BBC Report on Iraq

[GGGG]

Can't wait to see what's streaming across our borders right now...one can only hope we aren't hit again.

Ah this line again.  Combining one fear (TERRORISTS!!!) with another (IMMIGRANTS!!!), to create a SUPER BOGEYMAN!!!! 

Now all you have to do is make them gay.

[Benny B]

Oh man is his a bunch of revisionist history.

Remember that AQ started to become more anti-American due to our large troop presence in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War and our enforcement of the no-fly zones over Iraq.

And then don't get me started on our unquestioned support of Israel for no strategic reason whatsoever.

Revisionist?  I think just about every educated person in the country would agree that:

a) Desert Storm ended in February 1991.
b) Two planes crashed into separate buildings on September 11, 2001.
c) Both of those buildings did, in fact, collapse (i.e. they're no longer there; although in retrospect, maybe "missing" in place of "heap of rubble that has since been cleared away" was the wrong connotation... my apologies).

With me so far?  Because these next two points involve math.

d) 9/2001 minus 2/1991 equals 10 years, 7 months.
e) A "decade" is equivalent to ten years.

Now, if you want to take issue with the span of 10 years, 7 months not being consistent with the phrase "about a decade," then sure, we can argue over that.  And of course, while not technically accurate (since the 90s literally began 1/1/1990 and ended 12/31/1999), I think most reasonable people would deem my referring to the time period between Feb 1991 and Sep 2001 as "the 90s" an accurate representation of that period.

So if you want to play Time Cop, fine, you win.   But just because I lack the pinpoint accuracy, that is not tantamount to me revising history.

[GGGG]

I'm merely arguing that we didn't give peace a chance during the 1990s either.

But regardless, what exactly is the end game here?  We beat down ISIS and then....what?  Do we quixotically attempt to set up a democracy where none really have worked before?  Do we permanently occupy the Levante?

Pierce just wrote this about this mess: 

"What if there is no American "plan" that will work, no American"strategy" that will suffice, no act of American "leadership" that will be adequate? What if the only real solution is for these people to decide on their own to stop slaughtering each other? What if the choice comes down simply to joining the bloodshed or not?"

[jficke13]

Ah this line again.  Combining one fear (TERRORISTS!!!) with another (IMMIGRANTS!!!), to create a SUPER BOGEYMAN!!!! 

Now all you have to do is make them gay.

I'm not trying to jump on you here, but what if we stop, or God forbid fail to stop, an attack by ISIS-affiliated militants who entered the country by way of the southern border? Would that cause you to assess the situation differently?

[jficke13]

I'm merely arguing that we didn't give peace a chance during the 1990s either.

But regardless, what exactly is the end game here?  We beat down ISIS and then....what?  Do we quixotically attempt to set up a democracy where none really have worked before?  Do we permanently occupy the Levante?

Pierce just wrote this about this mess: 

"What if there is no American "plan" that will work, no American"strategy" that will suffice, no act of American "leadership" that will be adequate? What if the only real solution is for these people to decide on their own to stop slaughtering each other? What if the choice comes down simply to joining the bloodshed or not?"

If America's choices are fight an endless "war" on extremism in the Middle East or suffer the injustices of ISIS to spread, allowing more destruction of liberty, and suffering more American lives to die at their hands, what do you choose?

I know what I would choose.

[GGGG]

I'm not trying to jump on you here, but what if we stop, or God forbid fail to stop, an attack by ISIS-affiliated militants who entered the country by way of the southern border? Would that cause you to assess the situation differently?

Obviously.  But IMO the two much more likely scenarios are that they either...don't do anything.  Or enter the country legally.  A bunch of these guys have western passports, some apparently American ones.

Why would they enter Mexico and then attempt to enter the US illegally when with the right people and plan, they don't have to take such risks?  I mean, it's not exactly easy, nor is it a guaranty that they would be successful coming across the border.

[GGGG]

If America's choices are fight an endless "war" on extremism in the Middle East or suffer the injustices of ISIS to spread, allowing more destruction of liberty, and suffering more American lives to die at their hands, what do you choose?

