We said no because it isn't our conflict. There are many atrocities that happen throughout the world; the United States should not be policing them all. At what point do Iraqis and others in the region need to fight for their own safety?
I'd say right now if they weren't even trying, I'd have no inclination to help. But since they are trying, but need assistance, I'm okay with that.
Because for some reason you seem not willing to understand a nuanced argument. I'm not saying bombing ISIS is the "wrong thing to do," as I arely if ever speak in such absolutes. I'm saying that there are consequences we need to be aware of that we are simply ignoring.
And you seem unwilling to understand that is an unproven assumption on your part. Because people don't
agree with your analysis, they must be
ignoring the issue. That's a fail.
There were also consequences to the invasion of Iraq in the first place. As to your question, I've already said 4 times in the thread I support airstrikes against ISIS, but I do not support anything further than that and I do not support arming Syrian "moderates."
I agree with you on both counts, although I also believe that having advisors can help a lot.
It's a strawman because you're not paying attention.
Wrong. I
am paying attention, which is why when you make statements like "we are simply ignoring" the consequences of bombing, you're getting called on it. As much as I despise this Administration, I'd bet my left nut that they are
not "ignoring" the consequences of bombing, and that it is probably a major concern and point of internal discussion. I suspect it's one reason why they are emphasizing that Arab nations are also participating in those airstrikes.
Again, do some basic research or read a newspaper before you toss out ad hominems.
I have no idea what this is even in response to, because immediately after stating this, you then linked some article with Lindsey Graham. So what was the "ad hominem".
As for Graham -- of whom I'm not a fan -- what's the relevance of you linking that article? I didn't mention him and have no clue why you did. Oh, and the last time I posted an article from Muslim scholars you referred to me as a racist.
You responded to someone else that you weren't talking about negotiations with ISIS, but with Saudi Arabia so that we'd withdraw fully at some point, and then (shocker) with the Palestinians/Israelis. So I'll address that.
The first is pretty irrelevant. We have fewer troops in SA than we have had there at any point since years before the Gulf War. To the extent that tiny presences is still being cited as a cause by anyone, it is by radicals who are against any western presences at all -- peaceful, commercial, etc.. -- . And basically, fuck them.
As to negotiating with the Palestinians to stop ISIS, uh, yeah. You've got a pro-Palestinian hammer, and everything looks like a nail to you.
So.. we should do what then? I'm just trying to understand when the United States should be engaged militarily and when we shouldn't.
When our national interest is at stake, which I think it is for reasons that have been described here by others.
I've said numerous times I'm not "blaming" the United States, I am stating exactly what the radicals are stating about American foreign policy.
Semantics.
Some of the radicals are blaming the U.S. (I don't believe for a moment that U.S. policy is the driving force behind ISIS -- that's non-sensical), and if you're repeating what they said, than you're doing the same.
Everyone can share in the blame for the mess that was created in the Middle East...
Okay, then who
else is to blame for the Saudi brand of justice, demeaning of women, the Taliban stoning women or knocking down statutes of Buddha, ISIS murdering Yazidis, Christians, and even fellow Muslims who are not sufficiently devout? What are the
other causes of that? Because the only responsible group or causes you've
ever mentioned in these threads is the U.S..
However, from an Arab/Islamic standpoint, there are valid criticisms and concerns regarding American foreign policy that must be addressed to end this perpetual conflict with the Islamic world.
Just because that is their perspective does not make it correct -- I'm sure there are others with different perspectives. And we haven't been -- and aren't -- in perpetual conflict with the entire Islamic world.
Right? I mean, isn't the whole point here that we're talking about a relatively small percentage of radicals, and that the vast majority of Muslims in the world
aren't trying to kill westerners?
The primary criticisms are undisputed facts that I pointed out in an earlier post, you claiming that is "blame America first" is honestly disgusting, makes my stomach turn, and is offensive to the point where I would be ready to beat the shit out of someone.
First, I really don't care about your threats. Second, you have chosen repeatedly to identify the U.S. and its actions as the prime mover for Islamic radicalism. I'm being charitable in limiting it to "prime" mover, because you've identified
nobody and
nothing else specific as a cause. Even in my last post, where I asked if you thought the U.S. was the only cause, you cutely said "No" without --deliberately -- identifying any other cause yet again. You've got your agenda (the Palestine issue), so you don't want to discuss anything that takes the focus away from that.
Flat out: you are calling me unpatriotic and basically saying I do not love my country because I disagree with it's foreign policy. If you want to go down that road, put me on ignore. I will no longer be civil if that's how we have to have this conversation.
What a transparently lame attempt to silence those who disagree with you.
I never called you unpatriotic or accused you of not loving your country. But I think you hold a flawed foreign policy view that too readily places blame on the U.S.. I think that is too U.S.-centric a point of view, and too easily discounts the plentiful motives that have nothing to do with us. I'm well aware that your theory has been pushed by a lot of academics, and it's persistent because of course there is truth to the fact that bad actions on our part can cause negative reactions. But I think that school of thought consistently errs on the side of ignoring other causes and motives, probably because they want to maximize the case for changing U.S. policy.
And that "quit attacking my patriotism" line of defense is just as ridiculous now as it was when some Democrats used it back in 2004 and 2008. The left has habitually attacked their opponents as being jingoistic, too nationalistic, ignorant of world affairs, wiling to kill little brown people for oil, too willing to use U.S. military force to protect perceived American interests, and not willing to acknowledge the negative consequences of American actions. Oh yeah, and racist, which you've previously used in here.
Yet, when the counter argument is offered -- "you are too
unwilling to use force to protect American interests, and too
readily blame the U.S. for things that are not our fault," that crosses the line into "attacking patriotism". That's garbage. It's an attempt to control the substantive debate by saying all counter-arguments are offensive. Poop on that.
Again you know nothing of Islam or what drives Muslims to extremist views, it has nothing to do with 18th century history. Nothing. It sounds as if you've never even spoken to a Muslim in your life.
If you don't think Wahhabism has any impact on Islam today, I know some Muslims who would disagree with you. And by the way, having Egyptian heritage and family members who are Muslime makes you no more omniscient in terms of what every Muslim radicaly believes that being an American gives me a magical insight into what any American radical believes. In terms of what ISIS believes, you are as dependent upon secondary sources and upon the reasonable conclusions you can draw from their actions as I am.
The primary motivating factors of the jihadi is American hegemony in the Middle East, the continued unwavering support of Israel, and the American presence in Saudi Arabia. Ask any Muslim, radical or not, and the vast vast majority would cite those 3 issues as having paramount importance to Muslims and Arabs everywhere.
To quote Reagan...."there he goes again...."
Unless you've spoken personally with all 1.2 or so billion Muslims, or at least have close personal ties with members of every radical group, I don't recognize you as having any particular expertise. What I do recognize is that you have a strong opinion on Palestine, and so have a motive to make that seem to be the Gordian knot that could solve all those problems.
So here's a stumper: What does Palestine have to do with what ISIS is doing? If you were correct, then what we should be hearing is ISIS calling on the Muslim world to kill the Jews and their American allies, in a Palestine-centered campaign of Muslim unity.
But that's not what they're saying or doing. They're murdering other Muslims for not being sufficiently devout. They're murdering Yazidis, and Christians, who have absolutely
nothing to do with Palestine or Saudi Arabia at all. It's women being sentenced to death/stoning for adultery, destroying symbols of other religious faiths, etc. etc. etc.
The fact that you keep saying the U.S. is the "primary motivating factor" for the jihadi, and in fact say that we need to listen to the "valid criticisms/concerns of the Arab/Muslim viewpoint", is something that
I find offensive in this context of discussing ISIS.
We're the "primary motivating factor" for that shit? And there are "valid criticisms/concerns from the Islamic/Arabic standpoint" regarding our actions that cause that kind of hatred, violence, and intolerance??
Color me skeptical.
