3 ms·
We've been there for 20 years, and killed 600K+ people (mostly civilians) in Iraq alone. It is that simple. GTFO. Never come back. They're not a threat. They've
by m0zg 6y ago
We've been there for 20 years, and killed 600K+ people (mostly civilians) in Iraq alone. It is that simple. GTFO. Never come back. They're not a threat. They've never been a threat. Saddam never had WMD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_cas...
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> It is that simple. GTFO. Never come back. They're not a threat. This is a complicated subject. I'm not qualified to discuss it and, from the sound of it, neither are you. But consider the rise of ISIL as a cautionary tale against oversimplifying extraction.
- m0zg 6y agoBut we funded and armed ISIS-affiliated groups to get rid of Assad. Unsuccessfully. Once we stopped funding and arming them, ISIS disappeared. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isi...
- asdff 6y agoIt's risky at this point. The middle east is a jenga tower held up by coalition troops with no good governments able to fend against internal threats due to the rampant local corruption. The U.S. pulled out of iraq and isis promptly took over half the country. I think pulling out from the middle east entirely would do far more harm than good considering all the backing these various extremist militias have from foreign nations, inching to pounce and seize power and enact their fucked up agenda on the populace. Imo, we should replace drone strikes with sniper rifles or highly trained SEAL teams to verify and take out targets. Way too much taking people out and not nearly enough verifying is the problem, not that the troops are there at all.
- m0zg 6y agoSo what's the game plan here? Keep slaughtering them indefinitely, sinking trillions of dolalrs we don't have into that black hole?
- asdff 6y agoimo charge soldiers who commit warcrimes and continue trying to train a new generation of leadership. that second point will probably take another decade at least.
- tempestn 6y agoI don't think many people would argue with you that invading Iraq was a mistake and a catastrophe. That doesn't necessarily mean pulling out immediately (even after 20 years) would be better. I'm not saying it wouldn't, just that it's not that simple.
- m0zg 6y agoThere's no way to win there, under _any_ definition of "win". The British failed. The USSR failed. The US failed once already, and will fail again. We can fail after killing 600K and spending $3T. Or we can fail after killing 1.5M and spending $6T. But we _will_ fail regardless. It is not possible to win an unconventional land war with people who are fighting for their own land. All these "robots" are basically technological masturbation: great for milking the taxpayer and nothing else. They do not change the situation on the ground, especially when you're fighting with a bunch of semi-literate dudes with Kalashnikovs who are not afraid to die.
- CapricornNoble 6y agoWe're not there (now) because of Saddam, or WMDs, or even ISIS. We are there to: 1. Undermine the "Shia crescent". The US doesn't want the Iranians to have an unrestricted land corridor that extends from Tehran to Beirut. It is considered a security threat to Israel and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is the key to OPEC, and OPEC supports US Petrodollar dominance. 2. Restrict Chinese OBOR expansion. The lack of stability makes the region unviable for Chinese infrastructure building. This degrades China's ability to pivot away from their Sea Lines of Communication, which are currently a major economic weakness.
- lm28469 6y agoSo: 1. We like cheap gas 2. We're scared of China because China bad Yeah that sums up the US war tactics since ww2 I guess