Beheaded by ISIS

benjs

rr, I'm eager to hear your response to Drowned Out's comment above.

It would be so nice to believe that we in the Western world could aspire to halt regional injustices and atrocities without a hidden agenda. Since you've stated that an understanding of the 'basics' is enough to support or oppose intervention, the 'basics' seem very transparent and far from ambiguous: we witness and amplify the significance of a threat (not dissimilar to your statement that ISIS poses a threat not only to Iraq, not only to the Middle East, but as far as Europe and the US as well), we use it as pretext to invade with the behind-the-scenes objective of maintaining or attaining control over lucrative industries such as oil by weakening governing bodies, we 'fear' the loss of that control as regional sectarian powers begin to rise as they witness inherent injustices, we wait until their observations lead to frustration and anger and turn into actionable radicalism, and then we use that as a brand new pretext for invasion or intervention.

If I believed the goals of Western powers were noble and in the interest of humanity at large, I would agree with you and would fully support our intervention. But history presents a contrary story, and at what point do we adamantly refuse to support this horrific cycle where costs of war are measured in dollars (or, more appropriately, billions or trillions of dollars) and not lives?

Setting aside what could be considered a conspiracy that the almighty dollar governs Western powers' decisions, it is impossibly hard to deny the fallacious rhetoric as provided by Western media that we must destroy ____ to bring stability to a region. That is a perfect example of circular logic: the regional powers exist as a byproduct of self-serving interventionist actions, and are used to justify self-serving interventionist actions. So while we may not be supporting ISIS by entering the region to destroy them, it seems to me that we are supporting the creation of their inevitable replacement.

Drowned Out

lukin2006 said:

NATO allies agree to take on Islamic State threat

http://www.freep.com/article/20140905/NEWS07/309050189/NATO-Islamic-State-Iraq

So how come countries in the region don't deal with ISIS?

It does say that they want Sunni majority nations to help the cause....

….I’m glad to see that they want to follow the money trail to fight the IS.....makes sense and looking for support from Sunni-majority nations shows at least some modicum of forethought….but I have my doubts that this is anything more than lip service considering it is Sunni majority nations that are the source of funding they want to go after…
NATO is increasingly becoming world police. They recently announced that they’re stockpiling weapons in Poland, putting together a multi-national force ready for quick response against Russia, and planning massive war games to prepare….who knows if this is just old-school cold war posturing, or if they are actually planning for something big happening. Russia hasn’t shown aggression to justify this buildup. Seems like NATO is getting ready for some serious shit on a couple of different fronts.

I find it concerning that every single article or video segment I see about the IS recently makes mention of these radicalized western citizens coming home. It seems like this has just become a ‘thing’ over the last couple of weeks, when fighting in Syria and Iraq has been going on for years now, and the IS in Iraq issue has gone on for a few months. Did all these westerners just jump on board in the last few weeks? Doesn’t make sense to me. Why is this being tagged to every story now? Hate to use Alex Jones terminology……but I feel like we’re being set up for a ‘false flag’…..Maybe I’m just paranoid….the 9/11 anniversary coming up never helps….but there are a few recent news reports that make me concerned about a new ‘terror attack’ (false flag?) on the West:
- 11 commercial jets missing in Libya….been missing for weeks (months?), but we just heard about it when rebels posted pics online of them standing on one of the planes.
- A container of cesium 137 went missing in Kazakhstan a week or so ago. Fell off a truck. Ok.
- On Sept.10 there is a net neutrality protest planned….the idea is to slow the internet down to the point that it will give everyone a taste of what it will be like to use a two-tiered system….I don’t know much about this, but imagine the amount of suspicious shit that could be covered up by, or blamed on internet failure, during a terror attack?

badbrains

mickeyrat said:

Must read
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/09/05/islams-theology-of-life-is-stronger-than-isis-cult-of-death/?sr=sharebar_facebook

This was a good read thanks Mickey

EdsonNascimento

rgambs said:

Hasn't every single intervention in the region shown that it will get worse WITH our involvement?? The only difference is tax dollars spent and whose lives are lost. I value all lives the same, but I don't support shipping lives around the world to be lost in conflicts that don't involve them. In addition, our depleted uranium shells will kill more innocent children than IS ever will, or even could. Have you not seen birth defect and cancer rates from Baghdad?

