http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/07/world/iraq-options/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 Good. Bomb them to kingdom come. Try not to hit any weddings but I guess there aren't many at the moment. Interesting tidbit from FOX of all places: It's in the god damned world's best interest to stop those crazies. An IS 'state' would make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like a more liberal version of the Sweden. Does anyone between the White House and Brussels believe they would stop? They won't. Those IS types seem to be true holy warriors who don't want riches or land but to cleanse the world of unbelievers. My own gut says that aerial attacks can't do much but support Kurdish and remaining Iraqi troops in this fight at great civilian cost. IS can't be stomped out from the air. Boots on the ground are needed and that's why the west seems content do bicker over Gaza or Ukraine and pretend to not see the much bigger IS threat. It's shameful how the great powers are reacting to this situation because they won't face the political fallout. I mean, any half modern military could smoke 'em within a forthnight. I do recommend the Foreign Legion for shits, giggles and Carlsbergs.
Does bombing do so? If it did, then I think Iraq would be rid of crazies by now, not overrun with them.
A whole load of AC-130s on rotation over heavily ISIS infested areas, firing on targets of opportunity, would be a good start.
Iraq was a classic case of lift the stone, find the worms. An idiotic war to begin with, clumsily 'ended' by Obama. Now the worms have free reign. What's your solution to these guys? A vegan breakfast, a walk in the woods holding hands and singing Kumbaya? Guess that won't work. I think it's well known that I always prefer peaceful or at least sneaky solutions, but I just can't see any in this case. There needs to be a clever campaign to root them out without creating new ones by killing loads of civilians in the process.
I don't have a solution really. I'm even willing to consider that they should be taken out if that can meet certain conditions. Hence my asking the question.
I hate to say it, but what the greater Iraq and Afghanistan regions need is 50 more years of occupation accompanied by compentent nation building, creating of a viable economy (perspectives for a better future) and education, education, education. No I don't like the idea or the cost. However, I do estimate that fighting a stupid war there every decade is a lot more expensive and exhausting.
So you advocate that we go back to the days of Empire? We fucked up the Middle East over two centuries of meddling. Now you're saying we should go in again to dominate and control them once again? Yeah, I can just imagine we'll be welcomed with open arms - especially since it was, again, our actions that gave rise to this instability. I don't think that's a solution at all. You cannot force a way of life on others on this modern day and age without essentially being a foreign dictatorship. We tried the alternative and it didn't get us very far because you cannot force western democracy on a people who aren't ready for it. You are talking about a country with people of many different views and affiliations. You can't invade them, force a common state of thought on them and insist that they revise their views within a few years based on "education". Many of these people have spent their whole lives in poverty or ignorance, or under a dictatorship followed by a war zone. Education takes decades and generations. For how long would you have us be there? Personally I think we have an obligation to assist the Iraqi state in defending against ISIS, since we all but installed the current government. But I think that's as far as it goes. There are too many conflicting opinions out there for us to determine what's best for them and force it upon them while blindly hoping for success.
I think the answer is somewhere between these two views. Sometimes education needs to be imposed. And everytime we've tried it we've fucked it up.....
So the Middle East is on fire and gas prices are below $3? You're welcome, Murica... As for IS, yeah, bad deal, scary. Last I heard there were only like what, 3000 of them? Imagine 3000 thugs in Toyota trucks taking over West Texas. ... ........ Yeah, I can't either.
Because it's our parameters of education that we impose. Our idea of democracy, economics and so on. None of that should be taught in my opinion. Before you can even begin with that, there has to be education on basic human rights and civil liberties, and that takes many years to do, especially for adults who weren't exposed to such ideas during their formative years.
Where does teaching these people that Women and Children are not property fall in the education scale? How about "no, it's not OK to kill female family members because they tarnished your honor"? Or maybe, "no, you can't kill other people because they worship differently than you" Because that's the group you are going to have to educate to "fix" the middle east. Just saying education sounds good as a sound bite, but it's virtually meaningless when what you need to change is the way many practice their religion.
