American wars no longer an issue?

Search

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
26,035
Tokens
Where is the outrage? Where is the media? With their daily body counts? Showing flag draped American coffins being unloaded from cargo planes? 24/7 coverage of how horrible the conditions are for the troops? Interviewing families of dead soldiers on 20/20 or Prime Time News? Hour long features on soldiers turning and their mental condition after being in combat? IED victims with no legs crying with their children?

No worries left, we know you are hypocritical assholes.

[SIZE=+2] Current U.S. Wars and Conflicts of 2013[/SIZE]
us_troops_afghanistan.jpg

U.S. Troops in Afghanistan firing a mortar at the Taliban

Wars Involving the United States of America in 2013--The United States, officially at war on several fronts since 2001 (and unofficially, since at least 1991), is battling al-Qaida in several nations around the world, as is actively involved in covert wars in several others. America's current wars and conflicts in the year 2013 include wars in:
Afghanistan--Since the 9/11 Terrorist attacks on the U.S., American forces have been actively engaged against al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan. All signs point to an American withdrawal from Afghanistan over the next two years, but until then, the warfare continues. Iraq-While officially, America's war in Iraq ended in December, 2011, hundreds of U.S. military personnel remain in Iraq as trainers for the Iraqi military and security forces. As the Iraqi insurgency continues, it would be foolish to believe that America's involvement in Iraq is truly over.
Iran-The U.S., Israel, and likely other Western allies are engaged in a proxy/covert war with Iran over Iran's involvement in the wars in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Syria-As 2013 begins, U.S. and allied pressure on the Assad regime continues and it is well-known that the U.S. is aiding the anti-Assad rebels. The U.S. now formally recognizes the Syrian rebels as legitimate government of Syria. Worries over Syria's chemical weapons, and the possibility that Assad may use them or transfer them to Hezbollah, lead to the very strong possibility of U.S. and allied military intervention in Syria in 2013. U.S. special forces are reportedly pre-positioned in Jordan, and U.S. and other NATO forces are taking up positions in southern Turkey, manning Patriot missile batteries.
Libya--After the successful military intervention in Libya in 2011, continued American involvement in Libya hit the public eye with the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi and the death of four Americans, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya. The U.S. is actively involved in hunting down missing weapons in Libya and in supporting the new Libyan government. To date, there has been no publicly acknowledged military retaliation against the Libyan militants who attacked the embassy.
Mali--In 2012, the long-simmering hostility between the Mali government and the northern Taureg ethnic group exploded with the Taureg conquest of northern Mali. Soon after the rebel victory, al-Qaida affiliated Islamists took over the Taureg revolution and began invoking Islamist Sharia law. A coalition of African and European nations is trying to cobble together a military force to retake northern Mali. The U.S. is involved in this effort, and 2013 may very well see some form of U.S. military intervention in this al-Qaida-related conflict.
Somalia and the Horn of Africa--The U.S. and many other nations continue to engage in anti-piracy operations off the Somali coastline. These operations at times result in military engagements with the pirates, up to and including rescue operations inside Somalia itself. Besides the anti-piracy operations, the U.S. is also involved in Somalia due to the continuing Shabaab War. The U.S. funds and trains Ugandan, Burundian, Ethiopian, Kenyan, and other African forces who are actively fighting in Somalia to aid the weak central government against the al-Qaida affiliated al-Shabaab rebels. The U.S., over the past few years, frequently launches drone attacks, Special Forces raids, and naval attacks on al-Qaida targets in Somalia. There is no reason to believe this will change in 2013.
Pakistan--The U.S. has been using remote-controlled drones to attack Taliban and al-Qaida strongholds in Pakistan since 2004. Conservative reports put the death toll in Pakistan from these drone attacks at a minimum of 3,000.
Philippines--Since 2002, U.S. Special Forces have been aiding and training Filipino forces in their ongoing fight against al-Qaida affiliated Islamist rebels in the southern Philippines. These rebel groups include Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiyah. In 2009, two U.S. Special Forces troops were killed by a roadside bomb. While officially engaged in only training missions, it is highly likely that U.S. troops are more actively engaged.
Yemen--Yemen is one of America's fronts in the ongoing war against al-Qaida, with frequent drone strikes against Islamist and Jihadist targets in Yemen. Several terrorist attempts against the U.S. have originated in Yemen.
 

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2002
Messages
39,612
Tokens
Now conversely, shouldn't Fox News and the right be praising Obama for his fight against terrorism? After all that was the biggest danger facing the US a few years back.
 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
Judge I agree with post #3.

