You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
NYTimes: American Forces Bomb ISIS Targets in Iraq
- Thread starter Mii
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
to some extent, yesWhy? Is it our obligation or duty to be world police and save people just because we allegedly can?
metalslimer
Member
And here is some for you, you pretentious bastard: http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
Critical thinking is posting a link to another's address?
CharlieDigital
Banned
About that...
So only American lives are worth saving to you?
How many people do you think die each day because of conflict and strife around the world? How many people each day because of malnourishment? How many people die each day because of curable diseases? How many young kids die in open pit mines digging out gold and rare earth minerals for Western consumption?
Do we have an obligation to save them all?
One may make the case that we fucked up Iraq, so we have an obligation to save Iraqis. To what extent and when would our obligation end? Should we also spend our tax dollars building power stations for them so that they can have reliable power? Should we also spend our capital building hospitals for them?
Sure, why not. How much are you willing to raise taxes to support this?
It's all good and well to talk about being world police, but it all comes with a cost not only in dollars, but American lives as well and may only bring more animosity to Americans for, once again, interfering with the politics and strife of foreign, sovereign nations.
This is an opportunity for the Iraqi government of Al Maliki to step up and show that it's still in power and working for the people. This is not a battle for Americans to fight.
Considering you guys aren't cutting military spending anyway, might as well do something.How many people do you think die each day because of conflict and strife around the world? How many people each day because of malnourishment? How many people die each day because of curable diseases?
Do we have an obligation to save them all?
One may make the case that we fucked up Iraq, so we have an obligation to save Iraqis. To what extent and when would our obligation end? Should we also spend our tax dollars building power stations for them so that they can have reliable power? Should we also spend our capital building hospitals for them?
Sure, why not. How much are you willing to raise taxes to support this?
It's all good and well to talk about being world police, but it all comes with a cost not only in dollars, but American lives as well and may only bring more animosity to Americans for, once again, interfering with the politics and strife of foreign, sovereign nations.
This is an opportunity for the Iraqi government of Al Maliki to step up and show that it's still in power and working for the people. This is not a battle for Americans to fight.
How many people do you think die each day because of conflict and strife around the world? How many people each day because of malnourishment? How many people die each day because of curable diseases? How many young kids die in open pit mines digging out gold and rare earth minerals for Western consumption?
Do we have an obligation to save them all?
One may make the case that we fucked up Iraq, so we have an obligation to save Iraqis. To what extent and when would our obligation end? Should we also spend our tax dollars building power stations for them so that they can have reliable power? Should we also spend our capital building hospitals for them?
Sure, why not. How much are you willing to raise taxes to support this?
It's all good and well to talk about being world police, but it all comes with a cost not only in dollars, but American lives as well and may only bring more animosity to Americans for, once again, interfering with the politics and strife of foreign, sovereign nations.
This is an opportunity for the Iraqi government of Al Maliki to step up and show that it's still in power and working for the people. This is not a battle for Americans to fight.
Just start by helping the 40k innocent civilians that are facing impending doom.
When has this ever worked out to the benefit of civilians in the Middle East or US foreign policy?
We've never tried being helpful. We only sell guns.
What does "taking responsibility" entail other than bourgeois message board shit-flinging?
Provide financial assistance to essential infrastructure projects, stop arming rebel groups around the world, stop using AIDS organizations as fronts to destabilize countries and generally lead by example. Then US might actually lecture Russia for annexing historic regions without looking like a total clown.
Are they Americans?
So only American lives are worth saving to you?
Damn.
We should absolutely help if asked. Shit, we helped create this mess in the first place we should help to clean it up. Screw the isolationists.
Succinct Verbosity
Member
Considering you guys aren't cutting military spending anyway, might as well do something.
One might argue that these conflicts are the perfect excuse not to cut funding, but everyone knows that US military spending wont be cut regardless of what happens so you're right on point here.
We've never tried being helpful.
