It's all manipulation, I now check the Ukraine news about the plane and I think, how much of that is true, can we really believe in everything they are saying?
The most recent challenges facing Iraq, ISIS and the overthrow of the Maliki government, make me believe that the US should have kept at least one battalion in place. Our troops could have protected any oil fields, dams, or installations vital to the people of Iraq.
Yeah, so that would be wise to maintain peace, but at the same time they wanted to retreat to give independence to the country, what never really happened.
I don't even know if ISIS has any sort of ideology or if it's not other big country behind them trying to take over Iraq and it's oil, we never know what really makes them move.
I think we should return to Iraq to destroy Isis and to neutralize the terrorist threat. I realize a lot of folks are tired of sending our sons and daughters into harm's way, but America can't afford to retreat from the world when there is clearly so much danger and potential threats out there. So much of the western world has decimated their military capabilities in order to advance economic socialism, it's still up to America to keep the world safe and to take out bad actors where it can. If there were more countries capable of defending themselves and freedom, perhaps America could afford to pull back, but as of now we are really the only country with the military capabilities to do the job correctly.
The problem is that ISIS is already using US weapons, so they are stronger now. That is the risk of leaving that regions so heavily armed, if the allies lose control the terrorist become heavily armed.
We shouldn't leave the country anytime soon. I think when we went in under Bush we essentially committed ourselves to the country for the long haul, or at least we should've. I think leaving is irresponsible and bad policy. Obviously we don't want our sons and daughters being maimed and killed in perpetuity, but I think we should have secured the country and left behind a force for as long as possible. We do it a lot of countries already.
GMcKee -- did you follow at all the events which unfolded in Ferguson, MO, USA, after the killing of the un-armed black youth in August? Riots broke out for several nights. It was precieved by both the locals, the local press and the International Press that it was The LOCAL POLICE doing the rioting; the side out-of-control. I bring this to your attention because the the Ferguson situation is a microcosim of what happens in an insurgency situation. As what happened in the GAZA situation, Israel kicked butt, but lost the war. Killing unarmed civilizans is easy -- shooting fish in a barrel. Destroying their homes is easy. Doing so without appearing to be a bully is hard. IDF came off looking like bullies. Obama is presented with a very difficult LOSE/LOSE situation. For now ISIS/ISIL/Ba'ath Party is NOT a threat to the US, though FOX "news" would like you to believe otherwise.
You cannot POSSIBLY be serious. Well I was going to write a long reply here and I'm just out of words. I'll edit later if I think of something, but my [perceived] good sense tells me that nothing anyone says would make a difference. Ferguson... yikes! What does THAT have to do with ISIS? Let those goons behead people and kiss up to them so they don't cause trouble? What kind of sissy nation lets the bullies rule the playground?!
Anyone who's been in the military has (or should have) learned one basic vital thing that a former vet told me... "Every commander knows that you don't leave the battleground while the enemy is still on the field." Good post, @gmckee1985 .
We don't really have any choice but to go back into Iraq, in my opinion. A more reasoned and committed commander in chief would realize that. Obama is blinded by his ideology and since he was against the Iraq war to begin with, he's reluctant to go in. We're going to have to stay committed and vigilent in terms of combating radical Islam because the stability of the globe depends on it.
I really hate when I hear that oil has anything to do with our involvment in the middle east. The U.S. sells the stuff on the commodities market so why in truth do folks believe the media motivated spin? A somewhat sage saying going back for decades is that the U.S. economy is at it's peak when we are in a tiff of some sort. But, that being said, is not the "Reason" we get into these battles, but our "Willingness" to do so. Not speaking of the ISIS fight we are in, because that is another issue. When we are militarily involved the U.S. cranks up literally all major industries. When the media or the White House spouts out that we spent Billions of dollars already because of our actions involving the Middle East its totally bogus. Who gets paid these "billions" of dollars. From the factory that makes brass for bullets and the tubas for military bands, to the tech guys and even the cloth industry and food industries support and maintain each and every aspect of our war economy. When Americans get paid and jobs are plentiful everybody goes to the grocery store, buys a house and hits a restaurant. I know a welder who works for a very small manufacturing business. He complains constantly because of all the over time he has to work because of a government contract helping to supply our military. Why we're so far in debt to other countries is easy also. During the Nixon administration we went on the "trust" market and left the gold backed money market. Ergo, the government went wild and printed up a bunch of "credit" money buying up crazy stuff and non profit making ventures. Not to mention our present president racking up over 2million bucks in greens fees alone. Let's print some more money, the American industries are good for it because they make war materials and all is kumbaya. But, since our government is paying American industries in bogus bucks, it has to be backed by some body. Hello, China! Now, folks have to work so the government can get tax money to pay the debt. All that being said, are we in it for oil? No, but other economics definitly play into our willingness to "help" out. So far as the iSIS threat. I'm glad we are finally bombing the crap out of them. But, whoops, that bomb cost a million dollars that they just dropped. Good! A few manufacturing plants have to make another bomb to replace the one that got dropped so I guess a few Americans will just have to work over time and get paid for it, hence giving the government some more tax money. And the beat goes on! I just wish American "lives" were not on this giant poker table.
The US and the rest of the world are already back in Iraq, via drones mostly, but soon enough I feel that the army will return too.
What concerns me are the reports reaching me that the US is sending cruise missles to destroy empty buildings. That is not cost efective.
True enough, but I can see the reasoning. You can't fortify if there is no fort. Other wars have seen the same thing. Sherman, in the civil war burned everything in his path to prevent anyone from hiding, gathering, resting, et al. There was agent orange in the nam which was a defoliant. Supposedly so Charlie wouldnt have a place to set up ambushes. It's been done before, and again, some Americans are going to get paid making more cruise missiles.
One truth that we are not recognizing is keeping Iraq stable is one of the most important issues. Next, we need a stable Iraq because we need another ally in the region. If Iraq has a stable government then perhaps they could establish a true democratic government. Democratic governments have traditionally been much less of a threat to the United States compared to other forms of government. Once more, democracies are more often an ally than not being an ally. Those are reasons for the US using all of its might to defeat ISIS.
Intelligence must exist that those building are not empty indeed or at least they have some strategic value or else it wouldn't make sense at all.
Ding -- give that man a cupie doll! Sometimes war makes no sense. It is like Junior Bush justifying the invasion of Iraq on the imment danger of WMD when in reality the top leaders of his cabal knew from intelligence there were NONE. Have you noticed that since the initial wave of airstrikes against ISIS the rate of strikes has tapered to almost nothing. It seems as if their leaders learned quickly to dispurse their command and control cadre. And the reason why the targeted building were empty was that the cadre of ISIS has learned, as has most of America's enemies, to watch CNN. Just to know that US leadership is contemplating escalation should be enough to sent ISIS leaders from their known HQs into hiding. Trying to strike at an informed insurgent who can manuever is like herding cats.
Sure, but behind the Bush Junior war were indeed other interests, personal vendettas or economic ones. But yes, they have their own intelligence too I suppose.
