I feel like it's a money vs lives thing.
We can either spend the money to stop the Islamic State from slaughtering any Shias, or anyone else that stands in their way, or we can let people die in order to not spend more money on a military budget that has had to be reduced in the past few years.
But it also seems like if we do help Iraq, the moment we leave a similar group would just do it again.
Anyways, what are your guys' thoughts/opinions on this matter and what would be a suitable response?
Please let's not make this a bashing thread where we get caught up in political mumbo jumbo. I'm just asking this as kind of an ethical question as to how can you argue for sending troops or for not sending troops. Is the temporary benefit worth it for Iraq if the U.S. has to dig further into its pockets to pay for it? Or are we better off letting the descendants of the Muslim Brotherhood take back their Islamic world (which would also mean millions of deaths for Muslims who would resist)?
