Maybe This Time We (the west) Shouldn't Strike Back

In the wake of this latest, hideously brutal terrorist attack, France has basically promised "if they want a war they've got it" and the general assumption seems to be that other western nations like the U.S. and U.K. will join any expanded French action.

But in contemplating that, I got to thinking about Matthew White's "The Great Big Book of Horrible Things". White is a bit of a fanatic about both history and statistics and especially likes to try to tell history through statistics.

One of his conclusions was that "wars started because of terrorism virtually always kill more people than the acts of terror themselves. So strictly based on the number of people killed, you're probably better off tolerating the occasional bombing than going to war"

This thought has stayed with me and I'm wondering if he has a point. Now, I'm usually of the "hit'em back hard as we can" line of thinking and I'm not sure that isn't the best reaction. After all, for western nations, the people we send to war are trained soldiers while the victims of terrorism are largely civilians.

But lately I am trying to give more consideration to other viewpoints on serious topics

While I agree with the idea that the wars on terror have made far more terrorists than there would be without the war, I am pretty sure your attitude has nothing to do with being reasonable or intelligent. You are probably just not that eager to attack because it is france and you have better reasons that you like more to bomb brown people.

The basic point is absolutely valid.

While it is morally subverted by your applying it only to attacks on other people, that doesn't make it false.

What does kind of make it inapplicable in this case is that France isn't threatening actual war anyway.

There is a false dichotomy between "tolerating" bombing, and lashing out in a reckless way.

I want those responsible punished, and steps taken to lessen the possibility of a repetition. A lot of that is low-key, and isn't going to make anyone feel better, or sate the thirst for revenge.

Those responsible are in little pieces. They blew up.

If it was ISIS, then there are others involved.

Yeah, all of ISIS.

That got posted from an ISIS affiliate about three hours before the attack on Paris.

It says Paris today and then Rome and London tomorrow.

Really? You need research and a book for that fact? Of fucking course a full out war kills more people than a single attack. D'uh!

Its amazing that even when you change your directiom, you can still be so wrong!

The problem is that Western leaders got too worried about popular opinion as they had taken troops into Afganistan and then unjustly into Iraq. The result being that when a real theat (ISIS) showed up that we actually should have stomped on, we pussied out and let it fester and grow.

The only way to stop these arseholes is to smash and destroy ISIS. Boots on the ground and take them down.

The sympathisers and those inspired by ISIS need to see that the whole thing is broken and has failed. There can be nothing left to take inspiration from. The other benefit is that the waves of asylum seekers may return home once ISIS is gone.

We cant let 'returning Jihadi's' back in either. Once they go and get their training, see and experience war, thats them out. No getting back in.

These are only troublemakers. What happened in Mumbai, was the same. And i don't think war is an option. It's like ISIS ringing a bell to start a war. Should France answer? I'm gonna go with no.

From an Xperia device

Technically speaking, France started this when they joined the campaign against ISIS.

That said, fuck ISIS. I'm not especially happy that it'll end up helping Assad or the idiots currently running Iraq, but I'd support the coalition putting boots on the ground to flush them out. They're a bunch of children, they won't last long against an actual motivated army.

Every time we go into the Middle East we fuck things up. The biggest fuck up of all was the retarded decision to remove Saddam's secular regime that kept a lid on all the religious fanatics and installing a pro-shia puppet government which allowed ISIS to flourish with hardly any resistance. Where were ISIS when Saddam was around, and Assad had full control of Syria? The terrorists were firmly under the heel of these dictators and we let them loose by invading Iraq.
Just leave the Arabs to their own devices and hopefully they'll leave us alone. Wishful thinking since we need them more than they need us (or more precisely, we need their natural resources) so we'll always be plodding around the Middle East and further conflict/terror attacks are guaranteed.

We didn't fuck up the Middle East, Muhammed did.

Hopefully they'll leave us alone? Maybe they need jobs!

We should incinerate them with a nuclear weapon.

Failure to respond will be interpreted as a show of weakness and will only serve to foster further attacks. Thankfully France has responded. They should continue to do so.

France's response so far has been ridiculously mild. ISIS probably anticipated the current response and decided to absorb it.

I'm talking about more recent events. Splitting up the Ottoman Empire into individual Arab states, supporting Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war, the Gulf War 1 and 2, etc.
We have constantly been involved in this region and it's always come back to haunt us. I understand it's impossible for us not to be involved since our economies revolve around these fucking countries but we would have saved ourselves a lot of grief had we just not had any involvement in their conflicts.

American "support" for Saddam Hussein against Iran was tepid at best. Virtually all of his weapons were Soviet or French.

And Saddam Hussein started the first Gulf War when he invaded and annexed Kuwait. We had no choice in that.

The US gave Saddam a huge amount of support during the conflict, including economic aid, military training, and supplies.

We gave ourselves no choice since we backed Saddam in his war against Iran, a war that bankrupted Iraq. Hence why he wanted to invade Kuwait, to recoup his losses. And still, we didn't really need to intervene. Wars and invasions happen all the time and we don't do anything about it but we did in the Gulf because (a) oil resources were at stake, (b) it was an easy and winnable war.

Prove it? Name a single weapons system used or built by the United States that was part of Iraq's arsenal.

The US supported Iraq out of enmity towards Iran. That's one of the things it needs to get over (at least to some degree) in order to combat extremist Sunni Islam.

From a source which is certainly no friend of conservatives.

Wondering if any of you will actually read this:

http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2003/03/who-armed-saddam-some-reality-checks.html

Did I say weapons? Economic aid, training and supplies. Not to mention diplomatic support.

I know. But when most people hear the words "the U.S. supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War" they think "weapons".

At least with Iran during that war you can point to actual weapons systems albeit defensive ones (Hawk SAMs).

I guess Obama agrees with Dayton.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/16/obam...-accepting-refugees-others-should-follow.html

Dayton allowing for other viewpoints and, in turn, having his own opinion evolve?

The apocalypse is coming! It is the 7th sign!!!!! REPENT!!! REPENT!!!

Exactly.

If North Korea had fresh, untapped oil or diamond or bales of gold-pressed latinum, someone would be far more interested in ending the Kim dynasty there.

Perhaps, but the U.S. and South Korean can't make a move against North Korea as long as Seoul and its suburbs (with what 20 million people total including 100,000 American civilians) sits within easy artillery and missile range of North Korea.

ISIS has its safe zone which it controls and from that area it can plot, fund, and carry out ever more terrorist attacks. That is a problem which must be dealt with.