Schmidt Wrote: A few quotes about war:
“God created war so that Americans would learn geography.” -- Mark Twain
“There are causes worth dying for, but none worth killing for.” -- Albert Camus
“Only the dead have seen the end of war.” -- Plato
It would seem that Plato was right...2,400 years ago!
jaredsxtn Wrote: I'm not entirely sure what we are supposed to make of the recent unrest. The 24/7 news channels would like to have us believe this just happened over night, but Iraq has been a hell hole since 2003. A civil war raging along 375 miles of its northwestern border has only inflamed the sectarianian tensions throughout the country. A simple look at the geography and secular makeup of land Al-Qaeda and other Sunni fighters are reclaiming and anyone should understand that these long simmering tensions between the two sides isn't going to be solved anytime soon.
It saddens me that we spent over $20 billion dollars training the Iraqi Army and, by all accounts, they are splitting along sectarian lines themselves. The Iraqi military has been battling militants in the western part of the country for months and seem to be simply giving up. That's not a positive development.
The last thing I want is for us to get involved on the ground because there is absolutely nothing we can do that would improve the situation. There is nothing to be gained from inserting ourselves in a bitter civil conflict and even more so when the conflict is religious in nature. It would be inaccurate to claim we can force peace on the Iraqi's. Unfortunately this is something they are going to have to figure out themselves if they ever want a lasting peace.
jamesn Wrote: jared and Dutch are both pretty much correct. We can't ..."force peace on the Iraqi's"... and that is the lesson that we should have learned many long and expensive years ago. But no, our politicians NEVER learn.
President Obama is not going to commit ground troops to another useless war. He CAN'T POSSIBLY be stupid enough to do that again...can he?
All those American lives wasted, all those hundreds of billions down the drain. All that for absolutely nothing.
Have we evacuated that brand new gazillion dollar American Embassy yet? If not, what are we waiting for? Another dead Ambassador?
The really bad news is this: Afghanistan may be next. The same thing could happen there...just like deja-vu all over again.
We can't force peace on the Afghans either.
jaredsxtn Wrote:The last thing I want is for us to get involved on the ground because there is absolutely nothing we can do that would improve the situation. There is nothing to be gained from inserting ourselves in a bitter civil conflict and even more so when the conflict is religious in nature. It would be inaccurate to claim we can force peace on the Iraqi's. Unfortunately this is something they are going to have to figure out themselves if they ever want a lasting peace.
vincentlibertarian Wrote:The Kurd's would be better off by splitting from Maliki's Shia portion of Iraq as well. Iraq was just a region of tribes drawn out on an English map after World War I so what is the big deal that it splits up? Is it worth one more American life to keep up the fiction?
vincentlibertarian Wrote: David Brook's editorial today regarding the "Sunni Shiite Conflict in Iraq" is dis-heartening in it's analysis that we should of stayed until we buried the twelve hundred year old religious split in Islam. ISIS, for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, is Sunni and is carving out a Sunni region within Syria and Iraq. Let them! The Kurd's would be better off by splitting from Maliki's Shia portion of Iraq as well. Iraq was just a region of tribes drawn out on an English map after World War I so what is the big deal that it splits up? Is it worth one more American life to keep up the fiction?
AmcmurryFreedom Wrote: So, the question remains, "How long does America wait for another 9-11 to occur"? It will happen undoubtedly because our nation has stepped into a hornets nest in the Middle East and angered many who regard Americans as infidels and deserve to be killed on sight. The humanity issue here is people are being killed who want only to exist peacefully, hold jobs and raise their children. The rebellious people use their agenda to intimidate and push their selfish cause to exterminate those that do not have their religious beliefs. The groups fighting one another in these countries want only power and could care less for the people they kill, maim or enslave. While Iraq and Afghanistan will see more hostile takeover and who knows what kind of forming government or is it a revolution initiated by prominent people wanting control and eventually retaliation on the world and America for messing up their lifestyle. America will see more destruction, so it is just how long can we wait for an attack?
What's happening in Iraq appears to have momentum, thus when or how will America react? I assume that NATO is discussing options, because much of Europe is targeted by these militarized groups and they are asking the same question as America, "How long do we wait for an attack on our Nations?". NATO should be the major player in any reactive component that involve troop, ship and air forces in stepping up war/conflict in IRAQ. I searched on "NATO, World Policy" in BING and found numerous links on the composition of the NATO Organization. The main NATO link is:
If you go to the main NATO link and sublink to "organization" than to "What is NATO", you will locate the purposes both Political and Military for NATO. The Military purpose for NATO is guided, in part, by "The North Atlantic Treaty". I have always considered NATO troops as being sent into a conflict without bullets and without a clear mission on what they actual do to change the course of any war. If that is true, I would hope NATO will have sharper teeth and exercise clear mandates stopping the internal wars of any country. Because NATO appears incapable of stopping aggression and the killing of humanity in peace, it is America, Britain, Australia, France, Canada and few other smaller countries that join together in making a "shock and awe campaign against attacking terrorists and rebellious people bent on doomsday agendas. I fully support a military campaign against any threat to a nation, but I do not want America to handle it all or be the major player. NATO needs to step up their game and be a leader of nations.
I watch the news and am concerned with the people running from their homes, as if they want no part of the Sharia law Reactionaries of ISIS. That tells me our world politics and all nations need to be concerned about a growing problem of accepting this culture. It appears ISIS to be anti-humane and borne from ignorance to enslave and keep people from freely pursuing their dreams for success and raising families. ISIS also shows a willingness to be a terror organization throughout the world and may be worst than Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Imagine what would happen if ISIS, Al Qaeda and the Taliban would merge into one gigantic movement to threaten the world? Do you wait for that to happen?
I remember a old story about a prisoner telling others after being led to a NAZI concentration camp. The NAZI's came for the Jews, than they came for the Polish, than they came for French and then they came for "ME". So, how long does America or NATO wait for terror to strike again?