• 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!

Is Obama right to go back into Iraq?

Is Obama right to go back into Iraq?

  • Im a right leaning American, yes.

    Votes: 11 29.7%
  • Im a left leaning American, yes.

    Votes: 7 18.9%
  • Im not American, yes.

    Votes: 2 5.4%
  • Im a right leaning American, no.

    Votes: 6 16.2%
  • Im a left leaning American, no.

    Votes: 9 24.3%
  • Im not American, no.

    Votes: 2 5.4%

  • Total voters
    37
Obama has already had Special Forces in Iraq for months, and now in light of massacres of civilians we are scaling up our presence-including airstrikes against military targets. Obama has suggested this could go on for some time.

Is Obama right to go back into Iraq?
image-453387602.jpg
Al-Nusra-ISIS-Al-Qaeda-Merge-Obama-Sends-Housewarming.jpg

Iraq-Syria-ISIS-ISIL-Map-June-12-2014.jpg

It is without question the right decision my only criticism is that his support should be broader and linked to a more coherent strategy. We should be supporting our allies against the threat that these Islamist savages pose.
 
Agreed. I wish instead of vacationing Obama would tell the nation what his plans are.

I wish he had plans. I think our current efforts in Iraq are in large part owed to the tremendous pressure heaped on the President from within his cabinet, the media, and from voices in foreign capitals. I do not think he wants to be involved but felt like he had to show he was willing to do something. It's why our response has been so oddly explained (to 'defend' our consulate in Erbil *eyeroll*) and so anemic in application.
 
Islamism, the heck?

Islamic extremism is the phrase you're looking for. And comparing these backwater clowns to the Nazis is a joke, you can't be that paranoid.

No. Islamism. Even the terms you continue to insist on betray your lack of knowledge on the issue. There are plenty of books on this matter, I recommend hitting them up.
 
Let us do so.

I hate tit for tats, but since you are wrong so many times, I'll bite...

....However, if you think that the ability to bring destructive violence immediately makes one brutish (or that threats can never be implicit, or that the ability to bring violence to bear immediately constitutes a threat), then I would recommend to you Bing Wests' excellent book The Strongest Tribe.

I love that book. Seriously, for anyone who wants to true story of what happened during the Iraq War, this book does such an amazing job. The stories that he tells of the immediate aftermath of the incompetence, nay naivety, on the part of American Military Leadership following the fall of Iraq is absolutely mind-boggling and shows precisely where we failed. but at the same time, it taught me just how important the Sunni Awakening (in combination with the Surge), was in the successful conclusion of the Iraq War.

All that said, the book has nothing to contribute to that argument. If you are referring to the ability of the US Military backing up the Sunnis during the Awakening, I would remind you that at that time, they had the authorization from the government to do so. And this is where the Republicans argument that troops being in the country falls flat on it's face:

The Iraqi government wanted 20,000 troops. The DOD said that the minimum that would be required to even be able to adequately force-protect while doing their mission was 10,000. A couple of months before the deadline, the White House came out and said that 5,000 was it's ceiling, effectively torpedoing the discussions....

This is not true. Not least because Maliki would have been unlikely to be able to set himself up as a permanent ruler of Iraq (as he seems to want to do) with a heavy US presence. Maliki was a pain, but he was containable when we were there.

You really want to know what would of happened in your scenario, and why it would of failed? Any SOF agreement that we sign with the Iraqi Government would of put us at the behest of them. And why shouldn't it? At this point, they hold all the cards. So when the time came to try and become militarily involved to act as arbitraters between the Sunnis and the Shia, our troops would of had their hands tied by ridiculous Rules of Engagement that would of prevented us from assisting the Sunnis and us standing by the Shia Government and watch as they persecuted them. They might of helped when ISIS began pouring across the border, but the problem with ISIS in Iraq is far more than just some foreign fighters that came from Syria. The larger issue is the Sunnis that have joined with ISIS. In all likelihood, all you would of ended up having was a another Khe Sanh.

What year did the North Koreans invade?

Why is Korea being discussed? We never conquered it; Korea was liberated after Japan's surrender. It's like trying to compare the Iraq situation with Poland after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Making it a situation similar to Korea, where the greatest threat to the Koreans were other Koreans.

