Iraqi leaders appeal for US ground troops to fight ISIS.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Grandluxe, Oct 14, 2014.

  1. Leaders of Iraq's Anbar province call for U.S. ground forces to stop ISIS
    By Faith Karimi and Laura Smith-Spark, CNN
    October 14, 2014 -- Updated 0008 GMT (0808 HKT)

    (CNN) -- Despite airstrikes and international outrage against ISIS militants, the terror group is overrunning Iraqi forces and slowly marching on toward a province on Baghdad's doorstep. And as alarming developments piled up over the weekend, Iraqi forces threatened to flee if the U.S. military does not intervene.

    Reports Saturday suggest they have encircled Haditha, the last large town in Anbar province not yet in the militants' hands.

    Should all of Anbar fall, the Sunni extremists would rule from the perimeter of Iraq's capital to Raqqa in Syria (at least), according to the provincial council's deputy head, Falleh al-Issawi.

    To stave off Anbar's collapse, provincial leaders have asked Iraq's central government to intervene immediately and for U.S. ground forces to be deployed there, said al-Issawi.

    Iraqi army forces and Anbar tribesmen fighting alongside them have threatened to abandon their weapons if the U.S. military does not intervene to help them, he said, because they are faltering before the ISIS onslaught.

    U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel acknowledged the dire situation Friday, telling reporters, "Anbar province is in trouble. We know that."
  2. Lucrum


    Seems to me even massive air drops of weapons ammo etc would make a big difference.
    I guess it's tough running a war from the golf course though.
  3. There is a JV Team in all of this. They've made a few trades over the past couple of years, but their losing strategy is still the same. obama-cabinet-500.jpg
  4. TGregg


    Looks like the original strategy was the best one. Let some ruthless, evil mofo run every country and keep the peace as long as the oil flows.
  5. I can't see sending in US troops. For what? To prop up another corrupt Iraqi regime? And for how long? What happens after we leave?

    The secret no one wants to admit is that this wouldn't have happened without the support of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. They see Iran and the shia muslims as their enemy, not ISIS. They want ISIS to win, then they figure they can co-op them.

    One thing we should have learned over the course of our failed interventions in country after country, eg Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, is that if the local population is not willing to fight, we are wasting our time.
    achilles28 likes this.
  6. achilles28


    I'm with Rand Paul, on this one. If Iraqis won't fight for their own country, why should America? Think about the implications of fighting everyone else's battles because they're either too afraid, too cheap, or too cowardly to defend themselves.
  7. loyek590


    Yes, you look at Benjamin Franklin and the French during the Revolutionary War. He waited until the rebels had a significant victory, and then the French came in and tipped the scale in our favor with nothing more than a naval blockade.
  8. Don't take my reply as too contentious, but I will tell you why I think we need to be doing more than we're doing.
    In short, we gave our word that we would. We gave it explicitly and implicitly. On this side of the pond we can debate these lofty topics of who did what and when. Who is to blame? How far back shall we go to find the culprit? Should we have went there in the first place? Is this a republican failure or a democratic one? Etc, etc.
    The fact is those on the other side of the pond don't have these luxuries. They're fighting and dying, and they won't consider who let them down by party affiliation. They'll say the Americans left them in their hour of need. So will the rest of the world. They'll say that the Americans talk a good game about being this beacon of liberty, defenders of freedom, warriors that stand against tyranny...but at the end of the day when it's no longer profitable for them, they bail out and will leave you to fend for yourself. If that's true, then so be it, but lets' quit pretending that we are this shining city on the hill, the last great hope for freedom around the world. If we bail out on this, this thing that we screwed up so badly, then we are anything but the beacon of freedom and liberty. What are we as a nation? The world is watching. Do we even care? If not, then lets not pretend that we do. Walk the talk, or we should STFU about this defenders of freedom and liberty crap. Just my 2 cents.
  9. loyek590


    3 wrongs don't make a right. We were wrong to go into Iraq in the first place. One wrong. We were wrong to leave it so early. Two wrongs. Now we are about to commit the third wrong. Abandon them (which may be the third wrong) and admit we already made two wrongs and a third one won't make it right. Or go back in (which may be the third wrong) and admit we made two mistakes, and hope the third wrong will make it right.

    I've been on the losing side of a drug intervention, and at some point people just have to tell you, "We want to help, but we can't help you if you don't want to help yourself."
  10. achilles28


    Abandon them?? Lol You talk as if ISIS are a military superpower that can only be defeated by the United States. Any Middle Eastern country with a half decent military could wipe them out. The fact is ME despots won't declare war against ISIS as policy, because that would foster rebellion against their own Governments. IOW, ISIS is a grassroots movement in the ME with broad support from hardline Muslims. Let them live in their own shit. And justifying perpetual war is idiocy. Iraq was about the petro-dollar, oil, and a bailout to defense contractors. It had nothing to do with terrorism. This whole notion that America has to be on a constant state of war footing because we're existentially threatened by what?! Some guys in caves. Wake up.
    #10     Oct 14, 2014