NYT: Obama Weighs Military Strikes To Aid Trapped Iraqis.

I would have thought you would have found the cost of that to be unacceptable.

I like how you completely brushed over the effect an extremely violent and repressive religious text has had on the culture in that area.

If the US alone does it the cost is unacceptable. If other countries share the financial burden, not so much. I think of it as an investment.

I'll say hi to you guys when I'm there next year.

I am pretty sure you don't really care much if arabs or other middle easterners are getting killed.

lol

I can almost guarantee you that if starting tomorrow the US isolated itself, not only would the world not be better off - I'd argue that things would take a sharp turn for the worse. Just because the US does nothing doesn't mean that nothing happens.

What you are proposing is morally bankrupt. Simply because the US can't save everyone doesn't mean that we shouldn't save anyone. The Yazidi shouldn't be wiped out just because no one came to the aid of the Tutsi.

Yet it wasn't always like that.. What exactly changed that I wonder? This isn't defending religious fanatics, only pointing out this bullsh!t justification on "good of mankind" self righteous garbage.. They were preaching this same kind of sh!t during the Cold War to justify presidents such as Reagan in supporting blood thirsty regimes in South America who tortured and killed civilians.. I am all for combating persecution and trying to defend civilians, but these justifications need to stop.. Because they are basically what have led to these kind of situations to begin with.... We supported Iranian dictator after destroying a democracy because he was a "communist"> Led to theocratic extreme hostile Islamic nation.. We supported and ARMED Saddam to combat Iran> He gassed the Kurdish population then invaded a neighboring nation.. We armed and trained the Taliban to fight Soviet Russia> they are still at large today as Islamists tear assing through the country.. Based on that track record and numerous other examples, I think its about time to the west stop saying "what's best for the region".. It has been a playground for economic and political gain for the west, and nothing more for the past 100 years..

You talk sh!t like they are out of control, yet are sitting cozy in the United States.. A country that hasn't had numerous regime changes and complete collapses with foreign powers propping up puppet governments within the country.. This isn't suggesting that extreme Islam hasn't had affect, it has.. But I am pointing out that it is a extremely complicated situation that people seem not to care or know about.. Not to mention they seem to be ALL TOO willing to repeat the same SH!t over again that led us here to begin with. The fact of the matter is if you make things desperate and pull things the right way, you can make the most benign movements and beliefs into extremely violent edicts... Make people desperate enough and you can get them to follow anything..

Destroying barbarism is good for mankind. That's a fact. You know how I know I'm right? Because I don't walk down the street and kill those with different religious views than my own. Say what you will about the west but our culture is superior. I'm not making this determination lightly.

You seem to forget that I've been deployed to that shit hole numerous times. I've seen how awful it is. I've seen how good it is. It will not change without someone forcing them to.

I believe the question he is trying to answer which you don't seem too keen on listening to is: WHY are they (a very small percent of the population, there are not 1 million people fighting for ISIS) behaving barbarically?

I am not talking about if you were there or not.. I am talking about living there.. Some of these people literally have lived through numerous regime changes in which their economy and infrastructures collapse.. This is a typical breeding ground for extremists and the vicious taking over and enforcing their rule.. We have a history filled with it.. The United States literally had one civil war that nearly ripped it to shreds well over 100 years ago that affected it immensely that some could argue that we still feel the impact to this day.. . Many of these countries have had those events within the 50 years numerous times if not the past few decades..

And is our culture superior? We maybe far more liberal in our ideas of freedom and being accepting, but our rampant consumerism and materialism has led to many terrible things abroad.. Food for thought.. A great example of this was the massive number of deaths within the African continent based upon conflict metals that is used in the electronics we carry around every day that we can't live with out.. .. http://www.newsweek.com/genocide-behind-your-smart-phone-74875

Man you think so highly of yourselves... This delusional view of the world is what makes your kind justify US interventions even when they provoke the type of genocides you so self-righteously are now condemning. Chances are that ISIS wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the US. Your guarantee is moot to me, I can almost guarantee the opposite and the region where I live, Latin America, suffered countless tragedies because some people like you thought that your government supporting ruthless dictators here somehow guaranteed that we would be better off, when in fact what the US wanted was to keep control not much else. So many people around the world is hopeful that someday americans will learn to keep their delusions of grandeur to themselves and stop trying to "save" everyone. The US is never there to save anyone, stop kidding yourself. At best they help someone so they help them back, usually with nefarious consequences. The US foreign policy is morally bankrupt and has been that way since not long after WW2.