Yeah, that's my problem with statements like that. Maybe if we tried giving a damn for a change, things would end up better.
CharlieDigital
Banned
Just start by helping the 40k innocent civilians that are facing impending doom.
When does it stop? And why is it not the responsibility of the democratically elected, Western armed government of Iraq?Damn.
We should absolutely help if asked. Shit, we helped create this mess in the first place we should help to clean it up. Screw the isolationists.
Do you believe that attacking ISIS and saving these 40k has no consequence for America? That ISIS will just say "You got us good!" and call it a day? What will happen after we save these 40k people? Do we relocate them to Michigan or something? Where do they go to be safe from ISIS?
This is the same short sighted thinking that the Bush administration perpetrated.
We just gonna be world police, roll in there, kill some bad guys, and roll out. No, that's not the way it works. What happens after you liberate these 40k people? Do we just leave them there? Do we now need a ground force to protect them? Are we granting them all asylum? What's the plan?
Show me that you've thought this through more than just "let's kill the bad guys!" You think that once we free them from their position that it's over and we can just go home and call it a victory?
victreeb3l
Member
I dont know how I feel about it. On one hand, I dont think the US should intervene since they have a reputation for ruining things than fixing them, but OTOH I absolutely fucking despise ISIS scum and I want them wiped off the face of the earth. These guys are just some of the worst human beings on this planet.
How many people do you think die each day because of conflict and strife around the world? How many people each day because of malnourishment? How many people die each day because of curable diseases? How many young kids die in open pit mines digging out gold and rare earth minerals for Western consumption?
Do we have an obligation to save them all?
One may make the case that we fucked up Iraq, so we have an obligation to save Iraqis. To what extent and when would our obligation end? Should we also spend our tax dollars building power stations for them so that they can have reliable power? Should we also spend our capital building hospitals for them?
Sure, why not. How much are you willing to raise taxes to support this?
It's all good and well to talk about being world police, but it all comes with a cost not only in dollars, but American lives as well and may only bring more animosity to Americans for, once again, interfering with the politics and strife of foreign, sovereign nations.
This is an opportunity for the Iraqi government of Al Maliki to step up and show that it's still in power and working for the people. This is not a battle for Americans to fight.
America does send aid to a lot of countries to help fight diseases and malnourishment. Also, are you seriously comparing the slaughter of 40,000 men, women, and children to building infrastructure? And worrying about taxes? Jesus dude. Talk about fucking apathy.
And fighting ISIS won't bring animosity to Americans. Jews hate ISIS, Muslims hate ISIS, Russia hates them, China hates them, everyone hates their guts because they're violent, hateful pieces of shit.
Couldn't the US just deploy a few drones to bomb the shit out of the ISIS in the area? No American lives have to be put in danger.
There are American personnel in northern Iraq who could be in danger if ISIS moves on them, probably the main reason there are resources available to try to defend the civilians in the first place.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
These are all poor excuses to justify inaction. The best and most important one (and only one that really matters) is whether we'll help or hurt.How many people do you think die each day because of conflict and strife around the world? How many people each day because of malnourishment? How many people die each day because of curable diseases? How many young kids die in open pit mines digging out gold and rare earth minerals for Western consumption?
Do we have an obligation to save them all?
One may make the case that we fucked up Iraq, so we have an obligation to save Iraqis. To what extent and when would our obligation end? Should we also spend our tax dollars building power stations for them so that they can have reliable power? Should we also spend our capital building hospitals for them?
Sure, why not. How much are you willing to raise taxes to support this?
It's all good and well to talk about being world police, but it all comes with a cost not only in dollars, but American lives as well and may only bring more animosity to Americans for, once again, interfering with the politics and strife of foreign, sovereign nations.
This is an opportunity for the Iraqi government of Al Maliki to step up and show that it's still in power and working for the people. This is not a battle for Americans to fight.
That's all it boils down to and luckily the one that obama truly seems to care about.
Buddha Beam
Banned
If true, I suppose I'm ok with this. But I have very mixed feelings about it.
