|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 19, 2015 10:33:44 GMT -8
I know all the arguments against taking military action against ISIS. They are almost all solid arguments. Still, read this news item and then ask yourselves what history will say of a world that allowed this sort of thing to go on. This is not just a war on political or religious enemies. This is a war on science and history. It's a war on everything that separates civilized modern culture from mindless savagery. It's easy to say, "Hey, we've lost too many people in the Middle East. Anyway, it's not our business." The first part of that is correct. But the second part? I'm willing to bet that if we had not been fighting Germany and news of the Holocaust leaked out of Europe, there would have been, sadly, plenty of Americans who would have shrugged. But this isn't 1944. Aside from a few totally unhinged nutcases, the world understands what the Holocaust was and has declared, "Never again!" We will not be able to tell our grandchildren that we did not know what was going on in areas controlled by ISIS. Unlike the Nazis, who went to very great lengths to keep the Holocaust a secret, ISIS goes to very great lengths to make sure that everyone knows what they are doing. As I said, I know all the arguments against taking action against ISIS. They are not trivial arguments. Still, I have to wonder what story will be told by historians a century from today if we continue to shrug. www.foxnews.com/world/2015/08/19/isis-reportedly-beheads-82-year-old-archaeologist-in-palmyra/?intcmp=hpbt2AzWm Edit: I forgot to ask that my Nazi counter be incremented once more. Have to keep things up to date! |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 19, 2015 11:18:58 GMT -8
What I say to my grandchildren now is that we should be going after ISIS with full commitment to wiping them out. I point out our weak rudderless current administration and hope and pray that the next President will be responsible. We have wasted too many lives and some of those in vain by pulling out too soon and not being committed to winning.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Aug 19, 2015 15:36:59 GMT -8
The issues in the middle east are primarily those of sect on sect. ISIS has gone after some Sunni tribes who haven't sworn allegiance to them but their main targets are Shia, Christians, and other non Sunni's. What is Saudi and the other Sunni countries doing? Basically nothing. In fact, much of the financial support of ISIS comes from those same Sunni countries. However, Saudi is going all out against the Shia "rebels" in Yemen. When Saudi, the UAE, Egypt, and Turkey begin a ground war against ISIS then MAYBE the U.S. should get more involved. Not before.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 19, 2015 22:22:27 GMT -8
The issues in the middle east are primarily those of sect on sect. ISIS has gone after some Sunni tribes who haven't sworn allegiance to them but their main targets are Shia, Christians, and other non Sunni's. What is Saudi and the other Sunni countries doing? Basically nothing. In fact, much of the financial support of ISIS comes from those same Sunni countries. However, Saudi is going all out against the Shia "rebels" in Yemen. When Saudi, the UAE, Egypt, and Turkey begin a ground war against ISIS then MAYBE the U.S. should get more involved. Not before. But our grandchildren are unlikely to ask us what did the Saudis or Shia or the United Arab Emirates do? They will want to know what we did. We decry the Holocaust, yet now there is a type of holocaust, or, if you prefer, ethnic cleansing, going on in the Middle East. About a hundred years ago at least 10% (perhaps as many as 20%) of the population of the ME was Christian. It's far less than that now (Egypt is not innocent in that regard) and the percentage is doing down fast. It's a terribly complex situation, but one's responsibility to defend the innocent does not disappear just because the fight is difficult. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by thepapacy on Aug 19, 2015 22:26:45 GMT -8
The issues in the middle east are primarily those of sect on sect. ISIS has gone after some Sunni tribes who haven't sworn allegiance to them but their main targets are Shia, Christians, and other non Sunni's. What is Saudi and the other Sunni countries doing? Basically nothing. In fact, much of the financial support of ISIS comes from those same Sunni countries. However, Saudi is going all out against the Shia "rebels" in Yemen. When Saudi, the UAE, Egypt, and Turkey begin a ground war against ISIS then MAYBE the U.S. should get more involved. Not before. But our grandchildren are unlikely to ask us what did the Saudis or Shia or the United Arab Emirates do? They will want to know what we did. We decry the Holocaust, yet now there is a type of holocaust, or, if you prefer, ethnic cleansing, going on in the Middle East. About a hundred years ago at least 10% (perhaps as many as 20%) of the population of the ME was Christian. It's far less than that now (Egypt is not innocent in that regard) and the percentage is doing down fast. It's a terribly complex situation, but one's responsibility to defend the innocent does not disappear just because the fight is difficult. AzWm You, like most on the right, scare too easy. That's assuming the least sinister motive. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Aug 20, 2015 6:54:22 GMT -8
