First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
What should the world do about Iraq?
Posted 6/14/14
but but but...dah oil T_T
31372 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / Connecticut
Offline
Posted 6/14/14 , edited 6/14/14
Lez be honest folks...

1. Unlike the previous invasion of Iraq, this whole situation stinks of similarities to the genocide of Kosovars by Serbians under Slobodan Milosevic during Clinton's presidency. That happened due a manifest destiny mentality similar to that of ISIS, at the time of the Kosovo genocide, the Serbs believed (and still do almost universally, mind you.) that "Kosovo i Metohija" (The word Metohija actually having a religious meaning in relation to the Serbian Orthodox Church, while Kosovars are ummm, mainly Muslim) is theirs simply due to them owning it historically centuries ago. We were able to resolve that genocide/insurgency into Kosovo using NATO airstrikes in the region in 1999. They kinda hate us for it still (and we also kinda ignore them unfortunately now due to it--ie: there was actually some major flooding in the region about a month ago that was basically not even mentioned on American media), but regardless a similar approach might make sense in this case. If we can get NATO on board, we can support the Shia by air in defending themselves from what is effectively a genocide by Sunni militants against Shias under ISIS.

2. I've been reading articles online mentioning Iran's stake in this and the potential for us to work with them to resolve the crisis. Again, let's be honest, the ONLY REAL reason we haven't been working with Iran since the fall of the Shah during Carter's presidency, at least since the fall of the Soviet Union is due to their leadership's outspoken malevolence towards Israel, as well as their desire to militarize and potentially obtain nuclear weapons with Israel in mind. However, Iran is now being threatened by militant ISIS Sunnis in the Levant that it stupidly supported thinking doing so would put pressure on Israel and has a stake in this matter now. Considering their recent change in leadership and the fact that the anti-semitic moron known as Ahmadinejad is now gone, we and NATO could agree to assist Iranian ground forces in securing the region under conditions like these.

A: Iran may start a nuclear program for uranium enrichment without sanction.
B: Iran must resume diplomatic relations with the Israelis and allow their nuclear program to be monitored by international authorities.
C: Israel declares the existence of the nuclear program it has had for decades and opens it up to UN inspection.
D: Something involving Palestinians.

In following this process, the whole Middle East would effectively become relatively stable, like it was before the Shah was kicked out during Carter's presidency. This is due to the fact that the three largest military/financial powers in the region (Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Israel) would all effectively be on the same side once again.
8156 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M / Connecticut, USA
Offline
Posted 6/15/14

uncletim wrote:

Send in the UN peacekeepers everyone knows how great they work

Hey that worked for Rwanda!
9522 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Fort Myer
Offline
Posted 6/15/14

Kunami_Mata wrote:


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.


You can't win without boots on the ground. COIN (counter insurgency) doesn't work without people on the ground monitoring the situation and keeping things under control. We obviously can't rely on the Iraqis to win without outside help. Remember Libya? We didn't put boots on the ground, just bombed the crap out of them. Remember how it ended? An American ambassador and his security force murdered.
2064 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / F
Offline
Posted 6/15/14
Due to the actions of a certain President and his political party's support wave (who are being total dicks right now): the USA is now responsible for two countries that it destabilized and created an enormous money sink that cannot be escaped without long lasting reprocusions that the country is practically famous for doing time and again either way. But, if we are to do something: it needs to be done with more thought than just the whole "HULK SMASH" approach that was used last time.

I really can't help but feel that this will at best end up repeating what happened at the end of the Veitnam war.
8156 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M / Connecticut, USA
Offline
Posted 6/15/14 , edited 6/15/14
Personally I don't Iraq on the whole as a country any more, and I don't think that Iraqis do either. I say let them divide up the country and grant each region sovereign state hood.
698 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M
Offline
Posted 6/15/14
I think we should do airstrikes, missile strikes and drones. Obviously we are not going to send in troops but we cant let these terrorists keep this area unstable for one, they will strike at the US whenever they get the chance, 2) oil prices are high enough and its destabilizing international business, 3) we have to at least try without sending in troops to undo all the damage we have done to the people of Iraq.
21519 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / F / Houston
Offline
Posted 6/16/14

11BravoPatterson wrote:

You can't win without boots on the ground. COIN (counter insurgency) doesn't work without people on the ground monitoring the situation and keeping things under control. We obviously can't rely on the Iraqis to win without outside help. Remember Libya? We didn't put boots on the ground, just bombed the crap out of them. Remember how it ended? An American ambassador and his security force murdered.


I wasn't speaking on what will or won't yield success so much as on how closed minded and contrary you seem to be on the issue. There are always more options than jumping right to the military either way. And there have been many instances in history of either playing the diplomat or putting forces on the ground failing. Nothing is ever a certainty when it comes to quelling foreign conflicts and maybe we should try starting with options that aren't as irreversible first.

And before I'm attacked for being a softy, anti-military liberal know-nothing or whatever else usually comes after this, I've served in the US military and I was in the Middle East the very moment we invaded Iraq previously. I like to at least pretend to think I have something to say on this sort of thing.
9522 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Fort Myer
Offline
Posted 6/16/14

Kunami_Mata wrote:


11BravoPatterson wrote:

You can't win without boots on the ground. COIN (counter insurgency) doesn't work without people on the ground monitoring the situation and keeping things under control. We obviously can't rely on the Iraqis to win without outside help. Remember Libya? We didn't put boots on the ground, just bombed the crap out of them. Remember how it ended? An American ambassador and his security force murdered.


