It would be beneficial to stop an extremist group from taking over the Middle East seeing as how they could easily implement extremist, anti west laws and spawn countless terrorist movements from that sort of society.
That being said, intervening means killing the civilians they embed themselves with, not to mention potentially risking American lives, so it's hard to say what is right to do.
English
-
[quote]so it's hard to say what is right to do.[/quote]No it isn't. The civilian deaths are well worth not allowing them to install a Caliphate.
-
It's be a lot harder to say that if we were the country which was going to be homes and to was your family that would be decimated. It's not so easy to just pack up and move out, especially not in a tumultuous country like that. Moreover, the rest of the world wouldn't look too kindly on the US if we start indiscriminately killing civies in the name of stopping terrorists.
-
[quote]indiscriminately killing civies[/quote]Nobody said to do that. You're taking what I'm saying out of context. Whatever, it's irrelevant. Obama just sent 300 Special Foces troopers to Iraq. Good on him.
-
[quote][quote]indiscriminately killing civies[/quote]Nobody said to do that. [/quote] ISIS can blend in easily with the local population. Discerning who is ISIS and who isn't is a tough job.
-
Letting them install a Caliphate and trying to take them down when they're even more powerful is a harder job.
-
So the US conducts airstrikes and then what? Airstrikes can't take land.
-
Obama sent in 300 Special Forces troops.
-
Where do you get this information from? I know 100 marines were sent in for the embassy and to evac all no essential personnel from the country.
-
Saw it on the news.
-
American news or international news. I have no trust for any news station run out of America and neither should you.
-
They aren't taking land either Lol
-
Edited by challengerX: 6/19/2014 9:04:18 PMLess than 100 JTF-2 troops cleared the way for rebels to take down Gaddafi.
-
The proposed airstrikes for Iraq would be no where near the scale seen in Libya. Those special forces didn't do the large bulk of the fighting..Libyan rebels did. And they had morale -- something the Iraqi army has demonstrated it seriously lacks
-
[quote]Those special forces didn't do the large bulk of the fighting[/quote]That's where you're wrong. They did some serious heavy lifitng for the US ships to hit its targets. Look, you can give your opinion all you want on this. I don't care. America and the rest of the world needs to to get involved and they should've been involved in Syria.
-
We were involved in Syria and that's why we are having this problem in the first place.
-
[quote]We were involved in Syria[/quote]Nope. [quote]and that's why we are having this problem in the first place.[/quote]We're having this problem because Bush thought it'd be a grand idea to go topple a dictator and destroy a country, thus allowing a group of people that hate America to set up shop in Iraq. There was no AQ presence in Iraq until America invaded.
-
We were involved in Syria, we funded the rebels and have them guns and training. That's being involved. This group has come from the Syrian rebels and is not trying to take over Iraq so they can get more support for the war in Syria.
-
[quote]We were involved in Syria, we funded the rebels and have them guns and training. That's being involved.[/quote]That isn't being militarily involved. That's what I'm talking about. That was the CIA doing the shady stuff it always does. [quote]This group has come from the Syrian rebels and is [u]not[/u] trying to take over Iraq so they can get more support for the war in Syria.[/quote]What do you mean "not"? They're marching straight to Baghdad. They're trying to create a Caliphate.
-
I meant now and it must have auto corrected to not. Even if we weren't involved militarily, which we were as we trained them, our country was still involved. Even though the CIA was doing "shady stuff" our president knew and backed what they were doing.
-
[quote]I meant now and it must have auto corrected to not.[/quote]Ah, thought so. [quote]Even if we weren't involved militarily, which we were as we trained them, our country was still involved. Even though the CIA was doing "shady stuff" our president knew and backed what they were doing.[/quote]Of course Obama ordered that. he said so on TV. The point is, that didn't cause what is happening now.
-
Those men were trained an supplied by us. We created this problem and we need to fix it. I was against going into Syria, I was too you to really understand what was going on when we started Iraq and Afghanistan, I was against doing anything in the Ukraine, I am completely 100% for going into Iraq and stopping these people.
-
These are serious negatives to intervention, particularly as they raise doubt that intervention would be even moderately successful.
-
Yeah, yeah. That's really interesting.
-
Or brush the unfortunate parts off because they don't agree with your opinion. That's how the US gets itself into such messes
-
Dude, shut the fuck up. America shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place putting Saddam into power. Then they topple his regime and allow the country to be swarmed by terrorists, and they SHOULDN'T intervene?