And this is why the analogy fails. It might of been the North Koreans that ultimately declared war, but they never would of done so without the explicit permission from both Moscow and Beijing. Had Kim Il-Sung been able to, he would of invaded in 1949, when he believed the South Koreans would welcome the North Koreans after the events of the previous year (Jeju Uprising and Yeosu–Suncheon Rebellion). On the other hand, in Iraq, the current problems are largely coming from a Shia government oppressing it's Sunni minority and the Sunnis are fighting back. We're not calling it such now, but we are seeing the beginnings of a second Iraqi Civil War.


:shrug: depends on how you judge. We were much more serious (once we got started) about the threat of violent Fascism than we are about the threat of violent Islamism, and we were much more prone in those days to recognize that threats had to be answered, and could not safely be ignored. Now we are the attention-deficit-nation, who thinks that wars can be undeclared when one side just gets' bored and says they're gonna go home, now.

:raises eyebrow: the Japanese were using suicide bombers against us long before the Islamists were. Furthermore the civil war in Iraq had to be fomented by AMZ - prior to 2005, the Sunni/Shia split in Iraq wasn't anything like the problem it is today, where it's a deep cultural divide. Hell, lots of Iraqi families have sunni and shia branches. Iraq's Shia fought proudly and bravely for Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war.

Don't underestimate Iraqi nationalism.

....ISIL has demonstrated that, certainly. However, you are wrong that they were never broken - in 2008/2009, they were. We simply allowed them to reconstitute.

And finally, there are so many things wrong with the above, I decided to clump them together and knock them down through bullet points:

* While the Japanese military and it's people did have a religious mindset, there is one crucial difference between the two that either you don't realize or are choosing to ignore: Japan had a god who was human, and one that fortunately didn't want to see his people suffer. We don't have that in Iraq, now do we?

* Are you really attempting to downplay the issues between Iraq's Sunni and Shia? Refresher then:

Shia Treatment During the Iran-Iraq War said:
Around the time of the Iranian revolution in 1979, thousands of Shias in Iraq were accused of belonging to al-Da'wa, the largest underground Shia political organisation. Shias were targeted, some were killed, and many were expelled to Iran. In the 1980s as Saddam waged an eight-year war against Iran, he also targeted Iraq's Shia population by accusing them of having connections with Iran and not being patriotic. The Grand Ayatollah Abu al-Qasim al-Khoei refused to lend his support to the war and many of his allies were arrested.

*ISIL wasn't around during the time of the Awakening. That and the people that are currently involved, the Sunnis, won the conflict in any event.

* And finally, this statement: we were much more prone in those days to recognize that threats had to be answered, and could not safely be ignored. Never have I seen a better example of wishful history, the idea of a person imposing his worldview on history, regardless of the facts. Perhaps you forgot that as the Japanese were attacking Pearl Harbor, the American First movement were holding a rally in Pittsburg against any intervention. Or did you somehow forget about this:



Now that I've clearly demonstrated how Iraq is different from either Germany, Japan, or Korea, it is evident that my point that not only would a token force of failed to bring any peace, but that the only way a lasting peace would come is through annexing Iraq. The Iraqis can't govern themselves, and any SOF agreement would of made sure that we kept our noses out of their incompetence.
 
I love that book. Seriously, for anyone who wants to true story of what happened during the Iraq War, this book does such an amazing job. The stories that he tells of the immediate aftermath of the incompetence, nay naivety, on the part of American Military Leadership following the fall of Iraq is absolutely mind-boggling and shows precisely where we failed. but at the same time, it taught me just how important the Sunni Awakening (in combination with the Surge), was in the successful conclusion of the Iraq War.

All that said, the book has nothing to contribute to that argument. If you are referring to the ability of the US Military backing up the Sunnis during the Awakening, I would remind you that at that time, they had the authorization from the government to do so. And this is where the Republicans argument that troops being in the country falls flat on it's face

...is it your opinion that US operations in Iraq today are not authorized by the Government of Iraq? Or is it your argument that had we maintained (as the Iraqi's wanted) a 20,000 strong force in Iraq years ago, that that would have not been authorized by the GoI?

You really want to know what would of happened in your scenario, and why it would of failed? Any SOF agreement that we sign with the Iraqi Government would of put us at the behest of them.

I'm not sure what you mean by "at the behest". We get blessing for ops, and then we decide which actual ops we want to undertake. We don't take orders from the Iraqi Govt, they simply authorize us to operate.

