The ongoing ISIS massacres

[Aeson]

so by "returning to the state of affairs as they were when we were there in force" you mean putting troops on the ground. i wasn't aware that this option was being considered. the public in the west (unsurprisingly) are very unlikely to back anything more than airstrikes, which while salving consciences by satisfying the 'we must do something' crowd, and restricting ISIS operations somewhat for a time, will not ultimately stop them, and may have other unforeseen and unintended consequences.

You were speaking about the potential of western military intervention specifically in regards to the level of military intervention that lead to the situation. "If X lead to this, why would X be able to solve this?" That's what I replied to, specifically with what I thought about "going into Iraq" now vs then. That is the context of our discussion, so it should be no surprise that it is about boots on the ground. Because that's what you and I were talking about in the comparisons we started from.

this is meaningless i'm afraid.

It has plenty of meaning. First and foremost is that any method to "solve the underlying problems" actually requires not having ISIS in control of the area anymore.

[C0ckney]

You were speaking about the potential of western military intervention specifically in regards to the level of military intervention that lead to the situation. "If X lead to this, why would X be able to solve this?" That's what I replied to, specifically with what I thought about "going into Iraq" now vs then. That is the context of our discussion, so it should be no surprise that it is about boots on the ground. Because that's what you and I were talking about in the comparisons we started from.

a simple yes would have sufficed. as i have pointed out, boots on the ground is not going to happen and, i was talking about military action that is likely to be taken, not pie in the sky.

It has plenty of meaning. First and foremost is that any method to "solve the underlying problems" actually requires not having ISIS in control of the area anymore.

well, if you prefer, trite, generic, lacking in understanding and context; in other words, worthless.

[Aeson]

a simple yes would have sufficed. as i have pointed out, boots on the ground is not going to happen and, i was talking about military action that is likely to be taken, not pie in the sky.

You were talking about western military action in regards to what it accomplished in Iraq, it's potential to affect the current situation, and how it performed in Afghanistan over the course of 13 years ... I was talking about boots on the ground in a very obvious fashion. You chose to argue with me about what it would accomplish. Obviously the discussion between us was about boots on the ground.

well, if you prefer, trite, generic, lacking in understanding and context; in other words, worthless.

You wanted to talk about solving the underlying problem. The problem is, among other things, that ISIS is killing and displacing innocent people simply for being the wrong religion and selling women into slavery.

Cartography isn't going to solve that ...

[C0ckney]

You were talking about western military action in regards to what it accomplished in Iraq, it's potential to affect the current situation, and how it performed in Afghanistan over the course of 13 years ... I was talking about boots on the ground in a very obvious fashion. You chose to argue with me about what it would accomplish. Obviously the discussion between us was about boots on the ground.

i'm not going to get into a pointless and fruitless debate about this, people can read our posts and see who wrote what. my position is that the military action on the table, i.e. airstrikes and supplying arms is unlikely to work, for the reasons i have explained, and that i am far from convinced that a boots on the ground campaign, which will not, in any case, happen, would work, given what happened before in iraq and what has been happening for the last thirteen years in afghanistan. furthermore i warn of the danger of unforeseen and unintended consequences, of which i hardly need to provide examples in a thread about ISIS!

You wanted to talk about solving the underlying problem. The problem is, among other things, that ISIS is killing and displacing innocent people simply for being the wrong religion and selling women into slavery.

Cartography isn't going to solve that ...

i have provided some quite detailed thoughts on the subject, feel free to engage with them or provide your own.

[C0ckney]

jon miller.

[Bereta_Eder]

in other news,
the EU is trying to circumvent laws that prohibit germany from supplying arms en mass to the kurds.
germany admited to spying on turkey saying among other things that there are tangible evidence that it is supplying jihadists (turkey called the german ambassador about that) (personally I dont see how this is different that what other countries were doing by supplying jihadists)
cyprus said that it is ok by her for the brits to use their base on the island to bomb the isis.

and liberation of france (a lefty paper) wrote that obama did everything right but still the ISIS problem couldnt be tackled and that americans go by old testament reactions now

also that the jihadists were particularly brutal to the killed journalist because he was american and his brother worked for a defense company

[Aeson]

i'm not going to get into a pointless and fruitless debate about this, people can read our posts and see who wrote what. my position is that the military action on the table, i.e. airstrikes and supplying arms is unlikely to work, for the reasons i have explained, and that i am far from convinced that a boots on the ground campaign, which will not, in any case, happen, would work, given what happened before in iraq and what has been happening for the last thirteen years in afghanistan. furthermore i warn of the danger of unforeseen and unintended consequences, of which i hardly need to provide examples in a thread about ISIS!

I wouldn't want to address it either if I was so clearly wrong as you are. You're trying to move goalposts ... which started at "considering that western military action created the space for ISIS to emerge, i wonder why people think that western military action can defeat them."

i have provided some quite detailed thoughts on the subject, feel free to engage with them or provide your own.

"none of what follows should be taken as an endorsement of any particular course of action on my part."

Give a definitive statement about how to solve the problem and I'll gladly address it. The closest you've gotten is that maybe we should redraw the lines on a map ... which is a fine suggestion given the lines are stupid ... but hypocritical given your "pie in the sky" comments. The lines are certainly less likely to get redrawn than providing air support (which is already happening, and at least somewhat effective), hasn't happened as recently as boots on the ground, and even if it did happen is not going to do anything to stop ISIS from murdering more people in territory it controls.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

The US needs to move in. Take over... like after WWII in Japan. Name a general leader of Iraq until... things are more normal. maybe 10 - 20 years. run the country - and make $$ If US can.

no more leaders who turn to god for direction... or use whatever-gods-name to make up any law they feel like.
equal rights for all. at least like the US and some others.

hunt down those who are causing issues.

teach the kids over there about science and math - not religion. the US was getting there in some areas... until Obama decide his way might work.

when Iraq can vote in a government... give them a test period before the US leaves.

