• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Weighs Military Rescue Mission for Yazidi Refugees

No, it's not far reaching. I am not comparing UK to US in occupying and colonizing but rather stepping in a hornet's nest and expecting different results. There is a reason why the British, French, and Italians said "**** this" and leave places like Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Somalia, and Afghanistan. US just hasn't learned it yet. Well, Reagan did with Lebanon.

When was the last time the euro nations (save the UK)were attacked by people from these regions?
 
When was the last time the euro nations (save the UK)were attacked by people from these regions?

Depends. France never really had an issue with Syria and Lebanon as Syria was ran by a Dictator ever since and Lebanon was pretty much a stable society until Lebanese Civil War which last until the 1990s. But France never got forcefully involved in their matters. On the other hand France got involved in Algeria and French have dealt with many attacks from Algerians and Algerian groups, like the events in Toulouse and Montauban shootings which was done by an Algerian.

Italians gave up on Somalia and haven't looked back.

When European countries who had former colonies in these areas left the **** alone after they left.. they weren't attacked. So I don't know how that's gonna help your position. ;)
 
Depends. France never really had an issue with Syria and Lebanon as Syria was ran by a Dictator ever since and Lebanon was pretty much a stable society until Lebanese Civil War which last until the 1990s. But France never got forcefully involved in their matters. On the other hand France got involved in Algeria and French have dealt with many attacks from Algerians and Algerian groups, like the events in Toulouse and Montauban shootings which was done by an Algerian.

Italians gave up on Somalia and haven't looked back.

When European countries who had former colonies in these areas left the **** alone after they left.. they weren't attacked. So I don't know how that's gonna help your position. ;)

Until Obama poked his nose into Syria-there had been almost NO American presence there.
 
Sounds nice but the Kurds aren't in those nations by chance-that is where they have lived historically. Why should 23 million people who have lived there for over 4000 years leave their homeland at the end of a turkish or Iranian gun?

I think you need to recognize the difference between what you'd like to think would be a convenient political solution to a complex problem-and the difference between it being done by force and voluntarily. If you'd support a carrot for the Kurds rather than a stick let me know.

LOL, wiki education, gotta love it.

I never said they were by chance and that area is their "historical" home land. It's about getting 23 million people to leave and move to Kurdistan. It would sit from Iran/Iraq/Turkey border to Mosul down the Tigris to Karkuk which is still their historical homeland.

It's also not forcing them. They can choose to live in Turkey and Iran if they pleas but they would have Kurdistan now. It's about getting Turkey and Iran from funding the Kurdish separatist groups. Right now you have Turkey funding PJAK (Kurds) in Iran and in Turkey you have the PKK funded by Iran. Both groups are fighting against States that will not give them Turkish or Iranian land. None. Iraq on the other hand can't police itself in Northern half where Kurdistan would lie.

So it's about getting Turkey and Iran to remove funding and training and saying hey we are creating a state for you in Iraq. That's carrot and not a stick approach.
 
Until Obama poked his nose into Syria-there had been almost NO American presence there.

So you are catching on. American pokes it's nose into a country and makes a situation worse. ISIS would exist if US didn't involved. Syria would have wiped them off the map already.
 
LOL, wiki education, gotta love it.

I never said they were by chance and that area is their "historical" home land. It's about getting 23 million people to leave and move to Kurdistan. It would sit from Iran/Iraq/Turkey border to Mosul down the Tigris to Karkuk which is still their historical homeland.

It's also not forcing them. They can choose to live in Turkey and Iran if they pleas but they would have Kurdistan now. It's about getting Turkey and Iran from funding the Kurdish separatist groups. Right now you have Turkey funding PJAK (Kurds) in Iran and in Turkey you have the PKK funded by Iran. Both groups are fighting against States that will not give them Turkish or Iranian land. None. Iraq on the other hand can't police itself in Northern half where Kurdistan would lie.

So it's about getting Turkey and Iran to remove funding and training and saying hey we are creating a state for you in Iraq. That's carrot and not a stick approach.

Understood but what if the carrot does not work? What then?
 
So you are catching on. American pokes it's nose into a country and makes a situation worse. ISIS would exist if US didn't involved. Syria would have wiped them off the map already.

I dont think thats it-ISIS was no fan of the US even before we were in Syria (see their own platform in their own words). ISIS is opportunistic and saw the cat was away in Iraq, hence the move there.
 
So you are catching on. American pokes it's nose into a country and makes a situation worse. ISIS would exist if US didn't involved. Syria would have wiped them off the map already.
I only heard of the red line being drawn. There was more?
 
I dont think thats it-ISIS was no fan of the US even before we were in Syria (see their own platform in their own words). ISIS is opportunistic and saw the cat was away in Iraq, hence the move there.

ISIS, following their debut in the best Capitols of Europe, seem to more Allies than poor Obama.
 
I dont think thats it-ISIS was no fan of the US even before we were in Syria (see their own platform in their own words). ISIS is opportunistic and saw the cat was away in Iraq, hence the move there.

