Game on, air strikes in Syria

[MicroBalrog]

Except, ISIL has already declared war on America, and several of America's allies.

You declare war on America?

EAT FIRE FROM THE SKY.

70 more terrorist scumbags dead, God Bless the USA.

[MechAg94]

Since it is 70, we probably are over $1MIL per terrorist.

On the radio yesterday, someone brought up the Iran/Iraq War.  I believe we worked to keep that war going back in the day.  Makes me think that was a much cheaper way to do this stuff.

[roo_ster]

Except, ISIL has already declared war on America, and several of America's allies.

You declare war on America?

EAT FIRE FROM THE SKY.

70 more terrorist scumbags dead, God Bless the USA.

Sure, the ISIS folk deserve to die.  I've no problem with them being killed.  But who has time to kill all those who wish us ill?  Can we not discriminate and thump only those who have demonstrated the capability to harm America?

If we get out of the way, locals can likely handle this.  Stop our sanctions on Assad, especially.  There is also Turkey and Israel, either of whom is capable of turning ISIS into bloody red smears.  Heck, we have sold Jordan hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of FMS.  Put it to use, you Hashemite!  How's about some more hardware for the Kurds?  Don;t we have thousands of useless-to-us MRAPs they can put to use?  Maybe towing beau coup 120mm mortars.

Since it is 70, we probably are over $1MIL per terrorist.

On the radio yesterday, someone brought up the Iran/Iraq War.  I believe we worked to keep that war going back in the day.  Makes me think that was a much cheaper way to do this stuff.

Yes, this. 

[Scout26]

Tell me again why one instance of bombing a sovereign nation is a declaration of war and another is a limited kinetic action that just ain't no thang.

Depends on whether it's an R or D^* doing the bombing.




^* especially one with a Nobel Peace Prize.

[MicroBalrog]

If we get out of the way, locals can likely handle this.  Stop our sanctions on Assad, especially.

Why stop totally justified sanctions on an evil butcher who is at war with Israel and is backing Hezbollah financially and materially, and is right now fighting the people who help the US fight ISIL?

[Tallpine]

The trouble with the Middle East is that it's full of Middle Easterners 

[wmenorr67]

So some of you are saying we should wait until we have another 9/11 type event on our soil before we act?

[Tallpine]

So some of you are saying we should wait until we have another 9/11 type event on our soil before we act?

Can we invoke the Godwin rule for "9/11"   

We will not have another 9/11 type event on our soil until our leaders decide that it is politically advantageous to have another 9/11 type event on our soil.

[Tallpine]

No worries - France will go clean them out for us now:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/09/24/watchdog-algerian-militant-group-linked-to-isis-kills-french-hostage/

 

[MicroBalrog]

Can we invoke the Godwin rule for "9/11"   

We will not have another 9/11 type event on our soil until our leaders decide that it is politically advantageous to have another 9/11 type event on our soil.

Are you seriously argument that the US government either caused, or deliberately allowed, 9/11 to happen?

[roo_ster]

Why stop totally justified sanctions on an evil butcher who is at war with Israel and is backing Hezbollah financially and materially, and is right now fighting the people who help the US fight ISIL?

Because it is not in America's interest.  

What was in America's interest was the status quo where Assad stayed in his Syrian & Lebanese sandbox and kept a lid on things in Syria.  Which he likely would have managed by now if we had stayed the heck out of the Syrian mess.  ISIS would be a footnote in history, one of several rebel groups crushed by Assad, rather than a disruptive force in the ME that threatened ME oil production.  Oil which the US sees very little of and is even less significant due to the fracking oil boom in the USA.

If Israel has problems with Hezbollah and Assad, Israel is capable of dealing with them.  If Israel is offended that Assad treats his people poorly, let Israel give them aid.  

The majority of people in the world are ruled by evil butchers.  It is not America's responsibility to liberate their victims.  That has been tried over & over and found to be a fool's errand.  

The trouble with the Middle East is that it's full of Middle Easterners  

Basically.

So some of you are saying we should wait until we have another 9/11 type event on our soil before we act?