[Al B. Sure!]

Round Three, boys.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

you got to do the job the correct way. the US will learn.

[C0ckney]

"considering that western military action created the space for ISIS to emerge, i wonder why people think that western military action can defeat them."

and nothing i have written subsequently contradicts that. and i note that no one has yet addressed that question.

perhaps you should try defending your position instead of misreading what i write.

Give a definitive statement about how to solve the problem and I'll gladly address it. The closest you've gotten is that maybe we should redraw the lines on a map ... which is a fine suggestion given the lines are stupid ... but hypocritical given your "pie in the sky" comments. The lines are certainly less likely to get redrawn than providing air support (which is already happening, and at least somewhat effective), hasn't happened as recently as boots on the ground, and even if it did happen is not going to do anything to stop ISIS from murdering more people in territory it controls.

no. i discussed various aspects of the problem, as well as a number of possible approaches and my thoughts about them. if you have something to say about the topic, then say it. however, if you just want to play your usual silly and intellectual dishonest word games, then don't bother.

[Aeson]

and nothing i have written subsequently contradicts that.

Except when you claimed you weren't talking about boots on the ground. You started off with talking about boots on the ground causing the problem, so why should it fix it. (Either that or you were dishonestly comparing boots on the ground to no boots on the ground and pretending they were the same thing.) Then I responded about what boots on the ground could do. You continued along that vein by questioning what good boots on the ground would do in this situation by referencing Afghanistan, which also has boots on the ground.

and i note that no one has yet addressed that question.

Pretending that no one has addressed it is utterly ridiculous. I quoted it and gave a response. Which lead to this whole line of discussion.

no. i discussed various aspects of the problem, as well as a number of possible approaches and my thoughts about them. if you have something to say about the topic, then say it. however, if you just want to play your usual silly and intellectual dishonest word games, then don't bother.

And you said that nothing you said there could be construed as an actual suggestion.

Your closest thing to a suggestion about how to fix the problem was to redraw lines on the map. Everything else has been wishy-washy hand wringing about how we can't completely eliminate ISIS so there's no point in doing anything but try to pre-emptively apply hindsight before it's available.

"UNFORSEEN CONSEQUENCES AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES! OMG OMG OMG! I guess we better just let the genocide continue..."

Take a stand. State what you think the solutions are, or stop pretending you are doing so at least.

[C0ckney]

And you said that nothing you said there could be construed as an actual suggestion.

no i didn't. this is what i said.

none of what follows should be taken as an endorsement of any particular course of action on my part.

it's a simple enough sentence, why must you change it.

Your closest thing to a suggestion about how to fix the problem was to redraw lines on the map. Everything else has been wishy-washy hand wringing about how we can't completely eliminate ISIS so there's no point in doing anything but try to pre-emptively apply hindsight before it's available.

Take a stand. State what you think the solutions are, or stop pretending you are doing so at least.

blah blah blah, i'm not pretending anything. i've simply discussed various aspects of the problem, some things which could be done, and some reasons why those things may or may not happen; all of which seems to be beyond your ken, sadly. besides why should i take a stand? i don't need to offer a solution to tell you why yours won't work. i don't need to know how to fix your car to tell that pushing it off a cliff won't work.

[Aeson]

"Suggestion" as I used it is analogous to "endorsement" and that should be clear in the context of the statements. What I am saying is you haven't clearly stated what you think we should do.

So I'm glad we can agree on one thing.

I'm also glad you dropped the ridiculous claim that no one had addressed your statement ... that's progress

Now you just have to realize that western military intervention could stop a lot of the atrocities that ISIS are currently free to enact in territory they control. It's not some binary option where if you can't stop all the ****, you can't stop any of it.

I think you realize this, which is why you've been trying so hard to move the goalposts and pretend the discussion wasn't ever about boots on the ground.

[Elok]

C0ckney, it seems to me that:

A. ISIS is a substantially more aggressive group than AQ, from whom it is rapidly gaining converts. Instead of squatting on some ****hole theocratic fief growing dope and sporadically sending terrorists to kill a few people here and there, they're invading and occupying territory as a declared sovereign state. However, there is no reason to believe that they would ever be content with any defined unit of territory, short of the absurd and unattainable goal of a worldwide caliphate--or is there?
B. ISIS is also substantially more brutal than AQ. Should they at any point gain firm control of Iraq, they will slaughter every (male) Shiite, along with any non-Muslims they can find, and insufficiently devout Sunnis. This will at least rival the Holocaust for body count, though I imagine most deaths would come from refugees stumbling into the desert to die of hunger, thirst or exposure. Either way, in the logistically unlikely event that this goal is accomplished, they seem likely to move on to whichever of their neighbors seems weakest.

Given A and B, the necessity of destroying them seems obvious to me; until they are wiped out, they will spread chaos and death indefinitely. It also seems quite urgent, because they seem to be gaining followers (according to WaPo the other day), while Iraq's government and the Kurds are limited. Now, I've said "seems" a lot here, because I'm no expert on any of this, and nothing is certain. But my inclination is to cite Churchill's line about Hitler invading Hell and making an alliance of expediency with any and every power in the region or outside it to annihilate ISIS by whatever means necessary. Kim Jong Un wants to contribute his most elite squadron of crazy brainwashed bastards? Welcome him with open arms.