Should the US send troops to Iraq to get rid of ISIS?

[Jaskalas]

That "little caliphate" will copme here in a 9/11 part two. With all that oil they have unlimited financing!

I don't believe it is moral to act preemptively against threats that exist now only in the imaginations of the fearful. There is no international department of pre-crime.

Per the subject of an ISIS caliphate, I have a novel idea. Instead of nuking the world out of fear from others, we control our borders and decide NOT to let bad people live among us. We tend our garden, not theirs. September 11th happened locally, by people living here. With overstayed VISAs too, yeah?

So what are we doing to curb and control immigration? To check with the Muslim community here in America, to build stronger ties and earn greater trust? The strongest effort we can make is to empower peaceful Muslims, to help them claim dominion over the faith. Our greatest capacity to do that is here at home.

So I suggest the risk of attack is not one that is controlled from the other side of the planet, but it is controlled here by domestic policy.

 

[crashtech]

I think it is ironic that perhaps our greatest fear is being attacked again, and the response to that fear is to drop bombs on people.

 

[rudder]

I think it is ironic that perhaps our greatest fear is being attacked again, and the response to that fear is to drop bombs on people.

So the fact that we are witnessing genocide has no bearing? I voted 'no' to troops on the ground. Although there are a few military advisers on the ground already.

I do think we should provide limited air support... since the ISIS troops are using a lot of tanks and other gear that the U.S. provided to the Iraqi military... not to mention all the training and other weapons obtained by ISIS in Syria. The U.S. could not a lot of damage to them with a limited number of airstrikes.

 

[MtnMan]

No, but the US should continue bombing ISIS and providing help (weapons and humanitarian aid) to those in Iraq.

We gave them weapons, and trained them, and they threw the weapons down and ran.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

There's much worse actual genocide going on in parts of Africa and we aren't compelled to help them.

 

[crashtech]

So the fact that we are witnessing genocide has no bearing? I voted 'no' to troops on the ground. Although there are a few military advisers on the ground already.

There was a time when I would have been right with you. But it's easy to find examples of more people being killed, genocides if you will, where we didn't lift a finger. So the claim that we would act based on humanitarian concerns will not convince people who are aware of recent history.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

No Iraqi troops should and should have been getting rid of ISIS.

 

[MtnMan]

No Iraqi troops should and should have been getting rid of ISIS.

+1

And since they threw their weapons down (the ones we gave them) and scurried away like cockroaches when you turn the lights on, it is clearly NOT our duty to do anything.

 

[trenchfoot]

The way those Iraqi troops fled the field kind'a reminded me of the way some ARVN troops in Vietnam behaved. It was like it wasn't their war to fight or the will and commitment to fight and die for their way of life was just not in them.

Makes me wonder how many of those Iraqi troops were Sunni and switched sides the moment they were confronted with having to make that choice or having to fight for a leader that was obviously prejudiced against them.

I voted no, although I do think we should defend our own and the folks who are risking their lives in support of our personnel.

I also think that if confronted with American and allied forces in a set piece battle out in the open with nowhere to run and hide and use innocents as shields the ISIS forces would get annihilated in short order.

The air campaign being wielded against ISIS should remind them just how vulnerable they are against a combined American military air/ground force should it ever be used against them.

 

[soulcougher73]

There's much worse actual genocide going on in parts of Africa and we aren't compelled to help them.

They don't have anything we want...

 

[dawheat]

There was a time when I would have been right with you. But it's easy to find examples of more people being killed, genocides if you will, where we didn't lift a finger. So the claim that we would act based on humanitarian concerns will not convince people who are aware of recent history.

So since we don't intervene in every situation, we shouldn't intervene in any? Why?

Sounds like our current political situation where everything has to be 100% black or white.

 

[crashtech]

The air campaign being wielded against ISIS should remind them just how vulnerable they are against an American military ground force should it ever be used against them.

Certainly it will reinforce the notion in their minds of just who is their worst enemy, and fuel their dreams of revenge.

 

[crashtech]

So since we don't intervene in every situation, we shouldn't intervene in any? Why?

Sounds like our current political situation where everything has to be 100% black or white.

Because we live in a representative democracy, and people don't want to have another war. It's a fools errand.

Well, to address the point more fully, I believe the claims that US would act out of compassion are at least partially disingenuous. Not that US should never act, but failure to act on previous occasions is evidence that there must be more than humanitarian reasons in play to supply cause for action.

 

[crashtech]

I think US could work with the Kurds to establish an evacuation zone for those who wish to leave. That would be more humanitarian than releasing ordnance.

 

[blake0812]

Isn't that what got us into this mess in the first place?

 

[trenchfoot]

Certainly it will reinforce the notion in their minds of just who is their worst enemy, and fuel their dreams of revenge.

Excellent point. However, given the middle eastern mindset, they could, in a blink of an eye become our best friends should the desert winds favor such an arrangement.

 

[crashtech]

Excellent point. However, given the middle eastern mindset, they could, in a blink of an eye become our best friends should the desert winds favor such an arrangement.

Until Islamists come to understand that in order to get along with the rest of the world, they must hold the portions of Sharia that infringe on the rights of others in abeyance, I don't believe that nations like the US, that presumably hold individual freedom in the highest regard, should be on friendly terms with any Islamist groups.