I wasn't speaking on what will or won't yield success so much as on how closed minded and contrary you seem to be on the issue. There are always more options than jumping right to the military either way. And there have been many instances in history of either playing the diplomat or putting forces on the ground failing. Nothing is ever a certainty when it comes to quelling foreign conflicts and maybe we should try starting with options that aren't as irreversible first.

And before I'm attacked for being a softy, anti-military liberal know-nothing or whatever else usually comes after this, I've served in the US military and I was in the Middle East the very moment we invaded Iraq previously. I like to at least pretend to think I have something to say on this sort of thing.


I never had any inclination to call you a liberal softy anti-military shitbag. I only see two ways to "win" in this situation. Bomb the hell out of Iraq and turn it into a giant parking lot or send the military in once again and shoot all the mo-fos in the face, and this time lets not leave shit tons of equipment for the enemy to use. Maybe I'm stupid, but that's why I chose the infantry.
6209 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 6/16/14

11BravoPatterson wrote:


Kunami_Mata wrote:


11BravoPatterson wrote:

You can't win without boots on the ground. COIN (counter insurgency) doesn't work without people on the ground monitoring the situation and keeping things under control. We obviously can't rely on the Iraqis to win without outside help. Remember Libya? We didn't put boots on the ground, just bombed the crap out of them. Remember how it ended? An American ambassador and his security force murdered.


I wasn't speaking on what will or won't yield success so much as on how closed minded and contrary you seem to be on the issue. There are always more options than jumping right to the military either way. And there have been many instances in history of either playing the diplomat or putting forces on the ground failing. Nothing is ever a certainty when it comes to quelling foreign conflicts and maybe we should try starting with options that aren't as irreversible first.

And before I'm attacked for being a softy, anti-military liberal know-nothing or whatever else usually comes after this, I've served in the US military and I was in the Middle East the very moment we invaded Iraq previously. I like to at least pretend to think I have something to say on this sort of thing.


I never had any inclination to call you a liberal softy anti-military shitbag. I only see two ways to "win" in this situation. Bomb the hell out of Iraq and turn it into a giant parking lot or send the military in once again and shoot all the mo-fos in the face, and this time lets not leave shit tons of equipment for the enemy to use. Maybe I'm stupid, but that's why I chose the infantry.




Sorry I back Bravo in this matter, being active duty Marine Corps 0351. I will say that the country is a shit hole, we went way too deep to fast and then left all of our military grade weapons and gear there. We fueled them to keep up a war basicly and rather than ship it all back or sell it all off, we just sat on it.

As we keep sending army boots to the ground to hole some sake of land. IMO is pointless because at the end of the day they do 18 month deployments and get bored very fast. In the marines we do 6-8 months deployment and by the end of it... I am ready to eat my foot. I feel for the army boots on the ground, granted we spend all 6-8 months outside the wire and on patrol or in the thick of hell but I'd hate just sitting on a base all day guarding gear from a war past.

Drop rope and hall ass out, waste of lifes and time. Every Marine should be able to get some action, but that is a waste of time.
21519 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / F / Houston
Offline
Posted 6/16/14
What a depressing thread.
9522 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Fort Myer
Offline
Posted 6/17/14
And now we have 275 troops heading to Iraq. So much for having no boots on the ground.
27230 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/18/14 , edited 6/18/14
The US is not directly responsible for another country. Nor should it be expected to be.

IMO, nothing should be done about Iraq. Those unstable Muslim countries with laws based on religion and their hundred-year holy wars can only sort themselves out. Intervening and forcefully introducing our own values only creates more enemies. Let them sort themselves out, then go about suggesting reforms in a civilized way by including them in the meetings for world leaders. In the meantime, all traffic to and from these countries should be halted. If people want to escape, they can do so by going to neighboring countries.

Sure, we can do stuff, but there has to be an agreement. We have to be gaining something from this, otherwise it's just a waste of resources. Until these sorts of countries are stable, anything we throw at them will be squandered.



No boots on the ground was a lie from day one. You don't win combat without sending in troops. No matter how superior your air support is or how many drones you can send, there is no winning without the meticulous combing of territory only foot soldiers can provide. Soldiers are also more discerning and smart than even the latest missile technology. They don't kill as many innocent people as long-range bombardment does.
698 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M
Offline
Posted 6/18/14
Dont people realize that The United States did this to Iraq in the first place and now many people want to abandoned them!!! People are so cruel. Kill the people, kill and leave children parentless and limbless, we pull out and Iraq is getting screwed again. Not only did we stab the people of Iraq in front, we also stabbed them in the back.
9522 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Fort Myer
Offline
Posted 6/18/14

JuJuRoll wrote:

Dont people realize that The United States did this to Iraq in the first place and now many people want to abandoned them!!! People are so cruel. Kill the people, kill and leave children parentless and limbless, we pull out and Iraq is getting screwed again. Not only did we stab the people of Iraq in front, we also stabbed them in the back.


You can't win with a piece of shit sympathy argument. No one gives two shits about those people. All they do squabble and fight each other in their own filth. If you think Iraq was a paradise before the US invaded I suggest you do some research.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.