Islamic State vs. The World (except Canada)

[Simfan34]

[img width=640]... close tag.
Also, Turkey is now supporting the Peshmerga. Let me repeat that for you. Turkey is supporting the Peshmerga. Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, the Kurds, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, and the US all are united in opposition to ISIS. Surely this is probably indicative of who the objectively bad people are. I mean, you don't see this sort of unity outside of alien invasion movies. Although I suppose if we were invaded by aliens Sanchez would be saying "we don't know who's morally superior here!" or something like that.

Do you care about our southern border as much as you do the Kurds? Because if you feel threatened by ISIS, you ought to be rather worried about some of the Cartels down south who have done things that can give ISIS a run for their money.....

I was not aware that the drug cartels were marching on Mexico City.

Nor was I aware that busloads of children were shooting entire towns' male populations dead.

[cinyc]

Says who?  ISIS is the target of these bombings, not civilians.  The civilians were chased up a mountain by ISIS fighters.  They are being killed by ISIS, not "these bombings".  It's not hard to differentiate between the people with guns on the bottom of the mountain and the civilians on top.

The refugees on a top of a mountain was one incidence and that case only involved an aid drop. Generally, bombing towns is going to result in considerable civilian casualties.

Who says we are bombing towns?  Who says bombings can't be precision targeted at ISIS strongholds?  Who says there needs to be considerable civilian casualties when bombing?  There doesn't need to be.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Says who?  ISIS is the target of these bombings, not civilians.  The civilians were chased up a mountain by ISIS fighters.  They are being killed by ISIS, not "these bombings".  It's not hard to differentiate between the people with guns on the bottom of the mountain and the civilians on top.

The refugees on a top of a mountain was one incidence and that case only involved an aid drop. Generally, bombing towns is going to result in considerable civilian casualties.

Who says we are bombing towns?  Who says bombings can't be precision targeted at ISIS strongholds?  Who says there needs to be considerable civilian casualties when bombing?  There doesn't need to be.

You can't avoid civilian casaulties in a situation like this, and ISIS will have no trouble in finding both willing and unwilling human shields.

[img width=640]... close tag.
Also, Turkey is now supporting the Peshmerga. Let me repeat that for you. Turkey is supporting the Peshmerga. Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, the Kurds, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, and the US all are united in opposition to ISIS. Surely this is probably indicative of who the objectively bad people are. I mean, you don't see this sort of unity outside of alien invasion movies. Although I suppose if we were invaded by aliens Sanchez would be saying "we don't know who's morally superior here!" or something like that.

Do you care about our southern border as much as you do the Kurds? Because if you feel threatened by ISIS, you ought to be rather worried about some of the Cartels down south who have done things that can give ISIS a run for their money.....

I was not aware that the drug cartels were marching on Mexico City.

Nor was I aware that busloads of children were shooting entire towns' male populations dead.

Child soldiers are being used quite openly in Mexico, so that point is moot.....

And I would argue that the Drug War has already begun to creep not towards Mexico City but rather towards our own border. It is clearly our biggest national security threat, not some rag-tag army in Iraq.

[Simfan34]

...

[dead0man]

...

concur

[Deus Naturae]

Who says we are bombing towns? Who says bombings can't be precision targeted at ISIS strongholds?  Who says there needs to be considerable civilian casualties when bombing?  There doesn't need to be.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The airstrikes are not just targeting ISIS hideouts and the like, they're clearly being directed against populated towns. There really is no way to go after ISIS without this kind of thing, so Obama's crusade will only succeed (not that it will at all, but if it does) at a massive cost in Iraqi civilian lives.

[Deus Naturae]

Says who?  ISIS is the target of these bombings, not civilians.  The civilians were chased up a mountain by ISIS fighters.  They are being killed by ISIS, not "these bombings".  It's not hard to differentiate between the people with guns on the bottom of the mountain and the civilians on top.

The refugees on a top of a mountain was one incidence and that case only involved an aid drop. Generally, bombing towns is going to result in considerable civilian casualties.

Who says we are bombing towns?  Who says bombings can't be precision targeted at ISIS strongholds?  Who says there needs to be considerable civilian casualties when bombing?  There doesn't need to be.

You can't avoid civilian casaulties in a situation like this, and ISIS will have no trouble in finding both willing and unwilling human shields.

That number of individuals in that category will likely increase significantly as a result of this, as this will undoubtedly be a boon for ISIS recruiting.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

In addition to airstrikes, we should also act to remove the Maliki regime and put in a moderate regime that won't allow in the Iranian influence that creates groups like ISIS.

[MaxQue]

In addition to airstrikes, we should also act to remove the Maliki regime and put in a moderate regime that won't allow in the Iranian influence that creates groups like ISIS.

Sorry, but, LOL.

