Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
Mercer

Why are we supporting Al-Qaeda

Recommended Posts

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2018/september/10/why-are-we-siding-with-al-qaeda/

 

Interesting Article:

 

 

Quote

Last week, I urged the Secretary of State and National Security Advisor to stop protecting al-Qaeda in Syria by demanding that the Syrian government leave Idlib under al-Qaeda control. While it may seem hard to believe that the US government is helping al-Qaeda in Syria, it’s not as strange as it may seem: our interventionist foreign policy increasingly requires Washington to partner up with “bad guys” in pursuit of its dangerous and aggressive foreign policy goals.

 

Does the Trump Administration actually support al-Qaeda and ISIS? Of course not. But the “experts” who run Trump’s foreign policy have determined that a de facto alliance with these two extremist groups is for the time being necessary to facilitate the more long-term goals in the Middle East. And what are those goals? Regime change for Iran.

 

Let’s have a look at the areas where the US is turning a blind eye to al-Qaeda and ISIS.

Any thoughts on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep.

 

1. My dog has more brains in his dickhole than Ron and Rand Paul have between them when it comes to foreign and security policy. And I don't even have a dog.

 

2. Taking out areas with civilians, such as Idlib, doesn't mean you kill all the terrorists, it often means you push them into other places as they flee with the civilians or drop their weapons and live to fight another day. Plus, you destroy and area like that, you kill lots of people including children.

 

3. We're talking a about a township here with how many fighters? How will taking them out be any real kind of blow to the global AQ franchise? It's not like AaZ is there commanding the whole operation from a warzone. This is a pretty good pod on where the AQ franchise is at these days: https://www.policyforum.net/national-security-podcast-terrorism-2-0/

 

4. Keep in mind that the Ayatollahs and IRGC own al Assad. The victory of his govt is a huge gain for Iran. I'm not in support of regime change in Iran, I'd much prefer that happened but he choice and actions of the Iranian people who grow tired of the moral corruption of the leadership (look into the business ownership of the clergy) and the increasing oppression carried out ostensibly in the name of religion. However I'm also concerned about gains made by the theocracy and IRGC at the cost of the region as it's likely to precipitate greater regional instability that will draw in Israel (think about how they'll feel about having the Iranians at their northern gate) and KSA.

 

5. There is great dissatisfaction in Iran as to how much of the country's wealth is being spent on a war that doesn't benefit the population in any way. Keeping Iran in Syria keeps the pressure on them domestically (they can't pull out without victory now they've committed) and that's only going to increase now that Trump has pulled out of the JCPOA and developing fresh economic sanctions.

 

6. Is it not also better to have Russia spending billions in protracted war in Syria than to watch them commit those resources to pushing through to Kyiv? The US is unlikely to want to go head on with Russia in Ukraine but is certainly doesn't want Moscow to make it look impotent by marching to the borders of Poland. Putin is also criticised for spending money in Syria with no direct benefit to the Russian population.

 

7. Losing Idlib will all but end the dream of over throwing Assas??! Get the fuck out of here, that is pretty much the stupidest shit in the whole article. The battle was last fucking YEARS ago and there is no one on this godamned planet saying otherwise. When Aleppo and Homs were taken all hope was lost.

 

8. AQ made big gains in Yemen way, way before there war between the Houthi and Sanaa, which is what KSA eventually became involved in due to Iranian support for the Houthi. Yemen reall started falling apart when Saleh was ousted during the Arab Spring, which was in 2010. Since then there have been rolling conflicts with different sections of the military, Republican Guard, Houthis and tribes switching sides and switching back. In that time AQ elements in the south used the instability to expand and they have been difficult to eradicate as the whole country is fucked.

 

The KSA involvement in Yemen didn't create the space for AQ to expand, it occurred about 6 years prior to KSA involvement on the scale we see now. If KSA pulled out it wouldn't make a lick of fucking difference in combating AQ because the war against the Houthis would continue - it's not like KSA started the conflict or that them being there is the only thing perpetuating the conflict.