Here's the problem - use Saddam Hussein as an example - he was keeping all the "bad guys" in check (so to speak). But, he was slaughtering his own citizens to do so. So, we just let him run amok, so that the other bad guys are "kept in check?" I'm not saying he was directly related to this, just making a point. Decisions are not so easy. Do we get the bad guy we know, or leave him and decide on balance his atrocities are better (ha, ha) than the atrocities we MAY be left with if we allow him to keep the ones we don't know about in check? (And is that really the end result, or do they just end up doing his bidding in some way, shape or form?

Obama has taken the tact of NOT making decision so he doesn't get a bad rap. Personally, I'd rather have a leader that is willing to make decisions than one that is worried about what others might think of him. It's obvious this board prefers the opposite - inaction over action - you can't be blamed if you don't make a choice (though by NOT making a choice, as Neil Pert would say - you have, in fact, made a choice).

Drowned Out

EdsonNascimento said:

rgambs said:

Hasn't every single intervention in the region shown that it will get worse WITH our involvement?? The only difference is tax dollars spent and whose lives are lost. I value all lives the same, but I don't support shipping lives around the world to be lost in conflicts that don't involve them. In addition, our depleted uranium shells will kill more innocent children than IS ever will, or even could. Have you not seen birth defect and cancer rates from Baghdad?

Here's the problem - use Saddam Hussein as an example - he was keeping all the "bad guys" in check (so to speak). But, he was slaughtering his own citizens to do so. So, we just let him run amok, so that the other bad guys are "kept in check?" I'm not saying he was directly related to this, just making a point. Decisions are not so easy. Do we get the bad guy we know, or leave him and decide on balance his atrocities are better (ha, ha) than the atrocities we MAY be left with if we allow him to keep the ones we don't know about in check? (And is that really the end result, or do they just end up doing his bidding in some way, shape or form?

Obama has taken the tact of NOT making decision so he doesn't get a bad rap. Personally, I'd rather have a leader that is willing to make decisions than one that is worried about what others might think of him. It's obvious this board prefers the opposite - inaction over action - you can't be blamed if you don't make a choice (though by NOT making a choice, as Neil Pert would say - you have, in fact, made a choice).

Again....this post makes it sound like a foregone conclusion that US interests trump the interests of the actual residents of the area - you didn't mention them once. Do WE get the bad guy WE know.....the atrocities WE may be left with if WE allow him....
what gives you the right to play god in the region? Fixing your past fuck ups? Remember the US built Saddam up, provided him with the means to take out his own citizens..then when he no longer served a purpose, we took him down. Al Qaeda, same shit. Maliki, same shit. The IS, same shit. When does it end? We just keep putting the evil we know in power, then taking them out because we're too stupid to figure out another way? I don't buy it. It's intentional.

rr165892

Ben,been out all weekend sorry for late response.I don't disagree with you and Drowned Out on this being a circular situation,and I agree the actions we impose now in the region will most likely bite us in the ass a little down the road.
I also think that the snippets we see on the evening news of Americans getting their domes lopped off bring this to the forefront for the American public and put our politicians in a position where we demand they do something.It would be political suicide not too.So the issue really is what response is justified and will the future repercussions be tolerable.
I don't think the west is 100% to blame for the formation of these groups.In fighting between sects,Power hungry megalomaniacs, and just plain greed also come to play.I do get what you guys are saying but a hands off approach is not going to make them go away.
Although this "terrorist group of the moment" has not yet started attacks against civilians in big population centers of Europe and here in the states,I do fear they are not far off and that's what we don't want to see happen.
And I am aware of the money trail here.

benjs

rr165892 said:

