Beheaded by ISIS

jeffbr said:

callen said:

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).

He created much of the pressure himself after his stupid statement last week saying we had no ISIS strategy.

callen said:

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 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?

EdsonNascimento said:

callen said:

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.

Not blaming Obama for the inherrent hate. Point is - when the cat's away the mice will play (if you'll forgive the childish euphimism. I just don't know a simpler way to describe it to you).

benjs said:

So, I've got a question. What do you think when you hear someone say "they (IS) are barbarians, and the Middle East at large has proven they do not have everything under control, so how can we justify doing nothing?"

A friend mentioned how American interventionism was critical in the defeat of the Nazis and how we couldn't have stood by and allowed them to gain further power (to be honest, I would be lying if I said I'm familiar on the political/militaristic scenarios of WWII), and used that notion to legitimize intervention in this scenario. To me, I don't think they're parallel scenarios, but I had no evidence to back that statement up. What says you, fine folks of the PJ Boards?