The Student Room Group

Gulf War 3, Yay or Nay

As Britain prepares to go into Iraq, who agrees and disagrees. I know that something has to be done of these heartless monsters but no air strikes go without collateral damage

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
I'm not really sure collateral damage is an argument against strikes. The collateral cost will be microscopic compared to what will happen if we leave ISIS alone

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 2
'Yay'.

Simply put, swathes of the middle east are culturally inferior and incapable of governing themselves without either living in tyranny or trying to kill those who don't agree with their narrow religious view.
Disagree completely. Seems people only have a STM. You cannot defeat a threat like ISIS(UNISLAMIC STATE) by bombing them, regardless of whether you try other things in sync. This will only cause to worsen the problem. Unfortunately Muslims around the globe will see this as a another western "crusade" esque attack against Muslims. Given the history of the west it makes it hard to believe otherwise. The UK should have sit this one out. You'll see the repercussions for yourself :smile:.
Original post by RĀ£SPĀ£CT
Disagree completely. Seems people only have a STM. You cannot defeat a threat like ISIS(UNISLAMIC STATE) by bombing them, regardless of whether you try other things in sync. This will only cause to worsen the problem. Unfortunately Muslims around the globe will see this as a another western "crusade" esque attack against Muslims. Given the history of the west it makes it hard to believe otherwise. The UK should have sit this one out. You'll see the repercussions for yourself :smile:.


Given that they are well funded and running riot your alternative answer is?
Original post by caravaggio2
Given that they are well funded and running riot your alternative answer is?


It's not our responsibility to police the world. Having said that however there are a few things that we could do. I think UK should step up their counter - radicalisation programme to help stem the number of British people turning to ISIS. We should also seek to impose sanctions on countries who directly fund UNISIS. The middle east should be left to do the military intervention themselves.
Reply 6
Original post by RĀ£SPĀ£CT
It's not our responsibility to police the world. Having said that however there are a few things that we could do. I think UK should step up their counter - radicalisation programme to help stem the number of British people turning to ISIS. We should also seek to impose sanctions on countries who directly fund UNISIS. The middle east should be left to do the military intervention themselves.


I hate it when people say that. Any country with the power to help clearly has a moral, if not legal, duty to do so. To do otherwise would be like a bystander not lifting a finger to help the victim of a mugging or a rape, on the grounds of "that's the police's job, not mine".
Original post by Arbolus
I hate it when people say that. Any country with the power to help clearly has a moral, if not legal, duty to do so. To do otherwise would be like a bystander not lifting a finger to help the victim of a mugging or a rape, on the grounds of "that's the police's job, not mine".


I didn't mean it like that. We do have a duty in the world but it certainly doesn't involve attacking foreign countries again and again. We do our bit to help prevent the growth of UNISIS without overstepping our authority. It's also the blatant double standards in our foreign policy that matters too. Gaza, Ukraine, Rohingya etc
Just a thought, not exactlly the same situation, but where would we be now if that same strategy had been followed in 1939?

Is there any point in the future, a future where isis had spread its hate and influence right across the region, that you could see yourself backing action by the west?
Original post by RĀ£SPĀ£CT
It's not our responsibility to police the world. Having said that however there are a few things that we could do. I think UK should step up their counter - radicalisation programme to help stem the number of British people turning to ISIS. We should also seek to impose sanctions on countries who directly fund UNISIS. The middle east should be left to do the military intervention themselves.


Sanctions didn't help Iraq when under Saddam's rule. Sanctions and negotiation generally don't work against tyrannies (see Cuba, Soviet Russia, today's Russia, Hamas etc.). And it is hilarious that you think middle eastern tyrannies which fund organisations just as bad as IS, are well-equipped to run this fight.

No.

Anyone who is not currently residing in a moral vacuum would have to admit that if a war is ever justified, this one is. It is a war against pure evil.

If you believe that strikes against IS make it worse, then I have to ask: what, exactly, is worse than the current situation?

As for myself, I believe that these strikes should have occurred years ago, but not against IS: against Assad.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by felamaslen
Sanctions didn't help Iraq when under Saddam's rule. Sanctions and negotiation generally don't work against tyrannies (see Cuba, Soviet Russia, today's Russia, Hamas etc.). And it is hilarious that you think middle eastern tyrannies which fund organisations just as bad as IS, are well-equipped to run this fight.

No.

Anyone who is not currently residing in a moral vacuum would have to admit that if a war is ever justified, this one is. It is a war against pure evil.

If you believe that strikes against IS make it worse, then I have to ask: what, exactly, is worse than the current situation?

As for myself, I believe that these strikes should have occurred years ago, but not against IS: against Assad.


Sanctions are part of a wider strategy to deal with ISIS. I'm not referring to middle eastern tyrannies assisting but more countries like Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, Jordan etc. I'm not saying we do nothing, but we work with such countries to help deal with the threat, but only on the basis that we do not get involved militarily.