I'll be completely honest with you. I would rather have rampant consumerism and materialism than having people murdered over their religious beliefs. I think those would be better problems to have.

Thought it was kind of funny (or sad) today, when a radio station I was listening to did a quick summary of today's news, which went something like - "US strike targets in Iraq. Also today, the US warns Russia about intervention in Ukraine"...

US foreign policy has been morally bankrupt not long after WW2? Nonsense, US foreign policy has always been morally bankrupt. I don't have any delusions about American influence in the world.

It was America that dropped not one, but two atomic bombs, we fire bombed Tokyo. It was America that sat back and watched as the Soviet Union ethnically cleanse Eastern Europe of ethnic Germans. We bombed Dresden. We did nothing to aid the Poles during the Warsaw uprising. The US knew all about what was going on in Aushwitz but willingly chose not to bomb either the gas chambers or the railroads.

I'm not going to defend US foreign policy wholesale but you sound ridiculous m8. Sure, we usually only help people who we want to help us back, who doesn't? The US isn't the source of all the world's problems. The US isn't uniquely evil. At worst we are simply amoral. US leaders don't have a psychopathic desire to conquer the world for America, they just care about making money.

In terms of oppressive world powers you could do a lot worse. We aren't like the Soviets who wanted to provoke communist revolutions around the world, we aren't like the Nazis trying to implement some demented racial theory, and we certainly aren't like ISIS who are trying to purge the world of heretics and non-believers. Our foreign policy is simple, Quid Pro Quo, nothing more, nothing less. We don't care if you're a liberal democracy, an oppressive monarchy, a fascist or communist dictatorship, black, white, brown, christian, muslim, hindu, jewish, atheist; as long as you're willing to do business with us and the rest of the "free" world we don't have a problem. That sounds bad, and sometimes that puts us on the wrong side of history, but often (like right now in northern Iraq) we find ourselves on the right side of history. A coincidence, for sure, but it is what it is.

I never claimed that the US is uniquely evil but the US has the largest military power in the world by far. Largest than the next 5 or 6 military powers on the list? something like that? It's also the only country that has military presence virtually everywhere in the world in comparison to other powerful countries. So I would expect more restraint and responsability from them as I also would be extra doubtful of their intentions. You say that the US is not oppressive but it certainly has supported and aided oppressors and oppressive practices throughout the world constantly for decades so I think it is just as worse than some of the examples you pointed out maybe just a bit more subtle and aimed at foreign lands mostly.

I give you that I think taking on ISIS is a must but I won't cheer it until I see where this is going. For me the US is just cleaning up after another of their **** ups and their cleanups are usually not very well done.

Amazing. Positively amazing! it never surprises me how our government jumps when it comes to foreign nations and people yet lollygag and drag the feet when it comes to helping its own people.

Pretty funny really ISIS is basically a spinter group from the US trained and equipped rebels sent into Syria.

Really?

No, the United States does not have the "largest military power in the world". The North Korean army is actually many times larger than ours.

The United States has the most technologically advanced and highly trained military in the world. In size, it's really not that large.

Your startling lack of any knowledge of history is frightening. Yes, the United States has a number of military bases around the world...most of them having been established after the United States literally saved the planet during World War 2. That's not hyperbole or blind nationalism...that's fact. Would it have been better if we weren't an "immoral interventionist" country in 1941? Would you prefer Europe and Africa currently under Nazi control? Or SE Asia under Imperial Japanese rule? By the way, the United States didn't want anything to do with World War 2 which gives conspiracy nuts ammunition for theories that FDR designed Pearl Harbor as an event large and shocking enough to force the US population to get behind the war effort. FDR (and any rationally thinking person) knew we had to get involved because isolationism isn't a viable option in the era of globalization. Many of the US's military bases exist today because the host nations REQUEST for our forces to be there.

