So here we have it, a super important subject and I hope this thread leaves us all the more wise.

Let us have an unemotional discussion or debate on a subject which usually makes blood boil.

I first want to talk a little about how we got here.

After the tragic events of 9/11, Bush (for some reason) decided to invade Iraq. Iraq did not attack the US, was not involved in 9/11 and did not possess WMD's (yes, many of us knew). The goal all along was to remove the regimes in Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Libya and Iran. All sounds familiar. The only real question is, why.

I personally was strongly against the war in Iraq at the time. I knew an attack like that on a Muslim country would unite many Muslims against the West and that would lead to chaos/anarchy or worse, an Islamic State. It seemed terrorists like Bin Laden had a main goal and that was to get the US in a ground war, because he knew that would lead to him gaining huge support in the Muslim world.

Fast forward and miss a huge lot, we are now doing the same in Syria. We are trying to remove President Assad, and clearly, Islamist militants would gain power. This then leads to the question again and that is, why? What is it all about and what is our goal?

Since removing these regimes or bombing the hell out of these countries, we have created huge amounts of Jihadis and militants. The world has become a super dangerous place pretty much everywhere. We have gone from militant Islam being a small group pre 9/11, to where Dictators would crush them, to now, with them being a global movement all around the world. Their goal being to conquer the earth.

The reasons for the war usually have had random theories put out. Wast it to keep these countries in a constant state of war, so that they would not unite and attack Israel? I don't think so.

Was Saddam uniting the Muslim world who would then turn against us? I am not sure.

So the US seems to have an opposite goal in the Middle East compared to Russia. If so, why aren't they worried about militant Islam. It therefore must be strategic interest! Russia wants to back the regime in Syria, the US wants the regime to fall. The ironic thing about the US, whether they use the excuse of WMD's or now, to 'install democracy', the one terrible regime in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia. A regime which our leaders bow down to and do everything to please.

The Saudis hate the Iranians and vice versa, but Saudi funds militant Islam all around the world with our money which we give to them for oil.

Iran does not get on with Israel but I do believe we could negotiate peace. If the world slapped sanctions on Saudi, we ally more with Iran (on the condition that Iran makes peace with Israel) that would all help to stop the rise of militant Islam. Iran hates Saudi much more than Israel so I believe this could be done.

I am a little worried at Trump passing intelligence from Israel to Russia. Maybe there could be a flip side though and if we could get on with Russia, surely that would be better than conflict? Not to condone Russia for meddling in the elections, but we must look at things from other peopels view too. If they thought Trump would be better then I do understand. Look at what the West has done around the world! We have to stop the hypocrisy. And at least Russia is bombing the hell out of ISIS and militant Islamists, our real enemy.

The top goal of the US presence in Syria is to destroy ISIS. The next mission is to stake their claim to the region post ISIS and post Assad. More importantly, limit Russian and Iranian influence.

Saddam was definately trying to form a pan Arab nation that could share resources and become its own super power. Ths clearly was not in the best interest of the US or Britain.

ISIS is only in Syria because of the war against the regime, it leaves a vacuum. Just like in Iraq.

As for staking their claim in the region, yes I am sure. I do not see how this will be done though. These Syrian rebels consist of people who saw through the heads of Christian Priests, or cut open soldiers and eat their hearts while uploading on on YouTube. These people will not help the US stake their claim to the region. I think this only helps Russian or Iranian influence because they would be supporting the Dictators who would at least be trying to bring order to the region.

Your last point, yes I have heard this before but I was young at that time so dd not know what was going on. Why were Russia or China not so worried about the Arab countries uniting? Didn't Saddam crush Islamist militants and kill them on a regular basis? Given the world now, I feel it is better the devil you know.

Saddam was responsible for killing more muslims than the US has, so i dont know about the theory that he was uniting the muslim world. Saddam did a good job of keeping Iran in check. When US invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam it allowed Iran to exert their influence across the middle east across Iraq and into Syria, and now they are in a power struggle with the Saudis, they always were, but the struggle between Iran and Saudi has escalated since the Saddam regime fell.

so why is the US so interested in Syria and in toppling the secular Assad regime? there are a few theories (i dont claim to be an expert on the ME, feel free to correct me)

1. The pipeline theory, that the US has a financial interest in toppling the Assad regime and replacing him with a successor that will allow Qatar to build a pipeline across Syria and Turkey and supply the European market. Ive not done enough research on this topic to know if this is a conspiracy theory or if there is any legitimacy behind this.

