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

I find the idea of not helping the middle east to be an apathetically selfish and disgusting ideology, and am appalled that some of you guys think kicking back and ignoring problems is going to help. You say now that it might save lives and money down the line, so why get involved, people will just die anyways! That's a great point, its always good to save a few hundred/few thousand American soldiers when we could be saving hundreds of thousands of lives if we did intervene. Just because they are foreigners does not mean they are not worth as much as Americans. Soldiers and Americans dying is a terrible, terrible thing. And I certainly wish the bloodshed would stop too, believe me I do. But not doing anything is akin to putting up a big middle finger to every single civilian in the middle east who does not follow the specific ideology of IS, and whistling quietly as they are slaughtered. Its this kind of attitude that let the Rwandan genocide escalate to the point of no return, its this kind of attitude that let the Bosnian genocide escalate to the point of no return, its this kind of attitude that will lead to another mass genocide and all-around butchery of anyone unfortunate enough to stick by their own beliefs in the Middle East. But that's okay, so long as it doesn't affect America directly. Right?

[QUOTE=Swilly;46060519]Check out this guy that thinks isolationism works in a global economy.[/QUOTE] Check out this guy who thinks non-interventionism is isolationism.

[QUOTE=Jrose14;46060520]I find the idea of not helping the middle east to be an apathetically selfish and disgusting ideology, and am appalled that some of you guys think kicking back and ignoring problems is going to help. You say now that it might save lives and money down the line, so why get involved, people will just die anyways! That's a great point, its always good to save a few hundred/few thousand American soldiers when we could be saving hundreds of thousands of lives if we did intervene. Just because they are foreigners does not mean they are not worth as much as Americans. Soldiers and Americans dying is a terrible, terrible thing. And I certainly wish the bloodshed would stop too, believe me I do. But not doing anything is akin to putting up a big middle finger to every single civilian in the middle east who does not follow the specific ideology of IS, and whistling quietly as they are slaughtered. Its this kind of attitude that let the Rwandan genocide escalate to the point of no return, its this kind of attitude that let the Bosnian genocide escalate to the point of no return, its this kind of attitude that will lead to another mass genocide and all-around butchery of anyone unfortunate enough to stick by their own beliefs in the Middle East. But that's okay, so long as it doesn't affect America directly. Right?[/QUOTE] Do you think we should invade North Korea to end the oppression there?

[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 what if they keep growing stronger and eventually find ourselves with terrorist attacks in our cities?

[QUOTE=Jrose14;46060520]I find the idea of not helping the middle east to be an apathetically selfish and disgusting ideology, and am appalled that some of you guys think kicking back and ignoring problems is going to help. You say now that it might save lives and money down the line, so why get involved, people will just die anyways! That's a great point, its always good to save a few hundred/few thousand American soldiers when we could be saving hundreds of thousands of lives if we did intervene. Just because they are foreigners does not mean they are not worth as much as Americans. Soldiers and Americans dying is a terrible, terrible thing. And I certainly wish the bloodshed would stop too, believe me I do. But not doing anything is akin to putting up a big middle finger to every single civilian in the middle east who does not follow the specific ideology of IS, and whistling quietly as they are slaughtered. Its this kind of attitude that let the Rwandan genocide escalate to the point of no return, its this kind of attitude that let the Bosnian genocide escalate to the point of no return, its this kind of attitude that will lead to another mass genocide and all-around butchery of anyone unfortunate enough to stick by their own beliefs in the Middle East. But that's okay, so long as it doesn't affect America directly. Right?[/QUOTE] I might support an attack against ISIS if my government was honestly doing it to support people. I may even find some moral justification for the loss of American lives in such a war to help people. But the reality of the matter is, my government is not attacking ISIS to "save lives" or "help people". And I cannot condone a war with ISIS because of that.

[QUOTE=Swineflu;46060549]And what if they keep growing stronger and eventually find ourselves with terrorist attacks in our cities?[/QUOTE] They don't need to grow stronger for that. I could google how to make a pipe bomb right now and set one off in a crowded city. It doesn't take organizational strength to have a terrorist attack.

[QUOTE=Explosions;46060539]Do you think we should invade North Korea to end the oppression there?[/QUOTE] No. There are things we could possibly do to help, but invasion would end up killing off more [I]civilians[/I] than it would save. I'm talking about fighting a terrorist organization intent on the murder and destruction of several ethnic groups, cultures, and nations, not North Korea. They are terrible things to compare because they are very, [I]very[/I] different issues.

