These are all semantics, this is the same government that was installed as a result of US invasion. If the United States sends troops to any crisis zone, Russia will use it as a pretext to do their own peacekeeping mission. You will not defeat ISIS anyway, they will use guerilla warfare and are prepared to fight for decades if need be. Is the US public ready to sacrifice a few more trillions, thousands of lives and a possible Russian response within their sphere of influence?
NYTimes: American Forces Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq
- Thread starter Mii
- Start date
- Status
These are all semantics, this is the same government that was installed as a result of US invasion. If the United States sends troops to any crisis zone, Russia will use it as a pretext to do their own peacekeeping mission. You will not defeat ISIS anyway, they will use guerilla warfare and are prepared to fight for decades if need be. Is the US public ready to sacrifice a few more trillions, thousands of lives and a possible Russian response within their sphere of influence?
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
What you're describing is just a matter of when, not if. If the US gives them enough time the tangible evidence will come or the attack will happen without us knowing about it.
ISIS isn't just gonna go away. They're clearly dedicated to their stated intentions.
massivekettle
Member
Then let them come at the US. Until then, no US involvement. Hopefully they will be smart enough not to attack the USA.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
So at what point, in your wisdom, did you feel Al Qaeda was worth pursuing? Just want to make sure we understand.
And the first step to doing that is dropping bombs over Iraq....again?
Isolationism is still a scare tactic people use, despite 3 decades if constant intervention that blows up in our face again and again and again.
Considering it is the us fault in the first place, yeah they should help. Saddam would t have allowed isis this far into Iraq.
Holy shit that's cavalier. I'd have debated you, but you're starting to come across as a petulant first year poli-sci major who probably was too young to remember 2003. You need to grow up - 40,000 civilian lives are at stake. And as a matter of historical fact, and regardless of the hypothetical land of "what if", the US did create the power vacuum that has allowed ISIS to sweep through the area so easily. It's OK to oppose intervention, but change your fucking attitude.
SliceSabre
Banned
So what the United State flies in there to fight ISIS for the next 20 years, because ISIS isn't just gonna 'go away', while trying to prop up a incompetent Iraq government that shares vast amount of blame of why this chaos is happening in the first place?
You are condemning so many innocents to death with an attitude like this. You are okay with that?
What are you talking about? I just pointed out that the two issues are unrelated.
Doubtful. ISIS is one of the only issues where all the big world players are on the same side. Russia has even capitalized on the US's hesitation to assist Iraq and sent them weapons of their own.
And nobody is talking about ground troops. Any sort of intervention would be limited to airstrikes, weapon shipments, logistical support and humanitarian aid.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
The US isn't trying to prop up Maliki they want him to leave. The government that takes his place could be much more competent considering how pathetic he was.
Not getting involved in a conflict is not condemning people to die.
Except that they are related. It's ridiculous to say we should focus on corporation, blah blah blah while advocating increased U.S. military operations, as if the army runs on something besides money, and if these weapons aren't created by corporations.
He was democratically elected. He is a corrupt dickhead yes, he is more concerned about himself and those he has surrounded himself with yes, he looks absolutely clueless yes but he received the majority of the votes. If people despise him then vote him out in the next elections. If the US government don't like it they can fuck off, and any attempt in trying to oust him should be met with the resistance, and if he is ousted it should be done by Iraqis and Iraqis alone (and for very very very good reasons). Enough with "what the US" or "what the world" plans in Iraq. It's brought nothing but death and misery to the country for half a century and for that matter it has helped in boosting the instability in the country and today we see the effects of that.
What would you target to really weaken them? ISIS operates among civilians inside cities and villages they control, they only need a handful of troops to perform successful campaigns as they face virtually no opposition. Will you risk more civilian casualties in order to pick out individual fighters? It's a pointless grind unless someone controls the situation from the ground and the Iraqi forces are utterly disinterested to safeguard people if they belong to a different ethnic group.
massivekettle
Member
To me a government implies a democracy which Hussein's regime was not. The fact that you are defending Hussein's regime is a shame and a total lack of respect for the millions who died under his rule.
Not getting involved <> condemning people to die! If Iraq is desperate, why don't they ask for their neighbors to help, or China, or Russia? Why does the USA always have to do everyone's bitch work?
I don't buy that the Brita and others went in with us the first time we could get the gang back together. We can't do this alone extra support is needed and long term support at that or else we are going to see the same story unfold over and over
That's exactly what it is. It's like turning your head when you see someone get attacked on the street. You are just as responsible at that point.