If by "at the behest" you mean "because they want us there", well, duh. The situation is the same for South Korea and Japan.

And why shouldn't it? At this point, they hold all the cards

:lol: yeah. Because when I look at Maliki today I think to myself "man, there is a guy who holds all the cards".

You are incorrect. We have the cards because we can decide when and when not to employ our assets in the salvation of the crumbling Iraqi state.

So when the time came to try and become militarily involved to act as arbitraters between the Sunnis and the Shia, our troops would of had their hands tied by ridiculous Rules of Engagement that would of prevented us from assisting the Sunnis and us standing by the Shia Government and watch as they persecuted them

This is false, demonstrated little better than the fact that when this claim was put to the test, it failed.

They might of helped when ISIS began pouring across the border, but the problem with ISIS in Iraq is far more than just some foreign fighters that came from Syria. The larger issue is the Sunnis that have joined with ISIS. In all likelihood, all you would of ended up having was a another Khe Sanh.

:lol:

The Sunni Tribes weren't joining with ISIS until we left and Maliki was left to run nuts. The Sunni Tribes helped kick ISIS' a-- when we were there.

And this is why the analogy fails. It might of been the North Koreans that ultimately declared war, but they never would of done so without the explicit permission from both Moscow and Beijing. Had Kim Il-Sung been able to, he would of invaded in 1949, when he believed the South Koreans would welcome the North Koreans after the events of the previous year (Jeju Uprising and Yeosu–Suncheon Rebellion). On the other hand, in Iraq, the current problems are largely coming from a Shia government oppressing it's Sunni minority and the Sunnis are fighting back. We're not calling it such now, but we are seeing the beginnings of a second Iraqi Civil War.

Not improbable.

And finally, there are so many things wrong with the above, I decided to clump them together and knock them down through bullet points:

* While the Japanese military and it's people did have a religious mindset, there is one crucial difference between the two that either you don't realize or are choosing to ignore: Japan had a god who was human, and one that fortunately didn't want to see his people suffer. We don't have that in Iraq, now do we?

No we do not. Not sure how that invalidates the fact that we have been successful in the past at exporting ideological assumptions and guiding the formation of acceptable governance on foreign soil.

Are you really attempting to downplay the issues between Iraq's Sunni and Shia?

No, I am putting it in its correct context, which is to point out that the Fitna in Iraq as it is expressed today (or is in a civil war between the two sides) was not endogenous. It had to be fomented, and was, by ISIL, with some good success, which was then tamped down by US forces, who then left, at which point ISIL was able to reconstitute.

*ISIL wasn't around during the time of the Awakening.

:confused: You do know that ISIL is just the new name for AQI? The Islamic State in the Land of the Two Rivers? Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's old gang?

That and the people that are currently involved, the Sunnis, won the conflict in any event.

True and they made a deal with the devil after we abandoned them.

* And finally, this statement: we were much more prone in those days to recognize that threats had to be answered, and could not safely be ignored. Never have I seen a better example of wishful history, the idea of a person imposing his worldview on history, regardless of the facts. Perhaps you forgot that as the Japanese were attacking Pearl Harbor, the American First movement were holding a rally in Pittsburg against any intervention.

Indeed. And once threat had been demonstrated, we were willing to destroy it. As we are not today.

Now that I've clearly demonstrated how Iraq is different from either Germany, Japan, or Korea, it is evident that my point that not only would a token force of failed to bring any peace

20,000 troops is not a token. The 5,000 that Obama wanted to leave likely would have been, which is why that demand destroyed the talks.

but that the only way a lasting peace would come is through annexing Iraq

That is false, although continuing to heavily influence Iraq would have been necessary. Hells bells, ISIL was just about toast when we left. All we would have had to do would have been to maintain hard-won gains (which we instead pissed away).
 
picard-facepalm2.jpg


Oh, for goodness sakes...come on now.

Roughly 10,000 ISIS troops are the greatest threat to mankind since the U.S.S.R. and Nazi Germany?

So the Khmer Rouge murdering millions of Cambodians was less of a threat?

So 800,000+ Rwandans hacked to death was less of a threat?

The Nigerian Civil War. Over 1 million and less of a threat to humanity then roughly 7-10,000 ISIS fighters?

North Korea could obliterate South Korea with nukes if it wanted to. India and Pakistan could do the same to each other.

