Post: #1

"A team of US military and humanitarian aid personnel, who flew to the Sinjar Mountains in northern Iraq under cover of darkness to assess the situation of thousand of members of the Yazidi religious minority, found far fewer people than previously feared and in better condition than expected, the Pentagon said in a statement.

"Based on this assessment," the Pentagon said, "an evacuation mission is far less likely."

http://m.aljazeera.com/story/201481323213112130

Post: #2

Bullshit, less likely. We've been steadily increasing our forces by 100 troops each time we send any one group over there. I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually have a few thousand over there.

This shaping up to start like Vietnam. We send advisers. Well, now we need security forces to protect the advisers. Well, now we need more troops to protect the security forces to protect the advisers. FUCK IT, WE'RE GOING ALL-IN!

Post: #3

(08-13-2014 11:47 PM)HawkWrites Wrote:  This shaping up to start like Vietnam. We send advisers. Well, now we need security forces to protect the advisers. Well, now we need more troops to protect the security forces to protect the advisers. FUCK IT, WE'RE GOING ALL-IN!

The only difference being, the Iraq mess was caused by USA in the first place. Vietnam just happened on its own.

I'm not saying that it's a reason to send troops now, just that involvement in the Vietnam war can be forgiven more easily.

Post: #4

Well, remember that Vietnam started with the French since Vietnam was originally a French colony.

Post: #5

But that's exactly what I mean. I can see USA as being somewhat "noble" in intervening in Vietnam (of course it had its reasons to jump in, but it definitely didn't have to). But since it's responsible for messing up Iraq in the first place, it's in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. I find it hard to have any sympathy for it no matter what choice it makes regarding this intervention.

Post: #6

(08-14-2014 04:05 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  But that's exactly what I mean. I can see USA as being somewhat "noble" in intervening in Vietnam (of course it had its reasons to jump in, but it definitely didn't have to). But since it's responsible for messing up Iraq in the first place, it's in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. I find it hard to have any sympathy for it no matter what choice it makes regarding this intervention.

We were doing our "world police" thing in Vietnam, admittedly.

I personally think that we have no good solution for the situation in Iraq and we're only provoking more green-on-blue attacks with our presence. It's unsavory but as far as I'm concerned we should let each warring faction kill each other and be as far from the conflict as possible.

I have no interest in the survival of any faction in that country. I couldn't care less about how any of the people that live there turn out in that dogshit country. Live, die, I couldn't care less.

Post: #7

Let me explain what's happening.

Complex strategic concerns have forced to America to intervene in Iraq against ISIS. However,
the American public is ambivalent another war in Iraq.

So the sending of troops to Iraq was justified, partly, by saying it was a "humanitarian" intervention on behalf of the Yezidis. The govt knew that the situation with the Yezidi refugees on the mountain was not that severe, but exaggerated the severity to generate public support.

Back in 1990, a similar tactic was used to sell the Persian Gulf War.





The Vietnam War was sold on the falsified Gulf of Tonkin incident.

http://www.infowars.com/de-classified-vi...lag-event/

Quote:Over 1,100 pages of previously classified Vietnam-era transcripts released this week by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee highlight the fact that several Senators knew that the White House and the Pentagon had deceived the American people over the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident.

Post: #8

Everybody watch the above video. It lasts for only a couple minutes.

Post: #9

(08-13-2014 11:47 PM)HawkWrites Wrote:  Bullshit, less likely. We've been steadily increasing our forces by 100 troops each time we send any one group over there. I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually have a few thousand over there.

This shaping up to start like Vietnam. We send advisers. Well, now we need security forces to protect the advisers. Well, now we need more troops to protect the security forces to protect the advisers. FUCK IT, WE'RE GOING ALL-IN!

Name anyone who would vote against the US and NATO forces going balls deep into the asshole of those IS scumbags.

They've signed their own death warrants long ago. Time to deliver them to death itself.

Post: #10

(08-14-2014 12:17 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 11:47 PM)HawkWrites Wrote:  Bullshit, less likely. We've been steadily increasing our forces by 100 troops each time we send any one group over there. I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually have a few thousand over there.

This shaping up to start like Vietnam. We send advisers. Well, now we need security forces to protect the advisers. Well, now we need more troops to protect the security forces to protect the advisers. FUCK IT, WE'RE GOING ALL-IN!

Name anyone who would vote against the US and NATO forces going balls deep into the asshole of those IS scumbags.

They've signed their own death warrants long ago. Time to deliver them to death itself.

Practically any representative from the Middle East that sits in the UN. Granted, the six or seven countries on the UN Security Council (maybe with the exception of Russia) would probably vote unanimously to engage.

Post: #11

(08-14-2014 02:23 PM)HawkWrites Wrote:  Practically any representative from the Middle East that sits in the UN. Granted, the six or seven countries on the UN Security Council (maybe with the exception of Russia) would probably vote unanimously to engage.

I'm not so sure, it might be quite the other way around. Who is the IS threatening? Syria, Shia-led Iraq, and so by proxy also Iran. USA is not on good terms with Syria and Iran, Russia is.

I'm not saying IS is in any way affiliated with the US government, but in the end it might hurt their rivals more than them so they let them be, and drain resources out of their rivals and destabilize the region they might prefer to keep destabilized.