NYT: Obama Weighs Military Strikes To Aid Trapped Iraqis.

  • 94 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Master_Live (14845 posts) -

From the article:

"President Obama is considering airstrikes or airdrops of food and medicine to address a humanitarian crisis among as many as 40,000 religious minorities in Iraq who have been dying of heat and thirst on a mountaintop after death threats from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, administration officials said on Thursday."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/world/middleeast/obama-weighs-military-strikes-to-aid-trapped-iraqis-officials-say.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First some advisors, now maybe some airstrikes. It feels a little Vietnamish.

#2 Posted by SaudiFury (8707 posts) -

Those people need help, and ISIS is a fighting force that will most certainly wipe them out, especially the Yazidis.

#3 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

Time to arm the kurds, and time to stop pretending that Iraq is still a country

#4 Edited by themajormayor (25853 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

Time to arm the kurds, and time to stop pretending that Iraq is still a country

#5 Posted by BossPerson (9475 posts) -

Obama has considered many things during his time in office. This will be another to add to the list.

#6 Posted by BossPerson (9475 posts) -

There's something about Americans shitting where they please and telling others to clean the mess that just amuses me.

#7 Posted by Serraph105 (28159 posts) -

So what you (and the article) are talking about seems to be two different things, food/medicine drops for threatened Iraqis which was already approved. I don't know who would be against that to be honest.

The other thing in the article is possible airstrikes against the ISIS groups to keep certain cities from falling too far under their influence. Airstrikes have happened in or near towns in Northern Iraq according to Kurdish officials while America denies it was the US who did it. This is despite the fact that Obama has considered doing so which does possibly implicate that he ordered the airstrikes.

You're threads are usually more clear than this TC.

#8 Posted by airshocker (29904 posts) -

Pfff, who doesn't want an Islamic caliphate? Come on guys, get with the times.

#9 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7807 posts) -

I too long for the day when the US stops meddling in the middle east. Finally the Muslims will be able to live among themselves in peace like they have for over 1300 years.

#10 Posted by airshocker (29904 posts) -

Airstrikes are happening.

Seems a little hypocritical to me, though. Well, we'll bomb the shit out of people that are about to wipe you out, but more than that? NOPE!

If our goal is to actually help people, which our military is entirely capable of doing, then lets just fucking do it and stop beating around the bush.

#11 Posted by Serraph105 (28159 posts) -
@airshocker said:

Airstrikes are happening.

Seems a little hypocritical to me, though. Well, we'll bomb the shit out of people that are about to wipe you out, but more than that? NOPE!

If our goal is to actually help people, which our military is entirely capable of doing, then lets just fucking do it and stop beating around the bush.

I have to wonder if there would ever be a point where we could pull out and the work the military put in wouldn't be immediately undone. I'm not saying that you are wrong about having the capability to help while we are over there by the way. It just feels like to keep the middle east in a state that we approve of would require becoming part of the eternal fabric that holds the place together.

#12 Edited by Xeno_ghost (683 posts) -

@HoolaHoopMan: "I too long for the day when the US stops meddling in the middle east. Finally the Muslims will be able to live among themselves in peace like they have for over 1300 years"

Lol agreed.

#13 Posted by airshocker (29904 posts) -

@Serraph105 said:
@airshocker said:

Airstrikes are happening.

Seems a little hypocritical to me, though. Well, we'll bomb the shit out of people that are about to wipe you out, but more than that? NOPE!

If our goal is to actually help people, which our military is entirely capable of doing, then lets just fucking do it and stop beating around the bush.

I have to wonder if there would ever be a point where we could pull out and the work the military put in wouldn't be immediately undone. I'm not saying that you are wrong about having the capability to help while we are over there by the way. It just feels like to keep the middle east in a state that we approve of would require becoming part of the eternal fabric that holds the place together.

Maybe the world needs to pull together and make that happen. I think we need to stop with the mentality that every facet of someone's culture is sacrosanct. Some parts of some cultures, I feel, need to be eradicated for the good of mankind.

#14 Edited by comp_atkins (31476 posts) -

can we unhang saddam already? that motherfucker wouldn't stand for this shit.

#15 Posted by xdude85 (4430 posts) -

Just let them kill each other, I'm sick of this Middle East shit.

