Mattis’s Last Stand Is Iran

[donttread]

Oh, I am leaving foreign policy up to you, @Peter1469. And @Ethereal. And @donttread. I urge all three of you to continue spouting, winging, and thrusting yourselves into the foreign policy analyses here, number one it provides me entertainment. Two, it provides a record I can post up here and roar in laughter while you three try to defend that record.

For we know that even those to the left of we Neocons urged airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq The British Parliament in fact approved airstrikes in Iraq....not in Syria....but in Iraq against ISIS as early as September 2014. The British Parliament not exactly your Neocon proponents by Dec of 2015 had approved airstrikes inside Syria, ISIS apparent and very recognizable to the English.

The French.....we know how the French responded don't we? By December of 2015, they are striking in Syria, attacking ISIS in Raqqa. They claimed that prior to that any attacks on ISIS might inadvertently support Assad's government by killing Assad's enemies......but the French after losing 129 at that concert venue.....wanted blood.

The United States as well finally woke up. Finally recognized what some Observers predicted would be unrecognizable.

Says the guy who could not supply or fund all the interventions he supports.

[donttread]

Mornin Comrade. We're not speaking to occupation. The Iraq occupation you've already erred on as well, it's a broader theme. Associating Cheney a nice deflection, we're speaking to your...…..donttread's analysis on the Islamic State focused specifically on previous statements made between late 2014 and late 2015.

You specifically donttread…..were claiming fake threat. Boogieman. To consider not occupation....not a democracy inserted.....considering mere US involvement you vehemently opposed. You mocked threat analysis that ISIS had spread, was recruiting heavily. You mocked reports they were challenging al-Qaeda on a global scale, you urged we bring it all home, ignore the crisis.

I asked that you consider that the US might be the only nation capable of the firepower needed to extract ISIS and you mocked that. A doctors without borders hospital worker was, an American, was raped and murdered by ISIS and when this Member called out enough is enough, you mocked that as well. Not one month before Paris.....donttread, came your now infamous what possible threat does ISIS pose this country. Followed by the Paris attacks and the Russian airliner brought down, the ISIS threat became clear to so many.

And of course.....what actually did roll ISIS back, what actually did defuse their influence....was direct and overt US military involvement and which of the 4 in the debate at the time was calling for such action he considered inevitable and necessary for a year prior?

You believe western intervention is the answer . I believe western intervention has become a huge part of the problem. We have intervened in the ME for decades and it is a complete mess.
Anyway we disagree. Period.

[Peter1469]

oh

Oh, I am leaving foreign policy up to you, @Peter1469. And @Ethereal. And @donttread. I urge all three of you to continue spouting, winging, and thrusting yourselves into the foreign policy analyses here, number one it provides me entertainment. Two, it provides a record I can post up here and roar in laughter while you three try to defend that record.

For we know that even those to the left of we Neocons urged airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq The British Parliament in fact approved airstrikes in Iraq....not in Syria....but in Iraq against ISIS as early as September 2014. The British Parliament not exactly your Neocon proponents by Dec of 2015 had approved airstrikes inside Syria, ISIS apparent and very recognizable to the English.

The French.....we know how the French responded don't we? By December of 2015, they are striking in Syria, attacking ISIS in Raqqa. They claimed that prior to that any attacks on ISIS might inadvertently support Assad's government by killing Assad's enemies......but the French after losing 129 at that concert venue.....wanted blood.

The United States as well finally woke up. Finally recognized what some Observers predicted would be unrecognizable.

[Tahuyaman]

Mattis’s Last Stand Is Iran

Actually, the premise of this thread is false. Mattis’ Last stand? Huh? WTF?

[Tahuyaman]

The only way that I would support direct action against Iran would be if Iran first closed the Straight of Hormuz. And that would not last long. Iran's air force, navy and shore based weapons would be destroyed in under a week. The Fifth Fleet and our Arab allies could do it without putting boots on the ground.

Trump is not seeking a direct military confrontation with Iran. This thread is nonsense.

[donttread]

Trump is not seeking a direct military confrontation with Iran. This thread is nonsense.

It seldom starts out as direct confrontation. Remember the "advisors" who were sent to Nam? But meddling and controlism are meddling and controlism and they have their consequences.

[Ransom]

@Ransom I probably said they were just the "BAAMF" terror group of the day. Remember the government and media threw different boggiemen at us every day. I believe I underestimated ISIS, largely due to "The government that cried wolf " syndrome. However they grew while we were intervening or running ops all over the ME. We made their recruiting really, really, really easy.

Underestimated ISIS I believe an understatement. But you underestimated al-Qaeda as we all did, so, how many lessons need to be pounded in, donttread? Your viewpoints absolutely immobile. You refused to even consider anyone else's viewpoints, in fact, mocked most of them that were in opposition to yours. And you need not be reduced to "I probably said"...I supplied links showing you exactly what you 'said'...that is repeated above. That this is all our fault. But you are correct about one thing there, donttread. Despite our covert military operations, ISIS continued to grow transforming into an international terrorist threat while you urged we leave them to their devices. Let em tear the world apart.

