First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
What should the world do about Iraq?
71032 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Maryland
Offline
Posted 6/13/14
So the situation in Iraq isn't good. With ISIL militants taking some of Iraq's largest cities, and Iraqi security forces seeming incapable of doing anything, many people are calling on the US to take action. What, if any, measures should be taken by the US and other countries to aid the Iraqi government?
32372 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / Connecticut
Offline
Posted 6/13/14 , edited 6/13/14
None without the support of anyone else. We can't afford it and unless we can all agree (I mean basically the G7/NATO) that there is a serious security concern of some kind going on with Syria and Iraq we should let them dig their own grave. The people over there seem relatively fond of the idea anyway, just look at Syria.
9522 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Fort Myer
Offline
Posted 6/13/14
None. Let Iraq burn, its never going to change. Also, I bury enough soldiers already.
19605 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Osaka
Offline
Posted 6/13/14 , edited 6/14/14
Foolish outlooks. How anyone could give up on post-colonial states like Iraq when it has barely been a generation since their de facto birth is confusing to me. The whole "let them kill each other, they want to" attitude is embarrassingly dumb.

That being said, I agree with part of what you said Jsybirg, but I disagree with looking at NATO again as the only real source of a solution to this crisis. I think that the crucial difference with any intervention in 2014 to what happened in 2003 will need to be that we do not act unilaterally. The US and UK can't repeat the same mistakes of the past - what's necessary is that everybody recognizes the dire threat to regional stability posed by ISIS, and that hopefully a concerted; smart response can be put together to deal with it. This means something other than putting a few hundred-thousand boots on the ground and expecting the problem to solve itself thereafter. It also means aiming to garner as much support from local powers like Turkey, Iran and especially (though most of them have troubles of their own) the Arab states in order to help legitimize the operation as an instrument of the international community.
17877 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / M / In
Online
Posted 6/13/14 , edited 6/13/14
Send in the UN peacekeepers everyone knows how great they work
394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / In You're Closet
Offline
Posted 6/13/14 , edited 6/13/14
I think we should not send our troops back to Iraq, we have already lost too many good people but at least send some drones.
7253 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 6/13/14 , edited 6/13/14
None...
ISIL is operating across the border of Syria and Iraq. It would be great if the governments of Syria and Iraq could defeat the group together without US government feeling a need to meddle. I'm afraid US military action would just be an excuse to cross into Syria and other middle eastern countries that the terror group might occupy parts of... If there was a US poll about intervention the Obama administration would probably get a majority no.

The worst part is that the US government 'inadvertently' has been supplying ISIS (ISIL) with firearms and weapons (lethal and non-lethal aid) because the 'US-friendly' groups can't safeguard rebel-warehouses in Syria properly. This was a great way to escalate not only the Syrian conflict, but also spill it into Iraq, since weapons are nonchalantly put in the wrong hands.
9522 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Fort Myer
Offline
Posted 6/13/14

Renegatz wrote:

Foolish outlooks. How anyone could give up on post-colonial states like Iraq when it has barely been a generation since their de facto birth is confusing to me. The whole "let them kill each other, they want to" attitude is embarrassingly dumb.

That being said, I agree with part of what you said Jsybirg, but it's I disagree with looking at NATO again as the only real source of a solution to this crisis. I think that the crucial difference with any intervention in 2014 to what happened in 2003 will need to be that we do not act unilaterally. The US and UK can't repeat the same mistakes of the past - what's necessary is that everybody recognizes the dire threat to regional stability posed by ISIS, and that hopefully a concerted; smart response can be put together to deal with it. This means something other than putting a few hundred-thousand boots on the ground and expecting the problem to solve itself thereafter. It also means aiming to garner as much support from local powers like Turkey, Iran and especially (though most of them have troubles of their own) the Arab states in order to help legitimize the operation as an instrument of the international community.


Come jump in my boots and fly on down to Iraq for me if you want someone to intervene. Its easy to send people to the hell hole when youre not the one getting fucked over. The same thing will happen if we intercede. We'll fight and sit there for 6 years, leave and everything will go to shit. In the end we'd end up with thousands more American and Coalition forces dead for no reason.
17096 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Los Angeles
Offline
Posted 6/13/14

Jsybird2532 wrote:

None without the support of anyone else. We can't afford it and unless we can all agree (I mean basically the G7/NATO) that there is a serious security concern of some kind going on with Syria and Iraq we should let them dig their own grave. The people over there seem relatively fond of the idea anyway, just look at Syria.


I couldn't have said it better myself. We should not have to sacrifice our troops and finances to those that have no respect or integrity of their own country. We gave our full support before, hoping the issue wouldn't be brought up again. But alas, it happens again, and the cowards (trained especially by the US) decide to leave their posts.

It's a waste of our efforts. A slap in the face, really.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 6/13/14

11BravoPatterson wrote:

None. Let Iraq burn, its never going to change. Also, I bury enough soldiers already.


And you say that on what grounds exactly?
And why should we just "let Iraq burn"? You're saying it as if it deserves to burn...
19605 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Osaka
Offline
Posted 6/14/14 , edited 6/14/14

11BravoPatterson wrote:


Renegatz wrote:

Foolish outlooks. How anyone could give up on post-colonial states like Iraq when it has barely been a generation since their de facto birth is confusing to me. The whole "let them kill each other, they want to" attitude is embarrassingly dumb.

