Jump to content


Photo

Iraq: Should the US get involved ?


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Member Berry

Member Berry

    Member Alderaan? Member the Cold War?

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,914 posts
  • IRC Nick:Molagbal
  • Location: THE WHITEHOUSE

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:XxHouseArrestXx
  • Nation Name:Poland

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 15 June 2014 - 03:14 PM - 085521

Before i state my opinion ill give those of you who don't know the situation a brief run-down.  The ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) is an extremist Muslim terrorist group.  They want to create a new unified strict Islamist state in Syria and Iraq.  They are participating in the Syrian civil war and atm they are attacking Iraq.  They charged into Iraq and they have Conquered huge swaths of land from the Iraqi government and in a lot of cases the Iraqi military will completely collapse and not even put up a fight.  The rebels are very close to Baghdad  (don't know exact number but it was less than 100 miles) and are closing fast. 

 

That is what i know of the situation, if anyone finds something that is inconsistent or incorrect please let me know :P

 

Anyway to my opinion: Why do we need to get involved in Iraq ?  IT IS A WASTE OF TIME.  The entire reason why we went into Iraq was a pile of bullshit and why do we need to get ourselves involved again ?  We should not send ANYTHING.   As the Iraqi war was coming to a close we even offered to keep troops in Iraq in a supporting role but guess what, the Iraqi government did not want us so we left.  Why do we need to come back ?  We wasted so much money, so much blood and we will never fix this problem no matter what we do.  Even if we intervene again  it will not solved the problem of Sunni vs Shiite.  We already tried and we failed, learn from our mistakes and stay away from this conflict.   


  • 0

#2 The End

The End

    Martyr

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 798 posts
  • IRC Nick:LukeC

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Luke C
  • Nation Name:Columbus

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 16 June 2014 - 05:17 AM - 085522

First of all well done, this is a good debate topic. 

 

It was a complete and utter waste of lives and funds to invade Iraq. Thousands of deaths and hundreds of billions wasted and for what? The US Government install their pro US democratic government there and then they left. They've been doing the same crap for ages and it rarely works. These middle eastern basket cases for the most part are corrupt, impoverished, and backwards. They can't support a democratic system and there are so many factions and militant groups and rival tribes that it is impossible for these countries to be stable functioning democracies. The US went in there, threw over Hussein, dropped a few bombs here and there and left.

 

These tensions and conflicts have been going on for ages in the Middle East. One of the main reasons was what happened after the collapse of the British Empire after WW2. Fake borders were drawn up and people were moved and divided. You have a bunch of different ethnicities living in fake countries. 

 

Nothing that the US can do will fix the issue. They can help put people in power and overthrow governments but the issues will remain. The British, the Soviets the the Americans have all learnt this by invading Middle Eastern countries. 

 

However, I do think its important to prevent these terrorist groups from gaining power and influence cause the last thing anyone needs is another 9/11. Furthermore, these radical groups are f*cked, barbaric and savages. Brutal executions, no freedom of speech, etc. At the end of the day they're just not moral people. They have no conscience. As I said before going into Iraq was a complete waste of resources, however if the country falls to the ISIS any positive thing that may have come out of Iraq would be lost and all those thousands of troops and hundreds of billions of dollars would have gone down the drain for nothing at all. It would also look really bad for America's power/influence.

 

I am not advocating troops on the ground. I find it disgusting and pathetic that the Iraqi troops just packed up and bailed. The Iraqi government did not want a continued long term US military presence and now they're begging for help. They need to learn how to defend their own country otherwise this sh*t will just keep happening. 

 

On the bright side this incident is bringing the US and Iran together and I am all for increased cooperation in that respect. If these people directly threaten the government and if there is a virtually guaranteed possibility that the government will fall THEN carry out drone and missile strikes etc. But the US cannot keep being the world's policeman, the rebound guy and the last resort for everyone. Putting troops on the ground would be an extremely bad move. 


  • 0

#3 Aurelius

Aurelius

    The Blue Man

  • Atlantic Council
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,995 posts
  • IRC Nick:Aurelius
  • Location: Australia

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Aurelius
  • Nation Name:Cenk Uygur

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 16 June 2014 - 06:55 AM - 085523

Interesting and related article.

