(February 23, 2015 at 6:04 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: [quote='A Theist' pid='882809' dateline='1424721626']


I really don't care, so long as they don't attack us. I cannot think of one square foot of Iraqi territory that is worth one pint of American blood. If they want to live under a fundamentalist Muslim government, let them do so. If they don't, let them pick up arms and buy their own freedom with their own blood.

...and if ISIS imports their terror attacks here? They made direct threats against us. Remember 911? It's better to fight ISIS over there rather than to contend with their terror attacks over here.

You are spot on! Congratulations! Fight ISIS over there!

Now Saudi, Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain have been properly armed (thanks to USA) so THEY can clean their own shit up.

(February 24, 2015 at 4:43 am)A Theist Wrote: ...and if ISIS imports their terror attacks here?

Then we stop and kill them.

(February 24, 2015 at 4:43 am)A Theist Wrote: They made direct threats against us. Remember 911? It's better to fight ISIS over there rather than to contend with their terror attacks over here.

This is an excluded-middle. There's nothing preventing them from mounting terror attacks against American soil right this minute.

Sending ground troops into a war that isn't ours to fight is bad policy. Let the nations affected by these assholes do the fighting. I'm tired of American troops being used to prop up regimes like the House of Saud.

(February 24, 2015 at 12:29 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Sending ground troops into a war that isn't ours to fight is bad policy.

What's more, it's a first class PR campaign for them recruiting. It was the same with Iraq. Saddam wasn't Mr nice guy, but being a Bathist, he was opposed to religious fundamentalism.

But rightwing shit for brains don't get a feeling for the nuances and the consequences of going Gung Ho without understanding the first thing about the region.

Same with Assad. He's secular, since he's also a Bathist. He isn't Mr nice guy either, but the insurrection against him gave us ISIS among other things.

Abaris, the U.S. has a decades-long problem distinguishing between 'that son-of-a-bitch' and 'our son-of-a-bitch'. Typically, we create a golem to do our bidding and then, after about two decades, decide we need to slay the monster. It never turns out well.

(February 23, 2015 at 6:04 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: I cannot think of one square foot of Iraqi territory that is worth one pint of American blood. If they want to live under a fundamentalist Muslim government, let them do so. If they don't, let them pick up arms and buy their own freedom with their own blood.

I'm not sure I agree with this. As much as I hate to see us further eganged in combat, we went in and destablized the region, so I think we bear some responsibility when it descends into chaos, especially when it's due to such a large threat like ISIS. I think providing some sort of support is just the price we have to pay for starting an unjust invasion into a soveriegn country.

(February 24, 2015 at 3:28 pm)Faith No More Wrote: I'm not sure I agree with this. As much as I hate to see us further eganged in combat, we went in and destablized the region, so I think we bear some responsibility when it descends into chaos, especially when it's due to such a large threat like ISIS. I think providing some sort of support is just the price we have to pay for starting an unjust invasion into a soveriegn country.

Think of it as an Islamic country. Going in did create the situation in more ways than one. Iraq contains some of the most holy sites of the Shia. Najaf and Karbala. Going in with "christian" troops was and still is considered an insult. Most of all going in invokes religious as well as nationalistic feelings against the ones invading. Bush and his advisors - a term I use very loosely - weren't aware of that (which would speak volumes about their quality) or just didn't care.

If you don't want to worsen the situation by adding even more fuel to the fire, it has to be muslims fighting it out. The Kurds are determined but are under pressure from the asswipe turkish regime, which in turn is a NATO partner to make things more interesting.

Air strikes causing civilian casualties are bad enough, but another Western ground assault is the same as running a PR campaign for the recruitment of extremists.

Well, if they truly do feel that way, I guess that's the way it should be, however, I still think we bear responsibility to do what we can, at least as far as Iraq is concerned. Of course, given our lack of foresight when it comes to our actions in the Middle East, the best thing may very well be for us to just leave it be altogether.

(February 24, 2015 at 3:28 pm)Faith No More Wrote: I'm not sure I agree with this. As much as I hate to see us further eganged in combat, we went in and destablized the region, so I think we bear some responsibility when it descends into chaos, especially when it's due to such a large threat like ISIS. I think providing some sort of support is just the price we have to pay for starting an unjust invasion into a soveriegn country.

I understand the sentiment, but am unsure how you envision the endgame.

How exactly does spilling more blood to vanquish ISIS and returning governance to the locals prevent this from happening again? Wiping out ISIS would require an invasion of Syria. Repeating our mistakes hardly seems like a solution to the first one.

(February 24, 2015 at 3:28 pm)Faith No More Wrote: I'm not sure I agree with this. As much as I hate to see us further eganged in combat, we went in and destablized the region, so I think we bear some responsibility when it descends into chaos, especially when it's due to such a large threat like ISIS. I think providing some sort of support is just the price we have to pay for starting an unjust invasion into a soveriegn country.

I get what you're saying, but Zogby polled Iraqis along with citizens of other states back in 2011 which demonstrated at the time that a majority of Iraqis wanted US troops out. While the survey was taken before the rise of ISIS (which occurred in Syria and doesn't seem to be so clearly our responsibility), it does bespeak a deep antipathy in Iraqi society for foreign troops on their soil. In that poll, 60% said the 2012 American troop withdrawal was a good thing. The rise of ISIS may have changed some minds, sure, but the deep distrust and resentment of American military operations inside their borders would likely be exacerbated by the deployment of ground troops.

I agree that we have an obligation to help repair the damage that we inflicted upon that nation. I don't think direct military aid in the form of ground troops would aid that goal, myself -- in fact, I think it would be counterproductive.