#16 Posted by Serraph105 (28159 posts) -

@airshocker: *shrugs*" I'd actually be okay with that. I'd like to see the world pull together and agree on accomplishing just about anything if it's in the name of making people's lives better.

#17 Posted by Xeno_ghost (683 posts) -

US need to stay in the Middle East and create real lasting stability rather than just dipping in and out or just leave them to it.

#18 Posted by sauronthehun (187 posts) -

@comp_atkins said:

can we unhang saddam already? that motherfucker wouldn't stand for this shit.

Saddam would just respond by slaughtering more people. Iraq doesn't need another genocidal maniac.

#19 Posted by BossPerson (9475 posts) -

we should kill every one in the middle east with a beard.

world peace achieved.

#20 Posted by BossPerson (9475 posts) -

the problem with beards is that anyone who is willing to look that hideous is either insane or must sincerely believe in a higher purpose for him.

#21 Edited by Shottayouth13- (6807 posts) -

@BossPerson said:

the problem with beards is that anyone who is willing to look that hideous is either insane or must sincerely believe in a higher purpose for him.

You're just hating because you can't grow an epic beard.

#22 Edited by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -
@Shottayouth13- said:

@BossPerson said:

the problem with beards is that anyone who is willing to look that hideous is either insane or must sincerely believe in a higher purpose for him.

You're just hating because you can't grow an epic beard.

That is why I hate

#23 Posted by BossPerson (9475 posts) -

even if i could grow a beard (im 21 and its still filling in) i would enjoy murdering it every morning. fuck beards.

#24 Posted by Master_Live (14845 posts) -

@BossPerson said:

we should kill every one in the middle east with a beard.

world peace achieved.

Why just beards. Lets kill 'em all.

#25 Posted by sSubZerOo (43216 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@Serraph105 said:
@airshocker said:

Airstrikes are happening.

Seems a little hypocritical to me, though. Well, we'll bomb the shit out of people that are about to wipe you out, but more than that? NOPE!

If our goal is to actually help people, which our military is entirely capable of doing, then lets just fucking do it and stop beating around the bush.

I have to wonder if there would ever be a point where we could pull out and the work the military put in wouldn't be immediately undone. I'm not saying that you are wrong about having the capability to help while we are over there by the way. It just feels like to keep the middle east in a state that we approve of would require becoming part of the eternal fabric that holds the place together.

Maybe the world needs to pull together and make that happen. I think we need to stop with the mentality that every facet of someone's culture is sacrosanct. Some parts of some cultures, I feel, need to be eradicated for the good of mankind.

Who decides what is good or not? We had this idea in the Cold War in which the United States and Great Britain basically systematically eliminated/weakened/supported the opposition to the secular labor movements/intellectual movement going on during that time within the region because they were deemed as possible communist threats.. This led to the strengthening of the many groups we see now, religious zealots, dictators etc etc.. Call me a skeptic when I hear such claims, because the majority of the policies by the West within the Middle East has little to nothing to do with the "good of mankind"..

#26 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@sSubZerOo said:

@airshocker said:

@Serraph105 said:
@airshocker said:

Airstrikes are happening.

Seems a little hypocritical to me, though. Well, we'll bomb the shit out of people that are about to wipe you out, but more than that? NOPE!

If our goal is to actually help people, which our military is entirely capable of doing, then lets just fucking do it and stop beating around the bush.

I have to wonder if there would ever be a point where we could pull out and the work the military put in wouldn't be immediately undone. I'm not saying that you are wrong about having the capability to help while we are over there by the way. It just feels like to keep the middle east in a state that we approve of would require becoming part of the eternal fabric that holds the place together.

Maybe the world needs to pull together and make that happen. I think we need to stop with the mentality that every facet of someone's culture is sacrosanct. Some parts of some cultures, I feel, need to be eradicated for the good of mankind.

Who decides what is good or not? We had this idea in the Cold War in which the United States and Great Britain basically systematically eliminated/weakened/supported the opposition to the secular labor movements/intellectual movement going on during that time within the region because they were deemed as possible communist threats.. This led to the strengthening of the many groups we see now, religious zealots, dictators etc etc.. Call me a skeptic when I hear such claims, because the majority of the policies by the West within the Middle East has little to nothing to do with the "good of mankind"..

All true, but in this particular instance there are plenty of convenient coincidences. ISIS is really bad, by any metric. The Kurds are a predominately secular people who are pretty progressive, especially when compared to neighboring societies.

