PhoenixDark
Banned
How so? Obviously there are differences but ultimately the US was compelled to intervene to prevent Qadaffi forces from slaughtering thousands of innocent people in Benghazi.
NYTimes: American Forces Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq
- Thread starter Mii
- Start date
- Status
How so? Obviously there are differences but ultimately the US was compelled to intervene to prevent Qadaffi forces from slaughtering thousands of innocent people in Benghazi.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
You start from the point saying 'we shouldn't help' and then justify that stances.
I'm starting from the point saying 'we should help genocide and 40,000 preventable dealths is unseemly'
We can both arrive to the conclusion inaction is unwarranted due to potential bad outcomes. You are however saying right off the bat that we shouldn't help and then justify that stance making it impossible or entertain the idea of helping. Then working back words to justify the stance and in the process making really silly statements about the Iraqi government that people who have followed this story already know to be stupid for example, you keep mentioning the maliki government but pretty much everybody is calling for him to go and taking such a think as a essential part of any solution
Iraq was a shitty decision but it cant cause us to freeze and never do anything. It should cause us to be cautious. And I don't think anyone is calling for throwing caution to he wind and just acting.
The point is, we've never really tried very hard to protect civilians in these situations. We kill some people and call it a day. That needs to stop.
Americans elected Obama to do exactly that. It's his job. Unless you have a poll that says otherwise, I can't imagine any scenario where Americans would not support bombing terrorist forces in the open field anywhere in the world.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
You do realize there can be emergency governments formed without elections right? If Maliki would step aside progress can be made.
That might be true, but none of this would be happening had the US not toppled their government to begin with. It would be immoral to refuse to intervene at this point, when a considerable number of civilian lives are at stake, and there is a clear line of causation, as there is here.
massivekettle
Member
No it's not. ISIS is not a direct threat to America. Unless ISIS attacks an overseas US base or US interests, then USA should stay neutral vis-a-vis ISIS and let Iraq deal with it on their own.
Obama was mandated to bring the troops back and stop haemorrhaging money on these wars and not losing anymore US lives. Antagonizing ISIS will (eventually) do just that.
Omega Ultimus
Member
The US is reluctant to arm them, because if it is done, they may secede to form their own country (as they would be able to gain more territory and power in the region). The US' plan and relationship with Iraq depends on a united country. I'm on mobile, otherwise I would link you some sources; apologies about that.
CyclopsRock
Member
But saving 40,000 of these lives vs 40,000 of those lives are not all of equal difficulty - surely you appreciate that? That saving 40,000 North Koreans that are starving in Labour camps is in a whole other league of political, logistical and military trouble than 40,000 people literally under siege. Furthermore, there's no reason why admitting that your power is limited has to mean not using any. There's a fair argument to be made that the long term results could be worse (though it's hard to imagine how this will actually make it worse) but the idea you're presenting here - that if you can't save everyone, don't save anyone - makes absolutely no sense. The people who *do* get saved won't care. The Bosnian farmers who are still alive now thanks in part to NATOs intervention are no less alive for the fact that Assad is still in power.
massivekettle
Member
No. Hussein would have also been scrambling against ISIS. His downfall isn't the reason for ISIS's sudden rise.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
What kind of policy is that? ISIS has to carry out an attack first before they are considered a direct threat? Are you joking?
CharlieDigital
Banned
If it's an emergency government that we have to put together, why even wait for him to step aside? That's an excuse because the whole idea is baloney and a terrible idea.
Now you turn a whole Shi'a element in Iraq into enemies and you have Iran sitting right there, funneling money, weapons, and fighters into Iraq to, once again, fight American presence and destabilize Iraq. Muqtada Al-Sadr rallies his troops once again against perceived western influence and fights whatever silly provisional government we appoint.
Then we do what? Bring another 60,000 troops into Iraq once again in another surge to quell the violence? If we step in, there is no end game that does not involve sending boots on the ground into Iraq and the cycle starts all over again.
Maybe we should take a lesson learned from the Vietnam War.
It is an incredibly short sighted view to believe that there is no difficulty involved and that there are no consequences. We just go in and bomb some bad guys and call it a day, right?
This is exactly the same mentality as the Bush administration had when going into Iraq in 2003!
Shortsighted and with no mind on the consequence and follow up of taking the responsibility for the lives of these people.
What happens when we arm the Kurds, and then somewhere down the line they do some crazy shit? Then the US will be taken to the cleaners for that too.
