57% now support sending U.S. ground troops to fight ISIS

[Panda Express]

Aside from the fact that the 2003 invasion largely caused this, it's almost impossible to believe that a majority would support another invasion of Iraq.  

It's not impossible to believe. The media has been blaring "wah wah ISIS threat" every day for the past 6 months now. Of course people's opinions are going to turn.

[Indy Texas]

We also didn't back Iraq during the Saddam era.  So, that theory I don't buy.

Typical neo-con revisionism.

[© tweed]

If Yemen allows Al Qaeda to operate in their country and plan attacks on us, they've given up the right to complain when we defend ourselves.  If the failed states in the Middle East could arrest their terrorist elements, there would be no need to use military force. 

I'd like to go back to this.  so if the US (only the executive branch of the US, mind you) unilaterally deides that "al Qaeda" is operative in Yemen without the Yemeni state doing anything about it, the US can drop bombs in Yemen, without consulting the Yemeni state at all, in an attempt to kill the alleged terrorists (their guilt not established by due process of law, only by the deliberations of the executive).

reverse the situation.  Yemen comes to the conclusion that a non-statal person or group within the USA is plotting to carry out some violent act within Yemen.  is Yemen justified in drone-bombing Lincoln, Nebraska, where they believe this dangerous element is located?

[bedstuy]

If Yemen allows Al Qaeda to operate in their country and plan attacks on us, they've given up the right to complain when we defend ourselves.  If the failed states in the Middle East could arrest their terrorist elements, there would be no need to use military force. 

I'd like to go back to this.  so if the US (only the executive branch of the US, mind you) unilaterally deides that "al Qaeda" is operative in Yemen without the Yemeni state doing anything about it, the US can drop bombs in Yemen, without consulting the Yemeni state at all, in an attempt to kill the alleged terrorists (their guilt not established by due process of law, only by the deliberations of the executive).

reverse the situation.  Yemen comes to the conclusion that a non-statal person or group within the USA is plotting to carry out some violent act within Yemen.  is Yemen justified in drone-bombing Lincoln, Nebraska, where they believe this dangerous element is located?

You're creating this hypothetical situation when in fact we have bombed Yemen.  Yes, that was legal under the rules of war.  We're at war with Al Qaeda according to the rules of war, we can defend ourselves.  I don't see what your problem is.

[© tweed]

what "rules of war" are you referring to?

[© tweed]

anyway, my "problem" is that you accord the USA the right to use force all over the planet because the federal gov't might think somebody is dangerous.  meanwhile if other countries were using force against the USA in such a manner, bombs dropping and civilians dying by the thousands every year, you'd be more than livid, you'd be terrorized (and perhaps radicalized).

[bedstuy]

anyway, my "problem" is that you accord the USA the right to use force all over the planet because the federal gov't might think somebody is dangerous.  meanwhile if other countries were using force against the USA in such a manner, bombs dropping and civilians dying by the thousands every year, you'd be more than livid, you'd be terrorized (and perhaps radicalized).

It's not a matter of thinking someone is dangerous my dear boy.  It's the reality of the actual world. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_ad_bellum

[IceSpear]

Why do people act like if you oppose a single unjust war, you must then oppose all war under any circumstances in order to maintain ideological consistency?

[IceSpear]

Why do people act like if you oppose a single unjust war, you must then oppose all war under any circumstances in order to maintain ideological consistency?

That is not the basis of my opposition.

I wasn't referring directly to you, but to the "what happened to the anti-war left?!" comments. Just because many on the left happened to oppose a specific war doesn't necessarily mean they oppose war under any circumstances, so the charges of hypocrisy or ideological inconsistency are moot.

[Mr. Morden]

Support / opposition now at 62% / 30%, according to Quinnipiac:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2171

[useful idiot]

Why do people act like if you oppose a single unjust war, you must then oppose all war under any circumstances in order to maintain ideological consistency?

It is inconsistent to oppose a war for reasons which are no less of a factor in a war you support, and unseemly to do so when motivated by partisan politics. If the reasons many opposed the war in 2003 were valid, they should be just as valid now.

These reasons include, but are not limited to:
- Wars are costly, and not worth the money and lives expended when not facing an existential threat
- Non-defensive wars are always unjustified (this would not be a defensive war in any normal sense of that term)
- Occupation in Muslim or Arab countries is doomed from the get-go
- The United States should not be the world's policeman
- The United States should not engage in nation-building (which would be morally obligatory if we were to invade Iraq and/or Syria. They would be just as unstable and vulnerable as they were pre-ISIS if we withdrew immediately)
- American intervention only, or at least always, creates blowback
- America's history of intervention gives us no moral authority to act as a mediator now
- We should not get involved in religious disputes (the intellectual and high-minded thing to do in the mid-2000's was to point out the history of Sunni-Shia conflict and claim that any attempt to involve ourselves in the dispute was futile)

If these things were true then, they are true now.

