View Poll Results: Back to Iraq?

Voters
43. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, with some amount of troops.

    3 6.98%
  • No, we'll stay out indefinitely.

    17 39.53%
  • We'll do minimalist advisers, air force and/or drone attacks.

    13 30.23%
  • It's a watch and wait situation for now.

    10 23.26%
  • Other (explain).

    3 6.98%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 158

Thread: Back to Iraq?

  1. #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Back to Iraq?

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    But our constant manipulating of that region for it's natural resources has finally caught up to us. By buying all that oil for so long, we've given those crazy desert rats the ability and munitions to fight us. For decades, they never attempted or had the ability to directly attack us and haven't been very successful since 9/11, but it's becoming a war of attrition and they may eventually get through again.

    If we could somehow, supply ourselves with enough oil, till we can become self sufficient and transition over to alternative energy, then maybe we could beef up our borders and self defense, until they eventually run out of money and go back to camel riding.
    I disagree. Radical Islam became prominent in the last 150 years or so, and acts of terror are committed all over the globe-including nations that have nothing to do with the west or oil. The west could become completely energy independent today and we would still be a target. They have stated as much, and their actions reflect this. At the very least-they are open and direct about what they want-and its a world living under Islam.

  2. #62
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,224
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Back to Iraq?

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    I disagree. Radical Islam became prominent in the last 150 years or so, and acts of terror are committed all over the globe-including nations that have nothing to do with the west or oil. The west could become completely energy independent today and we would still be a target. They have stated as much, and their actions reflect this. At the very least-they are open and direct about what they want-and its a world living under Islam.
    We can't control what the rest of the world does about radical Islam. And we're never going to eliminate it completely, by fighting them indefinitely. If we become energy independent and aren't in their sight we won't be as much in their minds. And it's much easier to defend than continually be proactive. We simply can't afford to fight them for decades unending.

    If some group manages a successful attack, then we can retaliate but that's going to have to be the extent of our action. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Jordan, Yemen and almost all the Arab nations are more radical and unstable, since we've been fighting the last decade. All we've succeeded in doing is stirring up a hornet's nest, not winning a 'War on Terror'.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  3. #63
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Back to Iraq?

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    We can't control what the rest of the world does about radical Islam. And we're never going to eliminate it completely, by fighting them indefinitely. If we become energy independent and aren't in their sight we won't be as much in their minds. And it's much easier to defend than continually be proactive. We simply can't afford to fight them for decades unending.

    If some group manages a successful attack, then we can retaliate but that's going to have to be the extent of our action. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Jordan, Yemen and almost all the Arab nations are more radical and unstable, since we've been fighting the last decade. All we've succeeded in doing is stirring up a hornet's nest, not winning a 'War on Terror'.
    We both agree that we are losing the war on terror. However a chump president who makes it known that we wont fight isn't helping. Im reminded of comments by several terror groups-who thought they respected the American left until they came into power and suddenly flipped on terrorism-demonstrating their hackery to the world-at that point they decided the American left was even worse.

    These people respect power, not lefties who want to feel tolerant.

  4. #64
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,224
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Back to Iraq?

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    We both agree that we are losing the war on terror. However a chump president who makes it known that we wont fight isn't helping. Im reminded of comments by several terror groups-who thought they respected the American left until they came into power and suddenly flipped on terrorism-demonstrating their hackery to the world-at that point they decided the American left was even worse.

    These people respect power, not lefties who want to feel tolerant.
    He believed we could retreat out of the situation quicker than was possible. Unfortunately, all they understand is might but being too brutal in retaliation does not settle well with the rest of the world either. We're not going to eradicate billions of Muslims because we don't see eye to eye, at some point a stasis need to be reached for everyone's sake.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  5. #65
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Back to Iraq?

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    He believed we could retreat out of the situation quicker than was possible. Unfortunately, all they understand is might but being too brutal in retaliation does not settle well with the rest of the world either. We're not going to eradicate billions of Muslims because we don't see eye to eye, at some point a stasis need to be reached for everyone's sake.
    Im not calling for the eradication of billions of muslims, merely the terrorists. They are already balls deep and know the consequences of their actions. Its us in the west that want to believe we can mitigate things, but that does not work, appeasement wont work.

    As I see it, we need merely help them get to their 40 virgins asap.

  6. #66
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,224
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Back to Iraq?

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Im not calling for the eradication of billions of muslims, merely the terrorists. They are already balls deep and know the consequences of their actions. Its us in the west that want to believe we can mitigate things, but that does not work, appeasement wont work.

    As I see it, we need merely help them get to their 40 virgins asap.
    Yeah, but they could potentially grow into untold amounts when you unjustly persecute them, which creates a situation for recruitment. And we assess anyone even remotely tied to them as "terrorists" or associates.

    Peace always has a chance. You don't have to have everyone thinking exactly the same for a global community to have a little more harmony.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  7. #67
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Back to Iraq?

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    Yeah, but they could potentially grow into untold amounts when you unjustly persecute them, which creates a situation for recruitment. And we assess anyone even remotely tied to them as "terrorists" or associates.

    Peace always has a chance. You don't have to have everyone thinking exactly the same for a global community to have a little more harmony.
    We are constantly told we cant do anything because it will make more terrorists-but we tried it Bush's way, and we tried it Obama's way-and yet here they still are. And its not just against the west, there is more terrorism EVERYWHERE.

