It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should the U.S. defend Iraq?

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: minusinfinity

Absolutely NOT.

We are already funding the terrorists in Syria that are now spilling into and moving through Iraq. Why would we send our own troops to fight terrorists that we are funding!?!?

...oh right, because this is America.




posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 10:00 PM
link   
I tend to believe that some of you were born last week, or at least you act as though you were, have the knowledge of someone born recently. This whole area has been one large fluster-cluck for centuries. Read some history of the area. They have been killing one another off in the name of one religion/sect or another for longer than there has been a United States of America. Why should we expend one more dime or one more drop of blood on these savages?
Now, go ahead and tell me how heartless and unfeeling I am---or how my ignorance will endanger the world. My idea is to let them fight it out amongst themselves, kill each other off. Meanwhile, we need to send our resources to the southern border to stop the invasion of criminals flowing into our country there.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   
What more can the US do in that country that was not already done. If the USA goes into the country, it will be a bad situation that only gives way to more rhetoric and problems that the US can ill afford. At the same time, we simply can not turn our backs on the country and mess that the US made in the war to remove one dictator.

The people have no heart or stomach to do this dance again, the population is tired of an endless conflict. The price has been paid in blood, and resources. Children growing up without fathers, uncles, wives without husbands. And an ever growing population of soldiers coming back from war wounded and handicapped, dealing with the horrors night after night.

The lose of resources, money and equipment, funded on the backs of the citizens, along with every constraining laws that are starting to become more and more restrictive, and a growing social unrest.

It is a lose/lose situation, as the country can not simply ignore the situation going on in Iraq, nor can it go so hell bent back into the fray. And time is growing short.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 10:12 PM
link   
We never should have gotten involved in Iraq. You cannot win a war against religious fanatics. They have ideals which they carry to death - if they want to live and fight like animals we should let them.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Should the U.S. INVADE Iraq?

well that is what they did all that work for..
they went to all that trouble to bring the troops home.
But they knew this was going to happen.
they did it!



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Milleresque

That's a lot of blame you're laying on "me".

It seems I recall Hussein as a dictator and a brutal tyrant. It seems he wanted to start trouble with the Bush dynasty. That seemed to be some pretty bad planning on Hussein's part. It seems to me we kicked the crap out of the Iraqi military. It seemed to me that Iraqi pride wouldn't allow them to just suck it up and accept defeat. It seemed like they had to keep poking the bear. It seemed like we really went in and taught them a lesson. It seemed like we handed the country back over to people who weren't total wusses. It seemed like these guys wouldn't drop their weapons and capitulate at the first sign of armed confrontation.

And yet we all know things aren't always what they seem.

America has it's own problems with a rising dictator who has a pen and a phone. Wanna push him over in favor of Jeb?



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Iraq didn't invite America to destroy it either. Your country should be facing war crimes.
edit on 12-6-2014 by DarknStormy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: DarknStormy
Iraq didn't invite America to destroy it either.

I'd beg to differ ... but it's just an opinion.

Your country should be facing war crimes.

The whole country? Or Bush?

Or ... should we blame Clinton for not tying the knot when it was doable? Or, should we blame Obama for not having a foreign policy?
edit on 1262014 by Snarl because: Format



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 01:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl


I'd beg to differ ... but it's just an opinion.



Umm, the Iraqi people didn't invite the USA to obliterate it roughly a decade ago.. America done that to please themselves.




The whole country? Or Bush?


Either way.. After seeing how the OP feels, I really couldn't care what happens to America.



Or ... should we blame Clinton for not tying the knot when it was doable? Or, should we blame Obama for not having a foreign policy?


Or do we blame the idiot population who haven't got the guts to do anything about those parasite leaders?



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 01:32 AM
link   
In the most ironic turn of events, Iran's Revolutionary Guard has crossed the border to engage ISIS on behalf of the Iraqi Shia govt.

ISIS is funded by Saudi Arabia. Things aren't so bad, are they?

edit on 13-6-2014 by FlyingFox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 03:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyingFox
In the most ironic turn of events, Iran's Revolutionary Guard has crossed the border to engage ISIS on behalf of the Iraqi Shia govt.

ISIS is funded by Saudi Arabia. Things aren't so bad, are they?


It is in Iran's interests to make sure this movement does not succeed in both Syria and Iraq. The odds are they will be next on the hit list so this does not surprise me at all. Good for them.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 04:25 AM
link   
When I look at this I see the 'Project For A New American Century' plan in action.

Their mission to destabilize the middle east is working. The ISIS apparently are an off shoot of Al-Qaeda which obviously means they are controlled by the US as it was the US that created the Mercenary group Al-Qaeda in the first place. And it's those types of groups they are arming and supplying in Syria.


Sen. Lindsey Graham has called on US President Barack Obama to authorize airstrikes in Iraq in order to halt the progress of al-Qaeda groups.


Again Al-Qaeda groups! Created and controlled by the US.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Without reading any other responses my gut reaction is:

NO

The middle east in general has terrorized the US enough

Enough of our young men have died in the middle east

Enough is enough - get out and stay out I say

Let the middle east factions destroy each other if they want to

It is NONE OF THE US business anymore

Some say the US is the cause, if so, staying out is all the more pressing so the US doesn't mess it up worse.
edit on 13-6-2014 by grandmakdw because: spelling



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: minusinfinity

It's the Iraqi govt thats asking for help, after the US, UK govts etc destabilised the bejayzus out of the place. Our forces should never have been there, simple as that.