Your position in this is quite frankly a dangerous and irresponsible one. How can you justify the bombing of a country which has been plagued with wars for decades. Cancer rates have shot up dramatically as a result of chemical exposure.

I'm not denying that ISIS are pure evil I'm just saying the blow back from bombing muslim countries will be severe in the long term. What's worse than the current situation is if Air strikes fail to have an effect, and the UK becomes host to greater home grown terrorist attacks. Remember there's a link between foreign military interventions and terrorist attacks. A worse situation also includes the fragile situation in Syria too. I hate the idea of air strikes in any foreign country. It's wrong and barbaric and worse when that country has done very little to us.

In all honesty it just seems the west has a desire to ignite conflicts, bomb countries, see innocents die etc. Foreign military intervention will only cause to marginalise people and will in fact people to revert to organisations such as UNISIS etc.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by RĀ£SPĀ£CT
Sanctions are part of a wider strategy to deal with ISIS. I'm not referring to middle eastern tyrannies assisting but more countries like Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, Jordan etc. I'm not saying we do nothing, but we work with such countries to help deal with the threat, but only on the basis that we do not get involved militarily.

Your position in this is quite frankly a dangerous and irresponsible one. How can you justify the bombing of a country which has been plagued with wars for decades. Cancer rates have shot up dramatically as a result of chemical exposure.

I'm not denying that ISIS are pure evil I'm just saying the blow back from bombing muslim countries will be severe in the long term. What's worse than the current situation is if Air strikes fail to have an effect, and the UK becomes host to greater home grown terrorist attacks. Remember there's a link between foreign military interventions and terrorist attacks. A worse situation also includes the fragile situation in Syria too. I hate the idea of air strikes in any foreign country. It's wrong and barbaric and worse when that country has done very little to us.

In all honesty it just seems the west has a desire to ignite conflicts, bomb countries, see innocents die etc. Foreign military intervention will only cause to marginalise people and will in fact people to revert to organisations such as UNISIS etc.


Iran is a tyranny, and funds terrorism in the middle east (not IS, but Hezbollah and Hamas). Turkey is on its way to being one, and is certainly not a bastion of democracy. Pakistan is a tyranny, and a pseudo-democracy. Jordan is a tyranny (rated "not free" by freedom house). Of course, it may be necessary to collaborate with these tyrannies, just as it was necessary to collaborate with Communist Russia in the previous fight against fascism in 1942. But never let the enemy of your enemy dictate the rules of the fight. Don't let countries like Iran win the war, because then the cure would be no better than the disease (just as the cure for the Nazi occupation of Eastern Europe was no better than the disease).

I would not justify bombing unless it was done carefully and was judged responsibly to be worth it. In this case, it clearly is worth it, because of the sheer quantity of suffering that is currently occurring. I believe that bombing IS will result in a vast improvement for Kurds, Yazidis and Christians (among others). On the bigger picture, I believe that we should try to defeat Islamism, not accommodate it. World War Two involved humongous human suffering and outrageous war crimes on all sides. But that was still a legitimate response on the part of the Western allies to a grave threat to liberal democracy. When the long-term future of freedom is at stake, short-term suffering can be unavoidable.

I understand your pessimistic point of view, but really the response to a possible increase in home-grown terrorist attacks should be to fight them too: they are our enemy, and the enemy of all free people. Their atrocities are not the significant part; it is the ideology, closely resembling the old fascism of the 20th century. The middle east needs to change too. Trying to fight IS with Iran as your ally is like trying to fight Hitler with Mussolini or Stalin as your ally. (Of course, that did occur, but it resulted in a very incomplete victory for freedom, as well as the Cold war).

If the West had a desire to see innocents die, it wouldn't spend billions trying to prevent it. It would surely just carpet-bomb (or nuke) entire cities and be done with it.
Bomb them to oblivion.

I don't think they should be spared. Essentially if you don't bomb them there then eventually these scum will be at your doorstep creating trouble. Rather they be bombed elsewhere than at my homefront.
Original post by felamaslen
Iran is a tyranny, and funds terrorism in the middle east (not IS, but Hezbollah and Hamas). Turkey is on its way to being one, and is certainly not a bastion of democracy. Pakistan is a tyranny, and a pseudo-democracy. Jordan is a tyranny (rated "not free" by freedom house). Of course, it may be necessary to collaborate with these tyrannies, just as it was necessary to collaborate with Communist Russia in the previous fight against fascism in 1942. But never let the enemy of your enemy dictate the rules of the fight. Don't let countries like Iran win the war, because then the cure would be no better than the disease (just as the cure for the Nazi occupation of Eastern Europe was no better than the disease).