Another "ah shucks we're just incompetent " excuse from the feds like Ruby Ridge , Waco, Fast and $#@!ed up , "too big to fail" etc. We were in the ME running ops in country after country , we'd just spent what a trillion "fixing the ME" For those who would "welcome us a liberators"? We spent huge amounts of money on intel. And yet none of it, the money, the intel, the intervention, our noses being everywhere in the region stopped ISIS from growing more powerful than the groups we attacked the wrong country to deal with. None of it worked and you just recommend more of the same? Sure keep chasing failed policy it's what our government does best and what you continuously support. So

I'm not discussing Ruby Ridge, Waco, or Fast and Furious, Mr. I change the subject when I don't know.

1) How much effect of ISIS growth do you think came from western policy in the region?

Extremely difficult to estimate. But a great question, donttread, because it reveals the core of your underestimation you speak to above. You refused to accept any other reality, ISIS was the US' creation. Period. But ISIS is created within Syria and realities in Syria. As it mowed its way through Iraq, it added AQI and al-Qaeda affiliates. But it's base of operations and where it came from resides in Syria. Where influences from Turkey and Russia to Syria and Iran were involved. Where Hezbollah and Hamas, Iranian Elite units, the Syrian Army, and a host of anti-Assad interests, the US being but one of them. You don't read, donttread.

2) How did ISIS grow so strong given our massive presence in the ME? I know our presence was not as all out as you would of liked to see, but it was massive and widespread . So how did that happen under our "watchful eye"?

It grew so strong taking full advantage of the Syrian Civil War, donttread. It grew with the aid of the chaos called by all the influences I listed above. And it happened under our watchful eye...that included this forum's watchful eye.....donttread. One Member here urged overt military force long before Paris. That ISIS had grown from Syria and despite US covert operations and limited assistance to Iraq's military, the Islamic State was able to criss cross the Levant. Right under our 'watchful eye.' That saw clearly what was going on, you'll remember you mocked what the eye was obviously seeing, donttread. When shown this organizations recruitment capabilities, what threats they posed we here in the West...you mocked that as well.

Remember, we had withdrawn from Iraq. We didn't have the resources to confront IS with covert operations. And when we finally did engage the Islamic State directly. When we sent thousands of US ground troops, heavy artillery, massive drone and air operations...that is what extracted ISIS. The very strategy you, Ethereal, and Peter vehemently opposed is what was always required.

Lastly donttread, isn't it nice when you can get questions answered? You detailed out two questions there.....but taking this to process for one moment...the fact that you boldly ask questions and then refuse to give answers to questions given you has been much of the reason I get so much entertainment out of schooling the shiit out of your opinions. Your refusal to move off your viewpoint. Stubborn denial of reality, refusing to read or research. Firing questions off expecting answers from others when never affording them yourself.

Reason I added you in here, donttread. Because you were wrong regarding the Islamic State. In fact, not even f'n close.

[Ransom]

oh

Live and learn Peter. Live...and learn.

[Peter1469]

Live and learn Peter. Live...and learn.

Live and learn what? That we can save Iraq when Iraq had a corrupt government that actually caused the infestation of ISIL?

Go Walt yourself.

[Ransom]

Live and learn what?

Obviously, you must learn from your mistakes, Peter. And from those of your contemporaries as well. The two other peas in your pod of error concerning the threat ISIS presented blew these analyses as badly as you did. Live and learn...from your mistakes. Especially form those that press beyond mistake and leap into the realm of blatant error. Such as your ISIS analysis for yourself and the other two rocket scientists.

That we can save Iraq when Iraq had a corrupt government that actually caused the infestation of ISIL?

No. That IS wouldn't be recognizable by November of 2015. That they didn't present a national security threat to the US or Western Europe. That their differences extended far beyond their common denominators with organizations such as al-Qaeda. That we had no interests in the outcomes in Syria. That we shouldn't arm and facilitate the Iraq Army against this growing threat. You know errors like that, Peter. That they'd be outright rejected by Sunni tribes in Anbar. That US overt action wouldn't be a game changer unless we were willing to commit "100,000 US boots on the ground".

Go Walt yourself.

You'll remember that one always threw me for the proverbial loop...…..that this "sideshow" would in fact require no less than 100,000 US troops to defeat. That the chaos that was actually making us safer, was in fact going to require an entire American Army to throw back.

And Paris occurred. The morning after, the tent here at Neocon headquarters explodes with clearance requests. Permissions to enter and be counted. The sentry at the tent's gate....reminded those asking for entry what the Neocon Tent was engaged upon. Direct, overt, US military engagement by the US military against ISIS forces in Iraq and Syria. The entire French Government showed up first. Followed by that bastion of liberal apathy and refusal to get involved, the British Parliament. The Sentry makes sure these two entities now favor direct military strikes in Iraq and Syria.....overt(that is specifically US direct boots on the ground, the thousands of US personnel needed to defeat ISIS that was so vehemently opposed by Peter1469, donttread, and Ethereal) military confrontation. Who is behind the British Parliament, none other than the Obama Administration. Wait a second....who is the lone ranger standing off to the side trying to sneak into the Neocon tent without being seen.

Peter1469.