 

 

Ron Paul has his heart in the right place. He's not looking to fuck anyone over and his aims are true. However he has shown more times than I can remember that he hasn't got a clue about strategy, geopolitics, international security or about anything outside of his political ideology.

Edited by Hua Guofang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently I ran out of time to do my edits for readability, so fuck it, here's the final draft bellow:

 

 

Yep.

 

1. My dog has more brains in his dickhole than Ron and Rand Paul have between them when it comes to foreign and security policy. And I don't even have a dog.

 

2. Taking out areas with civilians, such as Idlib, doesn't mean you kill all the terrorists, it often means you push them into other places as they flee with the civilians or drop their weapons and live to fight another day. Plus, you destroy and area like that, you kill lots of people including children.

 

3. We're talking a about a township here with how many fighters? How will taking them out be any real kind of blow to the global AQ franchise? It's not like AaZ is there commanding the whole operation from a warzone. This is a pretty good pod on where the AQ franchise is at these days: https://www.policyforum.net/national-security-podcast-terrorism-2-0/

 

4. Keep in mind that the Ayatollahs and IRGC own al Assad. The victory of his govt will be a huge gain for Iran. I'm not in support of regime change in Iran, I'd much prefer that happened due to the choices and actions of the Iranian people who grow tired of the moral corruption of the leadership (look into the business interests of the clergy) and the increasing oppression carried out ostensibly in the name of religion. However I'm also concerned about gains made by the theocracy and IRGC at the cost of the region as it's likely to precipitate greater regional instability that will draw in Israel (think about how they'll feel about having the Iranians at their northern gate) and KSA.

 

5. There is great dissatisfaction in Iran as to how much of the country's wealth is being spent on a war that doesn't benefit the population in any way. Keeping Iran in Syria keeps the pressure on the Iranian govt domestically (they can't pull out without victory now they've committed) and that's only going to increase now that Trump has pulled out of the JCPOA and developing fresh economic sanctions.

 

6. Is it not also better to have Russia spending billions in protracted war in Syria than to watch them commit those resources to pushing through to Kyiv? The US is unlikely to want to go head on with Russia in Ukraine but is certainly doesn't want Moscow to make the US look impotent In Europe by marching to the borders of Poland. Putin is also criticised for spending money in Syria with no direct benefit to the Russian population.

 

7. Losing Idlib will all but end the dream of over throwing Assad??! Get a fucking grip, that is pretty much the stupidest shit in the whole article. The battle was lost YEARS ago and there is no one on this godamned planet saying otherwise. When Aleppo and Homs were taken all hope was lost.

 

8. AQ made big gains in Yemen a looooong time before tKSA became directly involved in the war. Yemen really started falling apart when Saleh was ousted during the Arab Spring, which was in 2010. Since then there have been rolling conflicts with different sections of the military, Republican Guard, Houthis and tribes switching sides back and forth depending on who was gaining the upper hand. In that time AQ elements in the south used the instability to expand and they have been difficult to eradicate sine as the whole country has been in conflict and deep instability for 8 years now.

 

The KSA involvement in Yemen didn't create the space for AQ to expand, it occurred about 6 years prior to KSA's direct involvement in combat. If KSA pulled out it wouldn't make a lick of fucking difference in combating AQ because the war against the Houthis would continue - it's not like KSA started the conflict or that them being there is the only thing perpetuating the conflict.

 

 

Ron Paul has his heart in the right place. He's not looking to fuck anyone over and his a live and let live kind of guy. However he has shown more times than I can remember that he hasn't got a clue about strategy, geopolitics, international security or about anything outside of his political ideology

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just can’t see any reason we should ever be on AQ’s side or making an effort to protect them from Assad who will eventually drive them from his country. As complicated as it’s gotten over there it doesn’t change the fact that AQ is our enemy.  

 

Assad may be a Horrible person, but he’s never attacked the US. While AQ surely has. Aside from the prevailing perspective that it’s somehow the US’s responsibility to police the region (which has gone disasterously) dictators like Assad, as bad as they are, are at the very least a stabilizing force for the region.