 

http://www.slate.com..._troops_in.html

 

My understanding of the situation is that it is a complex puzzle split along a variety of fault lines, including religious factions, tribes, etc. However, whether the complexity of the situation is a good enough reason to stay out, I am not sure. What is at stake is the fall of a very important country in the Middle East, with large reserves of oil. What is more, it will fall potentially into the hands of a group that are essentially a fundamentalist group which may, in the future, pose a very real and not fanciful risk to other countries (particularly Western countries).

 

The truth is, I'm not qualified to say whether the US should be involved. Plus, my country (Australia) although playing a vital role supposedly did not have to spill as much of our soldiers' blood in that war. Further, I understand the natural reluctance to get involved again, after the catastrof**k of the last war. (For anyone interested, there is a very excellent documentary made by the BBC discussing the Iraq War.) However, I am concerned that America has swung too far the other way and is now reluctant to even consider involvement in any other conflict. This is a perception I have and it may be wrong but from reading a variety of news websites and even looking at the White House's official response, it's something I've noticed.


  • 0

#4 The End

The End

    Martyr

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 798 posts
  • IRC Nick:LukeC

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Luke C
  • Nation Name:Columbus

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 16 June 2014 - 08:14 AM - 085524

Yeah I agree. They didn't want to get involved in Syria. They didn't want to get involved in Ukraine. And now they're hesitant about involvement in Iraq. With the previous 2 there was hesitancy as Russia needed to be considered in decision making. With Iraq there is no powerful country that is making things difficult. Even Iran has been interested in working with the US. I can understand them not wanting to put troops on the ground and I completely agree with that decision, however I feel like letting a radical extremist militant group take over a whole country without any efforts to prevent the take over is a bad move. 

 

Putting troops on the ground to fight in combat would have been a bad decision in relation to the list of global incidents I listed above. However there is no harm in utilizing drones, air strikes or troops as a deterrence. In this situation regarding Iraq drone and air strikes would be the most suitable option. The minute you put combat troops on the ground you risk losing lives and you risk turning the expedition into a sustained and long term campaign that'll cost billions. That's what happened in Vietnam, that's what happened in Iraq and that's what happened in Afghanistan.

 

So it appears as if they are now hesitant about the "troops on the ground option" which is a good thing. But as Aurelius said, they appear to have gone the other way. Since when did utilizing drone and air strikes to target radical extremists (especially when they are attempting to take over an entire country) become such a big deal for the US?


  • 0

#5 Haart

Haart

    The trade guy

  • NADC Assembly
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,632 posts
  • Location: Finland

  • NDT Link:[ Link ]

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Haart
  • Nation Name:Barbarica

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 18 June 2014 - 08:22 PM - 085525

If you create a mess, then you also clean up. So the short answer is: USA should never have left the country in the first place.


  • 0

#6 Dark Wizard

Dark Wizard

    Lailander

  • NADC Assembly
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Location: Mars

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Dark Wizard
  • Nation Name:New Carnoly

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 19 June 2014 - 02:57 AM - 085526

I have to totally disagree Haart. The US didn't make a mess, this "mess" is a Sunni/Shiite "mess" that has been a problem for a thousand years. 


  • 0

#7 Haart

Haart

    The trade guy

  • NADC Assembly
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,632 posts
  • Location: Finland

  • NDT Link:[ Link ]

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Haart
  • Nation Name:Barbarica

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 19 June 2014 - 06:42 AM - 085527

The US made a mess when they invaded Iraq and left the country destabilized. If they had built up what they destroyed, or even better, left Mr Hussein alone, then there would be order and the extremists kept at bay. It's like eating slices of bread; if I don't clean up after I'm done the crumbles will sooner or later become a problem. It's irresponsible to let small nuisances become big problems.


  • 0

#8 The End

The End

    Martyr

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 798 posts
  • IRC Nick:LukeC

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Luke C
  • Nation Name:Columbus

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 19 June 2014 - 11:25 AM - 085528

I can see it both ways.

 

America left when a lot of the fundamental issues hadn't been resolved and the installed government was not stable or accepted by all. This current crisis was always going to be inevitable after they left. It was always a matter of when not if. 