You think South Korea would prefer to be part of North Korea today? It would were it not for "evil American imperialism". You think Taiwan and Japan want to be part of Communist China today? They would were it not for "evil American imperialism". You think Kuwait likes being able to exist? It wouldn't were it not for America.

These "**** ups" in the Middle East you are blaming on the US have little to do with the United States. They are the result of post-colonial design flaws after the European powers left in the 20th century. The same is true of Africa. The United States basically inherited their mess after the USA took over from England as the world's preeminent superpower and the atrocious, genocidal USSR collapsed under the weight of its own administrative failures and unimaginable human rights violations.

By the way, the second half of the 20th century, the time in which the United States "took over and subjugated" everyone else...it's been the safest, most stable period in the history of humanity. Watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5X2-i_poNU

Learn.

How else do we approach such a funny topic? War in the middle east? Bwahahahahahahahaha

If you want to be taken serious you might want to learn some history which include Germany's biggest loss was on the eastern front which led to a huge strain on their total resources which include the west front. So yes America helped during WWII but don't ever assume that they actually came in as some kind of Superman and saved europe singlehandedly

Also as to the middle east, well the current state actually has a lot to do with US and how it has been dealing with its "friends" in the middle east. Not to mention that when you remove a strong leader who were used to dealing with the huge enemies sunni and shia is, its bound to leave some scars.

And the Korea war actually had more than just America fighting on the south korean side.

Listen Obama did these air strikes because ISIS (which is al quada re-branded) because they were advancing into the Kurdish lands and taking oil rigs and towns and Obama tries to make out he cares about innocent people running away from ISIS well no he is essentially putting ISIS which the United States trained and funds terrorist group in their place because he wants Iraq to be separated into 3 areas. And these air strikes only hit old artillery and a few empty buildings. Obama and all you other globalist scum can go to hell where you belong you criminal scum.

You're correct. There were 16 foreign countries (other than actual South Koreans) in the United Nations Command during the Korean War with a cumulative troop number of around 340,000. Of that, over 300,000 of them were American. So yes, good ole' 'murica essentially was the UN Command. Of course we appreciated our allies, but they focused around the USA which provided 90% of the fighting power.

Germany would have likely lost to Russia without US intervention on the Eastern Front. Russia lost more people than any other nation during the war. But it's highly improbable that they would have taken Western Europe back from the Nazis. The US intervention forced Germany into a horrible position, namely fighting a two front war (really three front if you include North Africa). Germany had basically captured everything they wanted in Europe in a year. Western Europe fell so rapidly that it literally shocked Hitler. Without US intervention, England would have been relegated to an annoying little island. Germany could have shored up almost all of their forces on the Eastern Front and not worried about a Western advance through France nor a Southern advance through Italy by Allied forces. Italy also would not have switched sides half way through the war.

The current Middle Eastern conflict is the result of trying to impose a nation-state system (like that in Europe) on a nomadic, "ethnicist" people in the Middle East. This was done by France and England primarily after World War 1 and up through the 1950s. Ever wonder why so many of the nations in the ME had brutal dictators in charge? Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and honestly Saudi Arabia as well? Because it seems the only thing that can keep the crazy, sectarian lunatics from fighting each other is an even more brutal, usually secular, dictator. Thanks the "Arab Spring", all the crazies have come out of the wood work after the dictators were all deposed. Democracy took CENTURIES for Europe to figure out. It's going to take a long time for it to happen in the Middle East. You need an educated, literate, and moderate population in order for democracy to work, and those take time to create. The ME simply doesn't have that. Some of these countries have literacy rates around 50%. And by "literate", they mean able to write their names and read at a 5 year-old level. The ME will eventually figure out separation of church and state and create democracies. It will take a long time. It will be bloody. Just as it did in Europe.

