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

[© 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.

[bedstuy]

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.

2.  It's not true that the US is the major source of problems in the Middle East.  That's just fantastical.  ISIS, Al Qaeda and similar groups are Islamic jihadist groups.  They aren't anti-American freedom fighters.  They see a battle of civilization between Islam and the West, and we can never appease them on that score.  We just have to defend ourselves, kill them when necessary and work towards stable Middle Eastern governments who can control their Islamic extremist groups.

But, the underlying problem is truly within the Middle East and the Muslim world.  The US and Israel are scapegoats for their own failures.  They can't admit that they need to adapt to the 21st century and adopt Western values like the rule of law and civil rights to create thriving, economically developed states.  That's the main problem, not the United States. 

[© 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.

[bedstuy]

2.  It's not true that the US is the major source of problems in the Middle East.  That's just fantastical.  ISIS, Al Qaeda and similar groups are Islamic jihadist groups.  They aren't anti-American freedom fighters. 

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. 

Right.  That's not really true at true.  We didn't create the Taliban.  We could talk about the history, but I disagree and think you're oversimplifying completely. 

They see a battle of civilization between Islam and the West, and we can never appease them on that score.  We just have to defend ourselves, kill them when necessary and work towards stable Middle Eastern governments who can control their Islamic extremist groups.

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

We are defending ourselves when we kill people in Al Qaeda.  They've engaged in armed attacks against the United States.  In a globalized world, distance stops mattering anyway.  They're not coming over here in an armada of galleons.

But, the underlying problem is truly within the Middle East and the Muslim world.  The US and Israel are scapegoats for their own failures.  They can't admit that they need to adapt to the 21st century and adopt Western values like the rule of law and civil rights to create thriving, economically developed states.  That's the main problem, not the United States. 

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

They have to stop trying to blow up the city I live in.  And, they're going to be terrible, undeveloped cesspools of human misery until they change to become more open, democratic and liberal.  I can't force them to change.  Sure, I'd be fine if they continued being miserable, as long as they didn't try to attack my country.   I don't want to continue the Bush doctrine or wasting money of foreign adventures.  But, we also need to reserve the right to defend ourselves.  You unfortunately are under the illusion that everyone outside the Western world is a peaceful noble savage.  If only we think of Al Qaeda and ISIS as anti-imperialist Chomskyites, that's why they'll be.  That's a fantasy. 

[ElectionsGuy]

Sadly...

Very true

[© 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.

[bedstuy]

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.

I clearly didn't say that.  We can use violence to defend ourselves from armed attacks in a proportional way.  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 understand you're edgy and anti-American and all.  But, at least come up with more original ideas.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

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.

[© 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!

[Panda Express]

I wonder what percent of U.S. citizens would support nuking Mecca.

[angus]

I wonder what percent of U.S. citizens would support nuking Mecca.

I wonder what percent of US citizens could find Mecca on a globe.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

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.

"engaging in war" (especially as someone with no actual influence on foreign policy) is exactly the same as burning someone alive in a cage, of course.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I wonder what percent of U.S. citizens would support nuking Mecca.

I wonder what percent of US citizens could find Mecca on a globe.

The second percentage is probably lower.

[DemPGH]

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. ISIS threatens everyone in the immediate vicinity. Those countries need to take the lead against ISIS. If that were to happen, I don't suppose I'd oppose helping, but the USA invading that wasteland again would be a catastrophe. 

[Storebought]

I don't, not in the slightest. If Obama sends troops to Syria or Iraq, then I would support his impeachment.

[All Along The Watchtower]

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.

I clearly didn't say that.  We can use violence to defend ourselves from armed attacks in a proportional way.  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 understand you're edgy and anti-American and all.  But, at least come up with more original ideas.

You mean the governments that the United States and its allies have (historically and currently) propped up? Whether it be the House of Saud (as if Wahhabism has nothing to do with al-Qaeda or ISIS, et. al...), the Mubarak regime (look at what happened to them), or even in the not-too-distant past, Saddam Hussein's Baathist dictatorship (before he went "rogue"), modern Middle Eastern governments have tended to be undemocratic client states, as a general rule.

If you wonder why "they" hate "us", then you haven't been paying attention.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Oh the insanity.

Fighting ISIS on the ground will not make them go away. ISIS will simply return to being the  guerrilla insurgency it was before last year. Meanwhile the lone wolf terrorism in the West will continue unabated.  What it will do is drive more civilians in these areas into the arms of ISIS, like it did the first time. ISIS wants another 'crusade', don't give it to them.

The US has to support the local government's efforts, not get anymore involved themselves.

     I remember in 2006 when Israel invaded Lebanon in an effort to wipe out Hezbollah. It was an unmitigated failure; while they dominated militarily, Hezbollah survived and rebuilt almost immediately. I guess 57% don't remember that.

I suspect that the majority of Americans were never aware of that fact in the first place.

     I distinctly remember it being all over the news when it happened. Though if people don't remember it then they might as well have never known about it to begin with.

What I meant was that they hadn't ever realized that the invasion was an "unmitigated failure", not that the invasion itself occurred.