But that doesn't mean we have the moral authority to arbitrarily kill them.

 

[Blue_Max]

Until Islamists come to understand that in order to get along with the rest of the world, they must hold the portions of Sharia that infringe on the rights of others in abeyance, I don't believe that nations like the US, that presumably hold individual freedom in the highest regard, should be on friendly terms with any Islamist groups.

But that doesn't mean we have the moral authority to arbitrarily kill them.

I had to look it up: a·bey·ance
əˈbāəns/Submit
noun
a state of temporary disuse or suspension.
"matters were held in abeyance pending further inquiries"

No. This will never work, as sharia law is fundamental to their faith. They will never stop fighting until every country is under sharia.

The world has to fight against it as long as sharia law contains stuff like stoning to death, cutting off heads/hands, death to anyone who insults, death to anyone who leaves, etc, etc. Better visit those European countries now because most will cease to exist within 10-20 years and will become yet another totalitarian hellhole.

Within a generation, this is almost certainly going to start a world war that may well end the human race. Meh... good riddance to the human pests.

 

[ralfy]

There was never any intention to help others, as such activities are based on realpolitik and decided upon by the military-industrial complex. Citizens either receive collateral damage or are saddled with war costs.

 

[Bitek]

Limited, as much as I want to be the fuck out of there.

We have to back the Kurds, as they have actually been a strong ally from the start, and we can't go screw them over like GHWBush did to the shia after Desert Storm. Plus they are the ones most likely to be able to fight off ISIS.

We can't let ISIS just control all the oil fields and the unlimited wealth they hold, as well as a weapon against the world economy.

Lastly, I would hope we could blow up all the American armor ISIS is driving around in terrorizing the country side. So bad on so many levels.


What we can't do is fight them house to house all the way back into Syria. Hopefully with Malaki out of the way the Iraqi govt can mount some sort of crucible response eventually, although I'm not holding my breath

 

[kage69]

I think US could work with the Kurds to establish an evacuation zone for those who wish to leave. That would be more humanitarian than releasing ordnance.

That's a primary component of what I'd like to see happen myself.

I don't trust ISIS to simply chill while that happens though, and feel there is a certain amount of responsibility on America's part over the issue of the groups impressive gains in weapons and logistics. To that extent, I support supplying Kurdish forces with all the small arms supplies and anti-tank weapons we can. Small numbers of American SF and specialty groups would provide advisement, intel and fire support against advancing ISIS threats until ISIS advance grinds to a halt, or until the American heavy weapons and technicals are either recaptured/destroyed, whichever occurs first.

I say nullify the American tempered edge on that sword, with a hammer and a keen eye. Once it can't slice, leave it on the ground for the Kurds to break. Continue to lend them our eyes and toolbox. Establish safe zone, neighborhood starts to simmer down.


No mass invasion by conventional forces.

 

[IamDavid]

lol, I love how fearful everyone is to use our military... No one is forced to serve and even if you desert the resident will welcome you home with open arms...

We either fight them on their lands or ours. Simple as that. Spend some time traveling abroad and see how the animals treat each other in ever corner of the globe.
GWB was the smartest president ever when it came to foreign affairs. He single handedly tricked millions and millions of Islamist into killing each other instead of focusing on us.

 

[Jaskalas]

lol, I love how fearful everyone is to use our military...

Because our leaders would rather play police with our military, than go out and actually kill our enemy. Past 13 years have made it perfectly clear that we are not fit to have a military, much less use it. "Using" our military would not result in the end of ISIS or the Islamic terrorist threat.

We either fight them on their lands or ours. Simple as that.

We've heard that before. Spent a decade in Iraq and lost 5,000 men for that cause. It doesn't actually work if all you're going to do is sit our men down on the desert waiting to be sniped by the enemy. And that's all our leaders do.

If the enemy is here, then they are here. WTF is a military on the other side of the planet supposed to do for that?

A domestic solution involves Muslims themselves, building ties and working together with them to ensure peace. It has nothing to do with our military, but in how American domestic policy allows an import and harboring of terrorism. We need to root out safe havens for those men, and isolate them within their own community. When they have nowhere to hide on our soil, then they will be much easier to deal with.

GWB was the smartest president ever when it came to foreign affairs. He single handedly tricked millions and millions of Islamist into killing each other instead of focusing on us.

GWB gave them Iraq on a silver platter. He killed more Americans than Osama Bin Laden to turn a dictatorship into a terrorist state.

 

[IamDavid]

Totally agree playing police is and was the wrong move but come in, US lost 5000 lives, all volunteers, while helping millions die on the other side. Its a harsh way of looking at it but it worked. How many lives were list in Chicago over the past 10 years?



Domestic Muslims are not our enemy and we shouldn't treat them as one. We have more homegrown nutjobs then Muslim extremists in the country. With our troops "sitting" in enemy lands it gives true Muslim crazies' the belief they can strike us there,much better option for the rest of America. Yes, it is a twisted way of looking at it but it does make sense.



Best option for war is have others fight it for you.

Second best option is to fight I without putting anyone in harms way.

Third best option is fight is as far away from your homeland as possible using as few people as possible.

 

[IamDavid]

And it wasn't just Iraq.. He lit up the entire middle east knowing damn well how it was going to turn out. Encouraging freedom in that part of the word only has one outcome...