ISIS is not al-Qaeda rebranded. It's al-Qaeda gone super saiyan in religious zealotry. Their tactics are so unimaginably brutal they have even been castigated by mainstream al-Qaeda. Iraq wants to be in multiple pieces not because America wants it. It's because it should never have been a single country to begin with. USA didn't create Iraq. England did. The Kurds want a separate country for themselves in the North because they've spent 40 years getting terrorized by the Saddam regime, and now the regime under Nouri al-Maliki, who is essentially an Iranian Shi'a puppet.

The two main power brokers in the ME are Saudi Arabia and Iran. It's good ole Sunnis vs. Shi'a fighting proxy wars in Syria and Iraq.

And what are "globalist scum"? As in the basic concept of globalization is bad? Or just some people who practice it? Globalization allowed SE Asia to emerge as a new world power. Per capita income and standard of living has risen in S Korea, Japan, Taiwan, China, etc all thanks to globalization. It allows consumers around the world to have access to a greater variety of products then ever before. It's also lead to the period of time after 1945, and actually the entire 20th century including two World Wars, to be the safest century in human history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5X2-i_poNU

Great lecture to watch

So ISIS just came out of no where and has the ability to take over nations? No American military trained these fighters in Turkey and Jordan they fund them and their allies in the region openly fund the group as well. This is all part of a bigger plan by the globalists that you would not understand. And the fact that you don't know who globalists are really does say something about your knowledge of current affairs.

I think you have to be a american to disregard the impact other nations soldier had on the korean conflict, so no good old "america" wasn't the leader and the only one who actually did anything.

Ahh, so now you try to save it by claiming that Russia would have kicked Germany out and then left the rest of europe alone, that is pure guess work based on nothing and certainly not any historic events would even suggest that it would be the case, unless you forget the race the allies had with the russians to get to berlin first. Also here again you seem to think that US came into europe flying on X-men like battleships and rid the world of germany, but the case is that without a base in england, America would have had no where to land supplies or men, not to mention that the biggest divisions was actually not american but british, canadian and not forgetting the many other allies taking part. Its historic manipulation of the worst kind to actually claim that America somehow saved europe from the evil nazis. They were a big part sure, but it took the combined efforts of all the allies.

The current middle eastern conflicts are not the cause of England or France, yes Israel and the french conquest during the 20´s have had a impact on the region, but it is for nothing so many hate the americans down there, particular not in Iran where we all know how CIA sold weapons during the Iran-iraq war, tried to have a more friendly american leader in iran and not to forget the weapons sold to Taliban to fight the reds.

But you are also stating something right here, the biggest problem is that many tribes and terrorist organizations use the huge blind spot europe and america has for democracy and that you cannot impose or throw down democrazy onto a countri or population which have had ditactorship for years, it takes time and it takes small slow progression. But at the same time you cannot hide the fact that removing Sadam, blowing up Gaddafi and helping many other nations with their "spring" has had a adverse influence.

ISIS is like Taliban back during the USSR time, you can be 100% sure that they are fighting with american/european weapons. But ISIS cannot take over nations, i mean its not for nothing that they have switched from trying to depose Assad to going into the chaos we call iraq. Where they mostly because their shia affiliation has been able to take control of major cities and areas.

I disagree, I think it's very possible for ISIL to take over nations. They've already carved out a state for themselves between Syria and Iraq. If they decided to focus on Jordan (an idea they have publicly thought about) I have my doubts that the Jordanian military would be able to defend the kingdom on their own. They'd probably need Israel's help, which could be a blessing in disguise for other reasons. Having leverage over Jordan could be the necessary ingredient for finding a solution in the west bank.

Hmm, well so far they haven't really met any real opposition, i mean the iraqi military threw down their uniforms and american supplied weapons and ran so its not like its that hard to fight against an enemy who runs.

But we will see right now they are pressing their luck and if they keep going against people like the kurds they will start to anger their "allies" America and the west.

