Iraq was better off under Saddam

[Philly]

[John Galt]

well if we intervene at least we're fighting a governmental organization. it's a state actor, regardless of whether it is recognized, so it can be destroyed because america is good at that kind of thing.

the problem is if we do this, some others will just do the same f**k thing in a few years. like i said, american power puts its finger to push onto a scale. once we're gone, the scale returns to the normal state of affairs over there, death and more death

[Spider]

[Indy]

[The Comrade]

To support the peshmerga. Good.

[Indy]

I am actually all for this. And I'm the most stay-out-of-Iraq guy around.

[Philly]

Apparently you no longer are.

[Indy]

Why such absolutist stances? You don't have to be all in/all out on every issue and that seems to be a big thing here.

Dropping some bombs on some a-holes that everybody despises to save them from slaughtering 40,000 people stuck on a mountain is fine by me. It's not like we're invading.

And for once we're actually killing actual terrorists.

Yay Murika.

[Philly]

If we were to try for 5 minutes not using our military to intervene every time there's bad guys doing bad things in the Middle East we might find its a rather smart policy. Or we just keep sticking our nose in and making every mess bigger.

[Professor]

Quick question - who is reimbursing us for the cost of the bombs, and delivery?