the Houthis, who we are against. But the Houthis are against AQ, who we are also against. But the Houthis might be backed by Iran? But we're negotiating with Iran right now over sanctions?

Man I'm confused.

quagmire (plural quagmires)

1. A swampy, soggy area of ground. That quagmire regularly 'swallows' caught-up hikers' boots
2. (figuratively) A perilous, mixed up and troubled situation; a hopeless tangle; a predicament. The paperwork got lost in a quagmire of bureaucracy.Those election results are a quagmire for any coalition except one of national union

 

[norseamd]

i give it by the end of summer and we will have troops in yeman.

Doubting that. We might send SOF back in but otherwise you are not going to see any conventional deployments as it is not feasible in any way politically.

 

[norseamd]

Been going on for over a millennia and I doubt we will see it end in our lifetime.

Sure was peaceful when the Ottomans ruled the area.

 

[norseamd]

"The war and violence in the middle east just never ends does it."


Its at a main turning point now. In most notorious treachery in history, the first sorta/kinda black president betrayed his own nation and allies helping Muslim fanatics he sympathizes with.

Then Israel turns threatening nations to glass. Just watch. "Fly-over" attacks in Iran wont work. Russians showed them how to build deep. They will break out the fat boys

The interesting thing is the creature actually succeeded in driving Arabs and Jews together as they fight against our lunatic helping other lunatics