All of these are less of a threat to humanity then roughly 10,000 ISIS troops running around in pickup trucks with a little artillery and ZERO airpower?


No offense, but your statement is totally ridiculous.


And as for Obama's moron plan of getting involved again...

even Reagan knew better then to get involved in the Middle East

'Lest we forget, after America's first encounter with jihadist violence in 1983 – when 241 US military personnel were killed – Reagan, to use the disparaging lingo of the neocons, chose to "cut and run". Every single soldier was pulled out of Lebanon within four months. "Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle," Reagan later wrote in his memoir, adding: "The irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there … If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position ... those 241 marines would be alive today."'

Ronald Reagan was no hawk
Did any of those others you mentioned ever proclaim to fly their flag over the White House? They are the biggest threat in the world right now to ALL who are not Muslim. Read, research and question and then come back.
 
Understood, but the problem isn't lack of armament or experience-the kurds know how to fight-what they DONT know how to do is stand up against a constant stream of islamists. We need to commit to expelling ISIS, or not go in at all.
I agree.... I'm not sure what the best thing to do is... but if you do go in, commit, go all out, make it quick, and utterly destroy them.... or not at all.
 
I agree.... I'm not sure what the best thing to do is... but if you do go in, commit, go all out, make it quick, and utterly destroy them.... or not at all.

I think we should go in and kick em out-but Obama does not have the political stones to do this. One thing is for sure-ignoring it will not only make it worse-it will impact us here as well.
 
...is it your opinion that US operations in Iraq today are not authorized by the Government of Iraq? Or is it your argument that had we maintained (as the Iraqi's wanted) a 20,000 strong force in Iraq years ago, that that would have not been authorized by the GoI?

I'm not sure what you mean by "at the behest". We get blessing for ops, and then we decide which actual ops we want to undertake. We don't take orders from the Iraqi Govt, they simply authorize us to operate.

If by "at the behest" you mean "because they want us there", well, duh. The situation is the same for South Korea and Japan.

We wouldn't of been allowed by the GoI to get involved in the places we needed to be. Sure, once ISIS came across the border, then yes, the US might of been able to be involved. (On a sidenote: do you really want our boys out there on the front lines when the iraqi army was in the middle of desertion? To me, that sounds like a recipe for disaster.) But when it came to the treatment of the Sunnis, which is really the problem here, we wouldn't of been able to get involve.


:lol: yeah. Because when I look at Maliki today I think to myself "man, there is a guy who holds all the cards".

You are incorrect. We have the cards because we can decide when and when not to employ our assets in the salvation of the crumbling Iraqi state.

The "that" point I was referring to wasn't now, but back when a SOF would of been signed. But let's say that we do all that you and other propose to assist the Iraqi government. There's nothing to stop them from going back to status quo after the fighting has ceased. You can say we wouldn't allow it, but just how are we going to stop them?

This is false, demonstrated little better than the fact that when this claim was put to the test, it failed.

It's different when you are effectively Military governors, which is what we were during the Awakening.

:lol:

The Sunni Tribes weren't joining with ISIS until we left and Maliki was left to run nuts. The Sunni Tribes helped kick ISIS' a-- when we were there.

What is ISIS or ISIL hasn't been around but for a couple of years, so the Sunnis didn't help us kick their ass. Now it's probably true that fighters that were purt of the insurgency have since joined in ISIS, still there, different groups and more important, different aims.

No we do not. Not sure how that invalidates the fact that we have been successful in the past at exporting ideological assumptions and guiding the formation of acceptable governance on foreign soil.

Because in this, the religious leaders aren't backing us up. With Japan, we had the advantage of an emperor who was tired of warfare and wanted peace for his people. The people of the middle east, and their religious leaders, are clearly not ready to stop the fighting. The other difference is that we only had to deal with one religion, not different sects, which even more complicates things.


True and they made a deal with the devil after we abandoned them.
If by deal, you mean accept that Maliki was to be the leader of the GoI, what other choice did they have?


Indeed. And once threat had been demonstrated, we were willing to destroy it. As we are not today.
As of yet though, ISIS hasn't attacked the US.


20,000 troops is not a token. The 5,000 that Obama wanted to leave likely would have been, which is why that demand destroyed the talks.