It's an endless cycle and an endless source of criticism for the US. That's why the isolationists are tired of it and want to wash their hands of the whole region. They're tired of being the boogeyman. There is no end in sight. It's an endless black hole of money and blood. Might as well cut the loses and let them run amok over there and see what a real boogeyman looks like.
massivekettle
Member
No. That's the exact same policy the US used in WWI and WWII - worked well for them, didn't it?
The US has not engaged Boko Haram in any meaningful way.
With the Taliban, the US's primary goal was to remove them from power in Afghanistan so that terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda could not use it as a safe-haven and effective base of operations.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
What are you going on about? The US doesn't care about the sectarian violence you're talking about. The US cares about the strength of ISIS. They are being forced to respond to their advances and apparent intent to commit genocide.
So Al Qaeda wasn't worth going after until AFTER they attacked the USS Cole and committed 9/11. What nonsense.
There won't be any lives to take responsibility for unless someone does something, and very quickly.
Libya is going through a quasi-civil war right now, after Obama intervened and "did the right thing."
I haven't heard why this group of people are so valuable that we have to intervene and save them.
That is exactly what we are doing right now.
If we don't do this it will haunt Obama's presidency. The only thing i faulted him for so far was drawing a red line with Syria, getting between the Syrian government, "good rebels", and "bad rebels". This is a marauding band of terrorists trying to take as much territory and power as possible. Obama cannot choose this situation as one to stall on with endless debate while ISIS slaughters people.
way more
Member
We can protect these people similar to the no-fly zone enacted over Kurdish areas in the 90's. That worked while it was up. There are such things as half measures in international conflict.
Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe lives could have been saved if we had gotten involved in them sooner. Extreme isolationism isn't something I can ever agree with.
ISIS is being empowered by what was the Sons of Iraq, the Sunni tribes we paid to keep the peace with us. We were paying them because they had started the insurgency after they felt left out of the government when we tossed the Baathists out. They felt left out of the process again once we left and Maliki got power hungry and sectarian.
ISIS has the fuel to keep burning in Iraq because of the Pandora's box we opened. Iraq still hasn't rebuilt it's army ever since we killed the Republican Guard off. ISIS exists in Syria because we wanted to look the other way hoping an uprising would take out Assad, we supported quietly the FSA, and instead we created a power vacuum that allowed another Afghanistan situation. A power vacuum ISIS has filled.
These dominoes started with us, and they wouldn't be occurring in this form in an alternate reality where the 2nd Iraq War didn't happen. There may very still have been strife, but it would look nothing like this.
CyclopsRock
Member
You should respond to what I actually write rather some machinations of your creative thinking.
This isn't the same as Bush (boo jeer) at all. It's *arguably* the same as Bush Sr. In Kuwait, and that actually didn't turn into a nightmare. It's more similar to the French lead action in Benghazi which also didn't lead to a nightmare - though it did stem some slaughter.
You assume ISIS would have formed regardless of whether the US went into Iraq or not. That's speculative. What's not speculative is that the US toppled a stable government and put a weak one in its place.
This is directly related to US neo-colonial policies. It needs to clean up the mess it started.
And this is coming from someone who was vehemently opposed to the Iraq war from the get-go.
astroturfing
Member
as far as i understand, 40 000 civilians are at risk of getting slaughtered, and everyone knows where they are... SURELY there is an urgent responsibility to protect them from murderous madmen?
No one said he wants them to die. I don't think anyone but ISIS wants that.
And I think it's better to solve the problems my city, county, state and country has than worry about a region that has been in squalor and turmoil since the dawn of civilization.
massivekettle
Member
That's exactly what the US needs at the moment, though. The world hates America because it tried to meddle in everyone's business; I say let them deal with their issues.
Too much American money has been spent overseas for worthless causes/reasons - time to keep that money in the US economy and help shore up that middle class.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Seems like there's people in here trying to argue about Iraq circa 2003. If you'd like to discuss Iraq 2014 we're here.
UnObtainium17
Member
CNN just reported US is currently doing humaintarian air drop missions over the mountains. Man, I fuckin hope ISIS dont see it and use it as a way to track those innocent people 
(
(teruterubozu
Member
The absolutism on both sides here is troubling. This is a very sticky situation.
CyclopsRock
Member
Um, it WAS the dawn of civilisation my friend.
Mandated by who? You? Obama very nearly avoided doing anything in Libya, but if anything the electorate was pulling him in. Sure there was resentment over being in Iraq and Afghanistan long after the important decisions were made, but the next time the American voter comes out against starting a fight will be the first.
massivekettle
Member
I lol'd. Hussein, government? Really?