 

I don’t like seeing what happened in Aleppo, Polmero, etc. but going against our own interests to prevent another county from doing the dirty work of destroying our enemies is counterproductivefrom any perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mercer said:

I just can’t see any reason we should ever be on AQ’s side or making an effort to protect them from Assad who will eventually drive them from his country. As complicated as it’s gotten over there it doesn’t change the fact that AQ is our enemy.  

 

Assad may be a Horrible person, but he’s never attacked the US. While AQ surely has. Aside from the prevailing perspective that it’s somehow the US’s responsibility to police the region (which has gone disasterously) dictators like Assad, as bad as they are, are at the very least a stabilizing force for the region.

 

I don’t like seeing what happened in Aleppo, Polmero, etc. but going against our own interests to prevent another county from doing the dirty work of destroying our enemies is counterproductivefrom any perspective.

Sure, I guess my whole point was that things are a bit more complex than “protecting AQ” and that there are likely other, broader reasons for that outcome that might be worth the cost. 

 

They sure as hell aren’t doing it to hurt Assad, I can tell you that with 100% certainty. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Resources and money, maintaining the 'American dream'.  There are no surprises here.  Our country selects various foreign groups to be friend or foe based on whether they will represent what are deemed "American interests."  If you don't play ball, or you want to make friends elsewhere, you are automatically the enemy, regardless of anything else.  Your designation can be changed at any given moment based on your level of cooperation.  

There certainly are terrorists out there, but I find using that term to refer to any of these groups somewhat questionable, especially when we're sitting on their country.  Maybe separate discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree, the benefits of our interventionist pursuits have never benefitted the average taxpayer enough to justify the expense of several wars. Any basic cost/benefit analysis would make this abundantly clear.

 

The benefits are focused almost entirely on the defence contractors, and oil companies that have close ties to the  political classes. If we took a percentage of what we've wasted on wars in that region, and paid them directly to the stockholders in the defence/oil industry who've cashed in on we'd have a much more efficient financial model, and at the same time saved countless lives.

  • Truth 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@One Man Banned - that seems a pretty modern take on something that's been around since existence and before markets, consumerism or products.

 

@Mercer - you only seem to be analysing America's wars through an economic lens and there is far more to international conflict than that. That's not to deny the existence of massive profiteering and the military industrial complex, but there are many other reasons to fight and benefits of winning than for economic gain. The profiteers usually come along after war becomes unavoidable for whatever reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mercerhas nothing to do w/ cost, yes money wasted big time all around.  As you note, a lot focuses on oil, which counts as resources.  The other part, spending on 'defense,' is to protect the harvesting of those resources.  We also create enemies real and imagined so we can waste more money on 'defense' and stealing their shit.  The government really does like to try to choke Russia as much as possible, and that includes fucking with neighboring countries as well as countries that are in line with their trade routes and such.

 

@Hua GuofangI might say it's somewhat simplified vs modern.  I'm sure wars have been fought in the past over something as simple as a slight, or due to intolerance, although I feel resources does creep in there at times.  However, if you look at the U.S. in modern times, beyond Pearl Harbor/WWII I can't think of a war we've been involved in that was truely about defending our country from a true enemy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

@One Man Banned - that seems a pretty modern take on something that's been around since existence and before markets, consumerism or products.

 

@Mercer - you only seem to be analysing America's wars through an economic lens and there is far more to international conflict than that. That's not to deny the existence of massive profiteering and the military industrial complex, but there are many other reasons to fight and benefits of winning than for economic gain. The profiteers usually come along after war becomes unavoidable for whatever reason.

Through the lens of a interventionist, I'm sure there's "good reason" to meddle in the affairs of that region. As a non-interventionist I just don't see the payoff.

 

There are other costs besides economic, including the lives and limbs several 18-28 year olds from our country, and our allies, along with countless lives, and limbs  of the people who live in that region.

 

Lets say we weigh the pro's and cons (from my perspective) of America's interventionism in that region since the end of WWII.