That is false, although continuing to heavily influence Iraq would have been necessary. Hells bells, ISIL was just about toast when we left. All we would have had to do would have been to maintain hard-won gains (which we instead pissed away).

Here's the thing; we may of had them beaten in Iraqi, but originally this threat didn't come from within Iraq. We've been pretty hesitant to become militarily involved in the Syrian conflict, and in the end have probably indirectly aided ISIS anyways, so it's doubtful we would of launched military operations into Syria to go after them. You basically have the same situation like in Afghanistan, where they can always run across the border to regroup before coming back. And with a Sunni population that was willing to support them, we then would of been caught in the crossfire of another civil war. At the very least, we'd find ourselves in the position of having the back Maliki and the actions he was doing.

As far as annexing Iraq concerns, I think you underestimate just how "heavily" we would need to influence Iraq. For Iraq to finally stabilize, their infrastructure needs to be rebuilt and Iraq isn't up to that task:

* According to a March 2011 report by the UN's Inter-Agency Information and Analysis Unit, one in five Iraqi households use an unsafe source of drinking water, and another 16 per cent report daily supply problems. The situation is even worse in rural areas, where only 43 per cent have access to safe drinking water, and water available for agriculture is usually scarce and of very poor quality. These facts have led more Iraqis than ever to leave rural communities in search of water and work in the cities, further compounding already existing problems there. The UN report states: "Quality of water used for drinking and agriculture is poor, violating Iraq National Standards and WHO guidelines. Leaking sewage pipes and septic tanks contaminate the drinking water network with wastewater. Eighty per cent of households do not treat water before drinking. Furthermore, just 18 per cent of wastewater is treated, with the rest released directly into waterways."

* Street side electricity generators are now a common sight around Iraq's capital city, where the average home receives between four and eight hours of electricity each day. Some areas, such as Sadr City, receive an average of less than five hours a day, with some portions of the area receiving a mere hour to two a day - and sometimes none at all. Many people opt to simply pay private vendors for electricity from the generators, whose owners run lines to their respective clients. Some areas of Baghdad continue to receive one to five hours of electricity a day.

* According to the UNDP, Iraq has a poverty rate of 23 per cent, which means roughly six million Iraqis are plagued by poverty and hunger, despite the recent increase in Iraq's oil exports. Iraq's Ministry of Planning has also announced that the country needed some $6.8bn to reduce the level of poverty in the country.

As long as the above conditions remain, you're going to have unrest throughout the region. And the level of corruption within the Iraqi government is so high, it's doubtful that any meaningful progress will ever happened. If the US was administrating the country, we would be able to ensure that everyone has a seat at the table, but also be able to start to take care of some of these issues. Of course, at this point security is the highest concern, and as we have seen, the Iraqi Army definitely isn't capable of handling that..
 
We wouldn't of been allowed by the GoI to get involved in the places we needed to be. Sure, once ISIS came across the border, then yes, the US might of been able to be involved. (On a sidenote: do you really want our boys out there on the front lines when the iraqi army was in the middle of desertion? To me, that sounds like a recipe for disaster.) But when it came to the treatment of the Sunnis, which is really the problem here, we wouldn't of been able to get involve.




The "that" point I was referring to wasn't now, but back when a SOF would of been signed. But let's say that we do all that you and other propose to assist the Iraqi government. There's nothing to stop them from going back to status quo after the fighting has ceased. You can say we wouldn't allow it, but just how are we going to stop them?



It's different when you are effectively Military governors, which is what we were during the Awakening.



What is ISIS or ISIL hasn't been around but for a couple of years, so the Sunnis didn't help us kick their ass. Now it's probably true that fighters that were purt of the insurgency have since joined in ISIS, still there, different groups and more important, different aims.



Because in this, the religious leaders aren't backing us up. With Japan, we had the advantage of an emperor who was tired of warfare and wanted peace for his people. The people of the middle east, and their religious leaders, are clearly not ready to stop the fighting. The other difference is that we only had to deal with one religion, not different sects, which even more complicates things.



If by deal, you mean accept that Maliki was to be the leader of the GoI, what other choice did they have?



As of yet though, ISIS hasn't attacked the US.