But still realpolitik will ultimately rule the day, while we're going to be fighting ISIS on this front, what the Obama administration isn't going to admit is that we're supporting ISIS on other fronts - at least complicity as we watch our Saudi friends fund them directly. There's been a broader regional cold war going on between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and the Saudis have been playing a very dangerous game in their proxy war against the Iranians by funding these people.

#27 Posted by Jacanuk (4742 posts) -

@HoolaHoopMan said:

I too long for the day when the US stops meddling in the middle east. Finally the Muslims will be able to live among themselves in peace like they have for over 1300 years.

There is a time and a place to be sarcastic but this is not one of them.

#28 Posted by Jacanuk (4742 posts) -

@airshocker said:

Airstrikes are happening.

Seems a little hypocritical to me, though. Well, we'll bomb the shit out of people that are about to wipe you out, but more than that? NOPE!

If our goal is to actually help people, which our military is entirely capable of doing, then lets just fucking do it and stop beating around the bush.

I dont think you see just how big a problem this actually is. ISIS is the same group that many in america and europe wants to send weapons to fight Assad in syria, so any real military action against them would weaken them even more in Syria. But at the same time no one cant stand by while ISIS conquers a big part of Iraq because opposed to Syria, Iraq doesn't actually have a very good standing army.

So bombing is pretty much the only option.

#29 Posted by BossPerson (9475 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@airshocker said:

Airstrikes are happening.

Seems a little hypocritical to me, though. Well, we'll bomb the shit out of people that are about to wipe you out, but more than that? NOPE!

If our goal is to actually help people, which our military is entirely capable of doing, then lets just fucking do it and stop beating around the bush.

I dont think you see just how big a problem this actually is. ISIS is the same group that many in america and europe wants to send weapons to fight Assad in syria, so any real military action against them would weaken them even more in Syria. But at the same time no one cant stand by while ISIS conquers a big part of Iraq because opposed to Syria, Iraq doesn't actually have a very good standing army.

So bombing is pretty much the only option.

isis is NOT the group that many in the west want to fight assad

#30 Edited by BossPerson (9475 posts) -

@sSubZerOo said:

@airshocker said:

@Serraph105 said:
@airshocker said:

Airstrikes are happening.

Seems a little hypocritical to me, though. Well, we'll bomb the shit out of people that are about to wipe you out, but more than that? NOPE!

If our goal is to actually help people, which our military is entirely capable of doing, then lets just fucking do it and stop beating around the bush.

I have to wonder if there would ever be a point where we could pull out and the work the military put in wouldn't be immediately undone. I'm not saying that you are wrong about having the capability to help while we are over there by the way. It just feels like to keep the middle east in a state that we approve of would require becoming part of the eternal fabric that holds the place together.

Maybe the world needs to pull together and make that happen. I think we need to stop with the mentality that every facet of someone's culture is sacrosanct. Some parts of some cultures, I feel, need to be eradicated for the good of mankind.

Who decides what is good or not? We had this idea in the Cold War in which the United States and Great Britain basically systematically eliminated/weakened/supported the opposition to the secular labor movements/intellectual movement going on during that time within the region because they were deemed as possible communist threats.. This led to the strengthening of the many groups we see now, religious zealots, dictators etc etc.. Call me a skeptic when I hear such claims, because the majority of the policies by the West within the Middle East has little to nothing to do with the "good of mankind"..

http://www.amazon.ca/Containing-Arab-Nationalism-Eisenhower-Doctrine/dp/0807855081

#31 Edited by airshocker (29904 posts) -

@sSubZerOo said:

@airshocker said:

@Serraph105 said:
@airshocker said:

Airstrikes are happening.

Seems a little hypocritical to me, though. Well, we'll bomb the shit out of people that are about to wipe you out, but more than that? NOPE!

If our goal is to actually help people, which our military is entirely capable of doing, then lets just fucking do it and stop beating around the bush.

I have to wonder if there would ever be a point where we could pull out and the work the military put in wouldn't be immediately undone. I'm not saying that you are wrong about having the capability to help while we are over there by the way. It just feels like to keep the middle east in a state that we approve of would require becoming part of the eternal fabric that holds the place together.

Maybe the world needs to pull together and make that happen. I think we need to stop with the mentality that every facet of someone's culture is sacrosanct. Some parts of some cultures, I feel, need to be eradicated for the good of mankind.