I would not justify bombing unless it was done carefully and was judged responsibly to be worth it. In this case, it clearly is worth it, because of the sheer quantity of suffering that is currently occurring. I believe that bombing IS will result in a vast improvement for Kurds, Yazidis and Christians (among others). On the bigger picture, I believe that we should try to defeat Islamism, not accommodate it. World War Two involved humongous human suffering and outrageous war crimes on all sides. But that was still a legitimate response on the part of the Western allies to a grave threat to liberal democracy. When the long-term future of freedom is at stake, short-term suffering can be unavoidable.

I understand your pessimistic point of view, but really the response to a possible increase in home-grown terrorist attacks should be to fight them too: they are our enemy, and the enemy of all free people. Their atrocities are not the significant part; it is the ideology, closely resembling the old fascism of the 20th century. The middle east needs to change too. Trying to fight IS with Iran as your ally is like trying to fight Hitler with Mussolini or Stalin as your ally. (Of course, that did occur, but it resulted in a very incomplete victory for freedom, as well as the Cold war).

If the West had a desire to see innocents die, it wouldn't spend billions trying to prevent it. It would surely just carpet-bomb (or nuke) entire cities and be done with it.


Remember there is no perfect country. Every country in the Muslim world is less than a century old. It's not about Iran or any country winning the War, it's about a collective effort in bringing an end to ISIS. We have no choice but to collaborate. I'm afraid wel have to agree to disagree.

Human suffering? I'm sorry but the blatant double standards shown by the west when it comes to human suffering is out right appalling. We have sat by and watched people get massacred on a much greater scale than ISIS are currently doing or have ever done. Human rights as an excuse to bomb Iraq simply has no legs to stand on. The sheer speed of the west's response to ISIS is enough to raise questions about their true intentions. I'm not usually keen on conspiracy theories but there is an ulterior motive.

Your logic again is flawed. You cannot destroy their ideology by pummeling them with air strikes. It only breeds more resentment. There's already enough anti - western sentiment in the middle - East as it is. Considering what they've done to the middle east in the last century alone is enough to be highly cautious. The facts and statistics talk for themselves. We've caused the deaths of enough innocents. (Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen etc)

Yes the middle east needs to change. That will come with time and effort. Not with another war which will cause the deaths of thousands.
Nay.

It is not the US or the UK's place. What Obama is doing is plainly unconstitutional...and no congressional approval...smh. The last Iraq war was a mistake, but at least had it been carried out to its ultimate aim, with the proviso of an inclusive government, things might have been different.

It's a civil war. Unfortunately, and as harsh as it sounds, let's stay out. Of Iraq, and of Syria too.

That means no "boots on the ground"; no military funding, or arms, for any of the belligerents; and most certainly no military air-strikes, which are surefire ways to increase resentment of the west, further setting back relations in the region.

The military advisors need out pronto...because it is developing a very similar pattern to the Vietnam war...ie thousands of military advisors (thanks...JFK :rolleyes:), then airstrikes...then "boots on the ground". Financial sanctions against ISIS could help, but that's as far as I think the West needs to go. With Obama choosing to follow this course of action, it makes it much harder for any future US President to get out of Iraq. And Obama had just got the US out of Iraq...and is getting them out of Afghanistan.

The UK has done enough meddling in the middle east in the past 100 years...and this is the result of forcing completely arbitrary borders between people. This conflict goes back to the Sykes-Picot agreement...and a failure to deliver on promises made to the Arab people after WWI for an Islamic state led by a Caliph. More meddling is more chance for blowback.

By all means, if Saudia Arabia and the other Muslim countries in the region want to intervene...then fine...but this stand has to be made by the west.
Original post by jammy4041
Nay.

It is not the US or the UK's place. What Obama is doing is plainly unconstitutional...and no congressional approval...smh. The last Iraq war was a mistake, but at least had it been carried out to its ultimate aim, with the proviso of an inclusive government, things might have been different.

It's a civil war. Unfortunately, and as harsh as it sounds, let's stay out. Of Iraq, and of Syria too.

That means no "boots on the ground"; no military funding, or arms, for any of the belligerents; and most certainly no military air-strikes, which are surefire ways to increase resentment of the west, further setting back relations in the region.

The military advisors need out pronto...because it is developing a very similar pattern to the Vietnam war...ie thousands of military advisors (thanks...JFK :rolleyes:), then airstrikes...then "boots on the ground". Financial sanctions against ISIS could help, but that's as far as I think the West needs to go. With Obama choosing to follow this course of action, it makes it much harder for any future US President to get out of Iraq. And Obama had just got the US out of Iraq...and is getting them out of Afghanistan.

The UK has done enough meddling in the middle east in the past 100 years...and this is the result of forcing completely arbitrary borders between people. This conflict goes back to the Sykes-Picot agreement...and a failure to deliver on promises made to the Arab people after WWI for an Islamic state led by a Caliph. More meddling is more chance for blowback.

