The ISIS offensive in Iraq

[The Human Q-Tip]

I don't have a number. How the fuck would I know how many cops do nothing but terrorize the public? I know it is too many. I'm sad for this country that people like you disagree.

What you're missing here is that nobody is defending police misconduct. Everybody agrees that it should not happen, and that we should minimize it to the extent possible. At the same time, you're never going to eliminate it completely, and it is utterly unfair to cast a broad smear against cops in general, as you have done.

In another discussion here, someone raised the time a cop shot a motorist who was just reaching for his driver's license in the glove compartment. A tragedy, obviously, but the reality is that there are tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of traffic stops each year in which cops don't do that. The overwhelming, vast majority of cops don't shoot people when they're reaching for their license. Your comments on what police are like should consider all those good cops as well.

The sad truth is that our society has a lot of guns, and a lot of violent crime. That probably produces a more aggressive police force than you might see in a different society, but that's sort of an inevitable -- though lamentable - consequence of what they have to do.

Compare the number of police shootings to the numbers of homicides, assaults with deadly weapons, armed robberies, rapes, etc.., the number of bad people out there. And get a grasp on the reality that in the vast, vast majority of times cops are dealing with those bad hombres, they're not shooting and killing people. They're just trying to do a high-stress job and still get home safely.

Sure, there are some who snap and abuse their power, and we all agree that is a bad thing. But your blanket condemnations are doing an enormous disservice to all those cops who don't do that stuff.

And hell, I don't even like cops in general. But you're just being unfair.

 

[Maximus]

This thread has been completely derailed. If you want to discuss police brutality - take it to the Ferguson thread or start another one. If you want to discuss the ISIS problem, discuss it here.

 

[OptimusPrime]

I never said there aren't any good cops. There are, probably still a majority of them. But their numbers are dwindling. They retire and are replaced by young guns that get the new training. They are fired for testifying against bad cops.

The number of these incidents rises every year. And isn't an accident. It isn't cops ignoring their training. It is cops following it. It is a systemic problem, coming straight from the top.

 

[Huber.]

The number of these incidents rises every year. And isn't an accident. It isn't cops ignoring their training. It is cops following it. It is a systemic problem, coming straight from the top.

Kind of like radical Islamists but to a much more extreme extent?

 

[gourimoko]

That's 8

Soda, honestly bro, this is a distraction to the conversation; this isn't EAYOR.

 

[gourimoko]

People seem to be missing Optimus' point; how I don't know.

Let me refine it down to this if I may, he is saying (as am I) that the militarization of the police coupled with the many reports of police abuse and brutality is a more important issue to him (and myself) than ISIS as it is closer to home.

I'm not understand how you guys aren't grasping that or think that it's irrational. Sure you might disagree, but that doesn't mean it's an irrational viewpoint.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Let me refine it down to this if I may, he is saying (as am I) that the militarization of the police coupled with the many reports of police abuse and brutality is a more important issue to him (and myself) than ISIS as it is closer to home. I'm not understand how you guys aren't grasping that or think that it's irrational. Sure you might disagree, but that doesn't mean it's an irrational viewpoint.

I personally agree that it is an entirely rational viewpoint, just as it's entirely rational to prefer grape jelly to watching the Kardashians. But like that, I guess I just don't see the relevance. Okay, you think police misconduct is more of a threat to you than is ISIS. But, uh...so what? It's not like they're mutually exclusive. You can be concerned about both police misconduct and ISIS, so comparing the relative threat posed by each seems pointless. And I think the argument was that introducing the issue of police misconduct into a thread about ISIS looks like a derailment.

I suppose I can see a logical connection if the argument is that the police brutality you fear is a direct consequence of combatting ISIS. But that doesn't seem valid, because the concerns you and others have raised about police brutality long predate the "War on Terror" or ISIS, and I'd suspect the rate of police violence or abuse of minorities was even higher in the past.

 

[Maximus]

People seem to be missing Optimus' point; how I don't know.

Let me refine it down to this if I may, he is saying (as am I) that the militarization of the police coupled with the many reports of police abuse and brutality is a more important issue to him (and myself) than ISIS as it is closer to home.

I'm not understand how you guys aren't grasping that or think that it's irrational. Sure you might disagree, but that doesn't mean it's an irrational viewpoint.

You and Optimus think police brutality is a more important issue. That's fine...point taken...nothing irrational about it. That doesn't mean the ISIS issue isn't important enough to be discussed. There may be people that think that 21,000 people dying per day of starvation is a more important issue than police brutality or ISIS. There may be people that think gay marriage is a more important issue than police brutality or ISIS. That said, i dont think starvation or gay marriage should start to be argued in this thread.

No need to stray so far off topic.

 

[Sebastian]

I'm curious as to what sort of humanitarian catastrophe warrants a US response in Optimus' or Gour's view.

The line of argument of late, regarding police assisted deaths, implies that only American lives matter and no matter how many people die in other parts of the world, the US has no business getting involved. But I'm sure I am not getting that quite right.

 

[gourimoko]

You and Optimus think police brutality is a more important issue. That's fine...point taken...nothing irrational about it. That doesn't mean the ISIS issue isn't important enough to be discussed. There may be people that think that 21,000 people dying per day of starvation is a more important issue than police brutality or ISIS. There may be people that think gay marriage is a more important issue than police brutality or ISIS. That said, i dont think starvation or gay marriage should start to be argued in this thread.

No need to stray so far off topic.

Totally agree... But what is relevant to this thread is how much the United States should respond to this threat and how much resources we should pour into such an endeavour. Including the time, energy, and focus of the President.

Personally, I've always believed the Administration can "walk and chew gum at the same time," meaning we can do both; however the use of the bully pulpit is often rather narrowly focused. I'd prefer that national attention be directed towards something other than the threat of terrorism.