Who decides what is good or not? We had this idea in the Cold War in which the United States and Great Britain basically systematically eliminated/weakened/supported the opposition to the secular labor movements/intellectual movement going on during that time within the region because they were deemed as possible communist threats.. This led to the strengthening of the many groups we see now, religious zealots, dictators etc etc.. Call me a skeptic when I hear such claims, because the majority of the policies by the West within the Middle East has little to nothing to do with the "good of mankind"..

We do. Unless you believe the Middle East is capable of getting out of their imposed dark age.

#32 Posted by airshocker (29904 posts) -
@Jacanuk said:

@airshocker said:

Airstrikes are happening.

Seems a little hypocritical to me, though. Well, we'll bomb the shit out of people that are about to wipe you out, but more than that? NOPE!

If our goal is to actually help people, which our military is entirely capable of doing, then lets just fucking do it and stop beating around the bush.

I dont think you see just how big a problem this actually is. ISIS is the same group that many in america and europe wants to send weapons to fight Assad in syria, so any real military action against them would weaken them even more in Syria. But at the same time no one cant stand by while ISIS conquers a big part of Iraq because opposed to Syria, Iraq doesn't actually have a very good standing army.

So bombing is pretty much the only option.


Bombing isn't the only option.

#33 Posted by sibu_xgamer (339 posts) -

ISIS needs to be stopped but I find it ironic that the US always ends up fighting the ones they supported, fighting against the same weapons they gave others. Like with Saddam, Bin Laden and now the Syrian rebels. Not to mention that Iraq was much safer under Saddam than what it became after the US decided it needed to get bombed. It seems the US are always busy cleaning up their crap, maybe they should stay out this time and let other arab countries deal with it.

#34 Posted by sibu_xgamer (339 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@sSubZerOo said:

@airshocker said:

@Serraph105 said:
@airshocker said:

Airstrikes are happening.

Seems a little hypocritical to me, though. Well, we'll bomb the shit out of people that are about to wipe you out, but more than that? NOPE!

If our goal is to actually help people, which our military is entirely capable of doing, then lets just fucking do it and stop beating around the bush.

I have to wonder if there would ever be a point where we could pull out and the work the military put in wouldn't be immediately undone. I'm not saying that you are wrong about having the capability to help while we are over there by the way. It just feels like to keep the middle east in a state that we approve of would require becoming part of the eternal fabric that holds the place together.

Maybe the world needs to pull together and make that happen. I think we need to stop with the mentality that every facet of someone's culture is sacrosanct. Some parts of some cultures, I feel, need to be eradicated for the good of mankind.

Who decides what is good or not? We had this idea in the Cold War in which the United States and Great Britain basically systematically eliminated/weakened/supported the opposition to the secular labor movements/intellectual movement going on during that time within the region because they were deemed as possible communist threats.. This led to the strengthening of the many groups we see now, religious zealots, dictators etc etc.. Call me a skeptic when I hear such claims, because the majority of the policies by the West within the Middle East has little to nothing to do with the "good of mankind"..

We do. Unless you believe the Middle East is capable of getting out of their imposed dark age.

It seems that the US/UK/France (the west in general) actions throughout history have buried them deeper on the dark ages so what difference does it make? Is not like the US seems to have any clue as to what they are doing, a few months ago they were providing arms to these groups.

#35 Posted by airshocker (29904 posts) -

@sibu_xgamer said:

@airshocker said:

@sSubZerOo said:

@airshocker said:

@Serraph105 said:
@airshocker said:

Airstrikes are happening.

Seems a little hypocritical to me, though. Well, we'll bomb the shit out of people that are about to wipe you out, but more than that? NOPE!

If our goal is to actually help people, which our military is entirely capable of doing, then lets just fucking do it and stop beating around the bush.

I have to wonder if there would ever be a point where we could pull out and the work the military put in wouldn't be immediately undone. I'm not saying that you are wrong about having the capability to help while we are over there by the way. It just feels like to keep the middle east in a state that we approve of would require becoming part of the eternal fabric that holds the place together.

Maybe the world needs to pull together and make that happen. I think we need to stop with the mentality that every facet of someone's culture is sacrosanct. Some parts of some cultures, I feel, need to be eradicated for the good of mankind.