By all means, if Saudia Arabia and the other Muslim countries in the region want to intervene...then fine...but this stand has to be made by the west.


So you think we should just sit back and allow a genocide to happen?
Original post by james22
So you think we should just sit back and allow a genocide to happen?


Maybe that genocide wouldn't have happened without the West's meddling. The West has done enough. And futher meddling will make it all worse and prolong this civil war, causing even more blood shed, and lives lost.

As difficult as it is.. the West should not be in for offensive military purposes. Humanitarian aid (read: food parcels, not guns), and a UN peace-keeping mission to evacuate people if necessary, sure. Any thing more, and the West is asking for trouble.

The west has to get out, and let the Arab states mediate a peace agreement, which can bring about a more inclusive government for Iraq and Syria.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by jammy4041
Maybe that genocide wouldn't have happened without the West's meddling. The West has done enough. And futher meddling will make it all worse and prolong this civil war, causing even more blood shed, and lives lost.

As difficult as it is.. the West should not be in for offensive military purposes. Humanitarian aid (read: food parcels, not guns), and a UN peace-keeping mission to evacuate people if necessary, sure. Any thing more, and the West is asking for trouble.

The west has to get out, and let the Arab states mediate a peace agreement, which can bring about a more inclusive government for Iraq and Syria.


What we did in the pst does not matter, all that matters is the current situation. If we do not get involved there will be mass slaughter across Iraq, and eventually Syria as the ISIS execute anyone who isn't Muslim. The ISIS will never agree to peace, they are a terrorist orginisation who can only be stopped by force. If we hadn't have gotten involved there would have been about 40,000 dead already in just 1 area.
Original post by james22
What we did in the pst does not matter, all that matters is the current situation. If we do not get involved there will be mass slaughter across Iraq, and eventually Syria as the ISIS execute anyone who isn't Muslim. The ISIS will never agree to peace, they are a terrorist orginisation who can only be stopped by force. If we hadn't have gotten involved there would have been about 40,000 dead already in just 1 area.


The past does matter because of its effect on the future.

IS will not negotiate with the West, but with Arab countries as mediators. There is always a price of peace...now it is up to leaders to accept it.

The west fought in Iraq to rid it of Al Qaeda. Guess who's the enemy of IS? Yup. Al Qaeda. But Al Qaeda also hates the Kurds, who in turn hate IS. And ordinary Iraqis are caught in the middle. And say, the West uses air strikes. The impact would be disastrous, turning ordinary Iraqis into IS sympathisers, which would in turn prolong the war between all these factions of Iraq. And again. Worse. The West would have to arm the people fighting IS, right? So that means weapons for Al Qaeda and all the different factions, exacerbating all the problems in Iraq.

Let's suppose the West puts boots on the ground. Face it...if you are going to intervene in conflicts, it has to be done properly...no pussy-footing around with airstrikes and military advisor, as that would be prolonging the conflict. Bit of a moot point really, because with air strikes you are looking at a quagmire, and the west will be sucked into a commitment trap...based on exactly the same "humanitarian concerns" being used to justify air strikes by Obama and co. right now.

So, with boots on the ground, let's say, after 5 years of brutal conflict, you have a situation where the West has liberated all ISIS areas. They would go underground, and unleash their reign of terror. Even more civilians would be killed in reprisals if they are to support the West, not to mention all the civilians flocking to IS killed as combatants.

And let's take all this, to its intended aim...of completely destroying IS. Great. IS is no more...but there will be another terrorist organization to fill its place unless the real problems in Iraqi society are solved. That is not for the West to decide...only the Iraqi people can. Even in this case, the West would have supplied weapons to all these different factions, militarizing the whole of Iraq and making another war highly likely. Worse, you would have militarized the Kurdish and made Al Qaeda strong enough to launch a return to its own reign of terror.

And what I don't get is...all this focus on intervention intention is all concentrated in Iraq, yes? To truly defeat IS, it is necessary to defeat in in Syria. Why? Islamic State is a pan-Arab movement. Again...if you want military invasion, you have to do it properly. And that presents its own problems meddling in the affairs of other nations. Russia will not appriciate the instability caused to its trusty ally.

Yeah...let's invade Iraq. Again. :cool:

Having the West commit to an invasion, or military intervention is just not worth it. Of course, the situation is awful...but, and as bad as it sounds, it is necessary for the Iraqis to reach the long hard conclusions for themselves...they are in civil war. Civil wars are brutal. Although there are no certainties in history, it is very likely, this war will lead to the fragmentation of Iraq...might as well get it done as quick as possible, rather than prolonging the war.

If intervention has to be done...turn it over to the Arab League. But this is a war the West needs no part in.
It has to be done. ISIS is ebola. They can either be dealt with now or get out of control.

Quick Reply

Latest