Ben,been out all weekend sorry for late response.I don't disagree with you and Drowned Out on this being a circular situation,and I agree the actions we impose now in the region will most likely bite us in the ass a little down the road.
I also think that the snippets we see on the evening news of Americans getting their domes lopped off bring this to the forefront for the American public and put our politicians in a position where we demand they do something.It would be political suicide not too.So the issue really is what response is justified and will the future repercussions be tolerable.
I don't think the west is 100% to blame for the formation of these groups.In fighting between sects,Power hungry megalomaniacs, and just plain greed also come to play.I do get what you guys are saying but a hands off approach is not going to make them go away.
Although this "terrorist group of the moment" has not yet started attacks against civilians in big population centers of Europe and here in the states,I do fear they are not far off and that's what we don't want to see happen.
And I am aware of the money trail here.

Not a problem, rr!

Honestly, I'm not sure that since the inception of the era of modern globalization (and by that I mean it takes us hours, and not days, weeks, or months to get halfway around the world) that we've opted not to intervene in global conflicts which we have interests in. Because of this, there is sparse information to suggest what will come of a hands-off approach. There are, however, mountains of evidence which suggest what will come of a hands-on (or hands-in) approach: we've all seen the outcome, and it's not pretty.

To be completely frank, I believe that Western leadership betrays its own people when it neglects to consider the certainty of retribution from negatively affected parties, as it deploys its militaristic forces abroad and fights for its own economic interests. I think now is a time to enter the unknown and let this play out like it used to: without our meddling.

As far as your comment about political suicide: maybe we need to embrace one-term maximums, because as I've stated too many times to count here - if people are acting in ways that serve anything but our innate humanistic tendencies, they ought to reconsider. Fuck political suicide, the people we surrender our voices to ought to be thinking about lives and quality of lives as imperative to protect - independent of political boundaries. I refuse to believe that any other metric comes close in its significance.

EdsonNascimento

Drowned Out said:

EdsonNascimento said:

rgambs said:

Hasn't every single intervention in the region shown that it will get worse WITH our involvement?? The only difference is tax dollars spent and whose lives are lost. I value all lives the same, but I don't support shipping lives around the world to be lost in conflicts that don't involve them. In addition, our depleted uranium shells will kill more innocent children than IS ever will, or even could. Have you not seen birth defect and cancer rates from Baghdad?

Here's the problem - use Saddam Hussein as an example - he was keeping all the "bad guys" in check (so to speak). But, he was slaughtering his own citizens to do so. So, we just let him run amok, so that the other bad guys are "kept in check?" I'm not saying he was directly related to this, just making a point. Decisions are not so easy. Do we get the bad guy we know, or leave him and decide on balance his atrocities are better (ha, ha) than the atrocities we MAY be left with if we allow him to keep the ones we don't know about in check? (And is that really the end result, or do they just end up doing his bidding in some way, shape or form?

Obama has taken the tact of NOT making decision so he doesn't get a bad rap. Personally, I'd rather have a leader that is willing to make decisions than one that is worried about what others might think of him. It's obvious this board prefers the opposite - inaction over action - you can't be blamed if you don't make a choice (though by NOT making a choice, as Neil Pert would say - you have, in fact, made a choice).

Again....this post makes it sound like a foregone conclusion that US interests trump the interests of the actual residents of the area - you didn't mention them once. Do WE get the bad guy WE know.....the atrocities WE may be left with if WE allow him....
what gives you the right to play god in the region? Fixing your past fuck ups? Remember the US built Saddam up, provided him with the means to take out his own citizens..then when he no longer served a purpose, we took him down. Al Qaeda, same shit. Maliki, same shit. The IS, same shit. When does it end? We just keep putting the evil we know in power, then taking them out because we're too stupid to figure out another way? I don't buy it. It's intentional.

I'm not saying we should have done anything to Hussein. I was just posing the issue. And, it's not an easy decision.

As for the playing god argument - there are impacts to us of what happens in other parts of the world.

