3 ms·

Trump stated his intention to stabilize the region. So far he has demonstrated very clearly that he intends to keep his promises. All that needs to happen there

Trump stated his intention to stabilize the region. So far he has demonstrated very clearly that he intends to keep his promises. All that needs to happen there is we need to stop arming ISIS, and join forces with Russia and Assad's government to destroy ISIS. It'll be over in a year or two. And if you find the US interventionism repugnant, congratulations, we now have a president who is against it, too.

Scirra_Tom 10y ago
Simple right? Just destroy them. I'm sure Trump will be able to stablise the Middle East no problem. He's well versed in Middle Eastern politics and warfare and crucially he's got a level head and able to think decisions through properly which he's proven since becoming president.
- general_ai 10y ago
  Destroy the most radicalized, enforce Syrian law for the rest. There's nobody that can do the job better than the Syrian government (which is more "well versed" in local politics than any White House hack will ever be). That's the only way to minimize the body count.
  - mcguire 10y ago
    Yeah, supporting an anti-American dictator with a very dubious human rights record couldn't possibly backfire at all. Wasn't Syria one of ye old state sponsors of terrorism?
    - general_ai 10y ago
      Do you think US' persistent attempts to depose him that have utterly wrecked his country maybe have anything to do with that? Moreover, do you think if the US helped him undo the damage that sentiment would change? IIRC, he did say that he would welcome our help.
      - mcguire 10y ago
        Syria was on the state sponsors list when it was created in 1979. So, unless the al-Assads are prescient, probably not. More likely factors are the US support for Israel, Syrian support for Palestinians, particularly Hezbollah, and possibly leftovers of the cold war. As for US attempts to depose him, as far as I know, those only started after his 2011 crackdown on Arab Spring protesters, which set of the civil war. Syrian behavior after hypothetical help from the US to crush the rebellion, that would probably depend on how long a leash the Russians have.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  > I'm sure Trump will be able to stablise the Middle East no problem. Well at least he'll stop arming them, that would be a good first step towards progress.
  - jhall1468 10y ago
    Oh? When did he sign that?
    - rdtsc 10y ago
      A few days ago (I think), maybe a week, when Mattis became the Sec of Defense.
pavlov 10y ago
You mean the guy who, exactly a week ago, said that maybe the USA will have another chance to "keep the oil" from Iraq? Here's the quote from his speech at CIA: "We don’t win anymore. The old expression, “to the victor belong the spoils” -- you remember. I always used to say, keep the oil. I wasn’t a fan of Iraq. I didn’t want to go into Iraq. But I will tell you, when we were in, we got out wrong. And I always said, in addition to that, keep the oil. Now, I said it for economic reasons. But if you think about it, Mike, if we kept the oil you probably wouldn’t have ISIS because that’s where they made their money in the first place. So we should have kept the oil. But okay. (Laughter.) Maybe you’ll have another chance. But the fact is, should have kept the oil. " [1] Claiming that Trump is against interventionism is just you projecting your own wishes and hopes onto the blank canvas of his mind. [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-cia-speech-transcript/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-cia-speech-transcript/
- general_ai 10y ago
  Who would you rather get to "keep the oil"? The country that sunk hundreds of billions into first destroying and then rebuilding Iraq, or some other country?
  - mcguire 10y ago
    It's the white man's burden, after all.
  - pavlov 10y ago
    I'm not really sure what you're asking? The oil is in Iraq and by international law belongs to Iraq, not the USA or some other country. But even assuming that the USA should "keep the oil" -- how would that work in practice? You can't just pump it all out and make a quick exit. Estimates say that there is 140 billion barrels of the stuff. (That's over 22 cubic kilometres!) The United States would have to maintain an occupation force to protect the wells and pipelines for years while they're enjoying the "victor's spoils", as Trump puts it. It's unlikely that any other country would purchase oil produced under such circumstances, so the oil would also have to be shipped to America... And the only shipping route out of Iraq goes right under Iran's nose. You can see how this might escalate quickly. Trump's idea of keeping Iraq's oil would make for an interesting plot point in an alternate history fiction about World War III.
therealdrag0 10y ago
How are we arming ISIS?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Scirra_Tom 10y ago