Believe it or not, things are changing - slowly, of course - in, of all places, Saudi Arabia: They're still having hysterics over an unveiled Saudi woman reading the news onscreen from a British station but, well, increments. Meanwhile, no bombers slated for the moment, just an air drop of food, water, and medical supplies. Let's see how the ODS crowd spins that...
Do we have a smiley of a smirking cloud raining on a parade? yes Rick, somewhere out there is a perfect solution to stop insane crazy killing and oppression that meets your standards of civility and effectiveness. Please share your sure-fire strategy with the world leaders post haste!
It's not just religion. It's what people are ingrained to believe. For instance, there are a lot of attitudes in America that we this side of the Atlantic look at with great incredulity. But to many Americans they are the standard approach to certain issues. A lot of it is what has been taught and what is heard from the people that surround those who posses such attitudes. Am I making a case that women should be treated as second class citizens because of religion? No, of course not, I find the very notion abhorrent. But the point is that when you've grown up in an environment where that is practiced as a belief and you have heard few contrary opinions in your daily life (which even then may be subject to derision) it is very understandable why people will follow their peers and go along with what they are taught rather than stand apart. There are leaders in this world and there are followers. There are more of the latter than the former, and it takes independent reasoning to be the former. Therefore if you are the latter then you need to be exposed to a sustained environment of different ideals and principles for your view to begin change.
Taken as a stand alone statement (out of context) it seems El Chup is saying it's okay to fly the Confederate Battle Flag in your front yard. Change "women" to blacks and "religion" to skin color and you'll see what I mean. Anyway, the stranded suffering people don't have generations for education and social change to kick in. But we do have the ability today to at least put on a big, big bandaid on the boo-boo for now at least.
Here's an educational program which'll be highly effective: 1.) Mandate the education of women as a condition of getting any aid whatsoever. 2.) Superficially, the women's educational program will consist of teaching them how to be a happy homemaker. 3.) The bulk of the educational program will consist of teaching them self-defense, critical thinking skills, and how to use birth control without getting caught. Shit'll change fast once the women know how to defend themselves.
I have not made the case that anything is okay I have merely tried to illustrate why it takes time to change ideas. You're an idiot if you choose to read my post as a justification for anything. A band-aid is of little use if the wound underneath doesn't heal properly....and my point is that in this case the wound, namely the ignorance, is not something that can be changed overnight by sweeping in and imposing a value system on another. What if, for instance, in a hypothetical world Britain was still an empire and we successfully invaded the US today (and no I am not trying to have a petty and immature debate about whether or not such an invasions could actually happen, it's besides the point) and in the course of that invasion we imposed our own laws and customs on America. What if one of those laws was the banning of all public ownership of guns? If we made an overnight statement that "guns are bad and you must accept this", everyone would stop and agree? No, all hell would break loose and there would be a lot of resistance because the thoughts and feelings of Americans on the right to bear arms goes back many generations and it's a train of thought that does get changed overnight. So, similarly, it is implausible to do what has been suggested in this thread, without essentially being imperialist and maintaining control over other nations for many years. A two, three or even ten year conflict isn't going to accomplish it, no matter how many schools you open. It takes time. By all means we should aid the Iraqi government to fight off ISIS, but if we think that we will in any way change the many trains of thought in the region in doing so then we're living in the clouds - especially when before you can educate you also have to get rid of the copious amounts of anti-western sentiment that many in the region possess expressing because of our past efforts to direct the course of events there.
Well, if ISIS fires on unarmed American transports carrying humanitarian supplies, American public support for air strikes would rise considerably and from an international law standpoint would be considerably more justified.
Didn't say I cared about it. Just an observation. While I personally supported heavy air strikes against ISIS several months ago, I'm not that confident it would do much good today.
International law is a joke. Whoever is doing the "heavy lifting" at the time pretty much sets the tone IMO.
Putin is correct. Dayton's point isn't so much that we need cover of legality, so much as we need domestic support. He would have bombed several months ago, before anybody had even heard of ISIS. But the rest of us need some sort of prompting, like an attack on Americans. If Dayton were President, there would no doubt have been a false flag attack on American assets by "ISIS" several years ago.
No I wouldn't. Any conflict that requires those kind of hijinks to obtain support could never hope to sustain public support long enough to be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.
