Hacker News Reader

Comment by general_ai | Hacker News Reader

Trump stated his intention to stabilize the region. So far he has demonstrated very clearly that he intends to keep his promises. All that needs to happen there is we need to stop arming ISIS, and join forces with Russia and Assad's government to destroy ISIS. It'll be over in a year or two.

And if you find the US interventionism repugnant, congratulations, we now have a president who is against it, too.

View on HN

Simple right? Just destroy them. I'm sure Trump will be able to stablise the Middle East no problem. He's well versed in Middle Eastern politics and warfare and crucially he's got a level head and able to think decisions through properly which he's proven since becoming president.

> I'm sure Trump will be able to stablise the Middle East no problem.

Well at least he'll stop arming them, that would be a good first step towards progress.

Oh? When did he sign that?

A few days ago (I think), maybe a week, when Mattis became the Sec of Defense.

Destroy the most radicalized, enforce Syrian law for the rest. There's nobody that can do the job better than the Syrian government (which is more "well versed" in local politics than any White House hack will ever be). That's the only way to minimize the body count.

Yeah, supporting an anti-American dictator with a very dubious human rights record couldn't possibly backfire at all.

Wasn't Syria one of ye old state sponsors of terrorism?

Do you think US' persistent attempts to depose him that have utterly wrecked his country maybe have anything to do with that? Moreover, do you think if the US helped him undo the damage that sentiment would change? IIRC, he did say that he would welcome our help.

Syria was on the state sponsors list when it was created in 1979. So, unless the al-Assads are prescient, probably not. More likely factors are the US support for Israel, Syrian support for Palestinians, particularly Hezbollah, and possibly leftovers of the cold war.

As for US attempts to depose him, as far as I know, those only started after his 2011 crackdown on Arab Spring protesters, which set of the civil war. Syrian behavior after hypothetical help from the US to crush the rebellion, that would probably depend on how long a leash the Russians have.

You mean the guy who, exactly a week ago, said that maybe the USA will have another chance to "keep the oil" from Iraq?

Here's the quote from his speech at CIA:

"We don’t win anymore. The old expression, “to the victor belong the spoils” -- you remember. I always used to say, keep the oil. I wasn’t a fan of Iraq. I didn’t want to go into Iraq. But I will tell you, when we were in, we got out wrong. And I always said, in addition to that, keep the oil. Now, I said it for economic reasons. But if you think about it, Mike, if we kept the oil you probably wouldn’t have ISIS because that’s where they made their money in the first place. So we should have kept the oil. But okay. (Laughter.) Maybe you’ll have another chance. But the fact is, should have kept the oil. " [1]

Claiming that Trump is against interventionism is just you projecting your own wishes and hopes onto the blank canvas of his mind.

[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-cia-speech-transcript/

Who would you rather get to "keep the oil"? The country that sunk hundreds of billions into first destroying and then rebuilding Iraq, or some other country?

I'm not really sure what you're asking? The oil is in Iraq and by international law belongs to Iraq, not the USA or some other country.

But even assuming that the USA should "keep the oil" -- how would that work in practice? You can't just pump it all out and make a quick exit. Estimates say that there is 140 billion barrels of the stuff. (That's over 22 cubic kilometres!)

The United States would have to maintain an occupation force to protect the wells and pipelines for years while they're enjoying the "victor's spoils", as Trump puts it.

It's unlikely that any other country would purchase oil produced under such circumstances, so the oil would also have to be shipped to America... And the only shipping route out of Iraq goes right under Iran's nose. You can see how this might escalate quickly.

Trump's idea of keeping Iraq's oil would make for an interesting plot point in an alternate history fiction about World War III.

I don't mean just take it for free, that's not going to work. But I don't see why US companies should not receive a modicum of preferential treatment. As things are right now, US spent hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives to remove Saddam, and then other countries (China, Russia, Turkey, etc) moved in and took advantage of the oil. That's idiotic.

It's the white man's burden, after all.

How are we arming ISIS?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com