 

At the end of the day the tensions and conflict that exist between the different Muslim groups was a root underlying cause in most of the issues in the first place. The USA's involvement did not assist in quelling the arguments and disagreements between these groups. 

 

So I think you're both onto something. 


  • 0

#9 Member Berry

Member Berry

    Member Alderaan? Member the Cold War?

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,914 posts
  • IRC Nick:Molagbal
  • Location: THE WHITEHOUSE

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:XxHouseArrestXx
  • Nation Name:Poland

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 19 June 2014 - 04:04 PM - 085529

If you create a mess, then you also clean up. So the short answer is: USA should never have left the country in the first place.

I can certainly understand your standpoint since your country stood on the sidelines and did not participate.  

 

An excerpt from an article i found:  "The man who led the US troop surge that preceded Washington's exit from Iraq after a costly eight-year war says there should be no going back, even with air strikes.


The comments from General David Petraeus, who commanded US troops in Mosul -- Iraq's second city which fell to jihadists last week -- during a long military and intelligence career, came as the Shiite-led government in Baghdad formally asked for air support."

 

 

My cousin served in Iraq, he came back only with one leg.  My family respected his decision to serve, nobody stopped him, but what pissed my family off is the fact the he made a sacrifice for a lie that the Us Gov told.  There is no need for us to get involved again.  We don't need more families affected by this war and stupid conflict.

 

The US made a mess when they invaded Iraq and left the country destabilized. If they had built up what they destroyed, or even better, left Mr Hussein alone, then there would be order and the extremists kept at bay. It's like eating slices of bread; if I don't clean up after I'm done the crumbles will sooner or later become a problem. It's irresponsible to let small nuisances become big problems.

The US set the Iraqi government up for success.  They gave them training, the best equipment in the world, and knowledge.  I certainly agree that if we left Mr. Hussein alone then this situation would not be as dire.  This situation could still have happened under Hussein, Hussein does not solve the Shiite v Sunni problem at all.  He kept the situation under control through fear because he was a dictator.  This same mess could have happened under Hussein as well.  Would you also want to get the US involved then to ?  The Iraqi government wanted us to leave EVEN thought we offered to stay and help them beyond 2011.  The current leaders of Iraq threw everything we gave them away all in the name of corruption.  We tried to give Iraq a future but they threw it away, let Iran help them now.

 

Those of you who talk about a safe haven for terrorists  being created as a result of this that is not true.  The Iranian government will not Stand for Sunni Terrorist organizations and land to be established so close to it.  Iranian government will help Iraq. 


  • 0

#10 Haart

Haart

    The trade guy

  • NADC Assembly
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,632 posts
  • Location: Finland

  • NDT Link:[ Link ]

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Haart
  • Nation Name:Barbarica

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 23 June 2014 - 01:36 PM - 0855210

Unless I didn't state it clearly: the more the US "get involved" politically and militarily in other countries, the more chaotic the political situation will become in those countries. At the same time the US will receive more hate, so I can't understand why it's more preferable to get more foes than friends. And it isn't something new, this aggressive expansionistic policy seem to have been used for at least 150 years - as far as I understand - and there still doesn't seem to be any change of that. Russia is of course no better, the Ukraine situation is a clear proof of that. The only reason the US should help Iraq at this point is because they are partly responsible for what's going on there, so it can't get worse as it is now. If Hussein had been alive and still running the country, any possible uprising had been his problem, not US.

 

No my country didn't participate in the invasion, because in Finland people don't believe in interfering in the internal and external affairs of other countries. There are Finnish peacekeepers in Afghanistan, and although I can somewhat understand the reason for US attacking that nation I'm still not happy about the Finns being there. Also, when you invade a country and want to set up a new functional government, it's naive to expect the society to "be back to normal" in just ten years of rebuilding. This is especially true when you try to bring ideas to a nation where they not really belong, and therefore most likely will not work there. After seeing how the situation in Egypt and other Arabian countries have developed, it's quite clear that they are not ready for the democracy we have in the western countries. They got rid of one dictator in Egypt, got another one, and now it's already the third. And when I say dictatorship I'm not saying it in the negative sense as most people seem to do, I'm just stating the fact. Every type of government has its own flaws and advantages, and personally I hadn't have much use of the so called democracy we have here.


  • 0