As for ISIS, again, it's not the USA's problem. It's time these emerging countries (as they like to remind the West) flex their muscles and deal with their own problems.
No wai!
NYCmetsfan
Banned
And nothing has happened since we bombed Libya? They've made no choices? Its our fault the entire thing has happened?
The implication is that they'd be better if Gadaffi was left to be and could do what he wanted.
And no that's not what we're doing. Isis advance started months ago. We sent advisors months ago and still haven't taken action. That's not 'throwing caution to the wind'
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Let's see. ISIS has plenty of members with western nation citizenship. They have lots of territory, lots of funding, and have stated directly they will attack the US. There's also some talk that US intelligence is not as capable as it was before as these groups are being more cautious with their communications.
How are they not a threat again?
No, because the United States will not receive approval from the UN. Acting without might result in Russia responding in kind (peacekeeping mission near their own border).
Arkos
Nose how to spell and rede to
Look at Africa to see how well Europe cleans up after themselves
People will hate us no matter what we do because of the things we've already done. Might as well be hated doing the right thing, I say.
And you know what would help the almost non existent middle class more than anything? Taking some power away from the extreme right wing and corporations that control the money. Isolationism won't help that cause.
Difference is that the US would actually be intervening at the behest of the government there. Nobody would denounce it as a violation of Iraq's territorial integrity.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Yea, fuck the world. /s
We are the world police, and saving people from genocide is something worth fighting. Besides, we're bombing them, not invading them.
massivekettle
Member
Unless the USA has tangible evidence of a strike against its interests, starting a war against ISIS is just totally boneheaded and will anger the international community more than anything.
Again, let the countries under attack deal with their problem. If it gets out of hand and ISIS starts spreading its wings and threaten US interests, then the US should get involved.
Or, if these countries plead their case at the UN, then Russia, China, US can form a common front against ISIS. USA should not waste their taxpayer money being the world police. That's fundamentally wrong.
Question is - lets say the US step in and destroy ISIS for all intents and purposes. What then? Do they just leave again and open up Iraq for the next militant Islamist group to come in and take over? You think other militant cells haven't been taking notes for how easy it was for ISIS? Do US occupy Iraq again indefinitely, taking flak for their 'hypocrisy' in leaving the area just recently?
Its a shitty situation. I agree US should do something about it. Somebody needs to and I've always felt that the US as a 'world police' wasn't such a bad thing, even if the responsibility wasn't always handled well in certain situations.
SliceSabre
Banned
Can we please stay out of Iraq? Is this country(USA) doomed to be tied down? Are we not going to learn from history at all?
I feel for those people I honestly do, but we have given enough blood and treasure to that country. Iraq has to be the one to step up to the plate here. Heck send the U.N. humanitarian forces in there.
It would be way too easy for us to get dragged back into boots on the ground in that country then the same people in this thread saying the U.S. needs to do something will be the same ones flipping out when the U.S. is over there bombing people again.
I feel for those people I honestly do, but we have given enough blood and treasure to that country. Iraq has to be the one to step up to the plate here. Heck send the U.N. humanitarian forces in there.
It would be way too easy for us to get dragged back into boots on the ground in that country then the same people in this thread saying the U.S. needs to do something will be the same ones flipping out when the U.S. is over there bombing people again.
Poor post. The Shia have been far more involved in the fighting against ISIS (and have also been their biggest victims). There isn't any confusion in the South to defeat ISIS, there is a confusion among Iraqi Sunni Arabs who are split between supporting ISIS (Former Baathists & terrorist sympathizers) and taking distance from them, and the support isn't small. Let's not pretend that the Kurds have been some organized angels in this conflict, they didn't bother doing much till ISIS started approaching their areas closer. Meanwhile military that mainly came from Baghdad and the South, and several Sunni tribal leaders have been fighting against this massive ISIS force since June when Kurds were more busy claiming disputed areas.
Iran already is. Some if it is also Iraq's airforce and then some of it are likely mercenaries flying the fighter jets delivered by Russia since June/July with more coming.
Libya has done nothing but fight itself. They aren't stabilized. They aren't a new bastion of democracy. They aren't a real ally. It was a waste of time and resources and arguably lives.
Interfering with ISIS is going to be the same thing. We save this group of people and then what? Chase after ISIS again once they do something we don't like. Or just send them more "advisors"?
- Status