Is that you, Barack?

rr165892

benjs said:

rr165892 said:

Ben,been out all weekend sorry for late response.I don't disagree with you and Drowned Out on this being a circular situation,and I agree the actions we impose now in the region will most likely bite us in the ass a little down the road.
I also think that the snippets we see on the evening news of Americans getting their domes lopped off bring this to the forefront for the American public and put our politicians in a position where we demand they do something.It would be political suicide not too.So the issue really is what response is justified and will the future repercussions be tolerable.
I don't think the west is 100% to blame for the formation of these groups.In fighting between sects,Power hungry megalomaniacs, and just plain greed also come to play.I do get what you guys are saying but a hands off approach is not going to make them go away.
Although this "terrorist group of the moment" has not yet started attacks against civilians in big population centers of Europe and here in the states,I do fear they are not far off and that's what we don't want to see happen.
And I am aware of the money trail here.

Not a problem, rr!

Honestly, I'm not sure that since the inception of the era of modern globalization (and by that I mean it takes us hours, and not days, weeks, or months to get halfway around the world) that we've opted not to intervene in global conflicts which we have interests in. Because of this, there is sparse information to suggest what will come of a hands-off approach. There are, however, mountains of evidence which suggest what will come of a hands-on (or hands-in) approach: we've all seen the outcome, and it's not pretty.

To be completely frank, I believe that Western leadership betrays its own people when it neglects to consider the certainty of retribution from negatively affected parties, as it deploys its militaristic forces abroad and fights for its own economic interests. I think now is a time to enter the unknown and let this play out like it used to: without our meddling.

As far as your comment about political suicide: maybe we need to embrace one-term maximums, because as I've stated too many times to count here - if people are acting in ways that serve anything but our innate humanistic tendencies, they ought to reconsider. Fuck political suicide, the people we surrender our voices to ought to be thinking about lives and quality of lives as imperative to protect - independent of political boundaries. I refuse to believe that any other metric comes close in its significance.

I'm all for one term max.Always thought it would fix a lot of the bs,and put people back in control.

mickeyrat

Someone remind what our "interests" here are again? National security type or corporate?

Idris

President Barack Obama plans to address the nation on the threat posed by ISIS extremists -- telling NBC News the U.S. will “hunt down" the terrorists "wherever they are.”

nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/exclusive-obama-deliver-major-address-isis-vows-hunt-down-extremists-n197456

Drowned Out

EdsonNascimento said:

Drowned Out said:

EdsonNascimento said:

rgambs said:

Hasn't every single intervention in the region shown that it will get worse WITH our involvement?? The only difference is tax dollars spent and whose lives are lost. I value all lives the same, but I don't support shipping lives around the world to be lost in conflicts that don't involve them. In addition, our depleted uranium shells will kill more innocent children than IS ever will, or even could. Have you not seen birth defect and cancer rates from Baghdad?

Here's the problem - use Saddam Hussein as an example - he was keeping all the "bad guys" in check (so to speak). But, he was slaughtering his own citizens to do so. So, we just let him run amok, so that the other bad guys are "kept in check?" I'm not saying he was directly related to this, just making a point. Decisions are not so easy. Do we get the bad guy we know, or leave him and decide on balance his atrocities are better (ha, ha) than the atrocities we MAY be left with if we allow him to keep the ones we don't know about in check? (And is that really the end result, or do they just end up doing his bidding in some way, shape or form?

Obama has taken the tact of NOT making decision so he doesn't get a bad rap. Personally, I'd rather have a leader that is willing to make decisions than one that is worried about what others might think of him. It's obvious this board prefers the opposite - inaction over action - you can't be blamed if you don't make a choice (though by NOT making a choice, as Neil Pert would say - you have, in fact, made a choice).

Again....this post makes it sound like a foregone conclusion that US interests trump the interests of the actual residents of the area - you didn't mention them once. Do WE get the bad guy WE know.....the atrocities WE may be left with if WE allow him....
what gives you the right to play god in the region? Fixing your past fuck ups? Remember the US built Saddam up, provided him with the means to take out his own citizens..then when he no longer served a purpose, we took him down. Al Qaeda, same shit. Maliki, same shit. The IS, same shit. When does it end? We just keep putting the evil we know in power, then taking them out because we're too stupid to figure out another way? I don't buy it. It's intentional.