Iraq is now a terrorist state though. Obama pulled out because it was popular politically. See the letter in RR's thread.
Afg is still a mess. I'll not deny the Obama adm. has a nice collection of AQ scalps though.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
578
Tokens
Judge I agree with post #3.

Iraq is now a terrorist state though. Obama pulled out because it was popular politically. See the letter in RR's thread.
Afg is still a mess. I'll not deny the Obama adm. has a nice collection of AQ scalps though.


iraq was not a terrorist state until we lied to invade it. then every terrorist in the world packed their bags. you can't be this stupid.
 

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2002
Messages
39,612
Tokens
Scott, I still believe as I did before. Let's get the fuck out of them all and worry about our problems at home. We sure have enough of them.
 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
Yeah Judge you and I have always diverged in opinion when it comes to use of our military overseas.
 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
iraq was not a terrorist state until we lied to invade it. then every terrorist in the world packed their bags. you can't be this stupid.

Dude just STFU already. My last fart was more intelligent than your entire collection of crayon scribble in here.
 

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
26,035
Tokens
iraq was not a terrorist state until we lied to invade it. then every terrorist in the world packed their bags. you can't be this stupid.

Care to elaborate on Libya, Syria and Mali?

Thanks a lot, looking forward to your insight.


Oh, while your at it, can you give me your theory on why we did not support the former ally Egyptian government?
 

Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
10,451
Tokens
Care to elaborate on Libya, Syria and Mali?

Thanks a lot, looking forward to your insight.


Oh, while your at it, can you give me your theory on why we did not support the former ally Egyptian government?
Yea, ask a dude named it.
 

Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
10,451
Tokens
Judge I agree with post #3.

Iraq is now a terrorist state though. Obama pulled out because it was popular politically. See the letter in RR's thread.
Afg is still a mess. I'll not deny the Obama adm. has a nice collection of AQ scalps though.
So do I JW. That is a lawless mess over there. The country is helpless. As far as wars are concerned......different story. If we held the leaders more responsible, and I mean directly responsible, we could get them more involved in keeping their citizens at bay.
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,035
Tokens
Now conversely, shouldn't Fox News and the right be praising Obama for his fight against terrorism? After all that was the biggest danger facing the US a few years back.


I'm consistent my friend, as are you albeit not always on the same side, but the silence from others is deafening

there's only one narrative sold to the american public, and one dissenting voice doesn't change that. The tidal wave still prevails
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,035
Tokens
iraq was not a terrorist state until we lied to invade it. then every terrorist in the world packed their bags. you can't be this stupid.

they condoned terrorism, encouraged terrorism, financed terrorism, trained terrorists, rewarded terrorists and provided a safe haven for terrorists

You sir, represent your ilk well. Low information abrasive idiots. I haven't found you lying about something yet, but my best guess is that will happen soon enough.
 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
Max Boot - Commentary Magazine

According to David Remnick, Fareed Zakaria is a writer whom President Obama “reads and consults.” He is also a writer that I read and respect—but do not always agree with. His latest column, is a case in point. It argues for a more hands-off American attitude to the Middle East in line with the president’s policies.

Zakaria argues that the current mess in the Middle East—with active wars going on in Iraq and Syria, terrorism worsening in Lebanon, a new military regime in Egypt, Iran in possession of 19,000 centrifuges, etc.—is not America’s making. He blames instead the machinations of European powers who empowered minorities like the Syrian Alawites, “the rising tide of Islamic fundamentalism,” and “the invasion of Iraq.”

Of the first two factors, there is not much debate—but it seems a bit of a stretch to ascribe events going on as far afield as Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, and Iran to the ripple effects of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It is, in fact, as much of a stretch as the mirror-image argument made by Bush partisans who claim, with equally scant evidence, that the invasion catalyzed the Arab Spring a decade later.

There is little doubt that the early years of the Iraq War created a disaster in Iraq—but the success of the 2007-2008 surge bought Iraq another opportunity to develop peacefully. The fact that this opportunity has been lost is, in no small part, due to America’s lack of follow-up. In particular, President Obama’s failure to keep U.S. troops in Iraq and his rubber-stamping of Nouri al-Maliki’s election to a second term after a hung election in 2010. At least that’s my analysis.

Zakaria will have none of it. He writes of this argument: “Not only does this perspective misunderstand the very deep nature of the conflict in the Middle East but it also fails to see that Washington choosing one side over another made matters substantially worse.”

But the fact that the Middle East has deep problems doesn’t mean that the U.S. and other outside powers can’t help to ameliorate them. (Isn’t this what Secretary of State John Kerry and others argue when they press for more American involvement in the “peace process”?)

