Dave, I take back everything I ever said about you being a warmonger. That title belongs to TJ.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
Me thinks you're using that word incredibly loosely, which is consistent with an extreme isolationist.
__________________ There's a man goin' 'round takin' names.
An' he decides who to free and who to blame.
Everybody won't be treated all the same.
There'll be a golden ladder reaching down.
When the man comes around.
And isolationist isn't really the word for me, more anti-interventionist. But advocating a war against a religion (TJ despises Islam) out of fear of that religion is warmongering. He's never been clear on what he really thinks should be done about Muslims, but..."let slip the dogs of war" against a concept... Jesus f*ck.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
Yeah sadly, you're right Nala. but what can we do? Politicians rarely care about what the people think about. It's sad and a little depressing to think about. But i suppose that's life at times
I'm not advocating a war against religion. The majority of muslims are peaceful. I AM advocating the obliteration of these militant groups as well as the ones in Africa.
I'm on board with their annihilation. I'd just like to see the locals do it.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
Why? It would be faster and more efficient if we do it. I would agree with you if everything was a slow and steady process but based on the ruthlessness of ISIS, time is of the essence.
__________________ There's a man goin' 'round takin' names.
An' he decides who to free and who to blame.
Everybody won't be treated all the same.
There'll be a golden ladder reaching down.
When the man comes around.
Time if off the essence to ensure an American friendly government stays in place there
Seriously though just leave Iraq alone now. Enough damage has been done to that place. If you're really worried about ruthless people like ISIS, then believe you me there's plenty of other countries out there to go invade. Since "Invasion" and Air Strikes seems to be the go to answer every time there's murderers rampaging around in other countries.
Last edited by Darth Thor on Aug 22nd, 2014 at 12:10 PM
Yes, Africa comes next. But I'd rather invade the country that's systematically wiping out the Christians in that area before I go elsewhere.
__________________ There's a man goin' 'round takin' names.
An' he decides who to free and who to blame.
Everybody won't be treated all the same.
There'll be a golden ladder reaching down.
When the man comes around.
Because I'm not convinced of IS' threat to the West. They're a threat to the people of Mesopotamia and the people of Mesopotamia deserve to wipe them out. I said it a little while ago--I'm a big believer in a nation coming in to it's own. Iraq as a country, as an entity, is new and fragile. There's not a cohesive "idea" that is Iraq, beyond superficial borders. I want the Iraqis to know what it's like to fight and die for the idea of their country, whatever they decide that's going to be. It was quite heartening to see so many of them come out and volunteer to fight of a threat to their national existence. And I want them to do it largely by themselves. Some intelligence and ancillary support, sure. But the bulk should be left to a new generation of Iraqis willing to go to war to protect their families, their country, and all it stands for.
Ditto for the Kurds, who already have a strong, hardened sense of themselves and their idea for their future. And if leaving these peoples alone to fight their own war has the added advantage of keeping the West out of another costly foreign conflict, then all the better.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
They're not a threat to the west, but they don't need to be for us to wipe THEM out.
And how many people need to die before you change your stance on this issue?
__________________ There's a man goin' 'round takin' names.
An' he decides who to free and who to blame.
Everybody won't be treated all the same.
There'll be a golden ladder reaching down.
When the man comes around.
Disagree. Though I'm interested in where you draw the line when it comes to obliteration. North Korea isn't a threat to the West, but do you favor obliterating them too?
A loaded question, as I'm comfortable with many deaths. So long as the lives and sovereignty of Westerners inside Western borders is not compromised, I'm comfortable with a lengthy war of attrition between IS and their regional enemies. I'm comfortable with the Syrian rebels fighting a war with the Syrian government for 3+ years with, as the UN recently reported, a death toll of over 191,000. I'm comfortable with tolerating the loss of Western journalists and aid workers within these non-Western territories. I'm comfortable with tolerating Israel earning the world's ire and wrath by massacring Gaza civilians, and vice versa.
Death tolls won't win my support for intervention. Nor will specific targets such as foreign travelers (like Foley), or minority groups like Iraqi Christians. Give them intelligence support, lend them drone attacks, drop in supplies. But the men on the ground doing the fighting I'm always going to want to be locals.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
Just the leadership. But I'm more about obliterating insurgents who are committing mass murder than I am about governments. I don't like either but it's more of a political disaster trying to topple governments.
That's where we disagree. I'm not comfortable with needless mass genocide, unless that mass genocide is geared towards insurgents. And I more than support our intervention because we're the only ones who are equipped to do these things.
Why not meet in the middle and have our ground troops go in there and simultaneously kill ISIS troops/train Iraqi and Kurdish troops?
__________________ There's a man goin' 'round takin' names.
An' he decides who to free and who to blame.
Everybody won't be treated all the same.
There'll be a golden ladder reaching down.
When the man comes around.
True. And the one big upside tyrannical governments tend to offer is stability. It's easier to work with that in the long run.
Conflicting ideologies, I guess. Though I'd say we're not the only ones capable--Russia, China, Iran could all do it. Their involvement could well precipitate a need to get their first, so to say.
We're sort of already doing that. The 130 Obama sent in a few weeks ago brings the total number to 1,000. Non-combat though. And to me that's far enough. American troops to protect American embassies and train local units. Then those local units go and fight for their country.
As a political motivation for non-involvement, I'd also throw in that taking the fight to IS' front doors will mean crossing the border in to Syria. As much as the Iraqis may want U.S. troops in their country to help them out, I'm not so sure al-Assad feels similarly about his own country. Should it happen, it could provide an unwanted pretext in global affairs for other countries to feel A-OK sending in THEIR troops in to other nations on the grounds of "combatting terrorism".
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
Russia and China don't give a shit about anybody else and I don't think Iran is equipped to handle these situations.
Sorry, I disagree. When a group of people is being hunted down and killed by the masses, swift action is needed. Training Iraqi/Kurdish military is a long term solution.
Think you're using a slippery slope to get your point across.
__________________ There's a man goin' 'round takin' names.
An' he decides who to free and who to blame.
Everybody won't be treated all the same.
There'll be a golden ladder reaching down.
When the man comes around.
It is a slippery slope. Is destroying IS worth sending troops in to Syrian territory over? What happens when we inevitably run afoul of the government mercenaries or the rebels? Do we fight the Syrian government? Side with them? The rebels? They're all fighting IS, so what happens when we run in to each of them? Going that far has serious long-term ramifications that can't be predicted.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
Last edited by Lord Lucien on Aug 22nd, 2014 at 03:46 PM
__________________ There's a man goin' 'round takin' names.
An' he decides who to free and who to blame.
Everybody won't be treated all the same.
There'll be a golden ladder reaching down.
When the man comes around.
Aug 21st, 2014 09:46 PM
