Brussels attacked, where should the US invade next?

[rareboy]

[Quoted Post: Removed]

This is nonsense.

 

[Kabluey]

Everyone knows that we were repeatedly attacked under Clinton, and 9/11 before Iraq.

What, you mean after the 1990's gulf war during the Bush years?

 

[Kabluey]

We should support them in any way that they need us to, just as we have always done.

No no no. Acting in a manner that's hostile towards people of certain nationalities makes them love you, and totally doesn't breed terrorism.

I don't think you've watched enough Rambo.

 

[rareboy]

What, you mean after the 1990's gulf war during the Bush years?

You mean the war that actually radicalized Osama bin Laden?

 

[frankfrank]

Interesting that I can sometimes agree...as I think also of the issues involved with Israel's egregiously-robust policy on settlements in occupied territory (also mentioned here), etc. - and yes, this was the "historical" cause, with more and more heaped on since.

The ultimate historical cause of the Middle Easter turmoil was the establishment of Israel on land more recently occupied by muslims. Truman encouraged it and was the first to recognize Israel. Israel's addition of more land through wars and continuing settlement of the acquired land has aggravated the problem. The continued existence of hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians is another thorn. Through many administrations, we have backed Israel in their intransigent refusal to compromise has made the US a focus of muslim anger. The attempt to blame Republicans is totally dishonest.

However, agreeing may not extend to other things, such as when I mention the 1953 overthrow of the Shah Of Iran, one certain little war (with Part I and the far-worse Part II) that was based on blatant lies, etc.

Personally i think there should be less invading and more breaking ties, with the likes of Saudi Arabia for a start.

B-b-b-b-but.....OIL!!!!! (I've also seen occasional stories suggesting SA as the economic engine of the Middle East, and their funding of Madrassahs where teaching of terrorism is suggested, etc.)

 

[Benvolio]

We now have the resources to be independent of SA oil--but it is not politically correct.

 

[TX-Beau]

We now have the resources to be independent of SA oil--but it is not politically correct.

Tell that to people who's tap water ignites.

 

[hotatlboi]

But you keep coming back.

Sometimes it's hard to look away from a train wreck.

 

[Benvolio]

What, you mean after the 1990's gulf war during the Bush years?

No, after the feeble Carter let Iran get away with the hostage crisis, demonstrating that we lacked the will to fight back.

 

[Alnitak]

Terrorism always backfires by giving political capital to those trying to suppress their identity groups.

 

[TX-Beau]

No, after the feeble Carter let Iran get away with the hostage crisis, demonstrating that we lacked the will to fight back.

You mean right before Reagan committed treason by providing weapons to our enemies?

 

[jbrown329]

Tell that to people who's tap water ignites.

 

[Alnitak]

The ultimate historical cause of the Middle Easter turmoil was the establishment of Israel on land more recently occupied by muslims. Truman encouraged it and was the first to recognize Israel. Israel's addition of more land through wars and continuing settlement of the acquired land has aggravated the problem. The continued existence of hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians is another thorn. Through many administrations, we have backed Israel in their intransigent refusal to compromise has made the US a focus of muslim anger. The attempt to blame Republicans is totally dishonest.

That is absolutely absurd. You clearly don't understand the first thing behind Islamic terrorism. They are responding to what they perceive as a threat by the West to their way of life and recruits are easily manipulated into elevating their own displaced lives into ones that they perceive as those that matter. The main ideal of Islamic terrorism is to establish a Muslim Caliphate. They hate all governments, but noticeably absent from ISIS rhetoric is any mention of Israel, and the feeling is mutual.

Muslim angst against outsiders predates Israel by decades. Everyone knows that because they have seen Lawrence of Arabia. Al Qaeda style terrorism didn't arise until the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1970s. At most, it can be said that they resent US-Israeli relations, but it's hardly a "root" cause. ISIS is consequence of the coalition invasion of Iraq, also a conflict that Israel is absent from.