How can you seriously make the argument that the foreign nation contributing 88.4% of all foreign forces in the UNC was not the leading foreign force in the conflict? I'm not, nor is anyone else, claiming that the remaining 11.6% of foreign forces did nothing significant during the war. That's idiotic. But it's also idiotic to claim that all the allies forces were on equal footing and interchangeable. If there wasn't an American force, there would not have been a UNC, or at least remotely recognizable to what it was with our forces.

As for World War II, yes, all our Allies helped. Many of those countries took far higher losses than we did. Having visited Normandy graves nobody knows that more than I do. But without USA, there would have been no D-Day. Pre-1941, without massive American shipments to the Allies, it would have gone even worse for the European Allies. Yes, it's impossible to know exactly how the war with Russia would have transpired differently without a huge push from the West in 1944, but it's without question that more Axis resources would have been on the Eastern Front and no reason to think Italy would have switched sides mid-war. The Fascists in Italy sure feared the Communists in Russia more than Nazis of Germany.

Today, the average Iranian actually has a fairly favorable opinion of America. This is especially true of the younger generation (30 and under). Yes, they kicked out the evil American-supported Sh'a in 1979...and got an insane religious-zealot for a leader instead and sent their society back in time centuries. Now, they live in a country where secret "modesty" police arrest women wearing shorts, people who dare to post videos of dancing on Facebook disappear, and sports arenas where women are literally banned from attending because "impure" acts could occur in the stands.

Saudi Arabia is even worse for women, but they are technically an "ally" mainly because they hate Iran.

Why do "people over there hate America"? For a plethora of reasons. Sky high unemployment. Mass illiteracy. A religion which demonizes educating half their population (women). Decades of government propaganda blaming every woe their country experiences on the "west". It's hot as shit and they have no water. Oh, and of course the Jews. Why wouldn't it be? The single most persecuted group of humans in history just can't get a break. Watch the news? Nothing but "war in Gaza", mainly portrayed as the IDF "indiscriminately" bombing helpless Palestinians. Forgetting to mention that Hamas specifically places munitions stores and fires rockets from populated areas specifically to incite an Israeli response. Nothing about how Hamas hijacks all the aid sent into the region to build miles of concrete tunnels to move weapons around, instead of actually helping Palestinians. Nothing about how Hamas literally handcuffs mentally disabled Palestinians to high value targets knowing that Israel is likely to target them. It's disgusting. Hamas followed the Nazi handbook. Radical opportunists who enslaved their own population in the name of "resistance to outside force". Sounds like Hitler talking about the Treaty of Versailles.

Here's a gem:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wiBwQ9fiho

Programs like this can be found all over the Middle East and it's even worse on the radio.

I speak Arabic fluently and watch 3 Arabic news channels daily. The portrayal of events is not exactly balanced.

And claiming that widespread extremism (in comparison to Western religious practices) only exists because of outside influence is asinine.

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3554.htm

Giving publicly broadcast lessons from "professors" on how to correctly beat your wife is not reactionary.

Throwing acid in the faces of girls for the crime of wanting to go to school is not reactionary.

The Middle East must figure out its own role in the 21st century, and if its religion will allow it to enter the 21st century. It's main job today as oil producer will not be sufficient in the future.

Do you think that Iraqi soldiers would've deserted if ISIL didn't have a formidable fighting force? They've also held their own against the Syrian army and the peshmerga in northern Iraq. This is a very well-trained, well-funded and well equipped military operation. I doubt that ISIL continues fighting in northern Iraq for much longer, US air strikes make things much harder, there's not much more they could possibly gain and its not like they have the support of the locals. They do in Jordan, there they could probably rile up some sort of insurgency. In fact there's already a lot of Jordanians fighting for ISIL, and the organization itself was founded by a Jordanian.

From what I hear the U.S. is doing both the air-drops and the strikes. Air-drops can only help the trapped Yazidis in the short term, I think in the long term we have to help them escape to safe territory.

Pentagon: US airstrikes won’t weaken ISIS

From the article:

A senior U.S. military official Monday said that American airstrikes have slowed the advance of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria’s forces (ISIS or ISIL), but are unlikely to weaken the terror group’s overall capabilities.