Simple right? Just destroy them. I'm sure Trump will be able to stablise the Middle East no problem. He's well versed in Middle Eastern politics and warfare and crucially he's got a level head and able to think decisions through properly which he's proven since becoming president.

general_ai 10y ago
Destroy the most radicalized, enforce Syrian law for the rest. There's nobody that can do the job better than the Syrian government (which is more "well versed" in local politics than any White House hack will ever be). That's the only way to minimize the body count.
- mcguire 10y ago
  Yeah, supporting an anti-American dictator with a very dubious human rights record couldn't possibly backfire at all. Wasn't Syria one of ye old state sponsors of terrorism?
  - general_ai 10y ago
    Do you think US' persistent attempts to depose him that have utterly wrecked his country maybe have anything to do with that? Moreover, do you think if the US helped him undo the damage that sentiment would change? IIRC, he did say that he would welcome our help.
    - mcguire 10y ago
      Syria was on the state sponsors list when it was created in 1979. So, unless the al-Assads are prescient, probably not. More likely factors are the US support for Israel, Syrian support for Palestinians, particularly Hezbollah, and possibly leftovers of the cold war. As for US attempts to depose him, as far as I know, those only started after his 2011 crackdown on Arab Spring protesters, which set of the civil war. Syrian behavior after hypothetical help from the US to crush the rebellion, that would probably depend on how long a leash the Russians have.
rdtsc 10y ago
> I'm sure Trump will be able to stablise the Middle East no problem. Well at least he'll stop arming them, that would be a good first step towards progress.
- jhall1468 10y ago
  Oh? When did he sign that?
  - rdtsc 10y ago
    A few days ago (I think), maybe a week, when Mattis became the Sec of Defense.

pavlov 10y ago

You mean the guy who, exactly a week ago, said that maybe the USA will have another chance to "keep the oil" from Iraq? Here's the quote from his speech at CIA: "We don’t win anymore. The old expression, “to the victor belong the spoils” -- you remember. I always used to say, keep the oil. I wasn’t a fan of Iraq. I didn’t want to go into Iraq. But I will tell you, when we were in, we got out wrong. And I always said, in addition to that, keep the oil. Now, I said it for economic reasons. But if you think about it, Mike, if we kept the oil you probably wouldn’t have ISIS because that’s where they made their money in the first place. So we should have kept the oil. But okay. (Laughter.) Maybe you’ll have another chance. But the fact is, should have kept the oil. " [1] Claiming that Trump is against interventionism is just you projecting your own wishes and hopes onto the blank canvas of his mind. [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-cia-speech-transcript/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-cia-speech-transcript/

general_ai 10y ago
Who would you rather get to "keep the oil"? The country that sunk hundreds of billions into first destroying and then rebuilding Iraq, or some other country?
- mcguire 10y ago
  It's the white man's burden, after all.
- pavlov 10y ago
  I'm not really sure what you're asking? The oil is in Iraq and by international law belongs to Iraq, not the USA or some other country. But even assuming that the USA should "keep the oil" -- how would that work in practice? You can't just pump it all out and make a quick exit. Estimates say that there is 140 billion barrels of the stuff. (That's over 22 cubic kilometres!) The United States would have to maintain an occupation force to protect the wells and pipelines for years while they're enjoying the "victor's spoils", as Trump puts it. It's unlikely that any other country would purchase oil produced under such circumstances, so the oil would also have to be shipped to America... And the only shipping route out of Iraq goes right under Iran's nose. You can see how this might escalate quickly. Trump's idea of keeping Iraq's oil would make for an interesting plot point in an alternate history fiction about World War III.

therealdrag0 10y ago

How are we arming ISIS?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]