Islamic State vs. The World (except Canada)

[Deus Naturae]

You people seriously see nothing wrong with the fact that we don't even know if we've actually launched a bombing campaign in a foreign country or not? If this actually happened, and the Pentagon is denying it and claiming that it didn't, that's...somewhat troubling.

[Deus Naturae]

The Pentagon hasn't said anything.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Deus Naturae]

You people seriously see nothing wrong with the fact that we don't even know if we've actually launched a bombing campaign in a foreign country or not? If this actually happened, and the Pentagon is denying it and claiming that it didn't, that's...somewhat troubling.

Not really.  If it is an ongoing operation, the Pentagon might want to remain silent or deny that it is going on until our assets are safe out of the area.  You don't want to telegraph your military moves to the enemy.

The American public has a right to know if we're engaged in warfare in a foreign country. Plus there's something called the Constitution.

[Deus Naturae]

About time those scum got this treatment.

Ah, yes, Iraqi civilians living under ISIS occupation...what scum! I guess they're all just the same to people like you.

[Deus Naturae]

About time those scum got this treatment.

Ah, yes, Iraqi civilians living under ISIS occupation...what scum! I guess they're just all the same to people like you.

Please show me where I implied that.

They're the ones being killed by these bombings, so...

[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.

[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.

[Deus Naturae]

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).

And yet when US-funded terrorists (a number of whom have now joined ISIS) did (and continue to do) the same, the advocates of "humanitarian" intervention were (and still are) silent. Idk, maybe you personally have good intentions, but I don't buy that this bombing campaign is being carried out by our wise overlords with the intent of "fixing the problem we created" when we continue to create problems throughout the region.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nice field of strawmen you have there. I like how you use totally random buzzwords like "partisanship" when this is a discussion on an online message board that has nothing with partisan politics. I don't masturbate thinking of people being blown up, and the implication that either Sanchez or myself want to see people killed by bombings we oppose is so strange that it leads me to believe that you're projecting your own sick thoughts onto others. Who do you think evacuated people under ISIS occupation...ISIS?! Sorry, bombing towns is going to kill lots of innocent people. As the map posted earlier by Starwatcher shows, ISIS controls plenty of territory in the North, so going after "ISIS targets" means bombing a vast area.  

[Deus Naturae]

I wish I had followed through with my investment advice in Toyota's pickup division.  This really should have happened months ago when the so many fighters were convoying it from Syria. ISIS is appalling in their brutality and fanaticism. Sadly, some civilians will be killed, however, in the brutal calculus of war, more innocent life will be saved.

Will it though? Even if we somehow drive ISIS out of Northern Iraq (which is going to take more than a few airstrikes and cost the lives of more than "some" civilians), they'll be back. A direct fight against the the United States, the symbol of the sinful West, will be a huge motivator for these fanatics and a boon for recruitment throughout the Middle East. Then, we'll either have to stay and perpetually pour even more blood and treasure into this Godforsaken desert, or leave and see them return even stronger and crazier than before, like angry hornets (if that happens, the interventionist crowd will say we have to stay because "we created this mess"). The Kurds need to fight this out themselves. It just isn't possible for them to rely on a foreign power, especially the United States, for their defense forever. We'll have to leave at some point, and the later we get out permanently the worse it'll be for us and them.

[Deus Naturae]

Viewing the video of the beheading may be considered an act of terrorism in the UK.

[Deus Naturae]

I agree. I've been as anti-war as anyone and have always believed the Iraq War was wrong. However, I see no way around avoiding involvement. I do not support putting American boots back on the ground. We, along with our allies, should be using our air superiority to maximum advantage. At the same, I'm hesitant with who we supply arms to, but I do believe the Kurds are the most trustworthy in the region with advanced weaponry. It is people such as them that must fight the ground war. There is no other alternative than the complete extermination of ISIS off the face of the Earth.

If it were really as easy as just dropping bombs until the bad guys went away our problems in the Middle East would've disappeared a long time ago. There are sadly many people in the Middle East with a passionate, murderous hatred of the US and it doesn't come from nowhere. In fact, it just keeps getting worse and worse as we keep meddling (invading Iraq, training and supplying "freedom fighters" in Syria, etc) and now things are more dangerous than ever. Kicking the hornets' nest with more bombing in a vain attempt to "exterminate" a well-funded decentralized terrorist group full of zealous ideological extremists will only breed more hatred and blowback in the long term. We've done enough damage as it is and every time we try to "help" things only end up worse and more dangerous.

[Deus Naturae]

Bill Kristol: What's the harm in bombing and seeing what happens?

[Deus Naturae]

I agree. I've been as anti-war as anyone and have always believed the Iraq War was wrong. However, I see no way around avoiding involvement. I do not support putting American boots back on the ground. We, along with our allies, should be using our air superiority to maximum advantage. At the same, I'm hesitant with who we supply arms to, but I do believe the Kurds are the most trustworthy in the region with advanced weaponry. It is people such as them that must fight the ground war. There is no other alternative than the complete extermination of ISIS off the face of the Earth.

If it were really as easy as just dropping bombs until the bad guys went away our problems in the Middle East would've disappeared a long time ago. There are sadly many people in the Middle East with a passionate, murderous hatred of the US and it doesn't come from nowhere. In fact, it just keeps getting worse and worse as we keep meddling (invading Iraq, training and supplying "freedom fighters" in Syria, etc) and now things are more dangerous than ever. Kicking the hornets' nest with more bombing in a vain attempt to "exterminate" a well-funded decentralized terrorist group full of zealous ideological extremists will only breed more hatred and blowback in the long term. We've done enough damage as it is and every time we try to "help" things only end up worse and more dangerous.

Don't the Syrians and Iraqis know that bombs don't kill people?  People kill people!

What point are you trying to make?

[Deus Naturae]

Obama invokes War Powers Resolution.

[Deus Naturae]

Ben Nelson introduces bill to bomb Syria.

[Deus Naturae]

>>>atlas forum

>>>defending brutal dictators

What are you talking about? All I see in this thread is Beet accusing people of being anti-'murican freedom-hating dictator-lovers for not agreeing with him on Syria.

[Deus Naturae]

it's amazing how easily the war machine can be fired up.  every news affiliate is running stories "ISIS recruiting Americans and smuggling across Mexican border?  details at 7"  this after Iraq-2003 became the most unpopular war in the history of post-industrial revolution imperial society.  it helps that it's a Democrat, otherwise liberals would be asking the more uncomfortable questions, while Republicans are only capable of thinking of it as a "bad investment"

It looks like ISIS will be used as an excuse to go after Assad. We'll give arms to some "moderate" Al Qaeda affiliated rebel groups. I'm sure things will go great there.

Wow, you really have no clue.

Smart take.

[Deus Naturae]

Obama invokes Iraq War authorization...in Syria.