The debate "Did the US pave way for ISIS by unwanted interference and destabilising Iraq" was started by
May 31, 2017, 11:08 am.
10 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 4 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
yasanjeewa posted 7 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 4 arguments, PsychDave posted 2 arguments, neveralone posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
yasanjeewa, SirIntegra, anu1302 and 7 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, PsychDave, neveralone and 1 visitor disagree.
Isis is a problem. that's what the low intake is partly because. we are scared as a people of bombers. I and several others want them to think logically so that they see our system works but give some small comforts. Isis is a threat that should be taken down. we are attempting to do so as are other countries I hope we sussesfully do this shortly and start to rebuild. on Hillary that is why for one reason she is not our president though I don't think that was ever proven. we don't let them just do whatever. we do keep an eye but a lot of people need to wake up and start taking an interest here or it could get worse.
their are people in the us wanted to fix that but it is a process. we hold them accountable though.
look I'll put a new topic with regards to NK and USA if not this will stretch the topic. Sir did you know that the US has only taken in only over 10000 refugees while dropping at least 50000 bombs to ISIS strong holds. Sir your presidential candidate Madam Hillary Clinton has Emails with ISIS. People of the US is good. Politicians are f***ed up.
sir I agree with you the people of the US wants good. However your politicians do not. They only want what is best for them.
1) have u heard of a group called Isis? they are not good. we try to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. sadly it's impossible in today's society but is being looked at.
2) that happened because we got out. what would of been good is if we handed such a case to the UN but the UN doesn't even do it's job.
3) u do realize NK threatens nuclear war about every five seconds and enslaves it's people?
the us is its people. when we did any of this it was for moral reasons. politicians may take advantage but we made no plan to. what we tried and still are trying to do is help people
Oh by the way China is a super power and look how calm they are. Your yanking your own chain is what it's brother.
Sir you claim that the US has dine more good, I must ask does
1)Dropping more bombs than to Syria than saving it's refugees
2)Causing a power vacume in Iraq
3)Applying more sanctions to North Korea for having 10 nukes where as the US contains at least over a thousand.
Do these fall into the US doing more good. Face it sir, the US and the rest of the P5s are simply power hungry. It's natural to power hungry.
I understand the sentiments brought up by Dave. However what needs to be understood is that Gaddafi and Saddam were killed by the US as these 2 individuals actions dropped the US dollar. The excuse the US developed to invade these countries were humanitarian. Moreover Gazprom, in Russia supplies oil to the European market. The US wants to destabilise the middle east as there can be a pipe line build from the middle east with US ownership to the European market. It is all about politics, they don't give a damn about the humanitarian cause.
Links below will help.
the Iraq invasion was a massive mistake but the fact that we stayed instead of abandoning it should be appreciated. I was mostly defending the rest of the US's foreign policy.
there were also many who believed we were going for humanitarian reasons, even if they were fooled. But there are many answers to why, some good, some bad.
the US started butting into other people's business after ww2, and since then there has been world wide peace outside of relatively minor regional conflict. that is the original reason for the US getting involves everywhere and that has been a huge success and a major benefit to humanity.
but just because the general mission was exemplary doesn't mean every action was ideal, or even good. however, if your nation was a global superpower, would it quietly keep to itself? Lol. no! the US has and should act in its interests and it has been doing it while also helping others with fair trade deals, aid, and pushing for civil rights (after setting up a friendly government). China and Russia are now showing how much of a bully the US could have been.
overall the US has done more good than bad when compared to other nations and ideologies. And it should not be held to some unrealized arbitrary standard of ultimate morality. there is nothing wrong with acting in your own interest as long as you don't abuse it.
and yes, the US did abuse it hardcore in the 60s, we have acknowledged and apologized, and have worked hard to change that practice (quite successfully as well). besides those times, your welcome world.
Correction. Those in power didn't care if others would hurt. There were some people who objected to destabilizing the region.
Those are unrelated to to topic.
The US destabilized the middle east, which did help ISIS, but the Arab Springs paved the way, and it was an internal conflict.
As to your questioning why the US can't mind it's own business, you are fundamentally mistaken. What you want to ask is why they can't stay out of other people's business. The issue is that the US ONLY mind their business, and ignore the implications for everyone else. Charging in looked like it would benefit them, so no one cared that it would hurt other people.
So why should the US interfere. Mind you that it is US who killed saddam on conspiracy for nuclear weapons and destabilise Iraq. Furthermore I don't mean to be rude but why can't the US mind it's own business.
the people asking their king for better treatment during the Arab spring and him saying "f*** you" and started dropping barrel bombs on them?
what caused the civil war?
pretty sure isis started in Syria thanks to that civil war.