The issues in the middle east are primarily those of sect on sect. ISIS has gone after some Sunni tribes who haven't sworn allegiance to them but their main targets are Shia, Christians, and other non Sunni's. What is Saudi and the other Sunni countries doing? Basically nothing. In fact, much of the financial support of ISIS comes from those same Sunni countries. However, Saudi is going all out against the Shia "rebels" in Yemen. When Saudi, the UAE, Egypt, and Turkey begin a ground war against ISIS then MAYBE the U.S. should get more involved. Not before. But our grandchildren are unlikely to ask us what did the Saudis or Shia or the United Arab Emirates do? They will want to know what we did. We decry the Holocaust, yet now there is a type of holocaust, or, if you prefer, ethnic cleansing, going on in the Middle East. About a hundred years ago at least 10% (perhaps as many as 20%) of the population of the ME was Christian. It's far less than that now (Egypt is not innocent in that regard) and the percentage is doing down fast. It's a terribly complex situation, but one's responsibility to defend the innocent does not disappear just because the fight is difficult. AzWm I will tell them that I didn't send their daddy, or mommy, to the middle east to die as a mercenary so the Saudis don't have to risk their children's lives. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 20, 2015 9:58:25 GMT -8
But our grandchildren are unlikely to ask us what did the Saudis or Shia or the United Arab Emirates do? They will want to know what we did. We decry the Holocaust, yet now there is a type of holocaust, or, if you prefer, ethnic cleansing, going on in the Middle East. About a hundred years ago at least 10% (perhaps as many as 20%) of the population of the ME was Christian. It's far less than that now (Egypt is not innocent in that regard) and the percentage is doing down fast. It's a terribly complex situation, but one's responsibility to defend the innocent does not disappear just because the fight is difficult. AzWm I will tell them that I didn't send their daddy, or mommy, to the middle east to die as a mercenary so the Saudis don't have to risk their children's lives. And if we had not fought Germany in WWII, one might suppose that some Americans would now be saying "I didn't send their daddy, or mommy, to the Europe to die to stop Hitler from gassing Jews." Sorry, but your answer leaves something to be desired. On the other hand, you may be on to something. For some, no amount of mass murder is great enough to warrant action. If so, we should just say so straight out. The President, any President, should address the nation and declare that no matter what the level of atrocities being committed by ISIS may be, we see no reason to take action. The Alfred E. Neuman school of international relations, perhaps. Instead, our current POTUS has announced (though half-heartedly) that we will "degrade and destroy ISIL." He did not mean it, of course. No doubt we have taken the desultory steps seen to date simply because Obama does not have the guts to say, "What, me worry?" AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by thepapacy on Aug 20, 2015 10:48:56 GMT -8
I will tell them that I didn't send their daddy, or mommy, to the middle east to die as a mercenary so the Saudis don't have to risk their children's lives. And if we had not fought Germany in WWII, one might suppose that some Americans would now be saying "I didn't send their daddy, or mommy, to the Europe to die to stop Hitler from gassing Jews." Sorry, but your answer leaves something to be desired. On the other hand, you may be on to something. For some, no amount of mass murder is great enough to warrant action. If so, we should just say so straight out. The President, any President, should address the nation and declare that no matter what the level of atrocities being committed by ISIS may be, we see no reason to take action. The Alfred E. Neuman school of international relations, perhaps. Instead, our current POTUS has announced (though half-heartedly) that we will "degrade and destroy ISIL." He did not mean it, of course. No doubt we have taken the desultory steps seen to date simply because Obama does not have the guts to say, "What, me worry?" AzWm There's those pesky Hitler comparisons again that you prop up 80% of your arguments on. I would assume since IS is such a threat to you and us that you actually think we'll be talking about them in 40 years (5 would surprise me, personally), that you also think we should work with the Iranians, who are currently the only competent fighting force denigrating IS in the region? Because I agree! Look at that. |
|
|
|
Post by azson on Aug 20, 2015 10:56:26 GMT -8
