New Iraq Crisis Vol. Inevitable International Incident

[Trent Reznor]

Then you don't comprehend American history

I'm not getting into a debate about American History. Different time. Different era. Its 2014. People are aware of things and your response has nothing to do with what I said. Typical NT.


To me, those middle east countries constantly in conflict are NOT salvageable. I'm beginning to think we were better off with Sadaam in power over there. At least there was an internal threat that people obeyed.

I'm ALL FOR human rights, but NOT at the expense of our country. Trillions of dollars in debt FOR WHAT??

WHAT?

If the people over there won't rise up against the powers that be over there, why should we?

You bring up American History? Last I checked Americans had a Revolution to rid themselves of tyranny and created a government to benefit Americans.

 

[nom de guerre]

If the US keeps it promise and says we won't go back then were good. Also Cheney needs to shut up he has 0 credibility on this subject.

 

[finnns2003]

Chemical weapons seized? Oh hell no.

 

[nymartin90]

surprised this hasnt been updated anyways the situation has gotten worse. They have officially declared themselves as a Caliphate renamed "The Islamic State" with leader Abu Bakr al' Baghdadi announced as taking the status as Caliph to continue the line of Caliphs which was abolished in 1924 by Ataturk in Turkey while abolishing the Ottoman Empire. 

The goal of ISIS is to create a borderless Middle East as it was under the past Islamic Empires, and completely reverse the results of WWI and European Colonialism. Especially the reversal of the Syke-Picot agreement which split the Middle East between Britain and France. In the past few weeks while taking over several border towns ISIS claims to have destroyed the first border made by that WWI agreement, which was the split of Syria and Iraq. Crazy how in 2014 the effects of WWI is still here with us.

Unbelievable how such a small group has made such large gains and openly taunting every government in the Middle East

Also for laughs

 

[pdino]

Open question: Which conflicts/wars should we engage in? Africa is having war in Sudan, Libya, with 10k+ deaths annually, should we intervene? Korea has threatened to nuke us, and will not disarm, should we intervene? How about this conflict? Russia right now as well..

What is the criteria?

 

[nymartin90]

 

 
Open question: Which conflicts/wars should we engage in? Africa is having war in Sudan, Libya, with 10k+ deaths annually, should we intervene? Korea has threatened to nuke us, and will not disarm, should we intervene? How about this conflict? Russia right now as well..

What is the criteria?

I think going off of Realpolitik, the criteria requires that it would be in our national interests. For example its in our national interests that the Saudis stay in power.

For example with Libya, Gaddafi was planning to raise the gold standard and raise prices on his oil. It was in our interests not only as the "Defenders of Liberty" to support the Libyan rebels through the Arab Spring but ensure they remove Gaddafi at whatever cost to ensure our national interests are preserved. 

This conflict is confusing as Assad is fighting a rebellion in his country for the last two years due to the Arab Spring. We openly support the removal of his government for a new democratic institution, however the rebels he's facing now are Al-Nusra and ISIS (both radicals and affiliated with Al Qaeda). We openly supported arms to the moderate rebels and radical rebels against Assad, however the spillover is now attacking our other national interests in Iraq of stability. The problem is do we continue to support the rebels against Assad (as Obama has asked this week for 500mil more for them which can help ISIS in Iraq) or do we go one sided and openly declare opposition to ISIS in Iraq only (as they serve our interests in Syria getting rid of Assad).

 

[oneilmatt]

Just like Afghanistan and us giving weapons to the Mujahaddin we now are getting into trouble after giving weapons to Syrian rebels.

Either support middle eastern governments against terrorist rebels or stay out altogether.

 

[dman14]

is it too late for anyone to intervene?

 

[mangudai954]

Just like Afghanistan and us giving weapons to the Mujahaddin we now are getting into trouble after giving weapons to Syrian rebels.

Either support middle eastern governments against terrorist rebels or stay out altogether.

What if one of the governments become the terrorists?

 

[useref15]

 

[00david00]

 

 
Open question: Which conflicts/wars should we engage in? Africa is having war in Sudan, Libya, with 10k+ deaths annually, should we intervene? Korea has threatened to nuke us, and will not disarm, should we intervene? How about this conflict? Russia right now as well..