 

Pro's:

 

  1. Jewish ethnostate that has not only cost us over a billion a year in military welfare payments, but it's (fascist) apartheid system (and our hypocritical support of it) has diminished our reputation with most of the other possible allies in the region. So it's not really a pro IMO, but I understand not everyone seems to think so, especially the zionist/evangelical crowds.
  2. Should another large scale conventional war break out, the likes of which haven't been seen since 1945, we'd probably have a slightly improved chance at first dibs on some strategic oil reserves, and the Suez. 

 

 

Con's:

  1. Stunted economic development of potential trading/commerce partners in the region, due to the political turmoil created by self serving foreign influence/intervention against their own interests, and propped up regimes that otherwise couldn't stay in power and retard the regions intellectual/economic development.
  2. The loss of productive young men to death, and dismemberment, and the cost of poorly taking care of the combat veterans who'v sustained injuries due to these needless wars.
  3. Several Trillions of USD down the drain in many different areas with very little to show for it in both the areas of financial, and security interest.

Personally, I'd prefer to focus our influence of the region through financial means. Trade, Commerce, and shared economic interests seem to bring with them a much greater urgency for peace than the methods we're currently using. That's not to say we haven't already created a mess over there, but my point is we should at least start with not creating more messes, and possibly try to clean up after ourselves.

 

Every few months our politicians start trying to sell us on an invasion of Iran. They're only our enemy because we basically created/made a good backstory for the regime that's running the place now, through our efforts to corrupt. There's no way we're going to fix that by removing Assad for someone "more favorable", that thought is laughable.

 

The world is too small, and increasingly savvy to continue desecrating in this manner much longer. If any country attempted to do 10% of the bullshit to us, that we're pulling on countries in that region, we'd probably wipe them off the face of the earth. Our moral corruption needs to be examined at face value, and not continually justified by poorly stretched logic.

 

This view may seem dumbed down to you, and I clearly don't have as much of an interest in military strategy in the region to go toe to toe with you on specifics. That said, our recent history has proven there's zero benefit to us continuing intervention in that region, and it doesn't take a PHD in modern middle eastern strategic studies to figure that out. That's the perspective of a quickly growing number of Americans, and what most intellectuals don't seem to understand about the rapidly evolving political landscape here.

 

If you have a better list of pro's and con's I'd be interested in seeing, discussing those points.

  • Props 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never went so far in my thinking as pros/cons and such... I think we probably agree that the U.S. doing a lot of all around bad in that region (and others) and I don't hear much support from what I've read here from any of us for the U.S. being there.  

 

I was more to the point of the original question- why are we making friends with 'the enemy?'  

 

With most of these modern wars that the U.S. has been in I believe it's a likely disservice to label any group as friend or foe, especially without understanding the backstories involved with any of those groups and how we came to label them as friendly or not.  America gets support (a word I use lightly) from its citizens for wars the same way as many other places do- propaganda.

 

In conclusion, I love my country, hate my government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking out the window at NYC's skyline and I get a crystal clear vision of who my enemy is.

  • Props 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2018 at 12:32 AM, One Man Banned said:

 

 

@Hua GuofangI might say it's somewhat simplified vs modern.  I'm sure wars have been fought in the past over something as simple as a slight, or due to intolerance, although I feel resources does creep in there at times.  However, if you look at the U.S. in modern times, beyond Pearl Harbor/WWII I can't think of a war we've been involved in that was truely about defending our country from a true enemy.  

I believe there were a lot of conflicts and actions, regardless of how badly they ended, that were committed in the aim of national security (or the notion of), that were accompanied by profiteering.

 

There doesn't have to be a direct threat to the homeland for US national security to be challenged. The Soviet Union was a very real and clear threat to US security and if the whole of Eurasia was to fall to communism there is no way there would have been a live-and-let-live attitude towards the US from Moscow. The US really did not want the Soviets to control all the industry, resources and geography of East Asia, Europe, the Middle East and Northern Africa.

 

Likewise, after 9/11, there's no way that the US couldn't pursue AQ in Afghanistan. I'd say that was a clear response to being attacked. Of course, Iraq was a fucking farce, pretty hard to find an objective person that will disagree with that these days.