So little unknown facts about ISIS.

ISIS itself comes from Sunni militants the US was fighting in Iraq. It first started in 2000 as JTJ (al-Zarqawi's group). Then US went to Iraq and JTJ followed. US Military, CIA, Pundits and Politicos called them AQI. JTJ help create Mujahideen Shura Council (basically an umbrella group for all Sunni militant groups). MSC renamed it's self ISI in 2006. ISI stands for Islamic State of Iraq. During this time ISI split from Al-Qaeda. First leader of ISI was Abu Abdullah al-Rashid al-Baghdadi (was killed in 2010 by US). The next and current leader is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. When ISI went to Syria to fight, the added Syria to the name and become ISIS.

ISI(S) knows the US very well.
 
So little unknown facts about ISIS.

ISIS itself comes from Sunni militants the US was fighting in Iraq. It first started in 2000 as JTJ (al-Zarqawi's group). Then US went to Iraq and JTJ followed. US Military, CIA, Pundits and Politicos called them AQI. JTJ help create Mujahideen Shura Council (basically an umbrella group for all Sunni militant groups). MSC renamed it's self ISI in 2006. ISI stands for Islamic State of Iraq. During this time ISI split from Al-Qaeda. First leader of ISI was Abu Abdullah al-Rashid al-Baghdadi (was killed in 2010 by US). The next and current leader is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. When ISI went to Syria to fight, the added Syria to the name and become ISIS.

ISI(S) knows the US very well.

Perhaps you misunderstood. The history of ISIS does not change the fact that they dont like the US-again in their own words.
 
Perhaps you misunderstood. The history of ISIS does not change the fact that they dont like the US-again in their own words.

Or maybe you don't understand that ISIS was created to fight the US in Iraq. No US invading Iraq, no ISIS. Just like if Russia didn't invade Afghanistan, there would have been no Taliban. Actions have Consequences or know in the world of Intel, blow back.
 
Or maybe you don't understand that ISIS was created to fight the US in Iraq. No US invading Iraq, no ISIS. Just like if Russia didn't invade Afghanistan, there would have been no Taliban. Actions have Consequences or know in the world of Intel, blow back.

ISIS has already threatened the USA and are confident they will advance in Europe. They entered Iraq AFTER the US had pulled their troops..

Here is a "Dutchman" photographed with severed heads. Not for the squeamish but more for those who feel the earlier photos weren't authenticated.

We'd better get real as to who our enemies are. haralddoornbos | A fine WordPress.com site
 
ISIS has already threatened the USA and are confident they will advance in Europe. They entered Iraq AFTER the US had pulled their troops..

Here is a "Dutchman" photographed with severed heads. Not for the squeamish but more for those who feel the earlier photos weren't authenticated.

We'd better get real as to who our enemies are. haralddoornbos | A fine WordPress.com site

As if these guys were sunshine and rainbows before 9/11. Islamists are Islamists and they will hate the west regardless.

BTW-those are the heads of Christians killed by ISIS, no doubt because the US invaded Iraq.
 
Or maybe you don't understand that ISIS was created to fight the US in Iraq. No US invading Iraq, no ISIS. Just like if Russia didn't invade Afghanistan, there would have been no Taliban. Actions have Consequences or know in the world of Intel, blow back.

But will there blowback on ISIS?

Keep in mind that the Desert Storm and it's consequences were also 'blowback' on Saddam Hussein. This blowback theory may be handy for anyone who wants to explain something in the simplest terms possible but doesn't lend itself to much worthwhile analysis.
 
In that region, every time we fund and train people to fight we end up in a fight with them.

And I wonder how many ages are required to get a lesson from that.
 
But will there blowback on ISIS?

Keep in mind that the Desert Storm and it's consequences were also 'blowback' on Saddam Hussein. This blowback theory may be handy for anyone who wants to explain something in the simplest terms possible but doesn't lend itself to much worthwhile analysis.

ISIS can break up to several different groups and make it harder to collect intel and going after those groups. Ah, yes. Saddam Hussein didn't have blow back on him after Desert Storm. He was still in power and kept his sphere of influence. He gassed the Kurds, still tortured and ran rough shod over the Shia.

Blow back is a term applied when one doesn't think about the consequences of ones actions. US had no real plan for Iraq after overthrowing Saddam. US didn't understand Iraqi society or how much they hate each other. US just didn't get it. Democracy isn't gonna work in Iraq and we overthrow the one guy who everybody feared in the society because that guy was a homicidal maniac.

So some blow back for ISIS would be US would be doing a favor for Syria (Russia) and Iran. US would be allying with them as ISIS is their enemy, while at the same time solidifying Iranian influence in Iraq. That means the US had to choose between keeping Assad in power, giving all influence in Iraq to Iran, who by the way are supporting Iraq more then any country right now and basically handing Russia a naval base in the Med or letting ISIS cause trouble for Syria, Iran and their "allies" Iraq and Russia.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom