There are 2 problems with both extremes.

In Autocracy, the people are inclined to rebel.

In Democracy, the government struggles to unify the people.

A proper synthesis is necessary.

Stop being so half-assed and either invade properly instead of like one airstrike a day or sit up with a beer.

Meritocracy is the best choice really

Eklipse,
About whether the US should have been involved or not in the Middle East, the answer is simple: No, they should have not entered a war that would bring more negative outcomes than anything else. The best thing would have been an international force (under the UN leadership, there were discussions about it in 2003 but the US wanted to go faster and scuttle the negociations), not a single country like the US declaring war against everyone just because they want to do so.
The US were clearly better when they respected their Monroe doctrine. People respected you, now whereas you should have been an example to the world (as you are the so-called superpower) you just abuse of this power and people worldwide despise your actions.

And again stop denying the truth: ISIS is the product of the Iraq war led by the US that turned so bad that instead of improving Iraq it is worse than ever. You could have improved that by stopping ISIS at the very beginning (dont tell me CIA was not aware of anything before 2013??) but again you did nothing.
Moreover, this was an exceptional display of hypocrisy, ill will or stupidity: Bush and his government asserted that it would bring democracy to this region? Oh really guess what we've got: ISIS...

Panda here's a good read for you on why the US isn't going to attack ISIS except with air strikes, why they went to Iraq and why they do a lot of things.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik

Realpolitik implies pragmatism and ponderous answers. For now since the US invaded Iraq, the US werent into realpolitik at all, they answered disproportionnally and the result was a total disaster. Realpolitik no real disaster yes.

Disaster for the Middle East , opportunity for the rich.

+1 Tupac

The wealthy cast earns money and spreads misery, but one day there will be a new 1789...

Eklipse,
About whether the US should have been involved or not in the Middle East, the answer is simple: No, they should have not entered a war that would bring more negative outcomes than anything else. The best thing would have been an international force (under the UN leadership, there were discussions about it in 2003 but the US wanted to go faster and scuttle the negociations)

I already said the 2nd invasion of Iraq wasn't justified so I don't know what this whole paragraph is about. Even in areas where I agree you come up with an entire rant against me, it really is starting to seem as if you're being contrary just for the sake of it.

The US were clearly better when they respected their Monroe doctrine. People respected you, now whereas you should have been an example to the world (as you are the so-called superpower) you just abuse of this power and people worldwide despise your actions.

As much as I like the Monroe Doctrine, and as much as Isolationism appeals to me. I'm always reminded of the nagging fact that an Isolationist attitude is what kept the U.S out of WW2 for so long and might of kept the country out all together if not for Pearl Harbor.

but again you did nothing.

I'll spell it out for you again. We were pulling out of Iraq, the general public was sick and tired of war, even mentioning that we were sending troops BACK into Iraq would of caused a huge uproar. The U.S public wanted us out of Iraq, other countries wanted us out of Iraq, well the wish was granted. Seriously, don't cry about the U.S needing to stay out of things one minute and then turn around and cry for the U.S to fix the latest problem.

Bush and his government asserted that it would bring democracy to this region? Oh really guess what we've got: ISIS...

Yeah, I'm sure the incompetence of the Iraqi government has no bearing here what-so-ever....

Lastly, it's interesting to me how you ignored most of my points regarding the subject matter of ISIS and how to deal with them, and continued pressing your blame game against the U.S.

Edited 9/29/2015 12:58:41

Ok so the thread was going pretty intense filled with knowledgible facts from both parties and here comes one soo damn immatured sorry if I offended you

Sigh...

my brother thinks that the only reason ISIS hasn't been destroyed is that the "oil Arabs are secretly funding them. What else are they gonna do with all their money?"

Is his crazy idea have even the slightest chance of truth?

Also, the US is at a crossroads.

Either we declare war, at which everyone will complain "America gets too involved in wars that aren't its problem" (looking at you Brits. I know some of you are good, but seemingly a large amount of Brits will jump on anything if it can make the US look stupid)

Or we sit back, at which everyone will complain "America doesn't help when people are being butchered"

It also raises another question: in an area of such ethnic and religious difference, how could the Ottoman Empire comfortably control Iraq for centuries but Westerners can never fix it?

The Ottomans weren't enforcing Westernization or stealing oil

1: "Oh my God! You need to stay out of other countries' business! Look at all the damage you caused, stay out of it next time!"

2: "Oh my God! Look at all the horrible stuff happening, why don't you do something about that?! You're so cowardly!"

The same folk kind are not saying the same things. Many folk will say "Oh darn, that hero, that great man, Nigel Farage got the popular vote, but thanks to the bureaucracy of the devil, Cameron got it." and then the others say "Oh, glad that neofascist nazi didn't get elected. He got the popular vote, though, better watch out for another 1932. Folk will have different opinions. Mainly, it's Americans who are shouting #2, and the folk who get "freed" and most others who care who say #1.

The same folk kind are not saying the same things.

Many of them are the same though. Case in point, Angry Koala spent a good deal of time criticizing U.S involvement in the Middle East and how terrible America was for doing all of that. Then he turns right around and calls the U.S cowardly for not using military intervention on ISIS.

Afghanistan was a necessary call. Iraq was completely and utterly stupid. ISIS should already have been eradicated. But, that's just me.

Afghanistan was a necessary call.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2011/09/20119115334167663.html

Smedley, did you even read the article? The US wanted Osama handed over, not put on trial by the unrecognized government that gave Al-Qaeda and Osama funding and sanctuary.

Yes, so instead of a bad trial we'll have a invasion with tens of thousands of deaths.

Well, Osama bin-Laden is not the only member of Al-Qaeda. Why did the Taliban not simply hand him over, rather than risk invasion with tens of thousands of deaths? Plus, your source says that this stuff went down before Al-Qaeda committed 9/11, which was, in essence, a declaration of war by Al-Qaeda.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5