 

 

On 9/18/2018 at 4:54 AM, Mercer said:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2018 at 4:54 AM, Mercer said:

Through the lens of a interventionist, I'm sure there's "good reason" to meddle in the affairs of that region. As a non-interventionist I just don't see the payoff.

 

There are other costs besides economic, including the lives and limbs several 18-28 year olds from our country, and our allies, along with countless lives, and limbs  of the people who live in that region.

 

Lets say we weigh the pro's and cons (from my perspective) of America's interventionism in that region since the end of WWII.

 

Pro's:

 

  1. Jewish ethnostate that has not only cost us over a billion a year in military welfare payments, but it's (fascist) apartheid system (and our hypocritical support of it) has diminished our reputation with most of the other possible allies in the region. So it's not really a pro IMO, but I understand not everyone seems to think so, especially the zionist/evangelical crowds.
  2. Should another large scale conventional war break out, the likes of which haven't been seen since 1945, we'd probably have a slightly improved chance at first dibs on some strategic oil reserves, and the Suez. 

 

 

Con's:

  1. Stunted economic development of potential trading/commerce partners in the region, due to the political turmoil created by self serving foreign influence/intervention against their own interests, and propped up regimes that otherwise couldn't stay in power and retard the regions intellectual/economic development.
  2. The loss of productive young men to death, and dismemberment, and the cost of poorly taking care of the combat veterans who'v sustained injuries due to these needless wars.
  3. Several Trillions of USD down the drain in many different areas with very little to show for it in both the areas of financial, and security interest.

Personally, I'd prefer to focus our influence of the region through financial means. Trade, Commerce, and shared economic interests seem to bring with them a much greater urgency for peace than the methods we're currently using. That's not to say we haven't already created a mess over there, but my point is we should at least start with not creating more messes, and possibly try to clean up after ourselves.

 

Every few months our politicians start trying to sell us on an invasion of Iran. They're only our enemy because we basically created/made a good backstory for the regime that's running the place now, through our efforts to corrupt. There's no way we're going to fix that by removing Assad for someone "more favorable", that thought is laughable.

 

The world is too small, and increasingly savvy to continue desecrating in this manner much longer. If any country attempted to do 10% of the bullshit to us, that we're pulling on countries in that region, we'd probably wipe them off the face of the earth. Our moral corruption needs to be examined at face value, and not continually justified by poorly stretched logic.

 

This view may seem dumbed down to you, and I clearly don't have as much of an interest in military strategy in the region to go toe to toe with you on specifics. That said, our recent history has proven there's zero benefit to us continuing intervention in that region, and it doesn't take a PHD in modern middle eastern strategic studies to figure that out. That's the perspective of a quickly growing number of Americans, and what most intellectuals don't seem to understand about the rapidly evolving political landscape here.

 

If you have a better list of pro's and con's I'd be interested in seeing, discussing those points.

Referring to your first sentence, the Mid East is a really difficult one these days as the US seems to be now throwing good policy after bad. Iraq will likely be viewed by history as possibly a greater fuck up than Vietnam as it's impact continues to challenge US security where as there was no domino reaction after Vietnam fell and they didn't export attackers from their shores.

 

You can possibly go back to US support for the Shah of Iran during the Cold War to find the genisis of America's Middle East dilemmas now. Nothing wrong with supporting a democratic actor that supports human agency, liberal rights, etc. etc. but that's not what Pahlavi was. He was a brutal dictator that precipitated the Iranian revolution and a lot of what the US has done in the Mid East since has been to contain modern Iran. Support for malevolent actors in the support of the 'national interest' has proven to be a problematic strategy for some of the West and now we're stuck chasing our tails in the Mid East. We shouldn't be getting bogged down there and compounding the problem. However, Afghanistan, Somalia and other parts of the world show that leaving vacuums after a state fails often ends up with security radiating out of the region in the form of international crime groups, weapons (the war in former Yugoslavia is still haunting Europe) and extremist violence.