[QUOTE=Jrose14;46060562]No. There are things we could possibly do to help, but invasion would end up killing off more [I]civilians[/I] than it would save. I'm talking about fighting a terrorist organization intent on the murder and destruction of several ethnic groups, cultures, and nations, not North Korea. They are terrible things to compare because they are very, [I]very[/I] different issues.[/QUOTE] I guess working people to death because their great-grandfather said something slightly unpatriotic at one point is ever so slightly more morally alright than beheading someone for their beliefs.

[QUOTE=Jrose14;46060562]No. There are things we could possibly do to help, but invasion would end up killing off more [I]civilians[/I] than it would save. I'm talking about fighting a terrorist organization intent on the murder and destruction of several ethnic groups, cultures, and nations, not North Korea. They are terrible things to compare because they are very, [I]very[/I] different issues.[/QUOTE] How are they different issues?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46060570]I guess working people to death because their great-grandfather said something slightly unpatriotic at one point is ever so slightly more morally alright than beheading someone for their beliefs.[/QUOTE] NK is a governmental body, albeit a shitty one. ISIS is not. Taking out NK would destroy the very infrastructure (again, albeit a shitty infrastructure) of the country, and lead to more civilian deaths than it would save, as I stated in my previous post, with mass (worse) starvation, riots, political gambits that would probably arise new dictators, etc. I'm not going to say anything more on the matter of NK, because this is about IS, and swinging the topic around to a wholly different issue is just a stupid way to grasp at straws.

The situations are the same: Horrific ideologue regimes are committing mass murder against the people living under their control. In fact, North Korea has been doing this for decades and has killed more people than IS could ever hope to. Why are you not clamoring with even more vigor to end the North Korean oppression? It's far worse than anything the IS can or will ever conjure.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46060561]They don't need to grow stronger for that. I could google how to make a pipe bomb right now and set one off in a crowded city. It doesn't take organizational strength to have a terrorist attack.[/QUOTE] But it costs a lot of money to properly infiltrate their guys inside. Forged papers, all that stuff, and they ain't going to do pipe bombs, I'm talking about 9/11 level attacks.

[QUOTE=Jrose14;46060614]NK is a governmental body, albeit a shitty one. ISIS is not. Taking out NK would destroy the very infrastructure (again, albeit a shitty infrastructure) of the country, and lead to more civilian deaths than it would save, as I stated in my previous post, with mass (worse) starvation, riots, political gambits that would probably arise new dictators, etc. I'm not going to say anything more on the matter of NK, because this is about IS, and swinging the topic around to a wholly different issue is just a stupid way to grasp at straws.[/QUOTE] ISIS collects taxes, runs schools for children and has a government infrastructure. The only major difference between this and NK is NK is recognized by other states.

[QUOTE=Jrose14;46060614]NK is a governmental body, albeit a shitty one. ISIS is not. Taking out NK would destroy the very infrastructure (again, albeit a shitty infrastructure) of the country, and lead to more civilian deaths than it would save, as I stated in my previous post, with mass (worse) starvation, riots, political gambits that would probably arise new dictators, etc.[/QUOTE] So I'm assuming you are against the Allied intervention in WWII? The UK and FRance should never have declared war on Germany because the destruction of the Nazi government led to the destabilization of the country and the destruction of its infrastructure. [editline]23rd September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Jrose14;46060614]I'm not going to say anything more on the matter of NK, because this is about IS, and swinging the topic around to a wholly different issue is just a stupid way to grasp at straws.[/QUOTE] It's an entirely relevant example and you don't want to address it because you want to hold two contradictory opinions at once.

[QUOTE=Swineflu;46060630]But it costs a lot of money to properly infiltrate their guys inside. Forged papers, all that stuff, and they ain't going to do pipe bombs, I'm talking about 9/11 level attacks.[/QUOTE] 9/11 happened because of a relaxed guard. I doubt we'll ever have one again, no matter how strong ISIS gets. And besides, if ISIS grows to enough strength, they can just conventionally assault the US.

This is the same bullshit people said about Saddam's psycho fascist regime when this all began years ago. They cry on about how removing him "destabilized" the country and led to the creation of more violent groups. These same people love to ignore the fact that there was already a massively violent group thriving in Iraq that had been murdering thousands of people and invading other countries for decades - the Ba'ath Party. How stable.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46060472]As opposed to the foreign policy that basically green lights military intrusion into any country we wish?[/QUOTE] No. As opposed to the foreign policy whereby we intervene if the destabilization of a region presents a direct threat to us and to international security in general. If people here genuinely believe that what's happening in the Middle East doesn't affect us, then history is at risk of repeating itself.