Who decides what is good or not? We had this idea in the Cold War in which the United States and Great Britain basically systematically eliminated/weakened/supported the opposition to the secular labor movements/intellectual movement going on during that time within the region because they were deemed as possible communist threats.. This led to the strengthening of the many groups we see now, religious zealots, dictators etc etc.. Call me a skeptic when I hear such claims, because the majority of the policies by the West within the Middle East has little to nothing to do with the "good of mankind"..

We do. Unless you believe the Middle East is capable of getting out of their imposed dark age.

It seems that the US/UK/France (the west in general) actions throughout history have buried them deeper on the dark ages so what difference does it make? Is not like the US seems to have any clue as to what they are doing, a few months ago they were providing arms to these groups.

Actually, the edicts of your holy book have done more than we ever could to that effect.

#36 Posted by airshocker (29904 posts) -
@sibu_xgamer said:

ISIS needs to be stopped but I find it ironic that the US always ends up fighting the ones they supported, fighting against the same weapons they gave others. Like with Saddam, Bin Laden and now the Syrian rebels. Not to mention that Iraq was much safer under Saddam than what it became after the US decided it needed to get bombed. It seems the US are always busy cleaning up their crap, maybe they should stay out this time and let other arab countries deal with it.

Right, because the Arab countries really seem to give a shit if genocide occurs.

#37 Edited by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@sibu_xgamer said:

let other arab countries deal with it.

lol

No thank you

#38 Posted by sibu_xgamer (339 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@sibu_xgamer said:

@airshocker said:

@sSubZerOo said:

@airshocker said:

@Serraph105 said:
@airshocker said:

Airstrikes are happening.

Seems a little hypocritical to me, though. Well, we'll bomb the shit out of people that are about to wipe you out, but more than that? NOPE!

If our goal is to actually help people, which our military is entirely capable of doing, then lets just fucking do it and stop beating around the bush.

I have to wonder if there would ever be a point where we could pull out and the work the military put in wouldn't be immediately undone. I'm not saying that you are wrong about having the capability to help while we are over there by the way. It just feels like to keep the middle east in a state that we approve of would require becoming part of the eternal fabric that holds the place together.

Maybe the world needs to pull together and make that happen. I think we need to stop with the mentality that every facet of someone's culture is sacrosanct. Some parts of some cultures, I feel, need to be eradicated for the good of mankind.

Who decides what is good or not? We had this idea in the Cold War in which the United States and Great Britain basically systematically eliminated/weakened/supported the opposition to the secular labor movements/intellectual movement going on during that time within the region because they were deemed as possible communist threats.. This led to the strengthening of the many groups we see now, religious zealots, dictators etc etc.. Call me a skeptic when I hear such claims, because the majority of the policies by the West within the Middle East has little to nothing to do with the "good of mankind"..

We do. Unless you believe the Middle East is capable of getting out of their imposed dark age.

It seems that the US/UK/France (the west in general) actions throughout history have buried them deeper on the dark ages so what difference does it make? Is not like the US seems to have any clue as to what they are doing, a few months ago they were providing arms to these groups.

Actually, the edicts of your holy book have done more than we ever could to that effect.

I don't have a holy book but I'm really enjoying Hunter S. Thompson's Hell's Angels currently, those motorcycling guys were bad but I'm afraid practicing gonzo journalism with ISIS wouldn't end up so well.

#39 Posted by airshocker (29904 posts) -
@sibu_xgamer said:

I don't have a holy book but I'm really enjoying Hunter S. Thompson's Hell's Angels currently, those motorcycling guys were bad but I'm afraid practicing gonzo journalism with ISIS wouldn't end up so well.

Funny, but you know what I meant.

#40 Posted by sibu_xgamer (339 posts) -

@airshocker said:
@sibu_xgamer said:

ISIS needs to be stopped but I find it ironic that the US always ends up fighting the ones they supported, fighting against the same weapons they gave others. Like with Saddam, Bin Laden and now the Syrian rebels. Not to mention that Iraq was much safer under Saddam than what it became after the US decided it needed to get bombed. It seems the US are always busy cleaning up their crap, maybe they should stay out this time and let other arab countries deal with it.

Right, because the Arab countries really seem to give a shit if genocide occurs.

The avoidance of intervening in multiple African slaughters makes it clear that the west doesn't really give a shit about genocides either. The interests are clearly elsewhere, so again, what difference does it make? The US is clearly not making anything better with all their self-righteous actions.

