Discussion: Iraq II - Part 2

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]352299[/split]

 

[redhawk23]

So John Boehner gave his own speach commemorating the end of the combat mission in Iraq. whilst doing so he ripped on opponents of the surge, for "fighting tooth and nail" against it and now taking credit for its successes. He has a point. However, also throughout his speach he praises the new "change in mission" i.e. the draw down and change of focus in Iraq, despite the fact that he and most other Republicans notably John McCain very much opposed and spoke out against the actions now being taken. So politics as usual.

 

[herolee10]

Man, despite this being a recurring nightmare, I don't think I'll ever get used to hearing about this kind of crap taking place in the world right now.

There's not a part of me that would wish any mercy upon these savages.

I don't know guys, I mean how long do you guys see ISIS remaining a presence in the world? Would it even be possible to defeat an majority of them within a half a decade from now?

 

[regwec]

Yes, but political timidity will almost certainly prevent that.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Again, how can we defeat ISIS in five separate countries in five years when we can't defeat the Taliban in a single country in ten years?

I think the best we can hope for is create ISIS free zones throughout the middle east and protect them but that's a very expensive commitment that could last for decades.

 

[Greens]

ISIS is here to stay, unfortunately.

 

[Thundercrack85]

ISIS is a relatively small group compared to the Taliban. The problem is that they're much more scattered, and have a lot of local support.

 

[regwec]

Again, how can we defeat ISIS in five separate countries in five years when we can't defeat the Taliban in a single country in ten years?

I think the best we can hope for is create ISIS free zones throughout the middle east and protect them but that's a very expensive commitment that could last for decades.

I'm not sure that "we" can, but use of overwhelming violence and repression by the powers local to ISIS' incursion might do the job.

 

[Victarion]

I got a CNN update claiming nearly 4 out of 5 Americans say Congress should authorize President Obama to fight ISIS.

 

[DeadPresident]

I wonder if all the people talking tough about eliminating ISIS can conceive the level of violence and bloodshed necessary to do so.

 

[Greens]

I wonder if all the people talking tough about eliminating ISIS can conceive the level of violence and bloodshed necessary to do so.

Consequently, the anti-American sentiment in the Middle-East will only grow.

 

[DeadPresident]

Consequently, the anti-American sentiment in the Middle-East will only grow.

Yes. IMO it's a lose lose situation, for America anyways. The global community condemns America when they boorishly go into countries and "abuse" their military power. Equally, as ISIS grows in significance that same community cries out for a saviour, and who's best if not the kid with the biggest stick?

America does nothing and Europe and the global liberals see them as heartless, America makes attempts to remove ISIS and the developing world will use the old "Great Satan" angle as a stick with which to beat the USA.

Not aimed at you, but just a general thought here; I should get out of the habit, and others might want to do the same, of using euphemisms for how ISIS will need to be "dealt" with. "Eliminate", "eviscerate", "wipe out", "show what for" are all a little too cartoony when what people are actually referring to is the merciless and brutal killing of barbarians which will no doubt result in a fair amount of civilian casualties. If folks are comfortable with that then they should call for action against ISIS, but if they're seeking some kind of 1 year long magical insurgency where only ISIS members are killed, I've got bad news for them.

 

[Greens]

It's definitely a lose lose situation for everyone involved. ISIS needs to be dealt with one way or another, but any western interference only adds fuel to the extremist fire. ISIS wants Americans to put boots on the ground to rally more people to the cause.

The Middle East and sections of Africa are ****ed and there's really nothing we can do except repeat the cycle.

 

[Victarion]

I wonder if all the people talking tough about eliminating ISIS can conceive the level of violence and bloodshed necessary to do so.

Most of them, more likely than not, don't care.

 

[DeadPresident]

It's definitely a lose lose situation for everyone involved. ISIS needs to be dealt with one way or another, but any western interference only adds fuel to the extremist fire. ISIS wants Americans to put boots on the ground to rally more people to the cause.

The Middle East and sections of Africa are ****ed and there's really nothing we can do except repeat the cycle.