[QUOTE=RVFHarrier;46060682]No. As opposed to the foreign policy whereby we intervene if the destabilization of a region presents a direct threat to us and to international security in general. If people here genuinely believe that what's happening in the Middle East doesn't affect us, then history is at risk of repeating itself.[/QUOTE] I'll take a few steps back then: do you support invading and removing the North Korean regime? They have been successfully testing and developing nuclear weapons for years and have made repeated threats and gestures indicating that they might use them. Their capability to successfully launch a nuclear attack on the US is constantly growing with every missile test they conduct. Their antics absolutely destabilize the entirety of Eastern Asia, financially, socially, and militarily. Moreover, they have been murdering hundreds of thousands if not millions of their own people for more than 50 years, and those that have escaped torture and execution are brutally repressed in almost every conceivable way. Where is everybody's fervent call to action against this sickening monster regime?

[QUOTE=RVFHarrier;46060682]No. As opposed to the foreign policy whereby we intervene if the destabilization of a region presents a direct threat to us and to international security in general. If people here genuinely believe that what's happening in the Middle East doesn't affect us, then history is at risk of repeating itself.[/QUOTE] I'm going to take a gamble and assume "risk history repeating itself" means 9/11, to which I'm going to reply with the fact that Bin Laden specifically stated that those attacks were a reaction to Western intervention in the middle east. Besides that, the US doesn't care about international security. If they did, they wouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place.

If I call the NK government "terrorists" then is it OK to shoot missiles at them?

[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;46060337]public opinion can fuck itself, better to do something than sit back and watch innocent people get beheaded on the internet[/QUOTE] Who's been beheaded on the internet? Americans and Britons. Who is currently involved in the middle east? Americans, Britons, and French. Remove them from the region, none of them get beheaded.

[QUOTE=darunner;46060775]Who's been beheaded on the internet? Americans and Britons. Who is currently involved in the middle east? Americans, Britons, and French. Remove them from the region, none of them get beheaded.[/QUOTE] Funnily enough, those that have been beheaded went to the region on their own individual accord, not through some state order such as a military operation. I wonder if those people, who died due to hoping to help people, would be content knowing their death will be used as a justification of war.

"Doctor, every time I stick this nail in my leg, the body rejects it. What can we do to stop it?"

[QUOTE=darunner;46060837]"Doctor, every time I stick this nail in my leg, the body rejects it. What can we do to stop it?"[/QUOTE] American's answer is, "Hit the nail even harder"

[QUOTE=Explosions;46060723]I'll take a few steps back then: do you support invading and removing the North Korean regime? They have been successfully testing and developing nuclear weapons for years and have made repeated threats and gestures indicating that they might use them. Their capability to successfully launch a nuclear attack on the US is constantly growing with every missile test they conduct. Their antics absolutely destabilize the entirety of Eastern Asia, financially, socially, and militarily. Moreover, they have been murdering hundreds of thousands if not millions of their own people for more than 50 years, and those that have escaped torture and execution are brutally repressed in almost every conceivable way. Where is everybody's fervent call to action against this sickening monster regime?[/QUOTE] Horses for courses, not every threat to security calls for a direct military intervention. The situation with North Korea is relatively neutered compared to the situation in the Middle East; the US maintains a large portion of its deployed naval capacity nearby for exactly that role, [i]passive[/i] stabilization of the Pacific region. The US also has strong allies in Japan and South Korea to whom it has proliferated naval-based ballistic missile defence technology in the form of licence-built AEGIS ships and shared development and testing of the SM-3, again, for exactly that reason. The situation in the Middle East is absolutely nothing of the sort, there are no powerful allies in the region to hold the fort in the event that we, the West, take a back seat role. An attempt was made to rectify that, but it has clearly failed and now our hand has been forced to act as the situation has gone beyond the tipping point. Responses to threats have to be commensurate not only to the type and the severity of the threat, but to the volatility of them as well; North Korea, beyond the sinking of the Cheonan a few years ago and the occasional border skirmish, has done little to suggest that the status quo will be changing any time soon. The situation with IS, however, can change drastically between successive newspaper printings.

[QUOTE=Explosions;46060539]Do you think we should invade North Korea to end the oppression there?[/QUOTE] lol if you expect any consistency in regards to humanitarian interventions.

