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.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
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.
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.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I'm on board with their annihilation. I'd just like to see the locals do it.
👆
Originally posted by psmith81992
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.
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.
Originally posted by psmith81992Because 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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by psmith81992Disagree. 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?
They're not a threat to the west, but they don't need to be for us to wipe THEM out.
Originally posted by psmith81992A 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.
And how many people need to die before you change your stance on this issue?
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.
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.
Why not meet in the middle and have our ground troops go in there and simultaneously kill ISIS troops/train Iraqi and Kurdish troops?
Originally posted by psmith81992True. And the one big upside tyrannical governments tend to offer is stability. It's easier to work with that in the long run.
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.
Originally posted by psmith81992Conflicting 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.
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.
Originally posted by psmith81992We'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.
Why not meet in the middle and have our ground troops go in there and simultaneously kill ISIS troops/train Iraqi and Kurdish troops?
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".
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".
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.
EDIT: The U.K. has ruled out allying with Assad to fight IS.