US strikes against ISIS "only the beginning" of a "long, difficult, complicated struggle" that may l - Polidicks

Two articles, both are videos [url]http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2014/09/23/pentagon-fight-against-isis-will-take-years/[/url] [url]http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2014/09/23/u-s-attacks-against-terrorist-groups-only-the-beginning/[/url]

snip I guess they're trained to hate us. I dunno, I just feel bad for the innocent countries.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46059833]It doesn't have to be. We can still stop wasting our blood, time, and money in the middle east and just let the region fend for itself.[/QUOTE] Cant do that apparently.

[QUOTE=Waffle Lord;46059842]Then more people hate us because we didn't help...[/QUOTE] Are you saying they haven't reached their maximum possible hatred already for the past ten years?

The current problem in the Middle East shouldn't be an issue solved by the Middle Eastern Union, shouldn't be solved by NATO, or just some random military alliance. It should be fucking solved by the United Nations Security Council with an organized mission that doesn't waste everyone's god damn time.

Hopefully he's not foreshadowing ground troops.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46059855]And? We're hated if we intervene, we're hated if we don't. Know which option doesn't cost a damn thing in any sense of the word? Not intervening.[/QUOTE] Yes because millions of innocent people are completely worthless to anyone because they're just dirty foreigners.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46059855]And? We're hated if we intervene, we're hated if we don't. Know which option doesn't cost a damn thing in any sense of the word? Not intervening.[/QUOTE] By being in the position to help, and not helping, that would make us morally bankrupt, wouldn't it? We should keep up the airstrikes and maybe send in handfuls of veteran and highly trained special forces from time to time for hostage rescue or sensitive search and destroy missions. Sending thousands and thousands of regular grunts would just be asking for trouble.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46059916]They don't have to die, they can sort their own fucking problems out.[/QUOTE] They really can't, though. It's been proven time and time again over the past couple decades. The unorganized governments there need help. [QUOTE=ilikecorn;46059916]Why does the us+europe have to play the role as "world police"?[/QUOTE] We're developed nations and we have the power and resources to help those in need, namely developing nations. The Middle East is in crisis, and it has been for several years, and it will probably continue to be for a long time. But if we don't do anything about threats like ISIS, it will only get worse.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46059916]They don't have to die, they can sort their own fucking problems out. Why does the us+europe have to play the role as "world police"? [/QUOTE] Hegemony

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46059916]The only reason any intervention at all is happening is due to some "national intrests", you're high if you think we're helping for the sake of helping.[/QUOTE] I'd like to think that among the tens of thousands of Western individuals involved in intervention in the Middle East, there's at least a few of them who are in this to [I]help people[/I]. Not everyone in the government, armed forces and UN is an evil, greedy capitalist.

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;46059882]Yes because millions of innocent people are completely worthless to anyone because they're just dirty foreigners.[/QUOTE] But everytime the west ever did anything in the middle east they just made it worse, shit, last time we did anything we created the problem we are facing today, although I agree that letting millions of people die is unacceptable, we can't just start putting people on the ground anymore thinking that if we kill enough of 'dem terrists' that they'll succumb to superior firepower. You can't kill an ideology with guns and bombs.

[QUOTE=FalconKrunch;46059976]But everytime the west ever did anything in the middle east they just made it worse, shit, last time we did anything we created the problem we are facing today, although I agree that letting millions of people die is unacceptable, we can't just start putting people on the ground anymore thinking that if we kill enough of 'dem terrists' that they'll succumb to superior firepower. You can't kill an ideology with guns and bombs.[/QUOTE] We've also definitively proven that sitting idly by and letting the world go to shit doesn't accomplish anything either. Our methods need to be re-evaluated, not our efforts abandoned.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46059855]And? We're hated if we intervene, we're hated if we don't. Know which option doesn't cost a damn thing in any sense of the word? Not intervening.[/QUOTE]So, I take it you leave infected wounds to fester and spread?

[QUOTE=FalconKrunch;46059976]But everytime the west ever did anything in the middle east they just made it worse, shit, last time we did anything we created the problem we are facing today, although I agree that letting millions of people die is unacceptable, we can't just start putting people on the ground anymore thinking that if we kill enough of 'dem terrists' that they'll succumb to superior firepower. You can't kill an ideology with guns and bombs.[/QUOTE] This is true, you have to help build up a competent, functioning government with its own peace-keeping capability first. Seems like this is something we've overlooked during every single one of those occasions...

[QUOTE=Furioso;46059961]They really can't, though. It's been proven time and time again over the past couple decades. The unorganized governments there need help.[/quote] What exactly is an "unorganized government" and does this really apply to any country outside of Syria and Iraq? [QUOTE=Furioso;46059961]We're developed nations and we have the power and resources to help those in need, namely developing nations. The Middle East is in crisis, and it has been for several years, and it will probably continue to be for a long time. But if we don't do anything about threats like ISIS, it will only get worse.[/QUOTE] We also have starving people on the streets of America. We have the ability and resources to help them. But do we? Not implying that they do not deserve help, but America does not "help those in need", it helps itself to its own needs and may just so happen to benefit others as well. These strikes benefit Iraq immensely. Are we concerned about the people of Iraq? Fuck no. We care about Iraq being a possible dependable ally in the region for future conflicts. If Iraq falls, we lose that. No one in Washington gives a shit about the people of the region.

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;46059993]So, I take it you leave infected wounds to fester and spread?[/QUOTE] If you're going by this analogy, then yes we do. Example: North Korea

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46059916]They don't have to die, they can sort their own fucking problems out. Why does the us+europe have to play the role as "world police"? [/QUOTE] We, the west, created most of the problems there and have been dealing with trying to clean up the mess for the past 100 years and constantly failing.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46060017]Or, we can tell them to unfuck themselves, and to actually develop competent militaries. Unless we truely adress how IS came to powe, we're going to repeat this cycle ad nauseum. The only way to stop this bullshit is to have middle east that can stand on it's own, without any foreign intervention. Simple airstrikes aren't going to do that. At all. Ever.[/QUOTE] Developing militaries isn't the issue. Developing a competent political leadership that is in charge of said military is. When you have no clear goal and objective in a war, you are damned to lose it, if not on the battlefield then on the home front. The US military can quite easily eradicate ISIS. But we have not and probably never will have a decent, let alone [I]good[/I] political answer to what happens afterward. Having the goal be "Destroy ISIS" is half an answer to the conflict, not the whole, and the other half is "replace with what?"

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46060001]What exactly is an "unorganized government" and does this really apply to any country outside of Syria and Iraq?[/QUOTE] I can think of at least one other, Afghanistan, due to the historically tribal history of the area. I haven't kept up with how things are over there now, but I do recall that there was a time when the government was having trouble communicating with local governments from the various regions of the country due to things like tribal take-overs, poor infrastructure and general political incompetence. Lacking something as basic as reliable communication between different levels of government should be key to a functioning country. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46060001]We also have starving people on the streets of America. We have the ability and resources to help them. But do we? Not implying that they do not deserve help, but America does not "help those in need", it helps itself to its own needs and may just so happen to benefit others as well.[/QUOTE] You're right, Washington seems to have strange priorities. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46060001]These strikes benefit Iraq immensely. Are we concerned about the people of Iraq? Fuck no. We care about Iraq being a possible dependable ally in the region for future conflicts. If Iraq falls, we lose that. No one in Washington gives a shit about the people of the region.[/QUOTE] Debatable - I can agree that a lot of politicians are scum, but I refuse to believe that [I]nobody[/I] cares over there.

[QUOTE=The Haski;46060045]We, the west, created most of the problems there and have been dealing with trying to clean up the mess for the past 100 years and constantly failing.[/QUOTE] Not all the messes. The belligerence between Sunnis and Shias are older than the Crusades.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46060013]If you're going by this analogy, then yes we do. Example: North Korea[/QUOTE]I would think of NK to be more like a tumor. Ultimately dangerous, but even more dangerous to move. But we gotta do something more than just administer antibiotics into the system.

Nothing's going to change until Islamic fundamentalism disappears.

[QUOTE=Furioso;46060062]I can think of at least one other, Afghanistan, due to the historically tribal history of the area. I haven't kept up with how things are over there now, but I do recall that there was a time when the government was having trouble communicating with local governments from the various regions of the country due to things like tribal take-overs, poor infrastructure and general political incompetence. Lacking something as basic as reliable communication between different levels of government should be key to a functioning country.[/quote] Other central Asian nations don't have this issue of the US and Europe needing to "fix" them. [QUOTE=Furioso;46060062]You're right, Washington seems to have strange priorities.[/quote] The priorities are those of who managed to get who into office, whether it be unions, corporations, or masses of Tea Parties. [QUOTE=Furioso;46060062]Debatable - I can agree that a lot of politicians are scum, but I refuse to believe that [I]nobody[/I] cares over there.[/QUOTE] Have this compromised idea: There probably are some who honestly believe they are helping. But they are clearly a minority in conflicts and in attempting to help end up giving support to those whose intentions are not help but in self interest. If you have a tree you want to tear down to build a house for and another guy wants to tear down the tree because he hates trees and the environment, you're both tearing down the tree. [editline]23rd September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;46060085]I would think of NK to be more like a tumor. Ultimately dangerous, but even more dangerous to move. But we gotta do something more than just administer antibiotics into the system.[/QUOTE] Are you implying we ought to attack North Korea?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46059833]It doesn't have to be. We can still stop wasting our blood, time, and money in the middle east and just let the region fend for itself.[/QUOTE] Even if we ignore the deplorable disregard for innocent civilians who have little or no means to defend themselves, that's a terrible and reckless foreign policy to adopt post-9/11.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46059833]It doesn't have to be. We can still stop wasting our blood, time, and money in the middle east and just let the region fend for itself.[/QUOTE] And allow possibly millions to die? Risk the conflict spreading across the region into non-involved states (Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait)? Just fucking turn our head and try to ignore the bloodshed?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46059855]And? We're hated if we intervene, we're hated if we don't. Know which option doesn't cost a damn thing in any sense of the word? Not intervening.[/QUOTE] public opinion can fuck itself, better to do something than sit back and watch innocent people get beheaded on the internet

[QUOTE=Waffle Lord;46059842]Then more people hate us because we didn't help...[/QUOTE] We're damned if we do, damned if we don't, and one option saves us a lot of money and lives. It's a given a lot of people are going to favor it. Myself included, truth be told, I'm fucking tired of the US being at war.

[QUOTE=RVFHarrier;46060272]Even if we ignore the deplorable disregard for innocent civilians who have little or no means to defend themselves, that's a terrible and reckless foreign policy to adopt post-9/11.[/QUOTE] As opposed to the foreign policy that basically green lights military intrusion into any country we wish? [editline]23rd September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;46060289]And allow possibly millions to die? Risk the conflict spreading across the region into non-involved states (Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait)? Just fucking turn our head and try to ignore the bloodshed?[/QUOTE] So where exactly was this sentiment in regards to Syria in 2011?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46059833]It doesn't have to be. We can still stop wasting our blood, time, and money in the middle east and just let the region fend for itself.[/QUOTE] Check out this guy that thinks isolationism works in a global economy.