#41 Posted by airshocker (29904 posts) -

@sibu_xgamer said:

@airshocker said:
@sibu_xgamer said:

ISIS needs to be stopped but I find it ironic that the US always ends up fighting the ones they supported, fighting against the same weapons they gave others. Like with Saddam, Bin Laden and now the Syrian rebels. Not to mention that Iraq was much safer under Saddam than what it became after the US decided it needed to get bombed. It seems the US are always busy cleaning up their crap, maybe they should stay out this time and let other arab countries deal with it.

Right, because the Arab countries really seem to give a shit if genocide occurs.

The avoidance of intervening in multiple African slaughters makes it clear that the west doesn't really give a shit about genocides either. The interests are clearly elsewhere, so again, what difference does it make? The US is clearly not making anything better with all their self-righteous actions.

No, it makes it clear that the governments of the west don't really give a shit. I'm not a government. I give a shit. Focus on me and less on the US government. If it was up to me we'd be in every third-world country, along with our partners across the world. I believe human life is worth spending money to save. And we should be using our military to do that.

Finally, things were much better when the US military was in Iraq.

#42 Edited by sibu_xgamer (339 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@sibu_xgamer said:

@airshocker said:
@sibu_xgamer said:

ISIS needs to be stopped but I find it ironic that the US always ends up fighting the ones they supported, fighting against the same weapons they gave others. Like with Saddam, Bin Laden and now the Syrian rebels. Not to mention that Iraq was much safer under Saddam than what it became after the US decided it needed to get bombed. It seems the US are always busy cleaning up their crap, maybe they should stay out this time and let other arab countries deal with it.

Right, because the Arab countries really seem to give a shit if genocide occurs.

The avoidance of intervening in multiple African slaughters makes it clear that the west doesn't really give a shit about genocides either. The interests are clearly elsewhere, so again, what difference does it make? The US is clearly not making anything better with all their self-righteous actions.

No, it makes it clear that the governments of the west don't really give a shit. I'm not a government. I give a shit. Focus on me and less on the US government. If it was up to me we'd be in every third-world country, along with our partners across the world. I believe human life is worth spending money to save. And we should be using our military to do that.

Finally, things were much better when the US military was in Iraq.

How can I focus on you? you're not your government and in the end your government is the one calling the shots and doing the crap they do. So even if you personally have good intentions I can't support your government's actions based on your good intentions. If your government's actions reflected your intentions I wouldn't have any problem but sadly they rarely do.

#43 Posted by airshocker (29904 posts) -

@sibu_xgamer said:

@airshocker said:

@sibu_xgamer said:

@airshocker said:
@sibu_xgamer said:

ISIS needs to be stopped but I find it ironic that the US always ends up fighting the ones they supported, fighting against the same weapons they gave others. Like with Saddam, Bin Laden and now the Syrian rebels. Not to mention that Iraq was much safer under Saddam than what it became after the US decided it needed to get bombed. It seems the US are always busy cleaning up their crap, maybe they should stay out this time and let other arab countries deal with it.

Right, because the Arab countries really seem to give a shit if genocide occurs.

The avoidance of intervening in multiple African slaughters makes it clear that the west doesn't really give a shit about genocides either. The interests are clearly elsewhere, so again, what difference does it make? The US is clearly not making anything better with all their self-righteous actions.

No, it makes it clear that the governments of the west don't really give a shit. I'm not a government. I give a shit. Focus on me and less on the US government. If it was up to me we'd be in every third-world country, along with our partners across the world. I believe human life is worth spending money to save. And we should be using our military to do that.

Finally, things were much better when the US military was in Iraq.

How can I focus on you? you're not your government and in the end your government is the one calling the shots and doing the crap they do. So even if you personally have good intentions I can't support your government's actions based on your good intentions. If your government's actions reflected your intentions I wouldn't have any problem but sadly they rarely do.

Because me and you are having a discussion, not you and the government. That's not the point though. My intentions matter, not what the West has fucked up with in the past.

#44 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@sibu_xgamer said:

@airshocker said:
@sibu_xgamer said:

ISIS needs to be stopped but I find it ironic that the US always ends up fighting the ones they supported, fighting against the same weapons they gave others. Like with Saddam, Bin Laden and now the Syrian rebels. Not to mention that Iraq was much safer under Saddam than what it became after the US decided it needed to get bombed. It seems the US are always busy cleaning up their crap, maybe they should stay out this time and let other arab countries deal with it.