I'm not saying we should have done anything to Hussein. I was just posing the issue. And, it's not an easy decision.

As for the playing god argument - there are impacts to us of what happens in other parts of the world.

Is that you, Barack?

) First time I've ever been accused of presidential thinking.....
The thing is, with Hussein....as you say, he kept a lid on things....but he kept a lid on things because of our funding and support. Who knows what the country/region would be like now without our meddling. Our involvement has always tipped the balance of power to whichever side we want it to. They could have found their way to lasting peace decades ago if we'd been honest trade partners and not overlords.

People call for regional governments to get involved....but when they say that, of course they mean only OUR allies. If it was Iran or Syria or Russia who went in to Iraq to stop ISIS, would everyone (anyone?) be ok with that?

Terror and economics are the IS's only potential direct impacts on us, right? Terrorist groups can't be stopped with bombs and armies. The collateral damage and the degraded standard of living will always continue that cycle.
So ultimately, consciously or not, we support our govt's actions because we don't want our lifestyles disrupted by the economic impacts of destabilization in our resource supply chain. There is nothing altruistic about that...in fact it's immoral and disgusting....but at least youre not trying to sell me on a humanitarian mission.
After reading idris's article, it appears you and obomba are pretty much on the same page....happy days!

Edit: ok maybe not the same page. Reading into your comments. I assume you support intervention?
Re-reading your post....(this goes with what I was saying earlier)...were you inferring that that Obama was not making a choice if he decides not to intervene? What were his choices, then? Aid, drones, air strikes, or ground forces? Declining to intervene (inaction as you derogatorily put it), is not even an option any longer?

EdsonNascimento

Drowned Out said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Drowned Out said:

EdsonNascimento said:

rgambs said:

Hasn't every single intervention in the region shown that it will get worse WITH our involvement?? The only difference is tax dollars spent and whose lives are lost. I value all lives the same, but I don't support shipping lives around the world to be lost in conflicts that don't involve them. In addition, our depleted uranium shells will kill more innocent children than IS ever will, or even could. Have you not seen birth defect and cancer rates from Baghdad?

Here's the problem - use Saddam Hussein as an example - he was keeping all the "bad guys" in check (so to speak). But, he was slaughtering his own citizens to do so. So, we just let him run amok, so that the other bad guys are "kept in check?" I'm not saying he was directly related to this, just making a point. Decisions are not so easy. Do we get the bad guy we know, or leave him and decide on balance his atrocities are better (ha, ha) than the atrocities we MAY be left with if we allow him to keep the ones we don't know about in check? (And is that really the end result, or do they just end up doing his bidding in some way, shape or form?

Obama has taken the tact of NOT making decision so he doesn't get a bad rap. Personally, I'd rather have a leader that is willing to make decisions than one that is worried about what others might think of him. It's obvious this board prefers the opposite - inaction over action - you can't be blamed if you don't make a choice (though by NOT making a choice, as Neil Pert would say - you have, in fact, made a choice).

Again....this post makes it sound like a foregone conclusion that US interests trump the interests of the actual residents of the area - you didn't mention them once. Do WE get the bad guy WE know.....the atrocities WE may be left with if WE allow him....
what gives you the right to play god in the region? Fixing your past fuck ups? Remember the US built Saddam up, provided him with the means to take out his own citizens..then when he no longer served a purpose, we took him down. Al Qaeda, same shit. Maliki, same shit. The IS, same shit. When does it end? We just keep putting the evil we know in power, then taking them out because we're too stupid to figure out another way? I don't buy it. It's intentional.

I'm not saying we should have done anything to Hussein. I was just posing the issue. And, it's not an easy decision.

As for the playing god argument - there are impacts to us of what happens in other parts of the world.

Is that you, Barack?

) First time I've ever been accused of presidential thinking.....
The thing is, with Hussein....as you say, he kept a lid on things....but he kept a lid on things because of our funding and support. Who knows what the country/region would be like now without our meddling. Our involvement has always tipped the balance of power to whichever side we want it to. They could have found their way to lasting peace decades ago if we'd been honest trade partners and not overlords.

