sturg33
I
I have no idea what you're talking about
2016 Presidential Primaries [ SUPER TUESDAY | 3-1-'16]
- Thread starter 57Brave
- Start date
I have no idea what you're talking about
AerchAngel
<B>Secretary of Statistics</B>
yeah you do, you just don't want to answer the question.
Let me be more deliberate so get it.
If the US does nothing in the Middle East, ISIS will do what they need to do and we butt out.
The other Middle East countries do not want that so they fight them and for the most part will lose, with possibly millions of deaths.
You really don't care about those deaths because we did not get involved. We get that, but what about those lives that got snuffed out because we did not at least help to prevent it. You really feel good about that? I think you do. Hey, it is not us, why do I care attitude? I have a problem with that. Every life is precious regardless of religion or political standing. I do wish those on the radical end will come to being sane, but I have concluded that ISIS is a lost cause with their you or us mentality.
In summary, you have no answer because your answer would put you in a pickle. Yes you want US out of it and I agree, but yet millions and a pariah state would be created to kill millions more and you know the other countries don't have the manpower to kill them if they get what they aimed for and if they try millions will die.
The US can simply watch the death and destruction and you will be happy with that.
sturg33
I
The US intervention is a major cause of death in the Middle East. It's also a massive recruiting tool for anti-western terrorists.
I don't want the US to get more involved.
AerchAngel
<B>Secretary of Statistics</B>
I get that and I agree with you but ISIS is here to stay and they do not care about US involvement, but they do care if we do get involve and armed the other Middle East countries.
WE do nothing, millions will die, it is that simple. Every life is precious in my eyes but if some caliphate wants to eradicate every non Islam human in this world regardless if you are US, Russian or Chinese, they will do it.
I don't want troops there but I would arm the Middle East countries and use drones to stop them and I guess you don't even want that.
sturg33
I
LOL This is literally what we've done that helped fund and create ISIS.
AerchAngel
<B>Secretary of Statistics</B>
We did not create ISIS. But we did create an environment for them to manifest I give you that. Taking out dictators allow the small movement to further their agenda and members grow because they have no opposition.
But make no mistake, we are not their agenda and we do not fuel them. Their are hardcore Muslims who want to rule the world at all costs regardless of the US or the other countries would not do anything against it. Their religious mandate is eradicate any Christianity in the world or any other religion and have Islam to be the rule of the world.
We should sit back and when they establish a caliphate and try to attack us or Europe, make it a glass desert. That is my opinion.
That's why ISIS should had been obliterated a year ago, before they gained numbers and strength.
ISIS can't be defeated without American boots on the ground. Not to argue the causes and reasons that IsIS exists but if O hadn't pulled the troops out of Iraq, I don't think we'd be having this discussion.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
Not exactly sure, but stopping them from making a territorial gain is key. If they can't continue to expand territory then this "caliph" ain't the guy (see the article I referenced). Once he is halted, the doubts creep in among followers and would be followers that heretofore have been flooding to Syria to join the ranks become hesitant to go. The call to join ISIS is neutered. Unlike Al Qaeda, ISIS has to make territorial gains to be considered legitimate. It's wrapped up in a variety of Islamic eschatology.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Obama didn't pull troops out of Iraq, it was an agreement signed by the Bush administration. Unless you want Obama to break an agreement signed with a sovereign nation.
ISIL wouldn't have existed if not for 2 things.
1. Bush invading Iraq and destabilizing Iraq
2. US propping up Syrian rebel forces.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
IIRC the reason they wanted immunity was for fear of Iraq courts charging US military. Which I'd say is a pretty big sticking point.
A 'sovereign' nation wanting judiciary independence, how shocking.
They weren't going to be charging our troops retroactively.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
And our "peacekeeping" force wasn't gonna be fighting AMIRITE?
If you're in a warzone you want to keep things as in house as possible, otherwise why by there militarily if you're not fighting?
The entire point of the residual force was to protect the fledgling nation against fringe rebel groups (which would later conglomerate into ISIL) so I'm not sure where you are going here at all.
Even Biden was huge advocate of keeping boots on the ground.
The ball was dropped.
... but let's go back to blaming Bush, because political thought-process circa 2008 is really enriching to watch rehashed.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
So they'd still be fighting in an active War Zone is what you're saying. And you'd want them subject to Iraq laws? Say during a mission against ISIL we shoot a child as collateral damage, without any form of immunity, that soldier could be going to jail. You think that's effective while fighting a war.
Bush called for the withdrawal, sure Obama could perhaps have done more, but ISIL primarily falls at the feet of George Bush, as if he didn't invade Iraq, Saddam would have crushed them in no time.
I never said that our troops shouldn't have immunity. I simply said that is what Maliki wanted. It was by no means non-negotiable, but Obama was pleased by the public response to the 'withdraw from Iraq' platform and allowed discussions to fold. It was a smart political move, but otherwise extremely daft.
Read up on when Romney called him out on the hypocrisy during a debate.
Also, no, it would not have been an 'active War Zone' at all ... a combat zone for sure, but not war zone.
Read up on when Romney called him out on the hypocrisy during a debate.
Also, no, it would not have been an 'active War Zone' at all ... a combat zone for sure, but not war zone.
Well when G-Dub ended all "major" "combat" operations in 2004 what do you call the next 6 years? Combat zone?
Ah ha ... exactly what I meant earlier when I referred to the 2008 mentality.
What does that have to do, even remotely, with my comment?
Or does it just hurt too bad to read that Obama ****ed Iraq just as hard as Bush did?
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
pretty crazy to try to say someone else did as much harm as the person that started the whole ****ing mess in the first place
****ed is ****ed.