Beheaded by ISIS

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.

callen said:

Idris said:

This guy is useless.

Who's falling for this trash?

What do you think he should do?

rr165892 said:

Here's a concept.How about we go after the illegal oil sales to other governments from ISIS.Tell the govs buying the "blood" oil that they are on the wrong side of this and that will have conciquences.This will cut off a majority of the $$$ the work with.

Idris said:

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?

Did your friend also mention that some of our people/groups/industries helped give rise to the Third Reich?

and before that, we can get into Eugenics, something Hitler learned much from us, (U.S.A.)



"We do not stand alone": Nazi poster from 1936 introducing compulsory sterilization legislation. The United States flag is prominently displayed as one of the eugenic states of the world.(Wikipedia)

Drowned Out said:

Still trying to wrap my head around who, what, where they will be bombing in Syria.

Ideally, when beginning a new war like Obama is doing now, the president would ask Congress to declare it. That is the approach that he took a year ago when Obama came close to authorizing airstrikes against the Syrian government as a response to its chemical weapons attacks on rebel positions outside of Damascus.

This approach is also consistent with how Obama himself campaigned for the presidency in 2008. During the campaign he told The Boston Globe, “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

[...]

But almost as soon as he began the air campaign, Obama’s war got much broader. By the end of August, U.S. aircraft were striking ISIS targets in Iraq near the Mosul dam to protect Iraq’s critical infrastructure. In a few short weeks, the initial narrow aims of the war had expanded.

Now Obama seeks to expand that war even more. Addressing the nation Wednesday evening he said he reserved the right to strike ISIS targets in Syria. “I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are,” he said.