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

[© tweed]

it is amazing how easily the public can be whipped up. who would've thought in, say, 2009, within 5-plus years they'd be able to get a solid majority in favor of yet another ground invasion of Iraq?

[© tweed]

Fighting ISIS is actually a legitimate cause, unlike invading Iraq in 2003.

US imperialism created a monster that will not be destroyed.  the leaders of "radical Islam" are stuck between glee and laughter.  Hell, there's even a bin Laden quote out there that details the strategy: suck the US into a bottomless pit as it hollows out from the inside.  we're well on the way.

[© tweed]

Fighting ISIS is actually a legitimate cause, unlike invading Iraq in 2003.

This. In a perfect world we could go back in time and never have gone into Iraq in the first place, but sadly that's not possible.

I'm not sure whether I support ground troops. If we do send them, it needs to be an international effort. This is no longer just the US's problem.

this kind of stuff is why the ruling class is actually best served by the Democrats.  a Republican pulls this crap and liberals start asking uncomfortable questions about civilian deaths and displacement, and figures like Snowden are not fugitives but heroes.

[© tweed]

I'm against ground troops. Still, an invasion of ISIS territory is far more justifiable than the 2003 invasion.

and the 2026 invasion will be yet more justifiable than this one.  and so on.  until one of these groups gets a nuke.

[© tweed]

When does all of this end? What invasion of the Middle East will result in the outcome that we are looking for?

we'll spit through the streets of the cities we wreck
and we'll find you a leader that you can elect
those treaties we signed were a pain in the neck
'cause we're the Cops of the World, boys
we're the Cops of the World

[© tweed]

As for this whole anti-war/ Iraq War redux nonsense, give me a break.  It's not nearly that simple.  We can't snap our fingers and unilaterally have a peaceful world.  And, war is not some fungible thing.  A war that costs $2 trillion is different from a war that costs $5 billion.  A war that costs a handful of American lives is different from a war that costs thousands of American lives.  If you don't factor those obvious points into your analysis, you're just a whiner, a moaner and an annoying "activist." 

the USA would NOT face a "security risk" if we stopped fcking killing people in the Middle East.  go look at any opinion poll in a Middle East country, who is the greatest threat to your peace & security?  1) USA 2) Israel.  a 2007 survey showed that 98%(!) of Iraqis wanted US troops to leave -- but our gift of "democracy" doesn't extend that far.

[© tweed]

also in your analysis USD and US lives are the only thing that are "factored in".  Iraqis are, as it were, unpeople.  ISIS will beat the US military at releasing cartoonish horror-snuff videos -- gladly played heavily by Western media -- but NEVER can they match the HUMAN cost of the Iraq War.

[© tweed]

1.  How did you get that I support the 2003 Invasion of Iraq based on what I wrote?  I explicitly criticized it.  And, I think it was a horrible idea.

cool

You must be logged in to read this quote.

you're looking at the situation ahistorically.  the current flavors of Islamic fundamentalism came about as resistance movements, to both American and Russian imperialism, as early as the 19th Century.  the current-current flavor got a big boost when the US backed the Afghan anti-Soviet resistance, which of course grew into the Taliban, and you can take it from there. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

defend ourselves?  this is truly Orwellian nonsense.  if we are on defense when dropping bombs halfway around the world, then offense has no meaning.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

yes, they need to be exactly like us and Goddammit we're gonna bomb the sh**t out of them until they do.

[© tweed]

there's no dialog left here.  you accord the USA with a right to use violence around the world in order to spread "liberal, democratic values".  you believe every society around the world has to accept these values or they'll be subject to invasion.  and you believe that so long as anyone (not even a state) is plotting or thinking of plotting some violent act within the US, the US has the right to use violence in attempt to stop it, without consulting anyone else.

it's all Imperial mentality 101, shared by doves and hawks.  the only real factor is whether it's "worth it" in terms of financial and human cost.

[© tweed]

there's always a narrative that Imperial powers use.  Napoleon, law codes and liberation of man and whatnot.  the Soviets were freeing people from wage labor, realizing the historical mission of the proletariat.  Nazis, the superior Aryan gig.  and the US, democracy and free markets.


though you'll find that this evangelizing by the barrel of a gun only takes place when some resource of value is at stake.  otherwise we'd have invaded central Africa long ago.

[© tweed]

there's always a narrative that Imperial powers use.  Napoleon, law codes and liberation of man and whatnot.  the Soviets were freeing people from wage labor, realizing the historical mission of the proletariat.  Nazis, the superior Aryan gig.  and the US, democracy and free markets.

why don't you go tell that to the family of muath al-kasasbeh? i'm sure they will really appreciate your opinion.

he's a bad choice for you to use, as he was actually engaged in war against ISIS.  choose one of the aid workers if you want to throw a one-liner out there.

[© tweed]

the latest counts I can find are 110k-120k Iraqi civilians killed since March 2003 and 1-1.5 million displaced.  the serious-man, liberal solution: MORE US bombs and guns!  the Last act of Evil will be Good, I promise!

[© 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?

[© 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).

[© 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?

[© 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.

[© 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.