What is the criteria?
 

I think going off of Realpolitik, the criteria requires that it would be in our national interests. For example its in our national interests that the Saudis stay in power.
For example with Libya, Gaddafi was planning to raise the gold standard and raise prices on his oil. It was in our interests not only as the "Defenders of Liberty" to support the Libyan rebels through the Arab Spring but ensure they remove Gaddafi at whatever cost to ensure our national interests are preserved. 

This conflict is confusing as Assad is fighting a rebellion in his country for the last two years due to the Arab Spring. We openly support the removal of his government for a new democratic institution, however the rebels he's facing now are Al-Nusra and ISIS (both radicals and affiliated with Al Qaeda). We openly supported arms to the moderate rebels and radical rebels against Assad, however the spillover is now attacking our other national interests in Iraq of stability. The problem is do we continue to support the rebels against Assad (as Obama has asked this week for 500mil more for them which can help ISIS in Iraq) or do we go one sided and openly declare opposition to ISIS in Iraq only (as they serve our interests in Syria getting rid of Assad).

 

 
Open question: Which conflicts/wars should we engage in? Africa is having war in Sudan, Libya, with 10k+ deaths annually, should we intervene? Korea has threatened to nuke us, and will not disarm, should we intervene? How about this conflict? Russia right now as well..

What is the criteria?
 

I think going off of Realpolitik, the criteria requires that it would be in our national interests. For example its in our national interests that the Saudis stay in power.
For example with Libya, Gaddafi was planning to raise the gold standard and raise prices on his oil. It was in our interests not only as the "Defenders of Liberty" to support the Libyan rebels through the Arab Spring but ensure they remove Gaddafi at whatever cost to ensure our national interests are preserved. 

This conflict is confusing as Assad is fighting a rebellion in his country for the last two years due to the Arab Spring. We openly support the removal of his government for a new democratic institution, however the rebels he's facing now are Al-Nusra and ISIS (both radicals and affiliated with Al Qaeda). We openly supported arms to the moderate rebels and radical rebels against Assad, however the spillover is now attacking our other national interests in Iraq of stability. The problem is do we continue to support the rebels against Assad (as Obama has asked this week for 500mil more for them which can help ISIS in Iraq) or do we go one sided and openly declare opposition to ISIS in Iraq only (as they serve our interests in Syria getting rid of Assad).

that's the craziest part.

it's going to be very interesting to see how this develops

 

[nom de guerre]

welp looks like were going back fellas..

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-iraq-islamic-state-obama-20140807-story.html

smh

 

[rell826]

Intervention is necessary. In addition to just wreaking havoc, ISIS is targeting Christian minorities.

 

[whywesteppin]

Glad we're intervening. This is just ridiculous.

Perhaps one of the few things I could see Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel uniting on...


I hope we've learned our lesson that we need to be unequivocal about supporting secular groups. Democracy is not democracy just because the majority wins; it has to protect minorities and it has to be secular. I realize it quickly gets complicated after that, especially if there is no strong secular force in a country, but it should at least be a basic platform of our foreign policy.

 

[oneilmatt]

I sure hope Obama would get mercilessly attacked about this for the rest of his life like Bush. But he is of course infallible. The "Guy Who Got Us Out of Iraq" could no longer be that

 

[edshoecator]

I sure hope Obama would get mercilessly attacked about this for the rest of his life like Bush. But he is of course infallible. The "Guy Who Got Us Out of Iraq" could no longer be that

Funny how you overlook that Iraq was Bush's doing and not Obamas.

You're a zionist and a racist

 

[zapatohead408]

Then you don't comprehend American history

I'm not getting into a debate about American History. Different time. Different era. Its 2014. People are aware of things and your response has nothing to do with what I said. Typical NT.


To me, those middle east countries constantly in conflict are NOT salvageable. I'm beginning to think we were better off with Sadaam in power over there. At least there was an internal threat that people obeyed.