When does it stop? And why is it not the responsibility of the democratically elected, Western armed government of Iraq?
Do you believe that attacking ISIS and saving these 40k has no consequence for America? That ISIS will just say "You got us good!" and call it a day? What will happen after we save these 40k people? Do we relocate them to Michigan or something? Where do they go to be safe from ISIS?
This is the same short sighted thinking that the Bush administration perpetrated.
We just gonna be world police, roll in there, kill some bad guys, and roll out. No, that's not the way it works. What happens after you liberate these 40k people? Do we just leave them there? Do we now need a ground force to protect them? Are we granting them all asylum? What's the plan?
I think saving them from imminent death is a pretty good plan on its own, don't you?
Seriously, this sort of thinking sickens me.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
When does it stop? And why is it not the responsibility of the democratically elected, Western armed government of Iraq?
Do you believe that attacking ISIS and saving these 40k has no consequence for America? That ISIS will just say "You got us good!" and call it a day? What will happen after we save these 40k people? Do we relocate them to Michigan or something? Where do they go to be safe from ISIS?
This is the same short sighted thinking that the Bush administration perpetrated.
We just gonna be world police, roll in there, kill some bad guys, and roll out. No, that's not the way it works. What happens after you liberate these 40k people? Do we just leave them there? Do we now need a ground force to protect them? Are we granting them all asylum? What's the plan?
First it's a matter of the urgent action required. Afterwards the US has been trying to form a new government and ouster Maliki. That's the long term plan.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
Where were you during the George W. Bush era?
This is a joke response, yes?
Not that I support reengaging with Iraq at all, but the situations aren't remotely similar.
Edit: I agree with Charlie. Half ass imperialism doesn't work. Destroying their infrastructure does no good if the people are just going to support the next Fundy wackjob that crawls out of the woodwork.
massivekettle
Member
So you want 40,000 innocent people to die? Okay.
Why do you think 40,000 people dying is better than trying to help them?
It's not the US's right to meddle in other countries' business. If Iraq has a problem with ISIS, they should raise it through appropriate channels (UN Assembly).
CharlieDigital
Banned
America does send aid to a lot of countries to help fight diseases and malnourishment. Also, are you seriously comparing the slaughter of 40,000 men, women, and children to building infrastructure? And worrying about taxes? Jesus dude. Talk about fucking apathy.
And fighting ISIS won't bring animosity to Americans. Jews hate ISIS, Muslims hate ISIS, Russia hates them, China hates them, everyone hates their guts because they're violent, hateful pieces of shit.
These are all poor excuses to justify inaction. The best and most important one (and only one that really matters) is whether we'll help or hurt. That's all it boils down to and luckily the one that obama truly seems to care chiefly about.
Go for it, let's play it out.
We kill the ISIS troops there and liberate these 40k civilians.
Then what? We leave them there? They go home and it's all over? We grant them all asylum and bring them to the US? It's a Mission Accomplished all over again.
People that think like this are no better than Bush that only think of the short term victory and not the long term consequences of our decisions and actions.
First it's a matter of the urgent action required. Afterwards the US has been trying to form a new government and ouster Maliki. That's the long term plan.
How much are you willing to raise taxes to support another long term mission in Iraq? Do you believe that ousting Maliki will not cause those loyal to him to fight back? How long do you think it will take to stabilize Iraq?
Without an actual plan, all of these suggestions are no better than what Bush did in that there is a belief that if we just do this one thing we can win and it'll all be over.
There is a blatant ignorance of the consequence of our action and total lack of vision beyond the first action to what the subsequent reactions will be.
These are all poor excuses to justify inaction.
well said.
Why? Is it our obligation or duty to be world police and save people just because we allegedly can?
Are they Americans?
People like this should be strapped to Clockwork Orange chairs and forced to watch videos of ISIS executing people by the truckload.
When does it stop? And why is it not the responsibility of the democratically elected, Western armed government of Iraq?