People call for regional governments to get involved....but when they say that, of course they mean only OUR allies. If it was Iran or Syria or Russia who went in to Iraq to stop ISIS, would everyone (anyone?) be ok with that?

Terror and economics are the IS's only potential direct impacts on us, right? Terrorist groups can't be stopped with bombs and armies. The collateral damage and the degraded standard of living will always continue that cycle.
So ultimately, consciously or not, we support our govt's actions because we don't want our lifestyles disrupted by the economic impacts of destabilization in our resource supply chain. There is nothing altruistic about that...in fact it's immoral and disgusting....but at least youre not trying to sell me on a humanitarian mission.
After reading idris's article, it appears you and obomba are pretty much on the same page....happy days!

Edit: ok maybe not the same page. Reading into your comments. I assume you support intervention?
Re-reading your post....(this goes with what I was saying earlier)...were you inferring that that Obama was not making a choice if he decides not to intervene? What were his choices, then? Aid, drones, air strikes, or ground forces? Declining to intervene (inaction as you derogatorily put it), is not even an option any longer?

What I was saying is - up until this point he has made no choices. Now he's making a choice b/c it's so damned obvious what public perception is (given the beheadings). He is a leader with no leadership qualities. He is a product of our culture - do what the polls tell you to do. That is no way to lead. These are tough decisions. Leaders make them and don't wait for the repercussions of their indecision.

I am not supporting one way or the other at this time. I do think it's too little too late (so I guess I am an interventionalist in general). What I will say is our withdrawal and decreasing involvement has resulted in this.

Drowned Out

My point is that withdrawal and decreasing involvement were small spikes in a long timeline of imperialist actions that resulted in the IS....it definitely isn't the starting/failing point.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about what is driving his decisions. I think he's steered by the MIC; intelligence agencies, and the pentagon, more than any polls, when it comes to foreign policy...hell, he's more influenced by Israel on FP than the public. And it's corp interests on domestic policy. I think very few political decisions are made based on public opinion. Blaming Obama is wasted energy. I don't say that because I think he's any better or worse than any puppet before or after him.

Have to laugh at the line in idris's link, in which Obama says he will work with Syrian rebels to fight the IS. Is that not where the bulk of the IS came from? Turkey has catalogued arms confiscated from the IS and found that much of it was destined for the FSA. The never ending war on terror; fighting ourselves.

rgambs

EdsonNascimento said:

Drowned Out said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Drowned Out said:

EdsonNascimento said:

rgambs said:

Hasn't every single intervention in the region shown that it will get worse WITH our involvement?? The only difference is tax dollars spent and whose lives are lost. I value all lives the same, but I don't support shipping lives around the world to be lost in conflicts that don't involve them. In addition, our depleted uranium shells will kill more innocent children than IS ever will, or even could. Have you not seen birth defect and cancer rates from Baghdad?

Here's the problem - use Saddam Hussein as an example - he was keeping all the "bad guys" in check (so to speak). But, he was slaughtering his own citizens to do so. So, we just let him run amok, so that the other bad guys are "kept in check?" I'm not saying he was directly related to this, just making a point. Decisions are not so easy. Do we get the bad guy we know, or leave him and decide on balance his atrocities are better (ha, ha) than the atrocities we MAY be left with if we allow him to keep the ones we don't know about in check? (And is that really the end result, or do they just end up doing his bidding in some way, shape or form?

Obama has taken the tact of NOT making decision so he doesn't get a bad rap. Personally, I'd rather have a leader that is willing to make decisions than one that is worried about what others might think of him. It's obvious this board prefers the opposite - inaction over action - you can't be blamed if you don't make a choice (though by NOT making a choice, as Neil Pert would say - you have, in fact, made a choice).