That being said, I agree with part of what you said Jsybirg, but it's I disagree with looking at NATO again as the only real source of a solution to this crisis. I think that the crucial difference with any intervention in 2014 to what happened in 2003 will need to be that we do not act unilaterally. The US and UK can't repeat the same mistakes of the past - what's necessary is that everybody recognizes the dire threat to regional stability posed by ISIS, and that hopefully a concerted; smart response can be put together to deal with it. This means something other than putting a few hundred-thousand boots on the ground and expecting the problem to solve itself thereafter. It also means aiming to garner as much support from local powers like Turkey, Iran and especially (though most of them have troubles of their own) the Arab states in order to help legitimize the operation as an instrument of the international community.


Come jump in my boots and fly on down to Iraq for me if you want someone to intervene. Its easy to send people to the hell hole when youre not the one getting fucked over. The same thing will happen if we intercede. We'll fight and sit there for 6 years, leave and everything will go to shit. In the end we'd end up with thousands more American and Coalition forces dead for no reason.

I'm not sure if you read my post at all but what I'm suggesting is a smarter and more multilateral approach, in which the US and other Western states provide rear-echelon support, logistical aid and materiel where necessary, rather than bear the brunt of the fighting themselves. The ideal would be to bolster the Iraqi government, soften up ISIS forces and provide the country with the means of stabilizing itself for the time being.

And please, that stuff is so predictable. I've seen my fair share of fakes on the net, and unfailingly they go around on a moral high-horse trying to speak down to people who favour any kind of intervention anywhere because "they're the ones dying". Not saying you're fake, but using the childish "I'm a soldier on the internet so fuck you!" approach isn't really going to do you any favours.

DollyDagger11 wrote:


Jsybird2532 wrote:

None without the support of anyone else. We can't afford it and unless we can all agree (I mean basically the G7/NATO) that there is a serious security concern of some kind going on with Syria and Iraq we should let them dig their own grave. The people over there seem relatively fond of the idea anyway, just look at Syria.


I couldn't have said it better myself. We should not have to sacrifice our troops and finances to those that have no respect or integrity of their own country. We gave our full support before, hoping the issue wouldn't be brought up again. But alas, it happens again, and the cowards (trained especially by the US) decide to leave their posts.

It's a waste of our efforts. A slap in the face, really.

...which is why turning up our noses in the face of this debacle would not only be petty but it could unravel all of the Coalition's efforts and make it all for nothing. Though either way, if things keep getting worse I'm sure Iran and Turkey will step in anyway - problem is that might make things an even more serious mess, and I don't think Iranian troops unilaterially filling the gap in Iraqi security is something that will sit well with any Western policymakers, for not so terrible reasons.
9522 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Fort Myer
Offline
Posted 6/14/14 , edited 6/14/14

Syndicaidramon wrote:


11BravoPatterson wrote:

None. Let Iraq burn, its never going to change. Also, I bury enough soldiers already.


And you say that on what grounds exactly?
And why should we just "let Iraq burn"? You're saying it as if it deserves to burn...


I don't understand the reasoning behind you people. As soon as we enter a conflict everyone complains about how we are acting as the world police. Fast forward, another conflict, and the same people who cried about being involved in the last war are demanding we get involved in another one. What happens in Iraq is no longer our business. Let the gov we built up fend for itself. They need to learn how to operate without constant US supervision. The same thing is going to happen in Afghanistan too as soon as we withdraw. Have you seen the ANA fight? They could care less what they're doing because they know the Americans escorting them around will take care of the problem for them. Its just a big game to them.

@Renegatz: I'd quote your post, but I'm no forum expert and your post is too complicated for me to sift around trying to get the proper quote during my breakfast break. Would you like a picture of my blue cord or maybe my cac card?
28724 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / New Zealand
Offline
Posted 6/14/14
I suppose aid by means of food, medicine, educational resources and so on might be good. But no more military intervention.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 6/14/14

11BravoPatterson wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


11BravoPatterson wrote:

None. Let Iraq burn, its never going to change. Also, I bury enough soldiers already.


And you say that on what grounds exactly?
And why should we just "let Iraq burn"? You're saying it as if it deserves to burn...


I don't understand the reasoning behind you people. As soon as we enter a conflict everyone complains about how we are acting as the world police. Fast forward, another conflict, and the same people who cried about being involved in the last war are demanding we get involved in another one. What happens in Iraq is no longer our business. Let the gov we built up fend for itself. They need to learn how to operate without constant US supervision. The same thing is going to happen in Afghanistan too as soon as we withdraw. Have you seen the ANA fight? They could care less what they're doing because they know the Americans escorting them around will take care of the problem for them. Its just a big game to them.


I wasn't really saying we should do anything. I was more addressing your attitude towards Iraq and its people...
21519 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / F / Houston
Offline
Posted 6/14/14

11BravoPatterson wrote:

I don't understand the reasoning behind you people.


Why is it so hard for you to understand that not everyone is left or right, one or the other, black or white, wet or dry? Everything works in grays, not absolutes. We all function in some sort of middleground, but people like to pretend that everything is one extreme or the other, just because it's easier to think about. Why can someone not want to see Iraq fall without also not wanting to see us invade it? There aren't just TWO options.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.