Because for some reason nobody else will.
I don't believe the US should be the "World Police" as a decent amount of want to be, but I also don't believe we should be so isolationist as to refuse the call of a sovereign country that we supported and propped up in a time of potential massacre. This isn't wading our way to 'liberate' people from the horrendous leader of their country. We got these people into this situation thanks to our actions, we still have large military presence in that country if only at the embassy, and even if we don't even like the current leaders of Iraq we are still 'friends' of them. If we can't even do a simple minimum with our already existing forces in Iraq when called upon to help, then why the hell do we have an embassy there or anything, why have even an ounce of presence there if you can't step into to help when called upon and it seems like a potential humanitarian crisis would happen if we didn't? If we have the power and the PERMISSION (of the government, we don't need international support in any capacity for this type of stuff, we were asked to help) to help stem a massacre, we should help, help and move on just like we did in Libya.
massivekettle
Member
US is now trying to play by the rules, and that means getting necessary approval for large scale operations.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
SliceSabre
Banned
The way that country's religious division runs so deep? I mean they can overcome it don't get me wrong. But religious divisions take a very long time to get over in the middle east unless some strongman/dictator forces people to get over it by killing them.
Not to mention the Kurds in the north could take that as their chance to finally declare their full independence from Iraq just to add more chaos in the mix.
massivekettle
Member
Then, that's not the USA's problem! There has to be a reason why nobody is bothered to do anything against ISIS, right?
Meanwhile the Gaza-related threads on GAF racked up thousands of pages...
European nations joining the fight with the United States? You would be out of luck even if aliens attacked tomorrow.
Arkos
Nose how to spell and rede to
So then everybody on the street is equally culpable though, right? I mean we're like a block away and this is happening in the middle of a crowd.
Apparently that's what people want =/. I can't discuss this anymore, it's making me legitimately depressed.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
How come you ignore some of the posts in this thread and selectively respond?
You'd think by now the US government would have realized that the more they intervene in the Middle East the more fanatics it creates. Not only they've indirectly created thousands of fundamentalists thanks to their awful policies and tactics but thanks to their overzealousness they're also directly funded terrorists or people who eventually became ones.
That's plainly untrue. It's not even arguably true based upon any meaning of the word.
Your second sentence is illogical.
And provided arms to Iraq security forces that had no motivation to protect Sunni citizens so now that they have abandoned their posts, ISIS has access to US military equipment.
If they bomb ISIS they will piss off Sunni countries across the region in addition to some individuals somwhere in Somalia, Pakistan and Chechnya while Kurds and Shia couldn't care less. If it's an ongoing process that will increase the civilian causalities you'll have Iraqis in general getting angry at you while Kurds couldn't care less. Does US want that?
Then we can't help much we can't keep funneling money into iraq. I hope we can save as many of those people on the mountain I really do but other than limited eengagmentiraq is sol
speculawyer
Member
I think that is just too simplistic. It is not an all or never thing.
Sometimes you should intervene, sometimes you shouldn't. Liberating Kuwait was pretty successful . . . it had a broad coalition and the scope was limited. Invading Iraq was not a good idea . . . there was not enough of a coalition, there were massive protests against it, there was no solid endgame, etc.
In this situation, pretty much EVERYONE hates ISIS. The USA, Saudi Arabia, the Iraq government, the Kurds, Iran, Syria, etc. Who the fuck likes these people besides Kobayashi and other fundamentalist jihadis? I think you can hit them without screwing things up badly.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
At the very least it would help the Kurdish forces on the ground and whatever is left of the Iraqi security forces.
Think they will also be delivering Mi 28 to Iraq, in September or October.
speculawyer
Member
Somewhat . . . but the Saudi government will be fine with it. Yes, they are Sunni partisans but they don't like Sunnis that are extremists like ISIS. They hate them . . . they are a threat to overthrowing the Saudi government.
But "individuals somwhere in Somalia, Pakistan and Chechnya". . . yeah, they are just more extremists. They get their own set of drones.
Come on you're not giving first year poli-sci majors enough credits.
For example
Nobody who understands what ISIS is would say this. It's ridiculous especially when Iraq itself is asking for help.