I know what I would choose.

Good question.  Of course not knowing the extent of the lives expended in the former for the sake of those saved in the latter makes it hard to answer.

[jficke13]

Good question.  Of course not knowing the extent of the lives expended in the former for the sake of those saved in the latter makes it hard to answer.

What if the question is not number of American lives spent in the "war" vs lost to terrorist attacks, but rather: If America believes that the principles of free speech, freedom to worship as one chooses are inviolable, then can we espouse them safely with oceans as moats while a group like ISIS commits an unchecked genocide to spread the very principles we hold dear?

Can America be America and allow a group like ISIS to exist?

[GGGG]

What if the question is not number of American lives spent in the "war" vs lost to terrorist attacks, but rather: If America believes that the principles of free speech, freedom to worship as one chooses are inviolable, then can we espouse them safely with oceans as moats while a group like ISIS commits an unchecked genocide to spread the very principles we hold dear?

Can America be America and allow a group like ISIS to exist?

We allow the government of Saudi Arabia to exist...we allow all sorts of crap to exist in Africa...we have actually actively supported groups like that exist all over the world.

Seriously, are you suggesting that our job is to ensure that "freedom" exists everywhere and is available to everyone?

[jficke13]

We allow the government of Saudi Arabia to exist...we allow all sorts of crap to exist in Africa...we have actually actively supported groups like that exist all over the world.

Seriously, are you suggesting that our job is to ensure that "freedom" exists everywhere and is available to everyone?

I'm suggesting that some principles are worth striving to uphold and spread no matter the cost. It might not be our job, but as long as we suffer genocidal regimes (and in the case of ISIS, proto-regimes) to exist, it cheapens our principals.

You are right, we are hypocrites for not taking a hard line against regimes like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China for their human rights abuses. No arguments from me on that front.

[Benny B]

We allow the government of Saudi Arabia to exist...we allow all sorts of crap to exist in Africa...we have actually actively supported groups like that exist all over the world.

Seriously, are you suggesting that our job is to ensure that "freedom" exists everywhere and is available to everyone?

Finally...

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/e/pU9FEUBPWt4" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/e/pU9FEUBPWt4</a>

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I'm suggesting that some principles are worth striving to uphold and spread no matter the cost. It might not be our job, but as long as we suffer genocidal regimes (and in the case of ISIS, proto-regimes) to exist, it cheapens our principals.

You are right, we are hypocrites for not taking a hard line against regimes like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China for their human rights abuses. No arguments from me on that front.

Well, this is the heart of this whole thing.

#1 Do we want to be the world police?
Probably not.

#2 Do we want to turn a blind eye to everyplace in the world? "It's not happening on my front lawn. I don't care."  Probably not.

#3 How do we chose what we go after? It's a hard choice, and anybody who pretends its easy is a moron.

You have a region of the world where people talk in terms of centuries, or even thousands of years. You think there are going to be scared by 4 or 5 years of US occupation? You think we can really change the fundamentals in some areas of the world? These people have been at "war" for hundreds of years.

If we want to save more people, we should send food and doctors around the world (africa), not missiles (middle east).

[MU82]

If America's choices are fight an endless "war" on extremism in the Middle East or suffer the injustices of ISIS to spread, allowing more destruction of liberty, and suffering more American lives to die at their hands, what do you choose?

I know what I would choose.

I would choose to gather more information and not go guns blazing into a war on foreign soil against an enemy that doesn't value life.

We tried that in the '60s and again in the aughts. Didn't work out very well, either time.

I would hope that at the very least, the next time we go to war it will not be based on blatant lies.