Iran is Shia. ISIS is Sunni. Shia and Sunni hate each other. If Iran is favoring anyone, they'll prefer Maliki, a Shia.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

In addition to airstrikes, we should also act to remove the Maliki regime and put in a moderate regime that won't allow in the Iranian influence that creates groups like ISIS.

Sorry, but, LOL.

Iran is Shia. ISIS is Sunni. Shia and Sunni hate each other. If Iran is favoring anyone, they'll prefer Maliki, a Shia.

Their support for Maliki's sectarianism is what got ISIS so strong in the first place, so their influence does help ISIS.

[Bacon King]

It's people like Chairman Sanchez and Deus Naturae here that are turning me into a foreign policy hawk. In a vacuum, a foreign policy of nonintervention seems sound, but just like many ideas that are "good in theory" they just aren't workable or reasonable in the nuance of real life.

While sectarian tensions in Iraq aren't new, we're the ones who toppled their government overnight, destroyed the existing social power structures, and forced them into a decade of foreign military occupation as a rumbling insurgency wrought havoc throughout the nation taking countless lives. We're the ones who effectively pulled out overnight and washed our hands of the matter while that insurgency transformed into a brutal sectarian revolution. ISIS is killing thousands of innocents whose only crime is practicing the "wrong" religion (or even practicing "right" one in an inadequate manner). This is our mess and we should be responsible for cleaning it up because we left the nation of Iraq in shambles. If we have the capacity to act and prevent death and oppression there's only one moral solution.

ISIS is rapidly advancing on the Kurdish capital of Erbil, the current home of the United States diplomatic mission to Iraq and the heart of our only real ally east of Jerusalem. If Iraqi Kurdistan falls then Baghdad falls because ISIS would no longer need to hold two fronts in Iraq. If Baghdad falls without America lifting a finger, then the rump Shia Iraq that's left will beg Iran for assistance and intervention. At that point ISIS's self-styled "Caliphate" would probably step up the killing of Shia civilians to the point of outright genocide.

This has the potential to go very wrong very quickly in so many ways. Fretting about ideological righteousness and partisan squabbling is outrageously ridiculous when there's tens of thousands of a minority religious group holding off on a mountainside. There faced with options of rescue or genocide- but that choice isn't for them to make. That choice gets made by people in Washington DC who are so out of touch that they weigh the chance to prevent a slaughter of thousands of innocent lives against a "public relations backlash" that would result. They're forced into such a situation by people like you, with righteous indignation about how that genocide "isn't our problem to stop!" People like you are why the Rwandan Genocide was allowed to happen. The boneheaded isolationist ideology you represent is the single greatest flaw of American democracy because it equates self-dependence with utterly immoral selfishness.

The combat airstrikes were visible from the Kurdish side of the front line- the front line that's been steadily pushing towards the Kurds for the past week. It's an active combat zone and was literally the no-man's land just a few days ago. Any civilians would have evacuated from the area well before the bombs fell, although I'm deeply sorry that your masturbatory delusions of exploding hospitals did not come true.





(drunk effortpost, sorry if not legible, things just struck a chord with me. not proofreading so my bad for typos)

[MaxQue]

I hope this backfires. I really do. We need to learn a lesson. I guarentee that when the bombs begin to fall we are going to nail a hospital or a school, and ISIS's ranks will only continue to swell.

So you'd want Islamists to continue their slaughter of Yezidis, Christians, and so forth just to spite the American foreign policy establishment?

The reason these people are being slaughtered in the first place is because we went into Iraq in the first place.

Small situation.

You break into a store and you break something valuable while being there. The owner asks you to fix what you broke. Following your logic, you should answer "I was not supposed to be in the store, so, I won't fix it".

Same logic here. America broke something. It's their job to clean the mess they did.

[dead0man]

To the "you broke it, you own it" folk, how long do we "own" it?  Is it just the US that "owns" it, or do all the nations that joined in on the ass kicking "own" some of it too?

[Peeperkorn]

I hope this backfires. I really do.

lol, what a jerk.

[RI]

ISIS clearly has past the point of tolerance; their ethnic cleansing campaign against Yezidis and Assyrians/Chaldeans desperately needs to be stopped. However, I do wonder if bombings are the most effectual means of doing so against such a disparate force.  

[MaxQue]

To the "you broke it, you own it" folk, how long do we "own" it?  Is it just the US that "owns" it, or do all the nations that joined in on the ass kicking "own" some of it too?

I would say than the US "owns" it mainly. If the US had declined to invade Iraq, I doubt UK would have gone alone, or any other country.

[dead0man]

I can understand the US "owing" most of it.....I don't agree with it, at all, but I understand the argument.  It seems are allies should share in that "ownage", but I understand why somebody from one of our allies preaching that the US "owns" it wouldn't want to involve themselves.

...and for how long?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It's people like Chairman Sanchez and Deus Naturae here that are turning me into a foreign policy hawk. In a vacuum, a foreign policy of nonintervention seems sound, but just like many ideas that are "good in theory" they just aren't workable or reasonable in the nuance of real life.