Again....this post makes it sound like a foregone conclusion that US interests trump the interests of the actual residents of the area - you didn't mention them once. Do WE get the bad guy WE know.....the atrocities WE may be left with if WE allow him....
what gives you the right to play god in the region? Fixing your past fuck ups? Remember the US built Saddam up, provided him with the means to take out his own citizens..then when he no longer served a purpose, we took him down. Al Qaeda, same shit. Maliki, same shit. The IS, same shit. When does it end? We just keep putting the evil we know in power, then taking them out because we're too stupid to figure out another way? I don't buy it. It's intentional.

I'm not saying we should have done anything to Hussein. I was just posing the issue. And, it's not an easy decision.

As for the playing god argument - there are impacts to us of what happens in other parts of the world.

Is that you, Barack?

) First time I've ever been accused of presidential thinking.....
The thing is, with Hussein....as you say, he kept a lid on things....but he kept a lid on things because of our funding and support. Who knows what the country/region would be like now without our meddling. Our involvement has always tipped the balance of power to whichever side we want it to. They could have found their way to lasting peace decades ago if we'd been honest trade partners and not overlords.

People call for regional governments to get involved....but when they say that, of course they mean only OUR allies. If it was Iran or Syria or Russia who went in to Iraq to stop ISIS, would everyone (anyone?) be ok with that?

Terror and economics are the IS's only potential direct impacts on us, right? Terrorist groups can't be stopped with bombs and armies. The collateral damage and the degraded standard of living will always continue that cycle.
So ultimately, consciously or not, we support our govt's actions because we don't want our lifestyles disrupted by the economic impacts of destabilization in our resource supply chain. There is nothing altruistic about that...in fact it's immoral and disgusting....but at least youre not trying to sell me on a humanitarian mission.
After reading idris's article, it appears you and obomba are pretty much on the same page....happy days!

Edit: ok maybe not the same page. Reading into your comments. I assume you support intervention?
Re-reading your post....(this goes with what I was saying earlier)...were you inferring that that Obama was not making a choice if he decides not to intervene? What were his choices, then? Aid, drones, air strikes, or ground forces? Declining to intervene (inaction as you derogatorily put it), is not even an option any longer?

What I was saying is - up until this point he has made no choices. Now he's making a choice b/c it's so damned obvious what public perception is (given the beheadings). He is a leader with no leadership qualities. He is a product of our culture - do what the polls tell you to do. That is no way to lead. These are tough decisions. Leaders make them and don't wait for the repercussions of their indecision.

I am not supporting one way or the other at this time. I do think it's too little too late (so I guess I am an interventionalist in general). What I will say is our withdrawal and decreasing involvement has resulted in this.

it is as much a result of our presence as it is a result of our withdrawal.

Drowned Out

rgambs said:

t is as much a result of our presence as it is a result of our withdrawal.

Yup. And increased presence means increased recruitment for the IS. People seem to forget that Obama didn't withdraw voluntarily; Iraqis voted against an extension to the occupation and made the US leave.

callen

Here we go again. Water cooler talk. "ISIS are evil". "ISIS worse than we thought".

TV talk. "Taking over". "Strict Sharia law". "Islamic state". Gads. What will we do.

Republicans are drooling.

They're just humans people. Yeah they suck but aren't freakin zombies with superhuman powers.

Fuck.

callen

EdsonNascimento said:

Drowned Out said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Drowned Out said:

EdsonNascimento said:

rgambs said:

Hasn't every single intervention in the region shown that it will get worse WITH our involvement?? The only difference is tax dollars spent and whose lives are lost. I value all lives the same, but I don't support shipping lives around the world to be lost in conflicts that don't involve them. In addition, our depleted uranium shells will kill more innocent children than IS ever will, or even could. Have you not seen birth defect and cancer rates from Baghdad?

Here's the problem - use Saddam Hussein as an example - he was keeping all the "bad guys" in check (so to speak). But, he was slaughtering his own citizens to do so. So, we just let him run amok, so that the other bad guys are "kept in check?" I'm not saying he was directly related to this, just making a point. Decisions are not so easy. Do we get the bad guy we know, or leave him and decide on balance his atrocities are better (ha, ha) than the atrocities we MAY be left with if we allow him to keep the ones we don't know about in check? (And is that really the end result, or do they just end up doing his bidding in some way, shape or form?

