Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Aug 7, 2014.
It would be nice to see America spending money on their on infrastructure first. Especially since they have a massive debt anyways.
Air strikes have been authorized as well.
I fully support Obama for this and I would also support ground troops in this instance. ISIS is spreading like cancer and compared to non-existent nuclear weapons in 2003, the threat is real this time around. I am all for peace but these 'people' are savages, cannot be reasoned with, and need to be eliminated.
In one current instance there are reportedly 40,000 innocent people isolated. If they try to run they will be killed. If they stay they will die of dehydration.
Obama has ruled out more military intervention and, so far, Europe has turned its back on the situation.
But of course it's none of our business. We should stay out of it, it's not our problem; it's an issue for the Iraqi Government to deal with, despite being continually overwhelmed and failing to contain the threat.
Well the sad part is, the Iraq war and destabilizing and destroying the Iraqi armed forces as well as their entire goverment, and putting a half assed 10 cent replacement in, is what has caused this, a weak Iraq caused a huge power vacuum in the Middle East, and ISIS is filling it.
Agree that we caused the power vacuum and that our half assed patchwork solution in the end ultimately left the door open for this (much like how we screwed up Afghanistan in the 80s after the Russian invasion), but the guy that was there before wasn't any better than ISIS.
What! According to this guy we left behind a sovereign, stable and self reliant Iraq with a representative government elected by its people.
So your saying he lied and we left behind an unstable 10 cent government.
No, I'm saying the USA had zero business in Iraq to start with. It was all based on a lie.
Saddam was not a good guy, thats for sure, but the Iraq war caused far more death and devastation and issues with destabilization in the ME East than Saddam was even capable of.
Woah now. We're talking about the same guy that dropped mustard gas on his own people (multiple times) and tried his damnedest to wipe out the Kurds and other non-Muslims in northern Iraq.....just cause. The guy was a brand of evil the world is better off for being rid of.
Don't forget that our intelligence assisted him in targeting the nerve gassing of Iran targets...a war crime.
That guy we propped up was soooo terrible.
And now airstrikes...
So how long until ISIS starts using innocent civilians as human shields to protect themselves from bombs above? That will be coming next. Then within a few months to a few years US troops will be back on the ground.
The middle east is a never ending cycle of violence.
The best way to beat the Middle East is not war at all. It's starving them into civility by cutting demand on the only thing they do well...oil exports.
The dropping of Agent Orange during the Vietnam war, more than likely killed and mained more people.
I think that there is enough blame to go around here. Nobody comes out of this chapter in history looking good.
Iraq was propped up by the west as a shield against Iran, at this time Saddam was seen as the lesser evil, and the world looked the other way when his army committed war crimes.
The Iraq got to big ideas and invaded Kuwait, and was made to sit on the naughty step, by the UN enforced by an US lead invasion.
2003 the US lead invasion based on a lie, and total destabilisation of the country lead to a power vacum, which is still being fought over.
But please remember the spark that started all of the Islamic revival which is plaguing the world was the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, it's this injustice which one day will have to be tackled.
What is the problem? President Obama said the country was stable, the government was good and we were pulling out. He owns that withdrawal, as he took full credit for it. Now, we are getting back into it? Let them hash this out. It doesn't involve us. We are not the world's police force.
As always, well written and well argued.
I don't agree, at least not entirely, about this point.
The propping up of the Shah of Iran was more due to the cold war than to a Palestinian/Israeli conflict. That is what started the ball rolling regarding Iraq.
So in a greater sense we are still dealing with glowing embers from WWII and, to a lesser extent, WWI, which would encompass Iraq as well as Israel. How to extinguish them is beyond me.
But the key point was the toppling of Mossadegh and the Iranian democratic government, in order to install Pahlavi in the first place. And what was their motivation for doing that? Anyone know?
Gotta get back, back to Iraq, with Samurai Jack
Well, we're back pin-pricking grid squares in the desert.
And yes, we already have boots back on the ground. Those 500lb bombs aren't lasing themselves on target.
I'd go long on Raytheon. Lockheed-Martin, too.
It's just another blunder in a long series of blunders where we believe that more violence, more death, and more destruction is somehow a means to a just and good end.
Compared to what? The well over 100,000 killed during the Iraq war? And now ISIS storming over half the middle east and killing anyone who doesn't agree with them?
You mean like how Agent Orange was dropped on America's own soldiers, vietnamese victims not withstanding?
Nope the "spark" that started all this was when the CIA removed a leader from Iran that dared to think that Iran should benefit from it's oil and replaced it with a facist wannabe royality.
So blame Eisenhower&Churchill
Agreed, but the Wests fawning over Israel hasn't helped.
Here, you are absolutely, totally and completely right.
To my mind, this event - the overthrow in 1953 of Mohammad Mossadeq who was legitimately elected in democratic, free and fair elections in Iran, - and was overthrown when he had the temerity to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later a part of BP) with a view to using such revenues for the public good is the single key turning point in this whole, sorry saga.
This is because it sent a signal to Islamic states in the region that democracy was for others, not for them, and it ensured that the only remaining political choice remaining to them was that between secular autocrats, or states which derived their authority and legitimacy from religious sources or identities.