What do you guys think? Should the U.S get involved in Iraq again and if so to what degree. I personally don't have an opinion at this point, but if you ask me. Morally, if you could justify going into Iraq before, there's no reason not to go in now. I never supported the Invasion of Iraq in the first place, no surprise really from the start that it was going to rip the country apart and now we see it has. The country is in worst condition than prior and whether it will get better, is very uncertain but it doesn't look good right now. In a sense, I do think U.S has a moral obligation to not leave it destroyed. And ISIS seems extremely brutal, so much so that even Al Qaeda separated themselves from it. On the other hand, I am not sure if U.S can really fix the issue.
Well here is one poll but I think it is pretty well accepted that polls agree and most people are against the U.S interfering in the M.E and think they have simply created mayhem out there and the facts are that millions have died over it and a lot more will die because of it. The U.S destroyed the infrastructure, left behind an irradiated land and sectarian fighting which can only be resolved by the people WHO'S COUNTRY IT IS. http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm Whilst I agree it is terrible that people are being brutally executed out there, the amount of people being killed is minor when compared to the amount of people killed because of the illegal U.S led invasion and occupation and 10 years of economic sanctions which preceded it. Obama is supporting the ISIS in Syria and no one seems overly concerned by ISIS in Iraq as Obama has deliberately withheld arms and equipment which the Malaki gov ordered and paid for from America and they have had to purchase equipment from Russia and Iran to make it up. This is no accident or oversight. Also, it is no accident that the Irqi armed forces abandoned their weapons and uniforms in the face of a far inferior force. The simple fact is, they do not want to fight for banksters and the elite who rape their Country and use them as cannon fodder. There were 30,000 well armed soldiers against a rag tag militia of 800 ISIS fighters in the back of pick up trucks. That must tell you something!
Beginning in 2002, and continuing after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, large-scale protests against the Iraq War were held in many cities worldwide, often coordinated to occur simultaneously around the world. After the biggest series of demonstrations, on February 15, 2003, New York Times writer Patrick Tyler claimed that they showed that there were two superpowers on the planet, the United States and worldwide public opinion.[SUP][2][/SUP] These demonstrations against the war were mainly organized by anti-war organizations, many of whom had been formed in opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan. In some Arab countries demonstrations were organized by the state. Europe saw the biggest mobilization of protesters, including a rally of three million people in Rome, which is listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest ever anti-war rally.[SUP][3][/SUP] According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war.[SUP][1][/SUP] In the United States, even though pro-war demonstrators have been quoted as referring to anti-war protests as a "vocal minority",[SUP][4][/SUP] Gallup Polls updated September 14, 2007 state, "Since the summer of 2005, opponents of the war have tended to outnumber supporters. A majority of Americans believe the war was a mistake."[SUP][5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War [/SUP]
They need to be eliminated before they can do us harm. Just look what happened when we let Bin Laden keep on living all those years... As far as the Iraq situation on the whole, I think most of us can look back in hindsight and realize it wasn't such a great idea. But many on both sides were all for going in during Clinton's terms, and almost everyone on both sides voted to go in when we did. I just wish we'd taken the oil on an 80/20 split with the natives if we had to be there in the first place, and I also think we should not have pulled out when we did - that was another of many of Obama's tactical blunders originally done for political reasons.
I think what the U.S has done there is enough , no matter how long they stay there, this people will only stop fighting when they want to, it gets dangerouse as time goes by,
This isn't Iraq citizens in a civil war or fighting with their neighboring countries for land boundaries. This is an *extremely* dangerous terrorist group and I think that anyone, pacifist or otherwise, who thinks ISIS will stay in Iraq is wearing blinders and totally forgetting 9-11. And after all the "we will never forget" declarations the entire world made, too. Sure is disturbing to see. How can *any* country that has ever had a terrorist attack where extremists killed people (that includes most countries, I'd think) sit there and say "oh, la la, they'll play nice and be satisfied to take over Iraq, they'll never plan attacks against the West!" and actually believe that is beyond me. It takes only one small Google search to find out what ISIS is and what they could do. Too many people in other places are so hyped up about US bashing that facts, research, or critical thinking don't seem to enter into their statements any longer... if the US tries to do something, they'll squawk. (That's a generalize statement, not directed against your post, Determined... just something I've been noticing lately.)
Casper are you saying that the U.S is on ISIS side...? I am not sure about that, maybe in Syria they were but right now I don't believe they are still funding them. With regards to Iraqi soldiers ditching, it's likely because they are not committed to the cause. The government troops are there because they are paid and probably corrupt as well which is why the civilians there don't really like them.
No. Eventually the US needs to just stand by and let the middle east stand up for itself. If the US comes running every single time any trouble happens over there, then we'd have boots on the ground in those countries constantly. That is just an enormous financial drain on the US, and we don't need it.
Not really. People and the media often try to put things in clear cut compartments... like good vs evil or friend or foe but most of us know there are only shades of grey. It suits the media to put labels on things like 'terrorists' or 'insurgence' etc but actions speak louder than words. I think 'Frenemy' is an apt label in this case. The West want Assad out of the picture for geopolitical/economic reasons and are prepared to use 'whomever' to achieve that end. To that end the U.S is openly supporting 'moderate rebels' in Syria but in the full knowledge that they are 'indirectly' supporting Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, ISIS etc. ISIS is mostly drawn from the Sunni population which were in power in Iraq under Saddam Hussein; (the Baathist s). The difference being that under Hussein they were more secular. I see the religious fundamentalism as more opportunistic in nature... a rallying call to unite the political ambitions to overthrow the ruling Shia government set up by the U.S during the occupation and which has consistently marginalised the Sunni population. Obama is belatedly trying to bring pressure on Malaki to engage with and integrate the Sunni population into the power structure. This is why he is so reluctant to intervene. Another aspect is that ISIS, for all its radical religious doctrine is 'business oriented' and at great pains not to damage the oil wells or processing plants. This is a key reason why the price of oil dropped. Obama has sought $500 million from congress for precisely that reason. http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Worl...from-Congress-to-help-moderate-Syrian-rebels/
I think that is exactly what it is and also a civil war brought on by the U.S installing a dictatorial puppet government during the occupation. Are you suggesting that 19 Saudi's (many of whom are reportedly still alive), hijacked planes and crashed them into the economic and military symbols of America 'because they were jealous of American freedoms'? A lot has changed since then. Millions dead and the West living in a 'surveillance state', just for starters. Britain suffered many decades of IRA bombings etc but the response needs to be 'appropriate', not 'disproportionate'. Violence begets violence. Truth and reconciliation is the alternative, as has been demonstrated in Ireland, S.Africa, Rwanda etc etc. Can you back that up?
