I'd just like someone to really explain the situation better. Does anyone really know what is going on there? The alliances and issues?
I admit, I can't claim outrage or support, the entire issue sounds so unhealthy. I certainly wouldn't want to be an uninformed U.S soldier there wondering "why".
Can anyone truly explain the alliances and objective there in an honest, unbiased manner? If so, I will listen.
If you are someone who can't let go of the fact that we should have never been in Iraq (which I am) -- any justification for being over there is just reverse engineering after the fact.
But the general consensus is....the Kurds were the ones most willing to fight terrorists when most others in the region did not...and the Kurds were the most effective at defeating the terrorists, when most others were not....
However, we can't be there indefinitely -- its time to take the L and admit that we have been conned for years about this war on terror -- and we should be mindful to never allow it to happen again and it needs to be bipartisan -- because when a new admin is in office, I fear people will get a new sudden case of amnesia again
Well, if they were willing to fight the terrorists, it would seem we should support them. Is this an issue of choosing one terrorist over another?
Also, what is this I hear of the ISIS fighters being held? Is this because nations won't repatriate them?
This is about as offensive as anything. if you as a nation choose to accept people, they are citizens, and leave for terrorism, as much as I hate it, you have to have them come back and face trial (if needed). Or, choose not to let them in your country to begin with!
If you, or others can answer some of these questions, I would appreciate it. I'm in the dark, though googling some of the history there