We ought not deploy against every group that hollers they hate America before they even have the capability of pulling off a 9/11.  We'd end up turning the ME and much of Asia & Africa into depopulated wilderness.  

Some groups, like Somali and Nigerian pirates, do rate killing out of hand before they can hit the USA due to their disruptive effect on commerce.  But you will recall that we did NOTHING to the bases/villages these pirates operate out of.  So, on the one hand we deploy against and bomb a group incapable of hitting the USA and that could be managed by locals, but we sit back and refuse to destroy the bases of pirates disrupting commerce that does effect us.

FTR, were we to experience a 9/11 magnitude attack every 20 years, that would average out to 200 people/year.  That is less than half as many folk who are murdered in Chicago every year.

[Tallpine]

Are you seriously argument that the US government either caused, or deliberately allowed, 9/11 to happen?

The deliberately allowed is pretty obvious, unless you presume that they really are that fokking incompetent  

It's an prestigious line of work, with a long and glorious tradition.

We ought not deploy against every group that hollers they hate America before they even have the capability of pulling off a 9/11.  We'd end up turning the ME and much of Asia & Africa into depopulated wilderness. 

Yeah, there's some downsides to that approach ...   

[mtnbkr]

So some of you are saying we should wait until we have another 9/11 type event on our soil before we act?

Yes. 

9/11 was a hail mary attempt that got lucky.  If we persist in using it as a reason to attack every group or nation who "might" be a threat, we'll never be out of war and we'll continue to provide justification to those very same groups to try to launch another 9/11.  It becomes a self-perpetuating cycle.

Chris

[MicroBalrog]

The majority of people in the world are ruled by evil butchers.  It is not America's responsibility to liberate their victims.  That has been tried over & over and found to be a fool's errand.  

As a direct or indirect result of America fighting and winning the Cold War, more people are living today in semi-decent liberal democracies than ever before.

As a direct result of America's naval hegemony, violence and conflict in the world are at an all-time low (in terms of absolute numbers of dead).

ISIS would be a footnote in history

ISIL is a footnote in history, just one of several Jihadi groups about to be defeated by America, the FSA, the Kurds and the other victorious allies.

Allied fighters reject rumors of alliance with Jihadis, push on to victory.
Allied fighters expand assault against ISIL

[MicroBalrog]

The deliberately allowed is pretty obvious, unless you presume that they really are that fokking incompetent  

1. Intelligence services are nowhere near that accurate in their predictions as they'd love the taxpayers to believe.
2. Even if the CIA were as magically supercompetent as the TV shows have it, it'd still get caught with its pants down every now and then, because nothing is perfect.

[Tallpine]

1. Intelligence services are nowhere near that accurate in their predictions as they'd love the taxpayers to believe.

Except they were but the predictions were ignored.

Also, the information from flight schools that Muslims were learning to fly (but not TO/land) airplanes.

[roo_ster]

As a direct or indirect result of America fighting and winning the Cold War, more people are living today in semi-decent liberal democracies than ever before.

Containing the USSR and revolutionary marxism was in the interests of the USA.  

As a direct result of America's naval hegemony, violence and conflict in the world are at an all-time low (in terms of absolute numbers of dead).

Partly due to the Pax Americana of the seas, yes.  Also in America's interests.  

Intervention in sectarian violence between groups--each one more unsavory than the last--not so much in America's interests.  In that case, the bloody butcher who keeps the savages in line due to his superior savagery is preferred.  Assad > ISIS, Mubarak > Muslim B-hood, and so forth.  It takes a brute to rule brutes.

ISIL is a footnote in history, just one of several Jihadi groups about to be defeated by America, the FSA, the Kurds and the other victorious allies.

Maybe so.  Can't say I'd shed a tear if ISIS became worm food.

[MicroBalrog]

1. Assad was far more murderous than ISIS, and still is.

2. Mubarak sponsored Islamic terrorism, spread anti-semitic propaganda, and was friends with Hamas. Muslim Brotherhood fought Hamas and Al-Quaeda in the Sinai, where Mubarak ignored the threat.