I had a hard time making up my mind during the first year or so of the Iraq War, and I'm conflicted about intervening with troops on the ground now, but I'm not going to change my view of the world and America's role in it because the guy in office has a D or R next to his name. My standard is this: a solid (not just reasonable or plausible) case must be made that we will impact the countries involved and the region for the better, that our homeland and citizens overseas will be more secure, that we have a strategy in place to provide for continued stability, and that it's worth the cost. A reasonable (far from solid) case was made in 2003 that intervention was in the best interests of us and the Iraqi people (mushroom cloud rhetoric aside), and that turned out to be a disaster. Hell, it was reasonable enough for most Democratic politicians to get on board. The burden of proof here must be much higher.

[© tweed]

there's also another problem with those liberals who agree that the 2003 invasion was a war crime, unjustified by the rules of war, etc.  yet they suggest no punishment.  

the Germans and Japanese have been prevented from re-armament for decades upon decades now.  in the face of the giant war crime the USA committed, should the USA not face restrictions on its use of military power?  perhaps a 10 or 15 year disarmament?

[politicus]

anyway, my "problem" is that you accord the USA the right to use force all over the planet because the federal gov't might think somebody is dangerous.  meanwhile if other countries were using force against the USA in such a manner, bombs dropping and civilians dying by the thousands every year, you'd be more than livid, you'd be terrorized (and perhaps radicalized).

It's not a matter of thinking someone is dangerous my dear boy.  It's the reality of the actual world. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_ad_bellum

If the US wants to go to war in Yemen it should issue a formal declaration of war instead of just killing people on a sovereign nations territory. Not even recognizing that you are violating their sovereignty and just treating it as if the US government has jurisdiction all over the world is the height of arrogance.

The bottom line is that US actions in Yemen are based on the "because we can" principle. Nothing else. Great powers have always done that, but at least you should be honest about it instead of hiding behind a bogus interpretation of international law.

[© tweed]

anyway, my "problem" is that you accord the USA the right to use force all over the planet because the federal gov't might think somebody is dangerous.  meanwhile if other countries were using force against the USA in such a manner, bombs dropping and civilians dying by the thousands every year, you'd be more than livid, you'd be terrorized (and perhaps radicalized).

It's not a matter of thinking someone is dangerous my dear boy.  It's the reality of the actual world.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_ad_bellum

If the US wants to go to war in Yemen it should issue a formal declaration of war instead of just killing people on a sovereign nations territory. Not even recognizing that you are violating their sovereignty and just treating it as if the US government has jurisdiction all over the world is the height of arrogance.

The bottom line is that US actions in Yemen are based on the "because we can" principle. Nothing else. Great powers have always done that, but at least you should be honest about it instead of hiding behind a bogus interpretation of international law.

a thoroughly Western concept, quite conveiently.  with no penalties for violating.

the USA actually is the only country that's been found of violation of international law since WW2. in 1986 the International Cort of Justice found the US guilty of several charges, including violation of sovierignty, illegal restraint of trade, etc.  

of course, nothing happened.  we're the Cops of the World, biggest and baddest kids on the block.  the Reagan admin flipped the finger to the court and the liberal media dutifully reported all those "crimes against humanity" committed by the Sandinistas, and later even those supposedly committed by the remarkable tame Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

[bedstuy]

anyway, my "problem" is that you accord the USA the right to use force all over the planet because the federal gov't might think somebody is dangerous.  meanwhile if other countries were using force against the USA in such a manner, bombs dropping and civilians dying by the thousands every year, you'd be more than livid, you'd be terrorized (and perhaps radicalized).

It's not a matter of thinking someone is dangerous my dear boy.  It's the reality of the actual world. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_ad_bellum

If the US wants to go to war in Yemen it should issue a formal declaration of war instead of just killing people on a sovereign nations territory. Not even recognizing that you are violating their sovereignty and just treating it as if the US government has jurisdiction all over the world is the height of arrogance.

The bottom line is that US actions in Yemen are based on the "because we can" principle. Nothing else. Great powers have always done that, but at least you should be honest about it instead of hiding behind a bogus interpretation of international law.

Yemen is violating our sovereignty.  They're allowing Al Qaeda to operate from their territory. 