If this ever-changing world in which we're living makes me give in and cry - I know I can always come back to the Mesa and wrap myself in the comforting, constant blanket of an AW Hitler analogy.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Aug 21, 2015 8:39:20 GMT -8
I will tell them that I didn't send their daddy, or mommy, to the middle east to die as a mercenary so the Saudis don't have to risk their children's lives. And if we had not fought Germany in WWII, one might suppose that some Americans would now be saying "I didn't send their daddy, or mommy, to the Europe to die to stop Hitler from gassing Jews." Sorry, but your answer leaves something to be desired. On the other hand, you may be on to something. For some, no amount of mass murder is great enough to warrant action. If so, we should just say so straight out. The President, any President, should address the nation and declare that no matter what the level of atrocities being committed by ISIS may be, we see no reason to take action. The Alfred E. Neuman school of international relations, perhaps. Instead, our current POTUS has announced (though half-heartedly) that we will "degrade and destroy ISIL." He did not mean it, of course. No doubt we have taken the desultory steps seen to date simply because Obama does not have the guts to say, "What, me worry?" AzWm I've got news for you bucko. The U.S. was well aware of the plight of the Jews in Eastern Europe from at least the late 30's and did not do much of nothing. If you know history then you know that the U.S. tightened its immigration quotas for Jews leaving Europe and trying to get into the U.S. The U.S. was also aware of the concentration and labor camps from almost the beginning and in some cases actually bypassed them because they were not significant from a military perspective. If you think that we fought WWII to "save the Jews" you are sadly mistaken. Should we let refugees from ISIS into the U.S.? Yes. Should we put our young men and women's lives at risk to combat ISIS? No. It is time we got rid of the Neo-Con notion of nation building. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 21, 2015 9:06:39 GMT -8
And if we had not fought Germany in WWII, one might suppose that some Americans would now be saying "I didn't send their daddy, or mommy, to the Europe to die to stop Hitler from gassing Jews." Sorry, but your answer leaves something to be desired. On the other hand, you may be on to something. For some, no amount of mass murder is great enough to warrant action. If so, we should just say so straight out. The President, any President, should address the nation and declare that no matter what the level of atrocities being committed by ISIS may be, we see no reason to take action. The Alfred E. Neuman school of international relations, perhaps. Instead, our current POTUS has announced (though half-heartedly) that we will "degrade and destroy ISIL." He did not mean it, of course. No doubt we have taken the desultory steps seen to date simply because Obama does not have the guts to say, "What, me worry?" AzWm I've got news for you bucko. The U.S. was well aware of the plight of the Jews in Eastern Europe from at least the late 30's and did not do much of nothing. If you know history then you know that the U.S. tightened its immigration quotas for Jews leaving Europe and trying to get into the U.S. The U.S. was also aware of the concentration and labor camps from almost the beginning and in some cases actually bypassed them because they were not significant from a military perspective. If you think that we fought WWII to "save the Jews" you are sadly mistaken. Should we let refugees from ISIS into the U.S.? Yes. Should we put our young men and women's lives at risk to combat ISIS? No. It is time we got rid of the Neo-Con notion of nation building. Let refugees from ISIS in? Yes, but only Christians, no Muslims. Sounds mean spirited but we have enough terrorists now. Why let more slip in under the guise of refugee status. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Aug 21, 2015 9:26:29 GMT -8
I've got news for you bucko. The U.S. was well aware of the plight of the Jews in Eastern Europe from at least the late 30's and did not do much of nothing. If you know history then you know that the U.S. tightened its immigration quotas for Jews leaving Europe and trying to get into the U.S. The U.S. was also aware of the concentration and labor camps from almost the beginning and in some cases actually bypassed them because they were not significant from a military perspective. If you think that we fought WWII to "save the Jews" you are sadly mistaken. Should we let refugees from ISIS into the U.S.? Yes. Should we put our young men and women's lives at risk to combat ISIS? No. It is time we got rid of the Neo-Con notion of nation building. Let refugees from ISIS in? Yes, but only Christians, no Muslims. Sounds mean spirited but we have enough terrorists now. Why let more slip in under the guise of refugee status. Is that because we are a "Christian Nation"? |
|
|
|
Post by azson on Aug 21, 2015 10:46:33 GMT -8