“We assess that U.S. airstrikes in northern Iraq have slowed ISIL's operational tempo and temporarily disrupted their advances toward the province of Erbil,” said Army Lt. Gen. William Mayville, Joint Chiefs of Staff director of operations.

But he warned that the group “remains focused on securing and gaining additional territory throughout Iraq and will sustain its attacks against Iraqi and Kurdish security forces and their positions, as well as target Yazidis, Christians and other minorities.”

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

Now the US is arming the Kurds too, I guess you make it as you go along.

Wouldn't bombing the gas chambers, have also killed the prisoner's in the concentration camps, or where the chambers far enough away? We didn't have smart bombs back then.

Will help Iraq people.......wont help jailed US marine in Mexico........

Do you have a problem with that m8

Bombing the camps themselves would've been more controversial, you would've been killing prisons but you'd also be giving other prisoners a chance to escape, destroying the infrastructure of the camp, and also sending the message "we know"

The rail lines though I don't see the excuse.

Not with arming the Kurds specifically but I have a problem with ad hoc foreign policy, bloke.

This is the image I got after reading your post.

Not even gonna bother to respond but your lack of knowledge of the world's political state and your own country's foreign policy is appalling.

I don't think this is necessarily ad hoc. Reactionary sure, but there's a coherent logic behind Obama's selective action/inaction. US foreign policy in the middle east is a huge balancing act right now, more so than it usually is. What's going on in Syria and Iraq is basically a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The US can't be seen as being too involved otherwise it'd look like we're picking a definitive side in this transnational sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites.

And as bad as it might sound, it is better for these groups to be fighting amongst themselves than focused on fighting the west. ISIL right now is much more concerned about fighting "heretics" and "apostates" within the Arab world than it is concerned about launching terror attacks against the US and Europe. In fact that's actually been one of the biggest rifts between ISIL and Al Qaeda ever since the days of Zarqawi.

Obama funds and trains ISIS now he tries to give aid to the people ISIS are murdering to try and act like the good guy. Wow.

That's a bit of an exaggeration, to say the least.

@-Sun_Tzu-: They trained ISIS members in Jordan in 2012 on record. America's allies have funded ISIS openly (Saudi, Turkey and Kuwait)

Please show me your source.

And American allies funding ISIS, while partially true =/= America funding ISIS

These are sovereign states that have their own interests in the region that aren't always aligned with those of the US.

The world isn't as simple as you make it out to be.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=99449

America works in co-operation with these nations and they have agreed on splitting up Iraq with territorial gains to Kuwait, Saudi and Iran with America benefiting in keeping a constant terror threat for homeland oppression and to bring down Syrian government, then I predict with ISIS getting central and west Iraq plus a lot of Syria it will then start to take Jordan and ISIS army will then gain Nuclear Weapons and various terror attacks will happen within the United States.

Your link doesn't say what you think it says. While it is undeniable that the US had covertly trained a very small number of rebels in Jordan, as the article cited in your link says, these were rebels fighting in the Free Syria Army. As your link states, these rebels that were trained were vetted before they were trained. It's very possible that these militants then went on to join ISIL later on, that's something that is well documented, but that's not the same as the US directly funding and training ISIL.

And your post just doesn't make sense. First off, how would ISIL get nuclear weapons? And why would Iran agree on splitting up Iraq? Iraq has been an Iranian client state for the past decade, why would it want its influence to be diminished in the Arab world? Turkey doesn't want a Salafist caliphate right on its border. The US and Turkey don't want to get rid of the entire Syrian government, it just wants to replace Assad.

Saudi Arabia has a much different perspective, it views an increased Iranian influence in the Arab world as an existential crisis and the US/Turkey strategy hadn't and hasn't been working in Syria. For the Saudis, the only way success can be guaranteed is if the whole thing is blown up and radical Sunnis take power.

You do realize the economy of the entire world is connected to the oil there, we need a stable geopolitical government in that entire region.