What confuses me is people to criticize the US for their role in conflicts, and are usually the first people to 'demand' the world does more the stop ISIS. You can't have it both ways. You cannot criticise America for collateral damage and yet expect no incidents involving civilians to occur. I'm sorry but you're completely retarded if you think you can have a war without collateral damage. It's not like ISIS sits in the desert on its own. I hate idiots who will sit back and tell us on their ridiculous blogs that we need to do more to stop injustice in the world and then condemn military action. It's like make up your mind.

Should the US leave the middle east entirely? Absolutely. Their biggest mistake was trying to manage that clusterfuck of a region. Let them kill each other, who cares. That's their problem to sort out. Idiots would still find a way to blame America for internal cultural wars within these countries anyway.

Is this situation over the hospital terrible? Yes, America is negligent. They are responsible for this action. Expecting perfection in a conflict zone I think is unreasonable.

ISIS must be stopped but we need to arm the rebels to defend themselves against Assad and ISIS.
Unfortunately Russia with their indiscriminate bombing are only going to weaken the resolve of the rebels.

Give me a break, picking one flavour of "less bad" over the other has not worked in the past and will not work now.

You mean like the rebels we armed to help fight Russia in Afghanistan? How'd that go?

You mean like how we "liberated" Libya so it is now in a state of war-torn anarchy?

You mean like how the arms we supply to the supposedly "moderate" rebels end up in the hands of ISIS?

Mixed reports coming out about British RAF pilots being authorized to shoot down Russian jets if they're fired upon, or start behaving in a hostile manner... make of it what you will.

ISIS must be stopped but we need to arm the rebels to defend themselves against Assad and ISIS.
Unfortunately Russia with their indiscriminate bombing are only going to weaken the resolve of the rebels.

Can we just let Russia sort this out and stop wasting time/effort/money on this shit-stain of a region of the world?

Really? What do you think would actually happen if there was total disengagement?

The reason ISIS even exists is because Iraq is now essentially a failed state.

Can we just let Russia sort this out and stop wasting time/effort/money on this shit-stain of a region of the world?

That would be my plan.

Really? What do you think would actually happen if there was total disengagement?

The problem, as always, with America is they won't accept the fact that they are a world power, and accept the responsibility that comes with this.

What I mean by this is that they are always reactionary, not proactive. They have this fantasy that they are this glorious isolated republic that only gets involved in things overseas when they are directly threatened, when (like all other large states) they are constantly getting involved in things overseas.

This is why things always end up as a clusterf*ck. No long term planning. A lack of strategic involvement.

They either need to not be involved in the Middle East, or commit fully. This half-and-half approach is madness.

The one time they decide to be proactive - the Iraq War, they did not commit fully and they did not plan for what everyone else knew would occur.

The reason ISIS even exists is because Iraq is now essentially a failed state.

The US did not "plan" to get rid of Gaddafi. The whole Arab Spring (much like the collapse of the Soviet Union) caught the American establishment by surprise and they reacted on the fly because they hadn't planned for these regimes to all fall.

American power is still in its naïve, adolescent phase. That is what makes it dangerous. But also what makes it idealistic. a 2-sided coin.

No blame laid at the feet of the Saudi (and others) facilitators of ISIS via provision of arms and funding?

They'd be a ragtag bunch of medieval fuckwits with a small man complex without the above.

America gets a lot of shit here and no doubt they could have done a lot better but there are other considerations.

From this post, it reaffirms my opinion that the USA needs to divest from these operational shit storms and stop trying to police the world. They seem to get caught in between factions and as a result, seem to be held accountable for everything wrong with this part of the world.

Its amazing if you read into how inefficient US military spending is. The bureaucracy is unbelievable! They could seriously cut their military budget by 20% and it wouldn't really affect their capabilities (on the assumption they were allowed to mothball outdated tanks etc and get rid of many of their 'pork barrel' bases that serve no purpose).

But if they cut spending I'm sure there would be an uproar about how they aren't taking america's "national security" seriously and how they have to keep ahead of Russia and China.

It's been ingrained into the Americans heads that military spending is the most important thing the government can spend its money on.

You're right. America should cut military spending and put all that money into the space program and climate change strategies. Military spending isnt good for the economy.

-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.