    Appeasement will result in more dead everywhere-in the middle east as they expand, and here as they gain the ability to attack us again. At some point you have to decide if its worth fighting for. I think it is, if nothing else to prevent another 9/11. Your desire for peace is immaterial to those who have decided EVERYTHING ABOUT US needs to go, to be replaced by something that looks like ISIS. I think fighting against that is worth it.

    You might think differently but at least admit that you dont think its worth the fight.

  8. #68
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,224
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Back to Iraq?

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    We are constantly told we cant do anything because it will make more terrorists-but we tried it Bush's way, and we tried it Obama's way-and yet here they still are. And its not just against the west, there is more terrorism EVERYWHERE.

    Appeasement will result in more dead everywhere-in the middle east as they expand, and here as they gain the ability to attack us again. At some point you have to decide if its worth fighting for. I think it is, if nothing else to prevent another 9/11. Your desire for peace is immaterial to those who have decided EVERYTHING ABOUT US needs to go, to be replaced by something that looks like ISIS. I think fighting against that is worth it.

    You might think differently but at least admit that you dont think its worth the fight.
    I believe we have no choice now but to go over there and stomp the bus piss outta them. If we don't it'll spread into a mess that lasts for decades.

    We could possibly build a frightening force of carrier groups in the Med and approaching ground forces to encourage them into some kind of peace, but it most likely wouldn't work.

    We should've never removed the gov't and infrastructure in Iraq or even fostered the Arab Spring. Those were big mistakes on our part, two years in Afghanistan would've been enough and an appropriate response. We had Al Qaeda almost eradicated at that point and could've kept some spec ops there to continue monitoring the situation, getting intel on Osama.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  9. #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Back to Iraq?

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    I believe we have no choice now but to go over there and stomp the bus piss outta them. If we don't it'll spread into a mess that lasts for decades.

    We could possibly build a frightening force of carrier groups in the Med and approaching ground forces to encourage them into some kind of peace, but it most likely wouldn't work.

    We should've never removed the gov't and infrastructure in Iraq or even fostered the Arab Spring. Those were big mistakes on our part, two years in Afghanistan would've been enough and an appropriate response. We had Al Qaeda almost eradicated at that point and could've kept some spec ops there to continue monitoring the situation, getting intel on Osama.
    The only good news (though that may change if ISIS is actually established) is that the needed interventions are NOT high intensity conventional conflicts. They are low intensity, and asymmetric. A presence and the knowledge that those held responsible WILL be killed or captured would be effective. The bad news-is that looks very much like what we did in Iraq and are doing (for a time) in Afghanistan. A carrier group wont do it. A constant presence will.

    I think you have a case regarding removing the Bathists from iraq post invasion, in fact much of the recent ISIS gains are because of the defection of several key Iraqi officers, many of whom cited the removal of the Bathists (who were sunni). Im also no fan of Maliki. But we can't sit here and do nothing because of that. At the same time, allowing Iran and Russia more influence is a bad idea, and they wont leave once they are there.

    In Afghanistan, we face a similar scenario, and to follow with another withdrawal would result only in more destabilization.

    Its a **** sandwich, but if the options are leaving an ever expanding islamist state who has directly stated they will attack and destroy us, and staying to fight so another 9/11 doesn't happen here I say we stay. If we dont we are saying that everything done since 9/11 does not matter, and we are signing off on another attack here.

  10. #70
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,224
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Back to Iraq?

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    The only good news (though that may change if ISIS is actually established) is that the needed interventions are NOT high intensity conventional conflicts. They are low intensity, and asymmetric. A presence and the knowledge that those held responsible WILL be killed or captured would be effective. The bad news-is that looks very much like what we did in Iraq and are doing (for a time) in Afghanistan. A carrier group wont do it. A constant presence will.

    I think you have a case regarding removing the Bathists from iraq post invasion, in fact much of the recent ISIS gains are because of the defection of several key Iraqi officers, many of whom cited the removal of the Bathists (who were sunni). Im also no fan of Maliki. But we can't sit here and do nothing because of that. At the same time, allowing Iran and Russia more influence is a bad idea, and they wont leave once they are there.

    In Afghanistan, we face a similar scenario, and to follow with another withdrawal would result only in more destabilization.

    Its a **** sandwich, but if the options are leaving an ever expanding islamist state who has directly stated they will attack and destroy us, and staying to fight so another 9/11 doesn't happen here I say we stay. If we dont we are saying that everything done since 9/11 does not matter, and we are signing off on another attack here.
    Russia would love to stop any and all competing pipelines and China would love more oil anyway they can get it. I have to agree that we can't leave a power vacuum in that area right now, it's just still too strategic an asset. I read an article the other day that ISIS claimed they actually had a nuke and would use it. Haven't heard anymore about it but that's a stupid thing to say, even if true. I don't think they're going to attack the US directly, though I'm sure if it were possible they would.

    We're not too far off in our assessment of the problem and need for action. Though, I would rather we extract ourselves as soon as possible, when the time comes. We keep trying to do everything on the cheap, half assing it and that's where all our problems get started. They need to make a real commitment to the take over and controlling of the country, until a real gov't can be set up. And honestly, Obama may say he doesn't want to go back but he's putting off the inevitable, unless ISIL decides to keep what they got and go no further. I do believe that Obama will try air strikes of some sort first, maybe in accompaniment with cruise missiles. The problem with those kind of armaments is not destroying innocent civilians. They won't let Baghdad fall and that's probably going to be the tipping point of whether/when we act or not.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •