War with Islamic extremists

Sep 11, 2014 09:23

Seriously? Go to war in Syria ( Read more... )

never forget, always remember, culture wars, politics, history

Leave a comment

Comments 20

jordan179 September 11 2014, 13:41:45 UTC
It is obvious political posturing.

Having said that, war against ISIS is pretty much inevitable, because they have chosen to go to war against us. You seem to believe that one can simply ignore an enemy attacking oneself. Reality doesn't work that way.

The only alternative to war with the Islamists, ultiamtely, is submitting to them. And even submission will only buy us a short respite before the next attacks, and the next round of demands.

At what point would you argue we should fight?

Reply

gwendally September 11 2014, 16:25:36 UTC
They have not chosen to go to war against us. War is a big thing. They have murdered a few journalists (one of which was actually more a combattant than an actual journalist) and that is BAD. They have gone to war against our allies (and interests) and that is BAD, too. But war is several magnitudes worse than Bad. War is all the worst crimes of the world all wrapped up in one: rape and theft and murder and oppressing freedoms and destroying property, all wrapped up in one three letter word ( ... )

Reply

crazyburro September 11 2014, 17:48:08 UTC
The Taliban was providing substantial support in the form of a haven for him and Al Qaeda. (However, so did PakistanPakistan, though it's unclear how wide that support went)

Reply


ford_prefect42 September 11 2014, 14:13:46 UTC
Perhaps you'll recall how the original hydra was killed? By, in point of fact, cutting off heads, and then cauterizing the stumps.

The problem here is that Islamic extremism is flourishing whether or not they are being bombed. When was Indonesia bombed last? Great Britain? Holland? Turkey?

Sometimes, the problem really is the religion.

Reply

gwendally September 11 2014, 16:27:08 UTC
You can't actually cut off all the heads of radicalized young men. It's not a workable plan. Islamic extremism flourishes because at some level it works for its adherents, and partly it works the same way Jehovah's Witnesses or gangs work: the oppression they experience solidifies them into a group.

Better methods include economic development, educating women, empowering people (who will then choose a theocracy, but, hey, it's THEIR theocracy) and leaving them the hell alone. Iran is a good example of how this can work. China was the same thing the generation before. Let people self-direct their own cultural development.

Reply

jordan179 September 11 2014, 16:29:44 UTC
You can't actually cut off all the heads of radicalized young men.

You don't have to get them all, just improve matters by killing one's enemies so that one has less enemies. And shared oppression only solidifies group membership up to a point -- beyond that point, it discourages recruitment.

Reply

jordan179 September 11 2014, 16:35:54 UTC
Better methods include economic development, educating women, empowering people (who will then choose a theocracy, but, hey, it's THEIR theocracy) and leaving them the hell alone.

The Terrorist leaders and cadre come from the economically developed. The oil money you were complaining about insulating the Wahhabist leadership was an example of the fruits of economic development. In fact, the "economic development" of an enemy often leads to one confronting a stronger enemy.

I'm not sure how you intend to "educate women" in countries where the authorities forbid it, or the rebels are strong enough to aggressively interfere with it. You seem to have the notion that the "powers that be" are sympathetic to Western values, somewhere in the back of your mind.

You can't "leave the hell alone" countries and groups that are attacking you. That is masochism, and leads to attempts to avoid "offending" them and hence drawing attacks by saying things the attackers don't like. Europe is going that way.

Iran is a good example of how this can ( ... )

Reply


ford_prefect42 September 11 2014, 15:04:17 UTC
side-note: Can you propose a better idea?

Reply

crazyburro September 12 2014, 00:31:11 UTC
IS is selling large amounts of oil. By pipeline or truck I would think that's easy to disrupt...

Reply


crazyburro September 11 2014, 22:55:08 UTC
I don't have a strong opinion about we should take action here or not. And I don't have a better idea. Last time we went after religious extremists was Afghanistan. Aghanistan was necessary. Iraq was an unnecessary waste created by an irresponsible administration (at best, wildly naive) willing to lie to get what it wanted. Both were poorly handled from the get-go by an administration that wasn't willing to commit sufficient resources early on and to stay in for the long haul until forced to do so, when the mission clearly wasn’t "accomplished ( ... )

Reply

unix_jedi September 12 2014, 17:20:58 UTC
Iraq was an unnecessary waste created by an irresponsible administration (at best, wildly naive) willing to lie to get what it wanted.*sigh ( ... )

Reply

crazyburro September 12 2014, 19:48:31 UTC
I see no evidence that dems produce more successful wars, as a whole. I'm not sure what the dozens of reasons and influencesinfluences making Iraq necessary, you refer to, are. The stated reasons had mostly to do with Al quida support that didn't exist (but did after) and wmds never found, except small quantities in degraded and unusable form, as analyzed by DoD

Reply

unix_jedi September 12 2014, 19:55:54 UTC
. The stated reasons had mostly to do with Al quida support that didn't exist (but did after) and wmds never found, except small quantities in degraded and unusable form, as analyzed by DoD

That was the reported reasons. The "truthy" paradigm, as it was.

But they weren't the "stated reasons".

Nor were the WMD's "small" and "degraded". But assuming for the sake of argument that they were - that was a violation of the cease fire that authorized the use of military force to rectify. Thus it wasn't a "lie", under any reasonable standard.

And this is why Democrats can have successful wars. The last successful "R" war was the Civil War, and that was because most of the Democrats were on the other side. Those left in the Union did what they could do lose that one and came really close.

Reply


abz6598 September 12 2014, 01:48:54 UTC
I wonder if he'll have to give back his Nobel Peace Prize.

Reply

unix_jedi September 13 2014, 01:38:55 UTC
Depends what the par for that course is.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up