Do you believe that attacking ISIS and saving these 40k has no consequence for America? That ISIS will just say "You got us good!" and call it a day? What will happen after we save these 40k people? Do we relocate them to Michigan or something? Where do they go to be safe from ISIS?
This is the same short sighted thinking that the Bush administration perpetrated.
We just gonna be world police, roll in there, kill some bad guys, and roll out. No, that's not the way it works. What happens after you liberate these 40k people? Do we just leave them there? Do we now need a ground force to protect them? Are we granting them all asylum? What's the plan?
Show me that you've thought this through more than just "let's kill the bad guys!" You think that once we free them from their position that it's over and we can just go home and call it a victory?
Fine, tuck tail and run. I'm not, nor could I ever formulate a plan to fix a problem I didn't create in the first place. Holy shit you're crazy if you think I can answer these questions.
It's not the US's right to meddle in other countries' business. If Iraq has a problem with ISIS, they should raise it through appropriate channels (UN Assembly).
And if they are unable to do so? They just deserve their fate then?
Go for it, let's play it out.
We kill the ISIS troops there and liberate these 40k civilians.
Then what? We leave them there? They go home and it's all over? We grant them all asylum and bring them to the US? It's a Mission Accomplished all over again.
People that think like this are no better than Bush that only think of the short term victory and not the long term consequences of our decisions and actions.
I would imagine the "then what" is a whole lot better than "40,000 in a mass grave in a valley in ISIS-controlled territory".
PhoenixDark
Banned
We've never tried being helpful.
I seem to remember us being "helpful" in Libya in 2011, including airstrikes to prevent Qadaffi from slaughtering innocent civilians in rebel held territory. How did that work out in the long term?
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Go for it, let's play it out.
We kill the ISIS troops there and liberate these 40k civilians.
Then what? We leave them there? They go home and it's all over? We grant them all asylum and bring them to the US? It's a Mission Accomplished all over again.
People that think like this are no better than Bush that only think of the short term victory and not the long term consequences of our decisions and actions.
I just told you what the US long term plan is purported to be. Why do you keep acting like they don't have on?
It's not the US's right to meddle in other countries' business. If Iraq has a problem with ISIS, they should raise it through appropriate channels (UN Assembly).
The US and Iraq have a bilateral relationship. The UN has no authority over that relationship, or much of anything when you get right down to it.
CharlieDigital
Banned
People like this should be strapped to Clockwork Orange chairs and forced to watch videos of ISIS executing people by the truckload.
You think that ISIS is the only group executing people at gunpoint all over the world?
I just told you what the US long term plan is purported to be. Why do you keep acting like they don't have on?
Because it's not a real plan. "Form a new government" from whom? How will they get buy in and how will they force these sectarian elements to the table? What leverage do they have to bring all parties to the table to form a new government?
It's easy to say the phrase "Form a new government", but there are real world logistics to overcome such as you know, these guys hate each other.
Go for it, let's play it out.
We kill the ISIS troops there and liberate these 40k civilians.
Then what? We leave them there? They go home and it's all over? We grant them all asylum and bring them to the US? It's a Mission Accomplished all over again.
People that think like this are no better than Bush that only think of the short term victory and not the long term consequences of our decisions and actions
What makes you think the long term consequences of getting rid of ISIS would be worse than letting ISIS do whatever they please?
I seem to remember us being "helpful" in Libya in 2011, including airstrikes to prevent Qadaffi from slaughtering innocent civilians in rebel held territory. How did that work out in the long term?
You literally just proved his (and my) point.
teruterubozu
Member
I think saving them from imminent death is a pretty good plan on its own, don't you?
It depends on what we actually do. Useless "for show" bombings? Ground force? Covert ops?
I'm all for saving these people, but our tactics in the Middle East have been crappy.
You think that ISIS is the only group executing people at gunpoint all over the world?
lol ^this^
there's plenty more shit that gets a blind eye turned to it
So...is the NYTimes bullshitting or what? They are usually credible, but seems like RUMOR should be on this until confirmed.