2. To control Iran and particularly the Iranian nuclear program. The US sees the Assad regime as a puppet regime under Iranian control.

3. That the US is supporting the Zionist movement to allow Isreal to reclaim the Golan Heights, destroy the state of Palestine and supporting the right of the Jewish people to reclaim their homeland

rtd353, I agree with what you say but I do not know about the reasons for wanting a regime change in Syria.

If Saddam was not uniting the Arab world, then why the war in Iraq?

I remember after 9/11 it was the PM of Israel I think, calling for a change in policies to all these countries, so clearly much of this has been planned for a long time.

Good luck...

I'm sorry, you think we have created all the jihadis and militants? There is a large section of Islam that simply believes in violence, otherwise how can you explain the terrorism and muslim violence in places like Pakistan, the Phillipines, Africa and Indonesia? Do you think the West is responsible for it all? I mean I wouldn't question the claim that our existence means war with sections of Islam, but it's not just because we were involved in Iraq.

For the Iraq war? It was imo as simple as we needed retribution, and had fought Iraq before and didn't finish the job.

Is this a serious question? The muslim world is diverse and will never be 'united.' Shias hate sunnis almost as much as they hate America.

Geopolitics. Russia backs Syria and Iran and wants to secure their southern border and wants allies in the middle east, because the middle east is on an ocean of oil. The US backs Israel and Saudi Arabia (lol) because they inherited the British empire and the middle east is on an ocean of oil.

Iran hates America almost as much as Israel.

No. I said recent foreign policy such as the war in Iraq created many jihadis and Islamist militants and have made them more popular in the eyes of many Muslims around the world. Bin Laden knew all this and that is why he did all he could to get the US involved in a ground war. He needed this for the ideology to thrive.

Of course the world is complex though. In somewhere like Pakistan we had Islamists from the Mujahideen in Afghanistan (who were sponsored by US, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and others) return home to places like Pakistan and other countries, after fighting the Soviets. They then went about spreading their ideology. This is also combined with bad economic situations in many Muslim countries along with inequality and injustice. Many recruited for a different ideology have been young and angry. They look to what they see around the world as injustices in places like Kashmir or Palestine.

My mistake. I was meant to say the Arab world, not the Muslim world.

Yes, I agree completely, it is must be about geopolitics and oil. However, given that Saudi funds so much extremism and has a vile regime itself, and given that Iran hates Saudi so much, I am sure if the West placed sanctions on Saudi, Iran would come to the table. Iran must hate us because of our relationship in the region. Surely the way forward for peace is with a closer relationship with Iran. I actually believe Iran and Israel could have peace provided we have global sanctions on the Saudis.

Iran's hatred of us stems from our backing of a coup to oust Mosaddegh in 1953, their ELECTED leader, in order to install our own puppet monarch, the Shah. Before the hostage crisis, there were Iranian college students in the US appearing in front of cameras with bags over their heads complaining about the brutality of the Shah. This led to the installation of the quasi-theocracy they now have (although they finally have elections again).

Like the Taliban?

That failed, resoundingly to the point Al Qaeda hardly exist now. Just as ISIS will be largely forgotten in ten years.


Influence.

Have we now? Fundamentalist, extremist, and terrorist make up a small percentage of the muslim population, and even less of the human population.



No more dangerous than any point in civilization. You are just more aware...thank you internet and 24 hour news cycle.




LOL Global movement.

Not sure if your post is serious and not sure if you really believe Al-Qaeda hardly exists now. Sure, a leading US military commander recently warned about an ISIS 2.0, but this 'Al-Qaeda' is simply a mindset.

You can't destroy a mindset with simply bombs, you will strengthen it. To limit it we must focus on what happens in places like Iraq after the fall of ISIS and rebuilding Iraq to give people better living standards. Something nobody did post Saddam.

I think its time for you to grow up and come to terms with the fact there will be people blowing other people up for any number of reasons.

"Hearts and minds" is largely meant for the people who are not going to blow other people up. The idea of the bombs is not to change their minds, it's to limit their ability to operate.


It's like revisionist history or something. Iraq destabilized as soon as US troops left. Make all the arguments you want about whether we should of been there or not, the simple fact remains, the US leaving led to ISIS control of certain parts.