 

[gourimoko]

I'm curious as to what sort of humanitarian catastrophe warrants a US response in Optimus' or Gour's view.

The line of argument of late, regarding police assisted deaths, implies that only American lives matter and no matter how many people die in other parts of the world, the US has no business getting involved. But I'm sure I am not getting that quite right.

To me, I would say American military involvement should be limited to situations where there is a clear and defined way of vastly improving a particular scenario on the ground while reducing our exposure and potential for loss.

I don't see engaging the Islamic State, on the ground, as a worthwhile endeavor for the United States, we would gain very little and probably make the problem of international terrorism worse in the long run. I also think that the people of Iraq and Syria need to step up and defend themselves, it's not our fight - even though ISIS wants to draw us into a larger conflict.

Now with that said, I know that Optimus and I won't agree on foreign policy all the time because I am more inclined to assert American geopolitical pressure in order to benefit our own people than he would be.

However, with that, I totally reject the interventionist policies brought about since the 1950s. I am not for toppling stable governments for those that might be more ideologically favorable nor am I for national building programs at the cost of trillions of dollars and American lives lost - let alone the inevitable loss of life to whatever 'liberated' nation we may be attempting to save from itself.

Lastly, my biggest problem with this continued approach to world policing is the incredible expense. We're spending hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars on the military. I'd prefer that number be slashed in half over the next ten years and put towards something more useful here at home, like a national infrastructure program, free college education, etc etc...

It's a matter of priorities, and engaging in military conflicts is just really low on my list.

 

[OptimusPrime]

I'm curious as to what sort of humanitarian catastrophe warrants a US response in Optimus' or Gour's view.

The line of argument of late, regarding police assisted deaths, implies that only American lives matter and no matter how many people die in other parts of the world, the US has no business getting involved. But I'm sure I am not getting that quite right.

My view would not be the same as Gourimoko's I am sure, and he answered your question, but to me it depends what you mean by "humanitarian catastrophe".

A country gets destroyed by a tsunami? Sure, send them help as long as the government is taking our money anyway. I would rather they use our money for that than 99% of the things they do use it for.

Another country's war? Not on my dime. When their ships are on the way across the Atlantic we can talk, but until then, anyone who wants to grab a rifle and pay their own way is welcome by me to go over there and do whatever they want.

If you are sending Americans to die and taking money out of the rest of our pockets to pay for it, there had better be an imminent threat to this country, and you had better follow the rule of law and get a declaration of war passed through Congress so these scumbags politicians can be held to account.

 

[Sebastian]

What would you classify as an imminent threat? Should the US be able to defend its overseas interests? Should a nation have interests outside its own borders with regard to self-defense?

Do you believe that the Invasion of Afghanistan was a warranted move, insofar as the original intent to destroy Al Qaeda and the Taliban regime that supported it?

 

[Sebastian]

I don't see engaging the Islamic State, on the ground, as a worthwhile endeavor for the United States, we would gain very little and probably make the problem of international terrorism worse in the long run. I also think that the people of Iraq and Syria need to step up and defend themselves, it's not our fight - even though ISIS wants to draw us into a larger conflict.

Do you believe that the US shoulders some of the blame for ISIS occupying large portions of Iraq? After all, did not the US destroy the Iraqi military as an institution to the point where it is useless as a fighting force? (I don't speak in hyperbole, I know from experience that the IA is a corrupt and thoroughly ineffective fighting force. The Peshmerga is better but ill-equipped).

We broke Iraq, are we not obligated to at least assist the IA and Pesh and destroying an entity we had a hand in creating and enabling?

 

[CleveRocks]

What would you classify as an imminent threat? Should the US be able to defend its overseas interests? Should a nation have interests outside its own borders with regard to self-defense?

Do you believe that the Invasion of Afghanistan was a warranted move, insofar as the original intent to destroy Al Qaeda and the Taliban regime that supported it?

I know you aimed this at Gour, but I will point out a couple of perspective builders. Of course The US Should have interests outside our borders and defend ourselves anywhere necessary. We learned that lesson at Pearl Harbor, nearly losing the pacific because we expected other cultures to leave us alone. And in world war II, had Hitler held on long enough to develop the Bomb, before we did, we would all be doing the Zeig Heil today...

As for Afghanistan, I think that mission was a good idea, but not well executed, and in the end we did not have the political stamina to see it through, but then niether did the British or the Russians. From a military perspective, Afghanistan had value not because it harbored Al Qaida, but because it is adjacent to both Pakistan and Iran, two of our most dangerous adversaries. Today Pakistan harbors both Al Qaida and the Taliban, and has, and exports nuclear weapon technology. They also have an expert army and 240 million people. Afghanistan is merely a proxy state...

When we look at the middle east from a strategic perspective the value of both Iraq and Afghanistan are less about those countries, which dont pose much of a threat to US interests of themselves, the value is their proxy in the larger conflict fueled by Islamic State proponents, be that ISIL, or Iran, which is why we put boots on the ground there, but would never do so in say North Korea. We tend to think of these thing within the borders that were arbitrarily drawn post world war I and II, but I think there is a significant number ( which @ gour is IMHO less than 10 % of all Muslims) who view the borders as drawn during the height of the Islamic Empire. To include all of north africa and the middle east and malaysia, Pakistan etc. as one potential super power..

All that said, the best thing we have done to fix the geoploitics in the middle east is to ramp up shale oil production. This reduces the resources flowing to many of the states exporting violence for whatever reason. The next best thing we can do, in my opinion, is refocus our resources on South America, where our global adversaries are promoting a US is the boogieman image, and corrupt dictators or oligarchs are running the show. We are far more vulnerable to real threats for that sector..( and yes that means I agree with Obama's decision to thaw relations with Cuba for example)