     Come to think of it that is a very possible explanation. When Israel withdrew, the media dropped the story like a hot rock. I could tell it didn't amount to much, but the optics might have been different for others.

[bedstuy]

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.

I clearly didn't say that.  We can use violence to defend ourselves from armed attacks in a proportional way.  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 understand you're edgy and anti-American and all.  But, at least come up with more original ideas.

You mean the governments that the United States and its allies have (historically and currently) propped up? Whether it be the House of Saud (as if Wahhabism has nothing to do with al-Qaeda or ISIS, et. al...), the Mubarak regime (look at what happened to them), or even in the not-too-distant past, Saddam Hussein's Baathist dictatorship (before he went "rogue"), modern Middle Eastern governments have tended to be undemocratic client states, as a general rule.

If you wonder why "they" hate "us", then you haven't been paying attention.

Very lazy, slipshod thinking there. 

There are a few failed states around the world that pose a terrorist threat to the US.  Yemen and Somalia are the two purest examples.  The US didn't exactly prop those governments up.  Both were Soviet aligned during the Cold War.  We also didn't back Iraq during the Saddam era.  So, that theory I don't buy.

And, is our dealing with corrupt dictators a major source of terrorism?  No.  I don't see much connection.  The fact that we had an embargo on Iraq garnered us much more criticism in the Arab world than our brief military dealings during the Iran-Iraq War.  Muslims fanatics hate democracy anyway, so would they want to punish the US for support anti-democratic regimes? 

By your logic, the US should be seeing terrorist attacks from Chile, Indonesia and Nicaragua as revenge for our misdeeds in the Cold War.  And, indeed, that hasn't happened.  Islamic terrorism isn't revenge against the United States for what we've done wrong. 

I think we in the US tend to look at our own agenda and cast the rest of the world as purely reacting to us.  That's pretty ignorant.  Foreign terrorist groups mostly care about their own countries and they have objectives of their own. 

[All Along The Watchtower]

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.

I clearly didn't say that.  We can use violence to defend ourselves from armed attacks in a proportional way.  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 understand you're edgy and anti-American and all.  But, at least come up with more original ideas.

You mean the governments that the United States and its allies have (historically and currently) propped up? Whether it be the House of Saud (as if Wahhabism has nothing to do with al-Qaeda or ISIS, et. al...), the Mubarak regime (look at what happened to them), or even in the not-too-distant past, Saddam Hussein's Baathist dictatorship (before he went "rogue"), modern Middle Eastern governments have tended to be undemocratic client states, as a general rule.

If you wonder why "they" hate "us", then you haven't been paying attention.

Very lazy, slipshod thinking there. 

There are a few failed states around the world that pose a terrorist threat to the US.  Yemen and Somalia are the two purest examples.  The US didn't exactly prop those governments up.  Both were Soviet aligned during the Cold War.  We also didn't back Iraq during the Saddam era.  So, that theory I don't buy.

And, is our dealing with corrupt dictators a major source of terrorism?  No.  I don't see much connection.  The fact that we had an embargo on Iraq garnered us much more criticism in the Arab world than our brief military dealings during the Iran-Iraq War.  Muslims fanatics hate democracy anyway, so would they want to punish the US for support anti-democratic regimes? 

By your logic, the US should be seeing terrorist attacks from Chile, Indonesia and Nicaragua as revenge for our misdeeds in the Cold War.  And, indeed, that hasn't happened.  Islamic terrorism isn't revenge against the United States for what we've done wrong. 

I think we in the US tend to look at our own agenda and cast the rest of the world as purely reacting to us.  That's pretty ignorant.  Foreign terrorist groups mostly care about their own countries and they have objectives of their own. 

What I meant is that US foreign policy decisions over a number of decades haven't exactly garnered the US and its allies much support for the "Global War on Terror" within many Islamic countries (or many other countries in general). I'm not saying its all our fault, but if we are serious about changing hearts and minds...

[Cory]

I don't, not in the slightest. If Obama sends troops to Syria or Iraq, then I would support his impeachment.

That's stupid. You have to commit a high crime or misdemeanor to be impeached. Having a policy you disagree with is not a crime.

[bedstuy]

What I meant is that US foreign policy decisions over a number of decades haven't exactly garnered the US and its allies much support for the "Global War on Terror" within many Islamic countries (or many other countries in general). I'm not saying its all our fault, but if we are serious about changing hearts and minds...

I don't know what you're suggesting.  If we are serious about changing hearts and minds, then what? 

Do we try to undermine every Muslim regime that has questionable human rights practices?  Would that necessarily help?  Would taking away the foreign aid to these countries win us any friends?  What happens if that backfires and we get a failed state situation like in Syria, Iraq or Somalia?  And, if we're not selling fighter planes to Saudi Arabia, won't someone else?  And, how do we know that the media and public opinion will treat us fairly even if we are kinder and gentler?

It's not that simple, right?  There isn't a one-size fits all answer.  For me, it's a balancing act where you have all these different concerns, security, stability, human rights, fairness, etc., and you ought to be realistic and tough.   

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]