• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Should the US send troops to Iraq

  • Yes

  • No

  • Other (Please specify)

Results are only viewable after voting.
Nope.

Let the region figure it out.

Yes, my heart bleeds over the dead children,.. but, we are not seen as saviors. We never were and never will be.

More importantly, our involvement led to this situation. Going back will make it worse than it already is.
 
Mike Rivero from WRH stated it best:

How about stolen Kuwaiti incubators, the lie that tricked America into the first invasion of Iraq? Or Saddam's nuclear weapons, the lie that tricked America into the second invasion of Iraq? The US government needs to invade Iraq for a third time, to keep Iraq's oil selling only for US dollars and as is the usual pattern, the news is flooded with spectacular stories unsupported by any proof as to why Americans should go along with this third invasion of Iraq. The video of "ISIS" stating they will fly the flag of Allah over the White House has already been exposed as a fraud.

To detect a lie, look for what should be there and isn't, and what is missing from this story is a REASON for ISIS to behead children, knowing that such an act will turn world opinion against them and open the door for a US military invasion. These are not stupid people. Many were armed and trained by the US to use against Syria's Assad. They understand that without popular support from the American people, the US cannot launch another war, especially in an election year. So, why would ISIS hand the US Government any propaganda weapon that would work against them? The answer is, they wouldn't do that.

Look at how many wars were started with lies and deceptions. America was tricked into World War 1 with the claim that Lusitania was not carrying weapons. That was proven a lie when divers entered the hold of the wreck in the 1980s and confirmed the presence of a military cargo, which made Lusitania a legitimate target of war. Or the claim that a Spanish mine sunk the USS Maine in Havana Harbor that led to the Spanish American War? The Captain of the USS Maine insisted that the ship had been destroyed by an onboard fire, but President McKinley, aided by the Hearst newspapers, sold the lie of a Spanish mine to the American people. A later investigation led by Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, the father of America's nuclear Navy, concluded there had been no mine and the Captain of the USS Maine had been telling the truth. Lyndon Johnson escalated the war in Vietnam by claiming the USS Maddox was attacked by Torpedoes in the Gulf of Tonkin, which turned out never top have existed.

Every war in history is started by some leader lying their population into thinking the war is the only possible course of action, and as I mentioned at the top, the two previous invasions of Iraq were launched with hoaxes about stolen incubators and non-existent nuclear weapons.

This is just more of the same USDA Choice Bovine Excrement!
Click to expand...
 
Quotation-Voltaire-long-people-Meetville-Quotes-196911.jpg
 
I would support efforts to provide assistance in specific cases like we are now. Given international support I'd agree to an ongoing effort to make life difficult for ISIS, but I'd draw the line at putting troops in harms way. No return to ground action.
 
Even if they should be eliminated, we are not competent enough to see it through to the end. We'd quagmire ourselves and complicate a simple kill mission with nation building. Due to our... sensibilities, I must rule out the ideal of killing ISIS. We've proven ourselves unfit for the task these past 13 years.

Specific missions to help refugees escape, to have very specific and limited impacts to the region, sure - I accept United States action such as what the President is currently doing.
 
Yes, US invaded/destructed/occupied Iraq for over a decade, it can't just leave it in a total mess.
 
What if we had coalition support instead of us doing the policing all the time. We can't have a terrorist state and it was Obama that took the troops out of there to begin with. Sadam and his sons raped and tortued his own people and needed to go. the problem lies in the army there they need better taring and weaponry. I say arm the Kurds.

I can't live in a world where children are beheaded. Sorry...

Wow! http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/11/world/middleeast/iraq.html?_r=0

Russia has expressed interest in Iraq and we can't let those bastards over there.
 
Last edited:
The military is overstretched as it is engaged in hotspots all over the world and Afganistan. The Navy is having enough trouble just maintaining two combat operable carrier battle groups as it is. We don't have the forces we had in 1991.
 
Eventually there will be little choice but to call these wars by their honest names: The Reserve Currency War, The Oil War and the newly forming War Against BRICS.

I do admit the War On Terror II does have a nice ring to it. How about The War Against Oligarchy, sort of like the second coming of the Revolutionary War? Just muskets and lots of hand-to-hand combat.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
I would support efforts to provide assistance in specific cases like we are now. Given international support I'd agree to an ongoing effort to make life difficult for ISIS, but I'd draw the line at putting troops in harms way. No return to ground action.
Click to expand...
<-- This
 
Let ISIS take over and kill everyone and then its an ISIS state and we can then just nuke Iraq to end the terror..kill em all. Or something like that.
 
gevorg said:
Yes, US invaded/destructed/occupied Iraq for over a decade, it can't just leave it in a total mess.
Click to expand...

Honest question - how long is the US responsible for Iraq - is it forever?

For the last 3-4 years Iraq's government has had the opportunity to rebuild it's military with modern weaponry as well as the infrastructure to effectively use it.

They completely wasted it by putting political appointees in positions of authority, fostering deep divisions between sects, and basically setting up their military to fail. They had both numeric and equipment superiority and were routed. Does the US moral obligation last forever? When does giving Iraq the tools to defend itself, even if they chose to waste them, enough?

I agree we should assist with airstrikes and other support - and once ISIS is hopefully pushed back and Iraq gets another chance to recover, they're on their own.
 
Wonder what the results of a poll done in the Middle East of whether ISIS should eliminate all cultures that do not convert would be....
 
John Connor said:
That "little caliphate" will copme here in a 9/11 part two. With all that oil they have unlimited financing!
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top