vtsnowedin wrote:My terrible spelling and typing aside. I would like to get to the question. If you decide that ISIS should be stopped, contained , eradicated or exterminated. Then we can move on to the question of who and how to accomplish said goal. Standing aside and letting ISIS run roughshod over a large part of the middle east for a decade or more would not be a good choice for the other people in the region.
Again, you attempt a Bush-esque simplification. It's not a case of either ISIS are eradicated immediately and by direct military force (which is what you have implied from the start of the thread) or do nothing at all and let ISIS "run roughshod over a large part of the Middle-East". It is precisely such a black and white, infantile mindset that created the mess in the first place! You have already been given several answers that more or less take the form of "contain and starve out (both culturally and materially)" and, only where absolutely necessary, military intervene to maintain aforesaid containment. I'm guessing you just don't like the answers though because they're not American enough.
Having said all of the above, that does not mean I don't think there is some scope for military intervention right now. It just needs to be very targeted and, most importantly, it must not in any way further undermine existing, relatively stable regimes in the area. It is precisely the undermining and toppling of such regimes in the absence of any coherent understanding of what might replace them that had led us to this nightmare.
Last edited by Little John on 03 Sep 2014, 13:34, edited 2 times in total.
If all you wanted was a 'yes' or 'no', vt, you could have just as easily added a poll. Not that that would tell you anything because you're asking the wrong question.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Anyone who wants to go to another country should be allowed to do so. Without weapons of course. Everyone who doesn't want to should never be forced. Simple.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
After the execution of James Foley, questions started to arise on the internet as to why the Islamist terrorists would capture an American reporter, keep him alive for almost 2 years, yet make no serious demands as to an exchange of Islamist prisoners or weaponry with Western powers or the United States for his release.
[...]
Regardless of anyone’s conclusions, the CIA is notorious for eradicating “loose ends” like Sotloff before extracting themselves from an operation similar to this and since the ISIS forces appear to have gone rogue, it is only logical that anyone, despite their nationality, might well be terminated to preserve one of America’s darkest intelligence operations to supply, train, and arm the Syrian rebels; including those associated with Al Qaeda and now ISIS.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
ISIS is just what America needs to bolster their quest for global domination, which looked to be flagging.
It calls for Washington to transform Iraq's leadership (a process no longer termed "regime change") and elevate a new man capable of reuniting the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds, now at each other's throats, into one nation capable of turning back the extremist tide. If not American "boots on the ground," it calls for proxy ones of various sorts that the US military will naturally have a hand in training, arming, funding, and advising.
Kind-of tailored for Cheneyisation and a great excuse for finally bombing Syria back to the stone age, ain't it?
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
The US spent tens of billions recruiting, training and arming a nominally non-sectarian Iraqi army over 10 years. It the first sign of an enemy they dropped their weapons, dumped their uniforms and ran away.
A three state Iraq looks like the only solution to me.
Kind-of tailored for Cheneyisation and a great excuse for finally bombing Syria back to the stone age, ain't it?
Someone commented that bombing ISIS back to the stone age would only move them back a couple of weeks. Time for KSA and Turkey to get together and restore order before ISIS spreads to their borders and beyond.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Apparently, a Fox Spews poll has 81% for Britain taking 'military action' against ISIS. A poll in The Independent said 33%. Funny that, eh?
The lies get bigger.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
The Greeks and Romans used the term as they encountered scores of different foreign cultures, including the Egyptians, Persians, Medes, Celts, Germanic peoples, Phoenicians and Carthaginians. In fact, it became a common term to refer to all foreigners.
---8<---
Plato (Statesman 262de) rejected the Greek–barbarian dichotomy as a logical absurdity on just such grounds: dividing the world into Greeks and non-Greeks told one nothing about the second group.
The Greeks and Romans used the term as they encountered scores of different foreign cultures, including the Egyptians, Persians, Medes, Celts, Germanic peoples, Phoenicians and Carthaginians. In fact, it became a common term to refer to all foreigners.
---8<---
Plato (Statesman 262de) rejected the Greek–barbarian dichotomy as a logical absurdity on just such grounds: dividing the world into Greeks and non-Greeks told one nothing about the second group.
Yes but in modern use age the 'American Heritage Dictionary has . Barbarian defined as 2. A fierce ,brutal,or cruel person.
I think that fits the members of ISIS precisely.
bar·bar·i·an
(bär-bârē-ən)
Share: bar·bar·i·anbar·bar·i·an
n.
1.
a. A member of one of the non-Greek peoples in the ancient world, regarded by the ancient Greeks as culturally inferior.
b. A member of any of various peoples living outside the Roman Empire or not fully integrated into Greco-Roman civilization. 2. A member of a people considered uncivilized or culturally inferior by members of another people.
3. A fierce, brutal, or cruel person.
4. An insensitive, uncultured person. See Synonyms at 'boor'.
Maybe it's best to pick another word? We wouldn't want them thinking we consider them boorish, uncultured and insensitive. Heaven forfend!