I've got news for you bucko. The U.S. was well aware of the plight of the Jews in Eastern Europe from at least the late 30's and did not do much of nothing. If you know history then you know that the U.S. tightened its immigration quotas for Jews leaving Europe and trying to get into the U.S. The U.S. was also aware of the concentration and labor camps from almost the beginning and in some cases actually bypassed them because they were not significant from a military perspective. If you think that we fought WWII to "save the Jews" you are sadly mistaken. Should we let refugees from ISIS into the U.S.? Yes. Should we put our young men and women's lives at risk to combat ISIS? No. It is time we got rid of the Neo-Con notion of nation building. Let refugees from ISIS in? Yes, but only Christians, no Muslims. Sounds mean spirited Islamophobic and completely asinine but we have enough terrorists scary brown people now. Why let more slip in under the guise of refugee status. FIFY. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 21, 2015 21:39:40 GMT -8
I honestly don't know what we can or should do at this point, though arming those who clearly want to fight ISIS (the Kurds for sure, also friendly Sunni groups) would be a start. What bothers me about some of the responses in this thread is that I get the impression that a lot of shoulders are being shrugged. Perhaps I am wrong. I hope that I am. But anybody who thinks that some time in the future no one will wonder why no action was taken is mistaken.
Ralph Peters made a statement some months ago that I think is appropriate. We all know that there has been and continues to be violent acts committed in various parts of the world. ISIS, Peters opined, is different. He sees that group as largely different from almost all other terrorist groups in that they seem to admire killing for the sake of killing, and the more horrific the better. The way he put it was that one has to go back to the (pardon the expression) Aztecs to find a group this blood thirsty.
But, heck, maybe I'm totally wrong. Maybe shrugging each time we hear of a new ISIS tragedy is the appropriate response for Americans. But is it not possible that ISIS and its allies may grow to the point at which these atrocities are not confined to the Middle East? Or, worst case, might we not see some of the worst acts committed in the U.S.? Frankly, I wonder why we haven't seen more of that. 9/11 type attacks seem to me to be very difficult to pull off. Horrific attacks on a smaller scale would appear to be a much more cost effective way to carry the fight to us than hijacking several jetliners. I have one particular type of attack in mind, one that would kill hundreds of Americans at minimum cost; an attack that would make headlines around the world. I won't discuss it for fear that it might give some one ideas. That would be a long shot, but why take chances?
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 22, 2015 6:49:18 GMT -8
Let refugees from ISIS in? Yes, but only Christians, no Muslims. Sounds mean spirited but we have enough terrorists now. Why let more slip in under the guise of refugee status. Is that because we are a "Christian Nation"? We should be a Christian Nation but the reason is more pragmatic. Christians are being slaughtered and we do nothing. Muslims are wrongly let in and we do not know who they really are. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 22, 2015 6:50:24 GMT -8
Let refugees from ISIS in? Yes, but only Christians, no Muslims. Sounds mean spirited Islamophobic and completely asinine but we have enough terrorists scary brown people now. Why let more slip in under the guise of refugee status. FIFY. Everything seems to be about race to you. |
|
|
|
Post by thepapacy on Aug 22, 2015 10:56:17 GMT -8
I honestly don't know what we can or should do at this point, though arming those who clearly want to fight ISIS (the Kurds for sure, also friendly Sunni groups) would be a start. What bothers me about some of the responses in this thread is that I get the impression that a lot of shoulders are being shrugged. Perhaps I am wrong. I hope that I am. But anybody who thinks that some time in the future no one will wonder why no action was taken is mistaken. Ralph Peters made a statement some months ago that I think is appropriate. We all know that there has been and continues to be violent acts committed in various parts of the world. ISIS, Peters opined, is different. He sees that group as largely different from almost all other terrorist groups in that they seem to admire killing for the sake of killing, and the more horrific the better. The way he put it was that one has to go back to the (pardon the expression) Aztecs to find a group this blood thirsty. But, heck, maybe I'm totally wrong. Maybe shrugging each time we hear of a new ISIS tragedy is the appropriate response for Americans. But is it not possible that ISIS and its allies may grow to the point at which these atrocities are not confined to the Middle East? Or, worst case, might we not see some of the worst acts committed in the U.S.? Frankly, I wonder why we haven't seen more of that. 