Now, on the subject of the establishment of Jewish settlements and the State of Israel. The Ottoman authorities would never have allowed Jews to just come in and just steal land. Actually, Jews returning to Ottoman Palestine from Europe between 1880 and 1948 purchased undeveloped plots in Northern Israel. The 1947 UN partition was then an equitable division between Jewish and Muslim residential areas. It should have stayed that way, but both Palestinian and Jewish areas were invaded by surrounding Arab states especially Jordan, Egypt, and Syria after the British mandate ended on May 14, 1948. Arab countries then proceeded to suppress fledgling Palestinian nationalism in the 1960s. The Arab countries then lost the West Bank and Gaza to Israel after the 1967 war also a war that they started. The PLO didn't include a plank to make the territories an independent country until 1970. Small border disputes, and especially Jerusalem has stalled progress ever since. The division of the territories into two separate governments since 2005 has resulted in more inter-Palestinian conflict than Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Now those are the facts.

 

[evanrick]

As long as democrats look the other way when it comes to Hillarys neo-con views and deep republican ties, Americans can expect more blunders and more disasters that started with Iraq and shown no sign of slowing down, if HRC becomes president.

The HRC supporters are seriously underestimating the electoral anti war sentiment that have propelled major candidates in both parties.

 

[rareboy]

^ Uh. Yeah. Right.

 

[Rolyo85]

As long as democrats look the other way when it comes to Hillarys neo-con views and deep republican ties, Americans can expect more blunders and more disasters that started with Iraq and shown no sign of slowing down, if HRC becomes president. The HRC supporters are seriously underestimating the electoral anti war sentiment that have propelled major candidates in both parties.

Boy, was this topic EVER not about Hillary?

 

[Benvolio]

That is absolutely absurd. You clearly don't understand the first thing behind Islamic terrorism. They are responding to what they perceive as a threat by the West to their way of life and recruits are easily manipulated into elevating their own displaced lives into ones that they perceive as those that matter. The main ideal of Islamic terrorism is to establish a Muslim Caliphate. They hate all governments, but noticeably absent from ISIS rhetoric is any mention of Israel, and the feeling is mutual.

Muslim angst against outsiders predates Israel by decades. Everyone knows that because they have seen Lawrence of Arabia. Al Qaeda style terrorism didn't arise until the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1970s. At most, it can be said that they resent US-Israeli relations, but it's hardly a "root" cause. ISIS is consequence of the coalition invasion of Iraq, also a conflict that Israel is absent from.

Now, on the subject of the establishment of Jewish settlements and the State of Israel. The Ottoman authorities would never have allowed Jews to just come in and just steal land. Actually, Jews returning to Ottoman Palestine from Europe between 1880 and 1948 purchased undeveloped plots in Northern Israel. The 1947 UN partition was then an equitable division between Jewish and Muslim residential areas. It should have stayed that way, but both Palestinian and Jewish areas were invaded by surrounding Arab states especially Jordan, Egypt, and Syria after the British mandate ended on May 14, 1948. Arab countries then proceeded to suppress fledgling Palestinian nationalism in the 1960s. The Arab countries then lost the West Bank and Gaza to Israel after the 1967 war also a war that they started. The PLO didn't include a plank to make the territories an independent country until 1970. Small border disputes, and especially Jerusalem has stalled progress ever since. The division of the territories into two separate governments since 2005 has resulted in more inter-Palestinian conflict than Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Now those are the facts.

I am sure their plans for a Caliphate include plans for the fate of Israel which you will not like.

 

[rareboy]

Boy, was this topic EVER not about Hillary?

No Evanrick topic for the last three months has been about anything else.

At least now he'll disappear for a few days before coming back just before the next primaries to rant at all of us again.

 

[jbrown329]

As long as democrats look the other way when it comes to Hillarys neo-con views and deep republican ties, Americans can expect more blunders and more disasters that started with Iraq and shown no sign of slowing down, if HRC becomes president.

The HRC supporters are seriously underestimating the electoral anti war sentiment that have propelled major candidates in both parties.

............................

 

[vulgar_newcomer]

I don't think the US should invade anywhere 'next' until the last place they invaded (with UK and Spain) has been sorted out.

Personally i think there should be less invading and more breaking ties, with the likes of Saudi Arabia for a start.

I am not sure what you mean. If you are talking about America then you have it wrong. The part of North America now known as the United States was invaded by Spain, Britain, & France. I can think of no other Countries that the United States invaded with England, and Spain.