[QUOTE=Explosions;46060723]I'll take a few steps back then: do you support invading and removing the North Korean regime? They have been successfully testing and developing nuclear weapons for years and have made repeated threats and gestures indicating that they might use them. Their capability to successfully launch a nuclear attack on the US is constantly growing with every missile test they conduct. Their antics absolutely destabilize the entirety of Eastern Asia, financially, socially, and militarily. Moreover, they have been murdering hundreds of thousands if not millions of their own people for more than 50 years, and those that have escaped torture and execution are brutally repressed in almost every conceivable way. Where is everybody's fervent call to action against this sickening monster regime?[/QUOTE] NK is also allied with China. Not so with ISIS.

People seem to think the problem in the Middle East has somehow been caused by the West, and while our support of Israel, our dicking around in the Iran-Iraq war, and the Brit's terrible job of dividing the place up after WWII didn't help, the real problem and creator of most of the conflicts there is religion. Sunnis and Shiites don't like each other, or at the very least both sides have extremist groups that make it very hard. But in the end, the Middle East has no such idea of "secular". Islam plays a defining role in the areas government, people, and identity, and the divisions among Muslims play a defining role in the region's problems.

Jesus Christ What's up with still calling them a "terrorist organization"? By all fucking means they are no longer a "terrorist organization". They have resorted to conventional tactics, have set up what appears to be a present state inside their borders (They have enough "despotic power" [note: No, doesn't mean "evil, it means "can do whatever the fuck they want"] and some infrastructure to impose their will) and more... Why keep calling them a terrorist organization? [QUOTE]People seem to think the problem in the Middle East has somehow been caused by the West[/QUOTE] But sure as hell the West didn't help a single bit. When you just dick around the region trying to deny access to an opponent for more than a century to the resources present there, you are bound to create some shit. Let's be honest, the West and it means US, UK, Spain, France and whoever the hell has laid a finger on the zone haven't been keen on the "Let's build civilization there via books, tools, clean water". When a chance of seizing more power or profiting from conflicts in the region popped up, the "West took it". Almost every son of a fucking bitch that has ruled in the ME or is ruling today can be traced back to US/NATO. Any decent historian will tell you so. And anybody who is not blind to the "Bu-bu-but muh freedom and our soldiers" can see it. What you are seeing today in Iraq is simply a re-run of the same situation in Afghanistan. You took down an opponent via force, flooding the region with experienced figthers and modern weapons, left without building or giving a fuck (Because, throwing money at a region =/= building a state) and now are facing the consequences. Guess what? ISIS will surely fall down. Once everybody inside it no longer sees the benefits it brought to be under their as good "enough", support will fade away and they will be part of history. Don't be surprised if the same thing starts happening on the same scale in Africa over the next years. With the Chinese advancing over the region and some Islamic militias already popping up here and there...everything is bound repeat itself. EDIT: I'll say it again so my point can be better understood by contrast. The situation would be totally different today is the US did what it did with Europe after WW2. Check out the situation: From the Volga to the east, everything lay in ruins. France was totally razed. Germany was turned into ashes. Italy totally idem. This in turn creates an environment that encouraged Stalinist parties and their revolutionary programs [NOTE: Stalinist because that was the main socialist/communist/leftist mainstream during that time]. If the US state believed that the Stalinists were going to appear even in the soup, it wasn't because they thought that the common and average worker somehow saw how the capitalist system "exploited" (As in the plus value theory) him and now wanted to rebel, but because it offered the highest amount of benefits in the shortest time/littlest effort compared with nobody doing anything and letting the situation run its course. [NOTE: Do you see anything similar to what is happening today?] The solution? Allow access to credits, give loans with extremely good interest rates, offer support via better prices and locking the commerce between Europe and US not allowing outsiders to get in (Thank you US). Obviously, all of this being zealously overseen. What is known as the "Marshall Plan". THAT means building nations.

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;46062124]People seem to think the problem in the Middle East has somehow been caused by the West, and while our support of Israel, our dicking around in the Iran-Iraq war, and the Brit's terrible job of dividing the place up after WWII didn't help, the real problem and creator of most of the conflicts there is religion. Sunnis and Shiites don't like each other, or at the very least both sides have extremist groups that make it very hard. But in the end, the Middle East has no such idea of "secular". Islam plays a defining role in the areas government, people, and identity, and the divisions among Muslims play a defining role in the region's problems.[/QUOTE] What? The Middle-east isn't bereft of secularism. Nominally secular governments were pretty much the norm during the 20th century. Ba'athism, for example, was a secular ideology.