Obama has taken the tact of NOT making decision so he doesn't get a bad rap. Personally, I'd rather have a leader that is willing to make decisions than one that is worried about what others might think of him. It's obvious this board prefers the opposite - inaction over action - you can't be blamed if you don't make a choice (though by NOT making a choice, as Neil Pert would say - you have, in fact, made a choice).

Again....this post makes it sound like a foregone conclusion that US interests trump the interests of the actual residents of the area - you didn't mention them once. Do WE get the bad guy WE know.....the atrocities WE may be left with if WE allow him....
what gives you the right to play god in the region? Fixing your past fuck ups? Remember the US built Saddam up, provided him with the means to take out his own citizens..then when he no longer served a purpose, we took him down. Al Qaeda, same shit. Maliki, same shit. The IS, same shit. When does it end? We just keep putting the evil we know in power, then taking them out because we're too stupid to figure out another way? I don't buy it. It's intentional.

I'm not saying we should have done anything to Hussein. I was just posing the issue. And, it's not an easy decision.

As for the playing god argument - there are impacts to us of what happens in other parts of the world.

Is that you, Barack?

) First time I've ever been accused of presidential thinking.....
The thing is, with Hussein....as you say, he kept a lid on things....but he kept a lid on things because of our funding and support. Who knows what the country/region would be like now without our meddling. Our involvement has always tipped the balance of power to whichever side we want it to. They could have found their way to lasting peace decades ago if we'd been honest trade partners and not overlords.

People call for regional governments to get involved....but when they say that, of course they mean only OUR allies. If it was Iran or Syria or Russia who went in to Iraq to stop ISIS, would everyone (anyone?) be ok with that?

Terror and economics are the IS's only potential direct impacts on us, right? Terrorist groups can't be stopped with bombs and armies. The collateral damage and the degraded standard of living will always continue that cycle.
So ultimately, consciously or not, we support our govt's actions because we don't want our lifestyles disrupted by the economic impacts of destabilization in our resource supply chain. There is nothing altruistic about that...in fact it's immoral and disgusting....but at least youre not trying to sell me on a humanitarian mission.
After reading idris's article, it appears you and obomba are pretty much on the same page....happy days!

Edit: ok maybe not the same page. Reading into your comments. I assume you support intervention?
Re-reading your post....(this goes with what I was saying earlier)...were you inferring that that Obama was not making a choice if he decides not to intervene? What were his choices, then? Aid, drones, air strikes, or ground forces? Declining to intervene (inaction as you derogatorily put it), is not even an option any longer?

What I was saying is - up until this point he has made no choices. Now he's making a choice b/c it's so damned obvious what public perception is (given the beheadings). He is a leader with no leadership qualities. He is a product of our culture - do what the polls tell you to do. That is no way to lead. These are tough decisions. Leaders make them and don't wait for the repercussions of their indecision.

I am not supporting one way or the other at this time. I do think it's too little too late (so I guess I am an interventionalist in general). What I will say is our withdrawal and decreasing involvement has resulted in this.

It's all propaganda. Fkn news is blowing this shit up to enrage the masses.

And it's working. Sky is falling. Sky is falling. Arab countries need to take care of this. It's not our job to fix the world.

To blame Obama is nuts. The hate was created long ago.

Jason P

Obama is giving a speech tonight on his strategy to defeat ISIS ... is it wise to just tell the world, including ISIS, what said strategy is?

callen

Jason P said:

Obama is giving a speech tonight on his strategy to defeat ISIS ... is it wise to just tell the world, including ISIS, what said strategy is?

Political talk. The republicans salivate every time another beheading happens so Obama's gotta counter to keep the sheep corralled in his pen versus getting all scared and running towards the wolves(corporations/republicans).

Here's the strategy : air strikes including going into Syria, build Iraqi capabilities, no American boots on the ground(wink wink).

He'll talk tough saying how grave ISIS is so dems don't look weak.

All really sad. Media is so effective at getting the sheep to shudder. Those evil doers. Killers. Ewwwwww. Run hide in central USA.