I think this would be best thing but we don't do it because the govt doesn't want them getting ideas about breaking off their on country
block tower
Member
the ISIS is pretty fucked. this isnt the U.S. military of early 2000, we have drones and newer stealth planes thatd do some real damage. i think at best U.S. wants to do the right thing by helping and gaining some political points. but if the ISIS fucks with the U.S. they're bound to get the attention of some officials in gov't that wouldn't mind leveling ISIS territory.
kame-sennin
Member
Americans still don't understand that they can't kill their way out of a problem. We invaded, overthrew the government, destroyed infrastructure, murdered thousands of civilians, and unleashed a torrent of sectarian violence. We can not just go back, selectively murder one group that is particularly murderous, and expect things to improve. The ideology that drives ISIS will continue to exist, even if we kill every last soldier to a man. The next incarnation may be more religiously militant, and they will certainly be more combat hardened. Or perhaps the vacuum created by the destruction of ISIS will allow one of their enemies to emerge and become equally ruthless.
These are not situations we can control. If you think more than one move ahead, you might understand why the most merciful thing the U.S. can do is stay the fuck away from the middle east (and pull our damn contractors out). Dropping food and medicine is one thing, but bombs frequently have an unintended effect. I don't want to see 40,000 people die, but I also don't want to see what might result from further intervention.
These are not situations we can control. If you think more than one move ahead, you might understand why the most merciful thing the U.S. can do is stay the fuck away from the middle east (and pull our damn contractors out). Dropping food and medicine is one thing, but bombs frequently have an unintended effect. I don't want to see 40,000 people die, but I also don't want to see what might result from further intervention.
As in significant part of Iraq with many civilian populated towns, millions upon millions of people? What are you going to level, they don't really have military bases or tanks as they operate from these large cities.
"We made a mess of things; better let them fix it themselves."
Can someone correct me if I'm wrong, thats read the original NYT article?
It is very specific about coordination with the US military about the bombing. That the Kurdish/Iraq forces were working with us, and that the strikes were to start the next day or so.
So how exactly are all of these top officials making statments that the people started celebrating on the streets -- who had spoken to US officials, incorrect? Because the Pentagon says that they were wrong? I mean it seems like the Pentagon tipped their hat to whomever did it. But won't admit responsibility? Leaving the Kurdish/Iraqi forces looking like they are incompetent? Based on.. just saying that nothing they said was accurate? That the strikes weren't planed by america..? And if that is what the Pentagon is separating themselves from, the planning, then why?
It is very specific about coordination with the US military about the bombing. That the Kurdish/Iraq forces were working with us, and that the strikes were to start the next day or so.
So how exactly are all of these top officials making statments that the people started celebrating on the streets -- who had spoken to US officials, incorrect? Because the Pentagon says that they were wrong? I mean it seems like the Pentagon tipped their hat to whomever did it. But won't admit responsibility? Leaving the Kurdish/Iraqi forces looking like they are incompetent? Based on.. just saying that nothing they said was accurate? That the strikes weren't planed by america..? And if that is what the Pentagon is separating themselves from, the planning, then why?
The New York Times appear to have had bad info.
Edit: I don't understand what's going on. Pentagon is saying they didn't do it. Officials over there aren't taking credit, but have confirmed that ISIS was indeed bombed by somebody. NBC is now reporting that apparently we are getting ready to fire bombs at several targets after all. What a weird situation.
PoweredBySoy
Banned
I would agree there seems to be a little bit of à la carte nation-building going on in this thread.
So, right, saving 40k people stranded on a mountaintop sounds wonderful. I'm all for it. But why is this good and other forms of intervention bad? Who's opinion we following? When is it okay to stop intervening??
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
The middle east was fighting these battles well before the US existed. This post makes it sound like the US is responsible for every bad thing that ever happens.
Such a weird amount of specific bad info though. I mean, the people celebrating and honking horns..? Its just a lot for them to not do -- whatever process it is in war-torn situations to report on -- for this instance. And then you have the Pentagon, who is aware of everything in the universe. Saying that it just might have been somone else striking the targets that were discussed with the Kurdish\Iraqi Commanders.
and the co-author;
Got it all wrong..?
Didn't people in this forum say the same about Syria and Libya and they were similar disasters? While it is true that everyone hates ISIS they also hate the US probably more in the region and given that they've fucked up repeatedly and consistently this time will be different doesn't really convince me. They'll probably manage to create sympathy for these nutjobs in the end.
Maybe the Pentagon wanted everything hush-hush and someone spilled the beans? I can't imagine that if it was their fighters that they wouldn't have taken credit for a successful attack.
US military source says ISIS targets chosen, "lined up" in #iraq. just awaiting order. "fingers on the trigger."
- Status