While sectarian tensions in Iraq aren't new, we're the ones who toppled their government overnight, destroyed the existing social power structures, and forced them into a decade of foreign military occupation as a rumbling insurgency wrought havoc throughout the nation taking countless lives. We're the ones who effectively pulled out overnight and washed our hands of the matter while that insurgency transformed into a brutal sectarian revolution. ISIS is killing thousands of innocents whose only crime is practicing the "wrong" religion (or even practicing "right" one in an inadequate manner). This is our mess and we should be responsible for cleaning it up because we left the nation of Iraq in shambles. If we have the capacity to act and prevent death and oppression there's only one moral solution.

ISIS is rapidly advancing on the Kurdish capital of Erbil, the current home of the United States diplomatic mission to Iraq and the heart of our only real ally east of Jerusalem. If Iraqi Kurdistan falls then Baghdad falls because ISIS would no longer need to hold two fronts in Iraq. If Baghdad falls without America lifting a finger, then the rump Shia Iraq that's left will beg Iran for assistance and intervention. At that point ISIS's self-styled "Caliphate" would probably step up the killing of Shia civilians to the point of outright genocide.

This has the potential to go very wrong very quickly in so many ways. Fretting about ideological righteousness and partisan squabbling is outrageously ridiculous when there's tens of thousands of a minority religious group holding off on a mountainside. There faced with options of rescue or genocide- but that choice isn't for them to make. That choice gets made by people in Washington DC who are so out of touch that they weigh the chance to prevent a slaughter of thousands of innocent lives against a "public relations backlash" that would result. They're forced into such a situation by people like you, with righteous indignation about how that genocide "isn't our problem to stop!" People like you are why the Rwandan Genocide was allowed to happen. The boneheaded isolationist ideology you represent is the single greatest flaw of American democracy because it equates self-dependence with utterly immoral selfishness.

The combat airstrikes were visible from the Kurdish side of the front line- the front line that's been steadily pushing towards the Kurds for the past week. It's an active combat zone and was literally the no-man's land just a few days ago. Any civilians would have evacuated from the area well before the bombs fell, although I'm deeply sorry that your masturbatory delusions of exploding hospitals did not come true.





(drunk effortpost, sorry if not legible, things just struck a chord with me. not proofreading so my bad for typos)

This... just... this.

[MaxQue]

I can understand the US "owing" most of it.....I don't agree with it, at all, but I understand the argument.  It seems are allies should share in that "ownage", but I understand why somebody from one of our allies preaching that the US "owns" it wouldn't want to involve themselves.

...and for how long?

Well, Canada refused to go in Iraq, so we aren't an involved ally. As for sharing, countries have to share, sure, but it can be more complicated (do we really need more countries bombing ISIS, especially if they are bad at aiming?). It's surgical strikes and like a true surgery, you don't want 20 surgeons in the patient at the same time.

How long? Excellent question, I have no idea on that one.

[dead0man]

Well, Canada refused to go in Iraq, so we aren't an involved ally

You were clearly an ally.  No, you didn't send any official ground fighting troops, but you did send 3 ships and 100ish officers, some of whom did fight.  From wiki

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those are not the actions of a neutral third party.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, but they if you think we have to "fix what we broke", I'd think roughly the percentage of "help" the first time would be a good starting point in the "fixing" part.  Pretty easy to split up sorties.  NATO countries work together all the time, JointOps is standard practice.  We're actually quite good at it.  Better than any multinational forces in history I'd imagine.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed.

[Хahar 🤔]

Whether we "own" it isn't (or shouldn't) be a consideration. It's a potential humanitarian disaster that's in our power to address, and that makes it our duty to address it.

[dead0man]

Whether we "own" it isn't (or shouldn't) be a consideration. It's a potential humanitarian disaster that's in our power to address, and that makes it our duty to address it.

Agreed in full.

[Bacon King]

Given the signals from the Security Council lately even a UN-sponsored mission isn't inconcievable

[Simfan34]

Given the signals from the Security Council lately even a UN-sponsored mission isn't inconcievable

After all, Russia and China are not fans of Chechen or Uyghur attacks, either.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Sanchez, you really think that we can't claim moral high ground from ISIS? This is a group too extreme even for Al Qaeda- a group that cuts heads off for fun...

Do I personally feel that? No. But from a policy stand point, who is the arbitrator of who is and who isn't right and wrong these days? Radical Islam are more complex than “they kill those who disagree” and “they hate freedom.” We are never going to stomp out radical Islam, and we might just fan it’s flames like we did when we first invaded in ’03.

I hope this backfires. I really do. We need to learn a lesson. I guarentee that when the bombs begin to fall we are going to nail a hospital or a school, and ISIS's ranks will only continue to swell.

Ok Snowstalker.

The great irony is that he is likely the one person who is going to be making sense in this thread.

At least you admit you are not making sense.