Airstrikes undertaken as US re-engages in Iraq

"DatASSun" (DatASSun) 08/08/2014 at 10:49 • Filed to: None

1

16

You have got to be fucking kidding me . Can we not just let them scream and shoot each other and just sit here and be happy happy happy.

pfftballer > DatASSun 08/08/2014 at 10:51

0

Nuke and pave.

macanamera > DatASSun 08/08/2014 at 10:55

2

Rico > DatASSun 08/08/2014 at 10:55

1

Problem is, ISIS is a real threat unlike invisible nonexistent WMDs. My issue with all of this is how come there aren't other countries offering military support so innocent people aren't killed, it's always the US that's looked at with regards to this, or the situation with Boko Haram in Africa. I don't see any European or Asian countries giving a shit.

And seriously, none of this would be happening if Sadam was still in power. Yeah dictators really suck but he would've make sure everyone of those ISIS militants were found and slaughtered, sometimes dictatorship and ruling with an iron fist is necessary to keep groups like this at bay. These groups don't accept laws and rules they only believe in violence and destruction and therefore must be destroyed.

FKA-RacecaR > pfftballer 08/08/2014 at 10:56

2

Nah, solar panels and wind generators. There would be enough energy to power most of the world generated from that large of an area.

Wishin & workin for an E39 M5 > DatASSun 08/08/2014 at 11:02

2

I will say what I said on Foxtrot Alpha.

It is about fucking time.

To those politicians in D.C. who have been screwing up foreign policy because they have never experienced war.

Stop treading on my legacy Washington.

nFamousCJ - Keeper of Stringbean, Gengars and a Deezul > DatASSun 08/08/2014 at 11:03

0

Yeah but when Al Qaeda says you've gone too far you know you're pretty jacked up. ISIS has pissed off EVERYONE - including AQ, Hezbollah, Egypt, the Kurds, Iran and so forth.

I get countries and religions will fight over holy land and independence forever. They will, it's just what they do. But ISIS wants genocide. Know who else wanted genocide? Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Ze Dong, Stalin, Kim Il Sung. But now it's an organization that's fueling the fires and using religion (as so many times in history before it) to spread their "word"

Rico > macanamera 08/08/2014 at 11:08

0

Bitch you cookin!?

nFamousCJ - Keeper of Stringbean, Gengars and a Deezul > Rico 08/08/2014 at 11:09

1

because other countries have grown accustomed to the US picking up the bill, troops, and supplies. Some will help, others will "supply intel" and claim they've helped but because they know the US will do it they'll hold back and wait til the heavy lifting is done.

nFamousCJ - Keeper of Stringbean, Gengars and a Deezul > Wishin & workin for an E39 M5 08/08/2014 at 11:10

1

couldn't be a more appropriate gif.

PelicanHazard > Rico 08/08/2014 at 11:13

1

Yes and no:

ISIS is a threat, I wholeheartedly agree.

Other countries do provide support in these situations, it just isn't reported widely here. For instance, France has committed 3,000 troops to the Sahel region of western Africa to combat Boko Haram and other minor militant groups. Now why the force appears paltry compared to our efforts is because the US has a larger force available to commit. It's been that way since WWII.

As for Saddam, he would have at best delayed it. All men must die, and dictatorships don't really provide good succession ladders these days. Though it does provide an interesting 'what if' had Saddam not been ousted by us, as no doubt Iraqis would have also participated in the Arab Spring.

Wishin & workin for an E39 M5 > nFamousCJ - Keeper of Stringbean, Gengars and a Deezul 08/08/2014 at 11:13

1

But I will tell you what I told a congressional representative, when she asked me what I felt when I shot bad guys in Iraq, "Recoil".

Klaus Schmoll > DatASSun 08/08/2014 at 11:14

0

Problem is that without the first two engagements of the US there would be no ISIS. It is more or less a matter of cleaning up your own mess.

JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t > Rico 08/08/2014 at 11:14

2

Y'know, it's true. Saddam was an ass, and a dictator, and he didn't like the USA much, but by middle eastern standards he was a progressive and secular ruller. Before "liberation" Iraq had one of the best education systems in the middle east, and was one of the most progressive countries in the middle east as far as women's rights and employment opportunities (as long as you were a Saddam supporter...), hell there were even women fairly highly placed in government under Saddam! He kept the crazy(est) of the Islamic Militants at bay and ran his country like HE wanted to, not the way the clerics said he should... Now it's practically another Afghanistan...

Rico > JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t 08/08/2014 at 11:20

0

Pretty much this, I know he wasn't a great guy by any stretch and I'm sure many innocent people were killed under his regime but look at their current situation, it is a million times worse than it was when he was in power. If anything our beef should've been with Pakistan who had been harboring known terrorists including Bin Laden but it's too late for all of that.

Rico > PelicanHazard 08/08/2014 at 11:22

1

That's probably true too, but when faced with this threat had Saddam not been able to handle it it could've provided a common ground to broker a deal with the US for help. Even if he was a horrible person the US is not above helping such nations if they can get something out of it. I'm just saying Iraq is in way worse shape than when Saddam was in power, and don't think I think he was some sort of great guy because he wasn't.

macshome > DatASSun 08/08/2014 at 11:40

1

There is a lot of oil there.