Right, because the Arab countries really seem to give a shit if genocide occurs.

The avoidance of intervening in multiple African slaughters makes it clear that the west doesn't really give a shit about genocides either. The interests are clearly elsewhere, so again, what difference does it make? The US is clearly not making anything better with all their self-righteous actions.

Of course the US doesn't really care about genocides, so what? So what that they have ulterior motives? Never, in the history of humanity, has anyone ever done anything purely for altruistic reasons. There's a clear difference between action and inaction for the Kurds, the Yezidis and other minorities in the region.

The sober reality is that it is logistically impossible for the US to stop every genocide in the world. Because of that there's going to have to be some metric used for justifying US involvement - the metric used is how important the region is strategically to the US. Do you have a better standard?

#45 Posted by sibu_xgamer (339 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@sibu_xgamer said:

@airshocker said:

@sibu_xgamer said:

@airshocker said:
@sibu_xgamer said:

ISIS needs to be stopped but I find it ironic that the US always ends up fighting the ones they supported, fighting against the same weapons they gave others. Like with Saddam, Bin Laden and now the Syrian rebels. Not to mention that Iraq was much safer under Saddam than what it became after the US decided it needed to get bombed. It seems the US are always busy cleaning up their crap, maybe they should stay out this time and let other arab countries deal with it.

Right, because the Arab countries really seem to give a shit if genocide occurs.

The avoidance of intervening in multiple African slaughters makes it clear that the west doesn't really give a shit about genocides either. The interests are clearly elsewhere, so again, what difference does it make? The US is clearly not making anything better with all their self-righteous actions.

No, it makes it clear that the governments of the west don't really give a shit. I'm not a government. I give a shit. Focus on me and less on the US government. If it was up to me we'd be in every third-world country, along with our partners across the world. I believe human life is worth spending money to save. And we should be using our military to do that.

Finally, things were much better when the US military was in Iraq.

How can I focus on you? you're not your government and in the end your government is the one calling the shots and doing the crap they do. So even if you personally have good intentions I can't support your government's actions based on your good intentions. If your government's actions reflected your intentions I wouldn't have any problem but sadly they rarely do.

Because me and you are having a discussion, not you and the government. That's not the point though. My intentions matter, not what the West has fucked up with in the past.

Well I disagree, your intentions matter little when we are talking about western inteventions in the middle east. In that context the actions and reactions of governments and political groups matter much more.

#46 Edited by airshocker (29904 posts) -

@sibu_xgamer said:

Well I disagree, your intentions matter little when we are talking about western inteventions in the middle east. In that context the actions and reactions of governments and political groups matter much more.

Then you're not actually here to have an honest discussion.

With that said, I'll just sit back and enjoy watching Sun_Tzu rip you apart.

#47 Posted by sibu_xgamer (339 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

Never, in the history of humanity, has anyone ever done anything purely for altruistic reasons.

I'm not so sure about that but ok, this is no place for this discussion.

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

Of course the US doesn't really care about genocides, so what? So what that they have ulterior motives? Never, in the history of humanity, has anyone ever done anything purely for altruistic reasons. There's a clear difference between action and inaction for the Kurds, the Yezidis and other minorities in the region.

The sober reality is that it is logistically impossible for the US to stop every genocide in the world. Because of that there's going to have to be some metric used for justifying US involvement - the metric used is how important the region is strategically to the US. Do you have a better standard?

A better standard for me would be that the US doesn't get involved. Is not just that I think the US is incapable of dealing with any genocide around the world which is obvious, is also that I think that the US involvement based on whatever selfish reasons they have, have helped produce more genocides and problems that if they wouldn't get involved. So I find it pretty hard to support any US intervention right now even if it seems well intentioned.

#48 Edited by sibu_xgamer (339 posts) -

@airshocker said:

Then you're not actually here to have an honest discussion.

WTF? lol I don't understand how you reached that conclusion, it's pretty deluded but ok, do whatever you want.

#49 Edited by sSubZerOo (43216 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@sibu_xgamer said:

@airshocker said:

@sSubZerOo said:

@airshocker said:

@Serraph105 said:
@airshocker said:

Airstrikes are happening.