It's already been debunked. Read the thread yo
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
Lets just assist the Kurds in the northern front
Let the Shia and Sunni Arabs Iraqis sort out the Southern front. If they cant put aside their immediate beef to defeat part of ISIS, then support Kurdistan for motivation lol.
Let the Shia and Sunni Arabs Iraqis sort out the Southern front. If they cant put aside their immediate beef to defeat part of ISIS, then support Kurdistan for motivation lol.
massivekettle
Member
And if they are unable to do so? They just deserve their fate then?
Then, they call their local allies facing similar problems (Jordan, Syria, etc.) and they unite against ISIS.
Or the entire international community forms an alliance against ISIS - but it's a shame that US taxpayer money is going to be used for this. It would be nice to see Russia, Europe or China take the lead in "policing the world" for once.
You think that ISIS is the only group executing people at gunpoint all over the world?
I'm trying to follow your incredibly shitty logic.....
So there's no point in doing anything to save people from mass executions unless there's nothing bad happening anywhere else in the world?
SquiddyCracker
Banned
The kurds seem to be the only group in the middle-east who have their shit together, maybe the US should just arm them instead of the likes of Osama Bin Laden?
CharlieDigital
Banned
What makes you think the long term consequences of getting rid of ISIS would be worse than letting ISIS do whatever they please?
What makes you think we can "get rid of ISIS"?
Have we gotten rid of Al Qaeda? Have we gotten rid of Boko Haram? Have we gotten rid of the Taliban?
What the fuck? It's like some folk just don't even think before typing.
How in the world can anyone believe we can just get rid of ISIS when both the Russians and now Americans have failed to quell these types of groups?
I'm trying to follow your incredibly shitty logic.....
So there's no point in doing anything to save people from mass executions unless there's nothing bad happening anywhere else in the world?
By that logic, we should save all people. You cannot say that those 40,000 lives are worth more than any other 40,000 lives and are any more worth saving than any other 40,000 people who die because of our inaction.
massivekettle
Member
The US and Iraq have a bilateral relationship. The UN has no authority over that relationship, or much of anything when you get right down to it.
But Americans have not elected Obama to funnel hard-earned taxpayer monies to help Iraq. Obama should let Iraqis deal with ISIS on their own, unless the UNSC steps up and forms a worldwide coalition against ISIS.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
You think that ISIS is the only group executing people at gunpoint all over the world?
Because it's not a real plan. "Form a new government" from whom? How will they get buy in and how will they force these sectarian elements to the table? What leverage do they have to bring all parties to the table to form a new government?
It's easy to say the phrase "Form a new government", but there are real world logistics to overcome such as you know, these guys hate each other.
Okay? You said what's the plan I gave you one. "Not good enough" is not a good strategy when something is in urgent need of a response. Why does something have to be easy for it to be worth doing?
Then, they call their local allies facing similar problems (Jordan, Syria, etc.) and they unite against ISIS.
Or the entire international community forms an alliance against ISIS - but it's a shame that US taxpayer money is going to be used for this. It would be nice to see Russia, Europe or China take the lead in "policing the world" for once.
I agree with your last statement at least. There is no reason the US should have to take care of this kind of stuff alone. Every country with a military should want to take groups like ISIS out.
CharlieDigital
Banned
Okay? You said what's the plan I gave you one. "Not good enough" is not a good strategy when something is in urgent need of a response. Why does something have to be easy for it to be worth doing?
It's barely a plan.
Let's play along. Form a new government.
Who will lead it? How will elections be run? Will troops be required to stabilize the situation to allow for elections? Maybe you think it should be an American hand picked government?
It's entirely unrealistic in the first place.
But Americans have not elected Obama to funnel hard-earned taxpayer monies to help Iraq. Obama should let Iraqis deal with ISIS on their own, unless the UNSC steps up and forms a worldwide coalition against ISIS.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.