Yeah, it's nothing but a cyclical event now with little purpose besides generating political capital. ISIS won't be "dealt" with, they'll just be replaced by another group that will hate America for meddling. Taliban to Al Qaeda to ISIS to...?

Most of them, more likely than not, don't care.

Oh but they do. Because they're the same people lamenting the situation in Israel and calling for action against Boko Haram or posting on MyTwitsterFaceGram about some or another atrocity. Whilst calling for another atrocity.

So obviously deplorable amounts of death does bother them, depending on who it is we're talking about.

 

[Greens]

So obviously deplorable amounts of death does bother them, depending on who it is we're talking about.

I think it's just a matter of oversimplifying the situation.

"Why don't we just bomb ISIS into oblivion?"

"Because there would be thousands of civilian casualties."

"Oh."

 

[DeadPresident]

I think it's just a matter of oversimplifying the situation.

"Why don't we just bomb ISIS into oblivion?"

"Because there would be thousands of civilian casualties."

"Oh."

Fair point. But it also seems to be highly dependent on who is being discussed. You can be sure if ISIS was only beheading Copts and other Arabs nobody would give a ****. Have some Westerners added to the casualty list and suddenly it's a more pressing matter in the public eye.

It seems like pressure will continue to grow until Obama does indeed intervene, but what form that intervention will take remains to be seen. Troops on the ground makes no sense to me, the USA can't afford to get involved in another Guerrilla warfare scenario in the Middle East that degenerates into an attritional battle.

 

[Victarion]

Yeah, it's nothing but a cyclical event now with little purpose besides generating political capital. ISIS won't be "dealt" with, they'll just be replaced by another group that will hate America for meddling. Taliban to Al Qaeda to ISIS to...?



Oh but they do. Because they're the same people lamenting the situation in Israel and calling for action against Boko Haram or posting on MyTwitsterFaceGram about some or another atrocity. Whilst calling for another atrocity.

So obviously deplorable amounts of death does bother them, depending on who it is we're talking about.

I thought this was mostly the older Republicans.

 

[DeadPresident]

I thought this was mostly the older Republicans.

I was referring to the "reverse" position. It's a badge of honor for trendy left wing folks to treat the situation in Israel like it's the most monumental issue facing humanity. Then again a lot of my experiences are on a university campus so I'm probably biased. Nobody knows less about politics than a 2nd year politics major.

 

[Victarion]

I see. I'm surrounded by biology majors. No one in our circle really bothers with it. What situation in Israel are you talking about?

 

[DeadPresident]

I see. I'm surrounded by biology majors. No one in our circle really bothers with it. What situation in Israel are you talking about?

I'm not going to get into it in detail here but it's essentially people adopting the (admittedly legitimate) plight of the Palestinians, but the method in which they do it is the problem. No doubt the Israel topic could shed further light on it, but I'd recommend spending your time in a more constructive fashion.

 

[Victarion]

Ah, I misread that as the Reps' sympathies toward Israeli expansion.

 

[Thundercrack85]

To me there are two perspectives on this issue. The regional perspective, i.e. the "let them sort it out amongst themselves", and the humanitarian globalist perspective (for lack of better terms). I.e. we can't let Iraqi kids, Syrian kids, whatever kind of kids and innocent people be beheaded and do nothing.

I fully acknowledge that intervening will probably result in blowback, and the local powers need to actually use those huge militaries they have.

On the other hand, it's doubtful that they will do anything beyond air strikes, and I'm sick of seeing people being beheaded.

So, I'm conflicted.

 

[DeadPresident]

Ah, I misread that as the Reps' sympathies toward Israeli expansion.

Nah, but that is a massively problematic issue. It's a huge obstacle in making any headway towards a two-state system.

 

[Kelly]

When group one feels that they have the right to the land because God gave it to them....and group two is being manipulated by a group that wants group one blown off the face of the earth...well, a two state system is never going to happen.

Isarel's land for peace is fine and good, when they get the 200,000 off the land that has been given for peace.
Palestinian Authority desire to have a full cease fire and go back to the table, is all fine and good when the group that is REALLY in control has absolutely no plans for peace.