Seems a little hypocritical to me, though. Well, we'll bomb the shit out of people that are about to wipe you out, but more than that? NOPE!

If our goal is to actually help people, which our military is entirely capable of doing, then lets just fucking do it and stop beating around the bush.

I have to wonder if there would ever be a point where we could pull out and the work the military put in wouldn't be immediately undone. I'm not saying that you are wrong about having the capability to help while we are over there by the way. It just feels like to keep the middle east in a state that we approve of would require becoming part of the eternal fabric that holds the place together.

Maybe the world needs to pull together and make that happen. I think we need to stop with the mentality that every facet of someone's culture is sacrosanct. Some parts of some cultures, I feel, need to be eradicated for the good of mankind.

Who decides what is good or not? We had this idea in the Cold War in which the United States and Great Britain basically systematically eliminated/weakened/supported the opposition to the secular labor movements/intellectual movement going on during that time within the region because they were deemed as possible communist threats.. This led to the strengthening of the many groups we see now, religious zealots, dictators etc etc.. Call me a skeptic when I hear such claims, because the majority of the policies by the West within the Middle East has little to nothing to do with the "good of mankind"..

We do. Unless you believe the Middle East is capable of getting out of their imposed dark age.

It seems that the US/UK/France (the west in general) actions throughout history have buried them deeper on the dark ages so what difference does it make? Is not like the US seems to have any clue as to what they are doing, a few months ago they were providing arms to these groups.

Actually, the edicts of your holy book have done more than we ever could to that effect.

This is just wrong.. Iran is a prime example of this.. Mossadegh a secular leader that wanted to nationalize Iranian oil was overthrown by MI6 and CIA for being a "communist" threat.. IN which they then installed the brutal and corrupt dictator the Shah.. Outside of torturing people who eliminated or exiled the majority of the opposition, most particular labor and intellectual groups.. The one group he exiled but didn't fully get rid of were the Muslim power base groups, which bit him in the ass during 1979... And been in charge ever sense..

Then lets not forget the end of World War 1 led to the Ottoman Empire breaking into pieces in which Great Britain and France pretty much took direct control of parts or put corrupt puppet governments in place.. Same deal with Saudi Arabian chiefs which made a deal with Great Britain if they helped they would be allowed to take over Saudi Arabia.. To claim the west has not had a fundamental impact on the region in the past 100 years is just plain ignorance.. This isn't excusing the actions of the religious zealots, only pointing out this is basically the EXACT same reasoning the US and West used during the past 100 years in the region.. With many of these groups taking power directly or indirectly due to western policy.. In 1980s the US sure loved Saddam for instance.. That sure panned out well.

#50 Posted by sSubZerOo (43216 posts) -

@BossPerson said:

@sSubZerOo said:

@airshocker said:

@Serraph105 said:
@airshocker said:

Airstrikes are happening.

Seems a little hypocritical to me, though. Well, we'll bomb the shit out of people that are about to wipe you out, but more than that? NOPE!

If our goal is to actually help people, which our military is entirely capable of doing, then lets just fucking do it and stop beating around the bush.

I have to wonder if there would ever be a point where we could pull out and the work the military put in wouldn't be immediately undone. I'm not saying that you are wrong about having the capability to help while we are over there by the way. It just feels like to keep the middle east in a state that we approve of would require becoming part of the eternal fabric that holds the place together.

Maybe the world needs to pull together and make that happen. I think we need to stop with the mentality that every facet of someone's culture is sacrosanct. Some parts of some cultures, I feel, need to be eradicated for the good of mankind.

Who decides what is good or not? We had this idea in the Cold War in which the United States and Great Britain basically systematically eliminated/weakened/supported the opposition to the secular labor movements/intellectual movement going on during that time within the region because they were deemed as possible communist threats.. This led to the strengthening of the many groups we see now, religious zealots, dictators etc etc.. Call me a skeptic when I hear such claims, because the majority of the policies by the West within the Middle East has little to nothing to do with the "good of mankind"..

http://www.amazon.ca/Containing-Arab-Nationalism-Eisenhower-Doctrine/dp/0807855081

Yes it was Arab nationalism during the 50s with Egypt at the lead.. This was when Great Britain was basically abandoning the region due to their waning power.. But a few decades later the US were supporting nationalist groups and rubbing shoulders with people like Saddam because they were a counter balance and hostile towards USSR influence..