[TommyGunn]

Also, a threat has to be credible.  ISIS has yet to demonstrate any capability to project power beyond the Levant.  Beheading journalists who blundered about in ISIS territory is not a sign that they can hit America.

Frankly, I don't care if most folk over there DIAF.  The longer they hack at each other, the better.

If we do nothing, and wait long enough, the threat WILL be credible.
We did that once.
Wanna do it again?

[SADShooter]

If we do nothing, and wait long enough, the threat WILL be credible.
We did that once.
Wanna do it again?

In fairness, I see no substantive evidence that we really are taking a different approach. This is political expediency at its most crass.

I'm torn, though I would be completely in the non-interventionist camp if we would build the effing fence already and stock the Rio Grande full of alligators with frickin' laser beams on their heads.

[TommyGunn]

In fairness, I see no substantive evidence that we really are taking a different approach. This is political expediency at its most crass.

Meh ... I guess you have a point, sorta.  Obama's taken so long in getting this started I think we may very well be bombing empty buildings.  Maybe bombed a janitor  ...or a couple of mice.

I'm torn, though I would be completely in the non-interventionist camp if we would build the effing fence already and stock the Rio Grande full of alligators with frickin' laser beams on their heads.

I could buy into that.   Walls worked for the Chinese.  Why do people think it won't work here?
Alligators with lasers?   I will NOT be the guy who changes the batteries ....

[roo_ster]

If we do nothing, and wait long enough, the threat WILL be credible.
We did that once.
Wanna do it again?

"When you see ten problems rolling down the road, if you don't do anything, nine of them will roll into a ditch before they get to you."
----Calvin Coolidge

No, any particular threat is likely to be swamped by local forces and circumstances before it can manifest itself as a credible threat.

Tell me, why air strikes on ISIS, but not on Boko Haram?  They are just as nasty as ISIS.  Or how about al the organizations on this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations#Organizations_currently_officially_designated_as_terrorist_by_various_governments

In fairness, I see no substantive evidence that we really are taking a different approach. This is political expediency at its most crass.

I'm torn, though I would be completely in the non-interventionist camp if we would build the effing fence already and stock the Rio Grande full of alligators with frickin' laser beams on their heads.

Even with an effective border fence, I would not be a complete non-interventionist.  I just insist that we reserve our military to act in OUR interests.

[TommyGunn]

"When you see ten problems rolling down the road, if you don't do anything, nine of them will roll into a ditch before they get to you."
----Calvin Coolidge

No, any particular threat is likely to be swamped by local forces and circumstances before it can manifest itself as a credible threat.

Tell me, why air strikes on ISIS, but not on Boko Haram?  They are just as nasty as ISIS.  Or how about al the organizations on this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations#Organizations_currently_officially_designated_as_terrorist_by_various_governments

Did Coolidge graduate from the same school George A. Custer did? ("Them thar iz FRIENDLY INJUNS!!")  Or perhaps the same Neville Chamberlain did?
ISIS has actually killed Americans and stated their desire to hit us.  Has Boko Haram?    Why is it guys like you complain about us wanting to be cowboys and fix the whole world when we want to TKO the one group that wants to whack us on one day then on the next you wonder why we're not expressing some onanistic desire to blow up the entire evil world full of evildoers?   

Even with an effective border fence, I would not be a complete non-interventionist.  I just insist that we reserve our military to act in OUR interests.

And hitting ISIS is not in our interest, since they have whacked two Americans and have expressed their intent to attack the homeland?

[mtnbkr]

They killed two Americans who were essentially playing in their backyard.  Wake me when they do something here in the US.  Americans are murdered in 3rd world shitholes on a regular basis.  We only paid attention to these guys because they're Muslim and they recorded it. 

Again, doesn't it sound to you like they're trying to get us to engage them?  Why would we play into their hands like that? 

Chris

[MicroBalrog]

Again, doesn't it sound to you like they're trying to get us to engage them?  Why would we play into their hands like that? 

Because we (the civilized world, rumor has it ISrael is planning to get in on this action) will win.