And in fact it is American non-involvement in Iraq that is empowering Maliki and his sectarian tendencies. When the U.S. was more actively involved in 2007-2009, we served as a bridge between Shiite sectarians in Baghdad and Sunni sheikhs in Anbar. Now that bridge is gone, and open warfare has erupted between the two camps. Lacking much influence, Obama has been reduced to fulfilling Maliki’s arms orders, which in fact does fuel the conflict.

None of this is to deny the very real costs of the Iraq War. But it is to point out that non-interventionism comes with a heavy price too, and that price is now being paid in blood in Iraq, Syria, and beyond.
 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
Blair says West will pay "heavy price" for no action in Syria

Former British prime minister Tony Blair has warned the West will pay a “heavy price” for not intervening in Syria and said it should have bombed the country last year.

Blair conceded that his own decisions to intervene in Iraq and Afghanistan during his reign had contributed to the present apprehension to become involved but said the consequences of non-intervention would be worse.
He said the situation in Syria had now become more difficult to find a positive outcome.
“I totally understand the reasons why people didn't want to intervene in Syria,” he said during a speech on BBC Radio 4.

“Personally I would have had us intervene - not full-scale troops on the ground or anything of that nature - but a couple of years ago, I think we could have created a situation in which an optimistic solution for the country was possible.

“I think now we're faced with a situation where it's a choice of two very bad options - no one wants to see Assad stay, people are rightly, I think, now very anxious about elements within the opposition with extremists and so on - and this is, in my view, going to cause us problems for many, many years to come.
“Having been through Iraq, Afghanistan and so on, I know what the difficult consequences are of intervention. But if you look at Syria, you see the consequences of non-intervention, and I think non-intervention there is, I think, something for which we will pay a very heavy price.”

Further, Blair said an “essential battle” against radical Islam also needed to be fought in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Blair attacked the “absurdity” of Britain and its allies spending billions on security and defence to protect themselves against the consequences of the extremism “advocated in the school systems and institutions of the very countries with whom we have intimate security and defence relationships”.
He said while he acknowledged that recent conflicts had turned off many governments from engaging in the Middle East, the case was stronger now than at any time.
His remarks are the closest he has come to an expression of regret over the impact of his military decisions, the Daily Mail reported.

Blair suggested an Islamist ideology that mixes politics and religion in “such a deadly way” must be confronted.

“At the root of the crisis lies a radicalised and politicised view of Islam, an ideology that distorts and warps Islam’s true message,” he said.

“The threat of this radical Islam is not abating. It is growing. It is spreading across the world.

“It is destabilising communities and even nations. It is undermining the possibility of peaceful coexistence in an era of globalisation. And in the face of this threat we seem curiously reluctant to acknowledge it and powerless to counter it effectively.”

In November, Blair implored the West to remain engaged with the Middle East and not turn its back on present “upheavals” during the keynote speech at the Arabian Business Achievement Awards.

He said then that the West must step in to stop the killing of innocent civilians in Syria, as well as support the new Egyptian government in rebuilding the country, continue negotiations for a nuclear-free Iran and not give up on peace between Israel and Palestine.

“Despite the pace of change and despite the unpredictability in the world there are actually common interests between East and West that makes a policy of continued engagement with each other essential and means that many of the challenges that we face can't be faced unless we face them together,” he said.

“I understand entirely why there are voices that say 'it's too difficult, it's not our business, we shouldn't be there', but I believe passionately that it's right that we remain engaged with this region and that we standby our friends and our friendships in this region.

“Those are friendships and alliances that go back a long way and they're not just alliances based on interests … they're also alliances based on values and beliefs and convictions.”

Blair said when he came to power in the UK in 1997 he could never have imagined the changes that are taking place in the world today.

He blamed much of the problem on political leaders being too influenced by short-term political gain to put long-term policy first – whether in the US, Europe or the Middle East.

Conflicts in the region would not be solved by introducing the status quo; the world – particularly extremists – needed to become more tolerant of different ethnicities, religions and cultures, he said.
 

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
26,035
Tokens
Care to elaborate on Libya, Syria and Mali?

Thanks a lot, looking forward to your insight.


Oh, while your at it, can you give me your theory on why we did not support the former ally Egyptian government?


Guess its just gonna be crickets from resident Ass Clown.
 

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
26,035
Tokens
Yup ^^

Go figure
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,442
Messages
13,568,269
Members
100,801
Latest member
ps5repairs
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com