Think of it this way, did the US need to declare war on France before D-Day?  Of course not.  If France didn't want us to land there, they should have tossed the Nazis out.  Same with Yemen, if they're not going to deal with Al Qaeda, we have the prerogative to deal with Al Qaeda.

And, let's sort out this "declare war" business.  Declaring war is one way to enter an armed conflict.  It's from the days of Clausewitzian warfare with a more gentlemanly, European conception of war in the 18th and 19th century.  But, even then, declaring war was not a threshold requirement to have a war, it was one diplomatic means to enter a war.  If you are at peace with someone, you would declare war to start hostilities, as opposed to a surprise attack which was thought of as immoral and against the rules of Christian warfare.  It was a means of going from state of peace to state of war in a fair, open way.  And, history shows this, most US wars have not been "declared" wars.  It would certainly not be required in the case that you were already engaged in hostilities. 

In this case, we are in a state of war with an NGO, Al Qaeda.  We don't need to declare war on Al Qaeda, because we are already at war with Al Qaeda.  They attacked us to begin with.  Wherever Al Qaeda operates, we can use whatever means are prudent to fight back.  If Al Qaeda has an operative in Denmark, we can call up Denmark and demand that they arrest this person.  If we could do that in Yemen, there would be no problem for anyone.  But, we can't because Yemen is a failed state, so we can use a proportional, prudent method to deal with Al Qaeda there.

Get it?

[Simfan34]

We also didn't back Iraq during the Saddam era.  So, that theory I don't buy.

Typical neo-con revisionism.

What is this supposed to be besides a blatant photoshop? This not enough for you?:

[© tweed]

France was also under invasion by a foreign power, with probably hundreds of thousands of German troops occupying.  al Qaeda is a media buzzword for "any Arab the US might consider dangerous or simply wants out of the way".  states have the right to harbor people the USA does not like.  the comparison fails.

if you want to legally do something about it a) indict specific people for crimes and attempt extradition; or b) go to the UN and seek a resolution, for a multinational force to enter Yemen. 

unilateral action, ie drone bombing of people who have never been charged with or proven guilty of any crime, is a war crime.  punishable by death, if the Nuremberg standards had held.

[bedstuy]

France was also under invasion by a foreign power, with probably hundreds of thousands of German troops occupying.  al Qaeda is a media buzzword for "any Arab the US might consider dangerous or simply wants out of the way".  states have the right to harbor people the USA does not like.  the comparison fails.

if you want to legally do something about it a) indict specific people for crimes and attempt extradition; or b) go to the UN and seek a resolution, for a multinational force to enter Yemen. 

unilateral action, ie drone bombing of people who have never been charged with or proven guilty of any crime, is a war crime.  punishable by death, if the Nuremberg standards had held.

Nope. 

Al Qaeda exists, specifically Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula engaged in terrorist attacks against the United States which are well-documented.  These are facts.

And, you don't need to indict people of a crime first, if you're fighting a war.  When has that ever been true?  Warfare isn't a punishment against individuals, it's a tactic against a state or NGO. 

Is warfare nice or gentle?  No.  But, it's not our fault.  If Al Qaeda would renounce violence against the US and disband, we would have not problems.  If Al Qaeda would abide by the Geneva Convention, this would also be simpler and cleaner.  Unfortunately, we're dealing with post-modern warfare waged by religious fanatics. 

[King]

This is America, guys. Our fear of going to war wasn't going to last forever. It honestly lasted a bit too long.

[IceSpear]

Why do people act like if you oppose a single unjust war, you must then oppose all war under any circumstances in order to maintain ideological consistency?

It is inconsistent to oppose a war for reasons which are no less of a factor in a war you support, and unseemly to do so when motivated by partisan politics. If the reasons many opposed the war in 2003 were valid, they should be just as valid now.

These reasons include, but are not limited to:
- Wars are costly, and not worth the money and lives expended when not facing an existential threat

Stop right there. Is it not possible for someone to see ISIS as an existential threat, but not to have seen Saddam as one? Granted, many people saw him as one at the time, but that was because of faulty intelligence (putting it nicely) about his mythical WMDs. Your feelings about the Iraq War weren't uncommon. It had massive support at first, then fell into the doldrums later. It's not irrational or ideologically inconsistent to believe the president and support his war if you really thought Saddam had WMDs, then change your mind and realize it was a mistake once it became apparent that was clearly not the case.

Anyway, I do agree with you that a solid case must be made, with a clear plan and international backing before this option should even be considered.