9/11 type attacks seem to me to be very difficult to pull off. Horrific attacks on a smaller scale would appear to be a much more cost effective way to carry the fight to us than hijacking several jetliners. I have one particular type of attack in mind, one that would kill hundreds of Americans at minimum cost; an attack that would make headlines around the world. I won't discuss it for fear that it might give some one ideas. That would be a long shot, but why take chances? AzWm You alude to your terror plot all the time and then say "well, wouldn't want to give anyway any ideas"... Like ISIS isn't smart enough to come up with whatever idea you have had for years, yet they are dangerous enough to spend trillions of dollars and thousands of lives on. Stop living in fear! I don't know which begets which, but the right wing and being absolutely terrified of a government manufactured and media pumped boogeyman has gone hand in hand since what, the fifties? Get it through your head - America does not want what you want in the ME. And it would make the quality of your life much better if you didn't live in fear because of it. Would probably ALSO make your life a bit better if you stopped seeing similarities between Hitler and EVERYTHING YOU DONT LIKE. To answer your question - what will I tell my kids about IS? Absolutely nothing, because they are 2015's version of the Irgun - a historical blip. And I think you are also smart enough to realize that no matter what name you put on a group, it's always the same people with the same goals, and further American intervention will do nothing but exacerbate the problem and put your grandchild's life at risk. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 22, 2015 12:00:03 GMT -8
I honestly don't know what we can or should do at this point, though arming those who clearly want to fight ISIS (the Kurds for sure, also friendly Sunni groups) would be a start. What bothers me about some of the responses in this thread is that I get the impression that a lot of shoulders are being shrugged. Perhaps I am wrong. I hope that I am. But anybody who thinks that some time in the future no one will wonder why no action was taken is mistaken. Ralph Peters made a statement some months ago that I think is appropriate. We all know that there has been and continues to be violent acts committed in various parts of the world. ISIS, Peters opined, is different. He sees that group as largely different from almost all other terrorist groups in that they seem to admire killing for the sake of killing, and the more horrific the better. The way he put it was that one has to go back to the (pardon the expression) Aztecs to find a group this blood thirsty. But, heck, maybe I'm totally wrong. Maybe shrugging each time we hear of a new ISIS tragedy is the appropriate response for Americans. But is it not possible that ISIS and its allies may grow to the point at which these atrocities are not confined to the Middle East? Or, worst case, might we not see some of the worst acts committed in the U.S.? Frankly, I wonder why we haven't seen more of that. 9/11 type attacks seem to me to be very difficult to pull off. Horrific attacks on a smaller scale would appear to be a much more cost effective way to carry the fight to us than hijacking several jetliners. I have one particular type of attack in mind, one that would kill hundreds of Americans at minimum cost; an attack that would make headlines around the world. I won't discuss it for fear that it might give some one ideas. That would be a long shot, but why take chances? AzWm You alude to your terror plot all the time and then say "well, wouldn't want to give anyway any ideas"... Like ISIS isn't smart enough to come up with whatever idea you have had for years, yet they are dangerous enough to spend trillions of dollars and thousands of lives on. Stop living in fear! I don't know which begets which, but the right wing and being absolutely terrified of a government manufactured and media pumped boogeyman has gone hand in hand since what, the fifties? Get it through your head - America does not want what you want in the ME. And it would make the quality of your life much better if you didn't live in fear because of it. Would probably ALSO make your life a bit better if you stopped seeing similarities between Hitler and EVERYTHING YOU DONT LIKE. To answer your question - what will I tell my kids about IS? Absolutely nothing, because they are 2015's version of the Irgun - a historical blip. And I think you are also smart enough to realize that no matter what name you put on a group, it's always the same people with the same goals, and further American intervention will do nothing but exacerbate the problem and put your grandchild's life at risk. Well, William, I think we now know what happened to Alfred E. Newman. |
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Sept 9, 2015 12:20:36 GMT -8
I told mine to go to private schools and learn reading, writing and arithmetic. And a major dose of American history. Stay the hell away from our public school system. And that includes SDSU.
|
|
