We can't have it both ways.. and I do not have a simple answer for any of it..

[Peacetrain]

Go ballistic because Bush did not listen to warnings about Al Qaeda and attacks on our country happened..

or

Go ballistic because Obama acts proactively when getting intelligence on possible attacks on our country..
--------------------------------------------------
We can't make the middle east a peaceful area... so do not interfere when thousands are slaughtered..

or

We cannot stand by and let thousands be slaughtered.. we have to do some kind of action.
--------------------------------------------------

Make out people stay out of the middle east because it is too dangerous..

or

Have freedom of movement where we want to go..
----------------------------------------------------

[CJCRANE]

1. We're running blind

as we still don't have the full report about 9/11.

We don't have the torture report and the UK hasn't released the Chilcot Report about the run up to the last war.

How can we make informed decisions if we don't even know the full story of what happened the last time?

[Skidmore]

9. That was then and this is now.

Having a report to tell us what? What we know already? You can have a stack of reports from here to the moon and that would not stop what is happening on the ground in the Middle East right now. We do not control the ME in the manner in which people would like to think we do. We just don't.

[RobertEarl]

15. We never will control the ME

Oh, we'll try and try. And bomb the hell out of anyone who gets in our way.

Then of course are all the covert activities that supply weapons to this that or the other side.

Our problem is we have control freaks that think they can control everything.

And they DO control the information that is dished out to the American public. To say, as you do, that the past doesn't matter and to just forget what happened to deliver us to where we are now, is not a wise proposition.

I reject it. I want to know what really happened. I want the True history.

[Skidmore]

16. The past does matter and history needs to be told.

However, what is occurring now is not exactly the same thing as what occurred a decade ago or a century ago no matter how some try to make it so. The dynamics of the ME has shifted as much as the sands over the centuries. It is a very fluid region with some strange allegiances and enmities. Religion binds but does not and the same is true for boundaries and tribe or clan. It runs deep and, in the West, we never truly learn to understand how business is conducted. I lived for two decades in an extended family and not simply as an expatriot living abroad. Even with those close ties, I was forever learning nuances of relationships and affiliations. We have nothing in this nation that will ever rise to the complexity or which corresponds to the deep sense of history you find there. We just don't.

[RobertEarl]

17. Not talking about them

I am talking about how we got involved in their business.

Most of us know better than to go on crusades around the world. So how have the American people been led into blowing up these ancient societies?

Because we have been lied to by the control freaks and profiteers. It is with deep shame that I see my fellow Americans being such damned idiots, and endorsing our military's ruthless destruction on the people of the ME.

We have been lied to, we need to know the Truth.

We are still living and acting under the shadows of the bush/cheney regime of lies. Time for us to come out and see the light.

[Skidmore]

19. This goes back much further than Bush/Cheney. Much further.

[RobertEarl]

25. Did I not mention crusade?

Why, yes I did.

I know it goes back much further. Everyone knows that.

But we know better than to go poking our nose into it these days. Well, some of us do, the rest are just blinded idiots.

We never really invaded until bush/cheney. And now we even have idiots in this country believing we had to invade because, well, because bush/cheney convinced them we HAD to invade.

Now the same circle jerks are telling us we have to bomb them some more. You, uh, you aren't one of them, are you, Skidmore? 'Cause if you are, that would explain your 'round and round we go' convo, here.

[Skidmore]

28. I essentially agree with Peacetrain.

There are no easy answers and the bulk of the change required in that region needs to be the will of the peoples there to live in peace with one another. There are too many moving parts for all players. I've said before on this board that not engaging would mean that you need to be willing to tolerate the continued fighting without our presence. Assad visited horrific acts on his people and we said not our fight, because this will happen. Peacetrain points to some of the very real dichotomies in this. Either action or inaction will bring undesired consequences.

I remember well sitting in a basement with my children with air raid sirens blaring and hoping that Saddam's SCUDs didn't hit our house. We were lucky and I wished that someone could step in and make the fear and the threat go away. Unfortunately, it wasn't going to happen and that war went on for 8 years. I guess I'm conflicted because peace doesn't always mean freedom from threat either when it comes to life in the ME. Because weapons are made available on the market doesn't mean that nations or groups there need to buy them. I feel the same way about the gun market here. What to do with the violent among us? An ancient problem and an overwhelming one when you think about the sheer mass of violence in the world.

[upaloopa]

2. Why is it "we"

It's as if we are the only country affected by all of this.
You know since "we" pay taxes it is "our" money that isn't spent on "our" domestic problems.

[Schema Thing]

3. why do you say that?

"It's as if we are the only country affected by all of this. "


er, no it's not. And it's not being treated that way by Obama.

[upaloopa]

8. Sure it is. It is our funding our planes

Our pilots our taxes our bombs

[Skidmore]

10. That's up in the air.

What about the people on the ground? My mother always told us that it takes two to have a fight. I would say that right now there are more than two involved. It just isn't that easy.

[msanthrope]

4. Can't win for trying, our President. Seriously...I wouldn't want that job. nt

[CJCRANE]

7. I think he's the best man for the job

and he's doing his best for the American people in a situation where half of Congress and most of the MSM don't want that.

[rurallib]

5. OIL

need I say more?

[KittyWampus]

6. it might be more meaningful if you did. Just saying "oil" seems kind of sophomoric.

Like something I'd have said in high school.

I mean, someone could also just say "Freemasons".

Edit- My intent isn't snarking at you. The OP was thoughtful and ambivalent and deserves more than a one word, cynical attempt at sounding worldly.

[rurallib]

11. yes it was an excellent OP

I am a fan of Peacetrain's. The point was well made

Simply stated what I meant was that the whole middle east situation ends up with politicians of all stripes making all sorts of dances and convoluted tortuous maneuvers so that we can maintain access to oil to supply our addiction. Thus we find so many contradictory moves not only today but by many major players of the 20th century also.

My apologies.

[DavidG_WI]

22. It's also not wrong...

With $1 Trillion in Lithium deposits having been found in Afghanistan we're never leaving. http://news.discovery.com/earth/afghanistan-minerals-lithium.htm

[FSogol]

12. K & R. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

13. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Peacetrain.

[whatchamacallit]

14. Right...

We will slaughter thousands under the rationale of saving thousands. It's our schtick.

[justiceischeap]

18. Let's play what if... it's a game I hate but let's play anyway

What if President Obama did nothing, ala Bush admin with the Bin Laden PDB and a month later IS or Khora-whoever actually killed "thousands" in the US or "hundreds" or "tens." Then what? Do we say sorry to those citizens and say because our government decided to meddle in the Middle East decades ago, you lose your life but we shouldn't retaliate because killing perpetuates killing?

I'm not saying war is the answer but what would you have the President do besides doing nothing? He can't do nothing, he just can't.

[CJCRANE]

20. But the hijackers were based in Hamburg

then San Diego and Sarasota etc.

Blasting Bin Laden's compound wouldn't have made a difference at that point.

Improved police and intelligence work and tightened security procedures would have had a better chance of stopping the attack.

[whatchamacallit]

23. Not a good game

What if can be asked anytime, anywhere, about anyone, forever. Without knowledge of a direct and imminent threat, waging war on 'what if' is a stupendously bad rationale.

Here this is a better game: http://www.newsgaming.com/games/index12.htm

[DavidG_WI]

21. How quickly we forget history...

1.) http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 no justifiable reason for Bush to have invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban offered up Bin Laden for free and Bush declined.

2.) The mid east is un-fixable by outsiders, after the world was England, France and US chopped it all up with arbitrary borders that ignored religious, racial, tribal lines.

3.) If they ask for help from the UN we should provide non military support outside of protecting refugee camps.

4.) The constitution only applies INSIDE US territories. If the government says its a bad idea to take a vacation to a war zone they are actually right.

[former9thward]

27. No, the Taliban rejected Bush's demand.

Which is why we went in. Agree with your other three points.

[Vattel]

24. I couldn't disagree more. We can have it both ways.

"Go ballistic because Bush did not listen to warnings about Al Qaeda and attacks on our country happened..

or

Go ballistic because Obama acts proactively when getting intelligence on possible attacks on our country."

This is a false dichotomy. Bush should have listened to warnings and should have protected our commercial airlines. Obama should not fight preventive wars of choice based on speculation about future threats. I go ballistic about both.

[jwirr]

26. I think this whole mess is so confusing that even those of us who have been against every war since

Korea do not know what to say or how to act.

Imagine if we were the president of the US and we were getting this kind of advice from every side non-stop. I really feel sorry for him. I do not for a minute believe that he wanted to have a war. But the MIC and many in Congress have been pushing this and there is a very important election with polls that seem to say the American people are in favor of this.