Here's the thing; we may of had them beaten in Iraqi, but originally this threat didn't come from within Iraq. We've been pretty hesitant to become militarily involved in the Syrian conflict, and in the end have probably indirectly aided ISIS anyways, so it's doubtful we would of launched military operations into Syria to go after them. You basically have the same situation like in Afghanistan, where they can always run across the border to regroup before coming back. And with a Sunni population that was willing to support them, we then would of been caught in the crossfire of another civil war. At the very least, we'd find ourselves in the position of having the back Maliki and the actions he was doing.

As far as annexing Iraq concerns, I think you underestimate just how "heavily" we would need to influence Iraq. For Iraq to finally stabilize, their infrastructure needs to be rebuilt and Iraq isn't up to that task:

* According to a March 2011 report by the UN's Inter-Agency Information and Analysis Unit, one in five Iraqi households use an unsafe source of drinking water, and another 16 per cent report daily supply problems. The situation is even worse in rural areas, where only 43 per cent have access to safe drinking water, and water available for agriculture is usually scarce and of very poor quality. These facts have led more Iraqis than ever to leave rural communities in search of water and work in the cities, further compounding already existing problems there. The UN report states: "Quality of water used for drinking and agriculture is poor, violating Iraq National Standards and WHO guidelines. Leaking sewage pipes and septic tanks contaminate the drinking water network with wastewater. Eighty per cent of households do not treat water before drinking. Furthermore, just 18 per cent of wastewater is treated, with the rest released directly into waterways."

* Street side electricity generators are now a common sight around Iraq's capital city, where the average home receives between four and eight hours of electricity each day. Some areas, such as Sadr City, receive an average of less than five hours a day, with some portions of the area receiving a mere hour to two a day - and sometimes none at all. Many people opt to simply pay private vendors for electricity from the generators, whose owners run lines to their respective clients. Some areas of Baghdad continue to receive one to five hours of electricity a day.

* According to the UNDP, Iraq has a poverty rate of 23 per cent, which means roughly six million Iraqis are plagued by poverty and hunger, despite the recent increase in Iraq's oil exports. Iraq's Ministry of Planning has also announced that the country needed some $6.8bn to reduce the level of poverty in the country.

As long as the above conditions remain, you're going to have unrest throughout the region. And the level of corruption within the Iraqi government is so high, it's doubtful that any meaningful progress will ever happened. If the US was administrating the country, we would be able to ensure that everyone has a seat at the table, but also be able to start to take care of some of these issues. Of course, at this point security is the highest concern, and as we have seen, the Iraqi Army definitely isn't capable of handling that..

Looks like Obama is going in. The question is why did he do nothing when he could have to stop ISIS? Now we have to risk more American lives, and many Iraqi's are dead.
 
I skimmed through some posts here, without reading them all. I saw some good points being made about how the ME is an endless conflict zone therefore we shouldn't get involved, and points about broken campaign promises, the failure to secure an agreement to leave behind more security in Iraq, etc. I did not read the entire thread, so pardon me if the points below have already been made.

I believe all that is being said here and elsewhere in favor of not going back there will all become irrelevant in the near future when ISIS becomes a rogue state harboring and training terrorists, and when those terrorists start attacking Western targets. If you guys look up online the email ISIS sent to the parents of the beheaded journalist, you'll see that this is exactly what they intend to do. When the Taliban was acting as a rogue state and harboring Al Qaida in Afghanistan, we had to go in and intervene. A similar situation will very likely develop in Iraq and Syria due to ISIS, and sooner or later we'll have to go there. In this sense, going there sooner before they get too much of a foothold seems to be smart.

Look, one of the failures of the past is the fact that when Al Qaida was already seen as a threat, we did nothing, until 9/11. Then we acted, retroactively. Maybe it's time to act proactively. The downside is that it smells like Bush's neocon doctrine of preemptive strikes, but in the case of this medieval group ISIS, maybe it is justified to go proactively, because there is nothing good that will ever come from them. Their tactics are so savage that it may make sense for the Western world to get organized and eradicate this cancer before it spreads.

By the way, I'm a left-leaning American.
 
If US and West want to go there and wipe ISIS, it's a damn good thing.

If US, keep insisting in those stupid adventures to overthrown governments and leaders, there will be another organization like ISIS with a new brand name.
I'm sure ISIS wouldn't be there if Obama wouldn't hook on overthrowing Assad.
He made the region so weak, he sought for opposition groups, he aided them. There were people from all over the Europe going in Syria for fighting Assad. And the result indeed was ISIS and not fighting Assad.
 
Back
Top Bottom