View Poll Results: Should US/UK/NATO forces involve themselves in Iraq

Voters
37. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, but it should be a limited engagement, similar to the involvement in Libya

    7 18.92%
  • Yes, but it necessitates a full blown intervention with boots on the ground

    3 8.11%
  • No, it is not our war to get involved in and we cannot afford it either

    21 56.76%
  • Unsure.

    6 16.22%
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34

Thread: Iraq

  1. #1

    Default Iraq

    If anyone has had a cursory glance at the news this past week. They will have likely spotted that Iraq is in danger of falling to ISIS, a group of Sunni militants. So far they have taken a number of key towns and cities, and have been accused of committing atrocities BBC News - Iraq conflict: Images purport to show 'massacre' by militants. Moreover, Iran has pledged troops to help the beleaguered Iraqi government. The UK and US government are considering getting involved, albeit without ground troops. I would like to know wether you think we should get involved, or simply stand aside, and let those in the region sort it out themselves.

  2. #2

    Default Iraq

    If Obama authorizes a limited air strike campaign against this ISIS, the actual strategic impact is going to be next to nothing. Short of perhaps a few flashy headlines on CNN and some thrilling, ratings boosting war footage, it will solve nothing for the US to drop a few bombs.

    The problem of the ISIS incursion is far, far more complex an issue than the dropping of a few JDAM's can fix. To truly rid Iraq, and the entire region of issues like this, huge problems have to be addressed. Namely :

    1.) The long standing Sunni/Shia division and the violence it causes.
    2.) the rampant corruption and overall ineffectiveness of the government
    3.) the changing loyalties of the tribal leaders (who hold the real power in areas where the government is absent)
    4.) the extent of western support in areas where coalition soldiers are vanishing.

    Of all these issues, only the fourth is something that I can see being addressed in the short term. Leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan are always complaining about the extent of Western involvement in their countries, and constantly claiming to be fighting for their own sovereignty. BUT, as soon as trouble rears its head, and they discover that their own military consists of incompetent disloyal cowards, they come running to us begging for help. Unless they're able to make up their damn minds, I assure you the military will increasingly become hesitant to provide assistance.

    Any decision made in this situation is going to be a case of 'picking the best option from a bunch of lousy ones'

    That being said, I do have friends in the Navy who are excited for the chance to head over their and see their training finally put to use. In the military, the 'why' isn't so much important as the 'how'. Personal misgivings and uncertainty are not part of the military where you expect the people around you to do their jobs, no matter what (yes, Bergdahl, I'm looking at you). So at the end of the day, I'll accept the judgement of my countrymen in what or what not should be done.
    Last edited by Dan09; 16-Jun-2014 at 07:41.

  3. #3

    Default

    Excellent reply by Dan09. Conservatives have wanted to blame some of this on Obama's foreign policy, but P. Obama actually wanted to keep some troops in Iraq, but Maliki said that any American troops who remained would be tried as war criminals. That eliminates boots on the ground. The U. S. military left Maliki with trained generals and officers in charge, and he had many removed and some purged and replaced them with his own personal cronies.

    Maliki steered his government into a Shiite only government, taking away representation from Sunni's. Many of Maliki's own army have defected. The Sunnis have welcomed the ISIS as they are comprised of Sunnis or support Sunnis. The down side is that they have insisted on strict Sharia law.

    All of this is Maliki's making and he deserves little or no support. The problem is that it will further de-stabilize the Middle East. Iran will probably become involved re-enforcing a Shiite majority. Nothing good can come from this unless they all come to the bargaining table and create a more just, democratic government which is what should have happened before our troops left. It's too late now, and I think we should distance ourselves from them if Maliki refuses to negotiate with the Sunnis.

  4. #4

    Default

    The ISIS is after the US built equipment and weapons the Iraqi's have in stock..

    This equipment will be used in Syria in the next few months.

    ISIS Rampages, the Middle East Shakes :: Daniel Pipes

    Someday we are going to have to send air power in to take out this equipment.

    We are also going to have problems in the future with the equipment we are giving Afghanistan.

    my hope is someone will wire all the US equipment given to the Afghan government with GPS tracking units so it will be easy to find and bomb when the time comes.

  5. #5

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by SterlingArcher View Post
    If anyone has had a cursory glance at the news this past week. They will have likely spotted that Iraq is in danger of falling to ISIS, a group of Sunni militants. So far they have taken a number of key towns and cities, and have been accused of committing atrocities BBC News - Iraq conflict: Images purport to show 'massacre' by militants. Moreover, Iran has pledged troops to help the beleaguered Iraqi government. The UK and US government are considering getting involved, albeit without ground troops. I would like to know wether you think we should get involved, or simply stand aside, and let those in the region sort it out themselves.
    I think that we should contact ODIN.

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by AEsahaettr View Post
    I think that we should contact ODIN.
    Ah, but ODIN are douches. They have nice offices though.

  7. #7

    Default

    I wonder how the Iraqi people would vote?

    It's one thing to liberate a nation, it's another to subjugate.

    He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. -Thomas Paine

  8. #8

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by ilostthesheriff View Post
    I wonder how the Iraqi people would vote?

    It's one thing to liberate a nation, it's another to subjugate.

    He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. -Thomas Paine
    I not sure they'd enjoy being slaughtered.

  9. #9

    Default

    I think the better question is: do they know HOW to vote?
    I can't find the source right now, but there's an anecdote from a journalist visiting Moscow shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union and talking with a cab-driver. Essentially, the cab-driver said, "This democracy thing will be great; just as soon as we get someone at the top who knows how to make it work."

  10. #10

    Default

    I understand the stability and other issues that can effect our situation in this country, however we have been there, done that and they are right back to the same point. I think it is time to just step back and let the chips fall where they will. We are going to wind up going back there eventually, but for now step back, keep a close eye on the situation, and get ready for when we do have to go into the region with a CLEAR mission and not just keep throwing money at the fire to keep it smoldering.

Similar Threads

  1. Thoughts on Iraq and Afghanistan
    By KuwabaraKuwabara in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 13-Jul-2012, 20:09

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.