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.
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
( ... )
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)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
( ... )
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
. 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.
Comments 20
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
Reply
Reply
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
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
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
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
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
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
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment