Mkuki wrote:What makes you think that military action will solve anything? What makes you think that it will make this crisis better? How is igniting a Sunni-Shi'a war going to solve anything? All of those women, men, and children that are being enslaved, tortured, and slaughtered, how are you going to help them by raining death and destruction on Iraqi cities?
Military action is inevitable. I realize now you don't actually understand what's going on there or what ISIS/ISIL is about, where it came from or what it wants, but realize this is flame that must be extinguished. I'm not certain how you think ignoring it will make the problem go away, or make Iran (their acknowledged enemy already) suddenly not be a target, or save Shi'ites, but you need to discard your mistaken beliefs. The war is already begun. We're only lucky the US didn't bomb Syria and invite ISIS into Damascus.
Justice? No justice is being achieved. All Iran is doing is killing people. The death of terrorists isn't going to give comfort those who have died. They're dead.
I'm not even sure if you mean to be taken seriously now or if you're parodying yourself.
If Iran is doing this out of human decency, as you claim and I sincerely doubt, then they should be prepared to go all in. They can't intervene halfheartedly like the United States did. If the Iranian government thinks that it can solve the problems facing Iraq then it should be prepared to occupy Iraq for decades on end. It should be prepared for the strains that are going to come with such an occupation as well, including, but not limited to, the economic strain, the international strain, the domestic strain, the societal strain, and the military strain.
An occupation is not the only way to wage a war. And believe it or not, Iran may not be fully prepared to wage a war, what with living in constant fear of American attacks. But people are suffering and their national security is threatened, so they have to act. ISIS has been dealt defeats by the Syrian Army before, so Iran certainly has a chance to give the Iraqi army a backbone and take the fight to the extremists.
Let me ask you a question. Where is it that the worst civil wars are taking place? Syria and Iraq. What do those two countries have in common? Well, one thing is that they are friendly with Iran. Another is that they are now being torn apart by civil war. Could it be that Saudi Arabia is interested in further isolating an Iran trying to reconnect with both the Muslim world and the world in general? I think so.
At least you acknowledge the origins of these civil conflicts sits with the United States' allies. But it doesn't matter, Iraq's military is a puppet force the Americans created, they need help controlling the enemy. Only ISIS, two Gulf states (and you, apparently) consider this a Sunni-Shia war. The rest are acknowledging the security crisis for what it is, and Iran's prestige has grown for offering to work in conjunction with the US and Europe to contain this Islamist threat.
You are wrong. It is precisely my respect for human rights and my desire for peace that I advocate non-intervention.
That's a coward's game (I don't mean to personally call you a coward, I mean "non-interventionism"). Inaction only encourages religious extremists to think they can act with impunity. And in a situation where the local security forces are a puppet army put together by a corrupt invader, well... they need all the help they can get.
Obviously Saudia Arabia and Qatar will continue to funnel to support to ISIS, but doing nothing until Baghdad is surrounded and Iraq's remaining civil government has collapsed is doing no favors to the millions living there.
President Assad has shown us that these terrorist scum can be fought and beaten in a straight-up fight. Most of Syria has been purged of the Islamist rebels, and reports indicate many of the rebels have packed up and gone home to Saudi Arabia or their other foreign origins. With strength and determination, the same can be achieved in Iraq.