All the more reason why the US should stay out

not to mess things up further

Isn't that what the US does lately in foreign affairs



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Don't start what you can't finish...

With that said I don't see America as the superpower that others do...
Strategy wise...
They'd just bomb more innocent people in the process...

Let China or Russia have a go at playing World Police...
But then again their strategy is untested and could be worse...


Someone needs to help, maybe this needs to be solved by the Imams & Clerics who have abused their positions of power with sectarian bull sh#t!!!


Peace Iraq!!!
Peace everybody!!!



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 10:24 AM
link   
We send troops over and spend BILLIONS on findinf imaginary WMDs...but when people's lives are at stake we need to debate WHETHER we send them? Makes a lot of sense....


edit on 6/13/2014 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
I tend to believe that some of you were born last week, or at least you act as though you were, have the knowledge of someone born recently. This whole area has been one large fluster-cluck for centuries. Read some history of the area. They have been killing one another off in the name of one religion/sect or another for longer than there has been a United States of America. Why should we expend one more dime or one more drop of blood on these savages?
Now, go ahead and tell me how heartless and unfeeling I am---or how my ignorance will endanger the world. My idea is to let them fight it out amongst themselves, kill each other off.

Meanwhile, we need to send our resources to the southern border to stop the invasion of criminals flowing into our country there.



I'd give you one thousand stars if I could.

We need to leave the middle east alone (see my comments above)

We need to stop the exploitation of children from south of the border and send them back to their families in the country from which they came. Yes, a new wave of a younger generation to support the older generation who refuses to have children. Also a new wave of cheap uneducated labor. Notice the average age of the "children" according to border patrol is between 12-14, in a very few years they'll be left to fend for themselves providing tons of cheap labor for nasty jobs. If for no other reason we need to send all our troops to the border to save the children; by sending them home before the US exploits them.

We don't need to send our troops back to a place we messed up so badly to begin with, we need to let the people, with pride and dignity fix their own political problems, not screw their countries up worse.

I like the idea of letting all the nations who think the US needs to intervene to do so themselves
rather than ask the US to intervene
which will result in the (lately) predictable result of further screwing up the country
edit on 13-6-2014 by grandmakdw because: grammar and afterthought

edit on 13-6-2014 by grandmakdw because: see previous

edit on 13-6-2014 by grandmakdw because: fact fix

edit on 13-6-2014 by grandmakdw because: fact check



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   
When Saddam was in power, Iraq was a hell hole for 15% of the population, now its a hell hole for 100%.

The fact is Iraq was a stabilised country with Education, Hospitals and other institutions, even if it was run by a dictator that made anyone who spoke against him go missing... but what we have now is even worse.

Gangs took over operations, killing, pillaging and rapes are common.

Thanks freedom and democracy!



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: luciddream
When Saddam was in power, Iraq was a hell hole for 15% of the population, now its a hell hole for 100%.

The fact is Iraq was a stabilised country with Education, Hospitals and other institutions, even if it was run by a dictator that made anyone who spoke against him go missing... but what we have now is even worse.

Gangs took over operations, killing, pillaging and rapes are common.

Thanks freedom and democracy!


The same problems there having now has always been there. The difference was Bagdad was uneffected it was a show the rest of te country was left without even basics. The US spent alot of money trying to bring the rest of the country into the 21st century. In other. Cities schools were non existant and lorded over by bathist who were not concerned with the public.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   


posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 11:00 AM link quote reply originally posted by: luciddream When Saddam was in power, Iraq was a hell hole for 15% of the population, now its a hell hole for 100%. The fact is Iraq was a stabilised country with Education, Hospitals and other institutions, even if it was run by a dictator that made anyone who spoke against him go missing... but what we have now is even worse. Gangs took over operations, killing, pillaging and rapes are common. Thanks freedom and democracy! The same problems there having now has always been there. The difference was Bagdad was uneffected it was a show the rest of te country was left without even basics. The US spent alot of money trying to bring the rest of the country into the 21st century. In other. Cities schools were non existant and lorded over by bathist who were not concerned with the public.

The fact is Iraq was a stabilized country with Education, Hospitals and other institutions, even if it was run by a dictator that made anyone who spoke against him go missing... but what we have now is even worse.

Gangs took over operations, killing, pillaging and rapes are common.

Thanks freedom and democracy!



The same problems there having now has always been there. The difference was Bagdad was uneffected it was a show the rest of te country was left without even basics. The US spent alot of money trying to bring the rest of the country into the 21st century. In other. Cities schools were non existant and lorded over by bathist who were not concerned with the public.




You are both correct!

You gave very compelling reasons the US needs to say no, no way, not even a drone

or risk screwing up the country even further

the US needs to say goodbye, farewell, we wish you well

but we won't fight your internal battles for you

those have been going on for hundreds of years

and are up to you to solve yourselves.


edit on 13-6-2014 by grandmakdw because: fixed format




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join