 

Keen to discuss but I can't really narrow things to just the Mid East because I'd just leave it at the above points. Bad historical policy has the US in a pretty difficult position throwing good after bad.

 

One thing that I'll never disagree with you on is the wasteful destructive nature of war and the misery is creates. I am a vet and for me war is failure. However sometimes nations have little choice (the two world wars are a good example for many countries) and there is a whole lot more than economics that go into a decision to engage.

 

 

Edited by Hua Guofang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2018 at 3:58 AM, Hua Guofang said:

I believe there were a lot of conflicts and actions, regardless of how badly they ended, that were committed in the aim of national security (or the notion of), that were accompanied by profiteering.

 

There doesn't have to be a direct threat to the homeland for US national security to be challenged. The Soviet Union was a very real and clear threat to US security and if the whole of Eurasia was to fall to communism there is no way there would have been a live-and-let-live attitude towards the US from Moscow. The US really did not want the Soviets to control all the industry, resources and geography of East Asia, Europe, the Middle East and Northern Africa.

 

Likewise, after 9/11, there's no way that the US couldn't pursue AQ in Afghanistan. I'd say that was a clear response to being attacked. Of course, Iraq was a fucking farce, pretty hard to find an objective person that will disagree with that these days.

 

 

 

Have really wanted to muster a reply but my brain is not 100% committed to these endeavors vs others.  In the aim or notion of national security does not equal there being any threat.  Americans have been sold the threat of communism and Russia for a long time, even at times when Russia posed little to no therat because it had been hurt and was in recovery itself.  Russia and communism are the bogeyman here.  

 

US did not want those resources controlled because they wanted to control them for itself.  The U.S. not only wants it out of Russia's control, but they even shit on other countries who may want to trade w/ Russia or share/sell resources and such.  This is all to maintin the American Dream here, let us harvest other countries resources so we can have cheaper imported shit here and corporations and such can stack wealth from it all.

 

I'm no 9/11 truther but I do believe, as many do, that the truth about 9/11 has not been told.  There's a lot ignored there in spite of efforts to shine a light.  It's def not as simple as saying some evil terrorists chose to hate America and rose out of Afghanistan solely on their hatred for the U.S. and created 9/11, doesn't work like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing with 911 was most of them came from Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. government tried it's hardest to cover the fact that the Saudi Royal Family/Saudi government funded the hijackers. Not to say that it was a deliberate conspiracy, and that the entire family functions as a single entity, but it's a fact that the Saudis were involved directly with funding the hijackers. In my opinion members of the royal family at the very least still deserve a little "freedom" dropped on their palaces as a reminder of what not to allow within their circle.

 

Why our government covered that up, well that's complicated but it basically boils down to economics. Contrary to contemporary popular belief, the USSR was a major threat not only to us, but most of the world. To solidify our foothold in that crucial region we formed an alliance with the Saudi royal family (government), basically guaranteeing their continued rule. This treaty was crucial to the U.S. economy not only for the access to oil, and strategic purposes, it also forced anyone buying oil from Saudi Arabia to have to buy it using U.S. Dollars. This is what prevented the dollar from tanking in value when we scrapped the gold standard in the middle of a recession, even though at that point forward the U.S. dollars value became completely abstract, and no longer guaranteed by  anything else with liquidity like precious metals.  

 

To further complicate things, our economies are now deeply intertwined. Even Donald Trump, who claims to be tough on terrorists, didn't add Saudi Arabia to the list of banned countries when he banned travel from the countries in the Middle East not responsible for terrorism in the United States.  This entire scenario, and the other things the U.S. has done in the region on the periphery in are fucked, going all the way back to the end of WWII. Even if the U.S. votes in a supposed strong man like Trump, we learn that nobody dares correct our massive mistakes with that region.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the Mid East a hot fucking mess not just because of the US but because of the British, French, Russians and many of the leaders local to the region (including Israel) over many generations. Africa is a pretty similar story.

 

Australia has largely pulled out of the region, as of late. We have much more to worry about in the Indo-PAcific these days.

Edited by Hua Guofang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×