I'm ALL FOR human rights, but NOT at the expense of our country. Trillions of dollars in debt FOR WHAT??

WHAT?

If the people over there won't rise up against the powers that be over there, why should we?

You bring up American History? Last I checked Americans had a Revolution to rid themselves of tyranny and created a government to benefit Americans.

I sure hope Obama would get mercilessly attacked about this for the rest of his life like Bush. But he is of course infallible. The "Guy Who Got Us Out of Iraq" could no longer be that

Funny how you overlook that Iraq was Bush's doing and not Obamas.

You're a zionist and a racist

but I do get what dude is saying.

Edit: But seriously, what's up with calling someone a racist so quick on here?

 

[edshoecator]

but I do get what dude is saying.

Edit: But seriously, what's up with calling someone a racist so quick on here?

Go to the palestine thread...he thinks all Palestinians are terrorists and feels no remorse for the children and innocent victims being killed.

The condescending way he dismissed Bush's involvement in present day tension just made me some type of way.

Obama inherited the war and the bad economy. Does he have his flaws, yes, 10000%, but dont act like Bush want revenge for his daddy losing the first Gulf War.

 

[AZwildcats]

Makes you wonder if maybe Saddam was necessary after all. Iraq and its many different religious and ethnic groups might need a dictator to function

 

[rare]

These ISIS dudes taking territory like nothing. That post with the map and their declaration No way in hell will these countries allow something like that.

 

[pepperjackchees]

My bad, I came off as insensitive and took some time off to educate myself. I don't mean any disrespect to any religion, because we are all equal. Much love to everyone.

 

[oneilmatt]

What? That post Is entirely too nonsensical. Elaborate.

 

[whywesteppin]

I hate to be that dude, but why is it always people of that religion that are always killing everyone with different beliefs? Why do Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists act infintely more civilized? My parents always taught me never to hate any group of people, but I feel angry/sad that these people are persecuting others under the name of their religion.

"No, ma'am. No, ma'am."

It's a bit of an overgeneralization. Are there many pockets within Islam that are extreme and evil and have no business on this earth? Yes. Are there components of Islam that nurture this extremism? It's controversial but, yes, you could make that argument, but it's not exclusive to just Islam. Are there sociopolitical realties outside of the religion itself that are contributing to this? Of course. Are there extremists in other religions? Yes. Look back at the distant past of many of these so-called peaceful groups. Are there peaceful Muslims? Yes, many.

Point is, I think you need to add some nuance to what you're saying.

Since none of these major religions are going anywhere anytime soon, I think we instead need an unequivocal denouncement of not just extremists in any of these groups but sympathizers and supporters of the extremists. This denouncement needs to come from people who share those religions as much as from anyone else. I don't care if you secretly dream of a global caliphate or hope for war in the Middle East as a harbinger of the rapture or hold a delusional belief that a distantly inherited Y chromosome compels you to go build settlements in someone else's neighborhood. You should be condemned not just by society-at-large but most of all by the leaders and followers of your faith.

edit: to your original point, I do think the destruction of religious minorities in the Middle East and in other regions whether it's Christians subgroups or offshoots of Islam or whatever, is a great tragedy, and I want nothing more than for it to end. I just don't know how that will be achieved though.

 

[AZwildcats]

I hate to be that dude, but why is it always people of that religion that are always killing everyone with different beliefs? Why do Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists act infintely more civilized? My parents always taught me never to hate any group of people, but I feel angry/sad that these people are persecuting others under the name of their religion.

Catholics have killed millions and millions of native Americans and forced them to convert to Catholicism here in the Americas. The Israelis aren't out in Gaza right now continuing a war that has been going on since the country's inception based on religious principals? Hindus haven't been persecuting Muslims in India and vice versa in Pakistan? The Russian govt has been waging war with the Chechnyans and people of Dagistan for years, with religion a big factor. Difference is the media likes to focus on the Muslims though

 

[superblytrife]

Did this dude really just infer that these extremist sects speak for all Muslims worldwide?

C'mon son.

And we're really gonna act like Christians and Jews haven't killed throngs of people over the years, all in the name of religion?