[rocket surgeon]

understand that their(isis, al queda, et.al.) mission is to kill all jews, and non-believers.  umm, that would include us.  yes, they have been fighting over there for hundreds of years or more.  but, fortunately or not, technology has allowed them to expand their scope.  we are not as far away as we were hundreds of years ago.  if they are not stopped over there, they WILL continue to try to expand their influence closer and closer as they already have as exhibited by the number of british, american and other converts.  yes,we as a country are tired of war, but that is exactly what they are hoping for.  they will take advantage of that.  if we were to take a poll before the be-headings, we probably were overwhelmingly against getting involved in most types of conflict over there.  today, i believe many more are worried and the scales are tipping back toward doing something over there to "wipe out" these radical groups.  and rightly so.  we still have a voluntary military, so most entering today should know the potential risks. many people do believe in our country and choose to fight for us. they see it as a mission probably not unlike others who say, make fighting poverty their mission.  i say this because the question always seems to come up-well, would you be willing to send your son or daughter over to fight?  to be honest, no.  that's why i respect the hell out of the people and their families for their ultimate sacrifice, to choose to fight for our rights with the hope of keeping us safe and to live the quality of life we have become accustomed to here at home-God bless America

[keefe]

We allow the government of Saudi Arabia to exist...we allow all sorts of crap to exist in Africa...we have actually actively supported groups like that exist all over the world.

Seriously, are you suggesting that our job is to ensure that "freedom" exists everywhere and is available to everyone?

The bottom line is if America's National Security is at stake. If the Middle East was not flush with oil America would not care.

Genocide in Rwanda? If there were strategic minerals, as is the case with South Africa, the US would be involved.

[rocket surgeon]

Obviously.  But IMO the two much more likely scenarios are that they either...don't do anything.  Or enter the country legally.  A bunch of these guys have western passports, some apparently American ones.

Why would they enter Mexico and then attempt to enter the US illegally when with the right people and plan, they don't have to take such risks?  I mean, it's not exactly easy, nor is it a guaranty that they would be successful coming across the border.

entering mexico may be an easier way back into our country as i think our tsa have some of these guys on lists.  with an exception of a jihadist from minneapolis was found to have worked for 10 years for delta air.   i hope all that extra security we go through in an airport is accomplishing something.  we need to close our borders and make it as hard to get in as for us to enter any other country without documentation.  just ask sgt. tahmooressi sans the guns  

[jesmu84]

The bottom line is if America's National Security is at stake. If the Middle East was not flush with oil America would not care.

Genocide in Rwanda? If there were strategic minerals, as is the case with South Africa, the US would be involved.

I cannot agree with Keefe enough here. Don't tell me we're for stopping genocide or ensuring democracy/freedom or any other bullcrap reason. If we cared so much about our "principles", we'd stop the atrocities that are being committed in Africa, China, heck even North Korea.

[GGGG]

The bottom line is if America's National Security is at stake. If the Middle East was not flush with oil America would not care.

Genocide in Rwanda? If there were strategic minerals, as is the case with South Africa, the US would be involved.

Exactly.  And since we are much less dependent on middle eastern oil than even a decade ago, it is losing more and more of its strategic importance.

[rocket surgeon]

i also agree with keefe, 100%, BUT, even if we became oil/energy independant, the middle east's oil is still a world market player.  even though we have become either the 2nd or 3rd largest oil producer in the world(russia, then either usa or saudi arabia depending on who you listen to), oil prices remain high here.  yes, some due to taxes, but also due to the fact that oil is sold on world market.  if isis, who is using iraq's and syria's small by international standards, oil production, or some of it to fund their "bad behavior" and expand their influence, we along with a coalition need to stop them. any amount of oil they can sell on the black market, is too much.  they can make tens of millions of $$ go a long way in the form of weapons and buying influence.  the numbers of people killed by isis will approach hitler"s if not stopped.  not to mention the fact that their playbook calls for our elimination also.  how far do we let them go before we decide-o.k., that's enough-game over?  what i don't understand is why more countries in closer proximity do not have a larger sense of urgency than they are exhibiting. they need to become way more proactive in this and we need to form a coalition with them to send these people to our hell without these so called "virgins" they believe to be waiting for them 

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm not trying to jump on you here, but what if we stop, or God forbid fail to stop, an attack by ISIS-affiliated militants who entered the country by way of the southern border? Would that cause you to assess the situation differently?

Thanks for quoting Sultan.  I guess the gov't documents leaked two weeks ago should be ignored.  The gov't feels there is a threat, and why wouldn't there be.  Our borders are a sieve, an absolute sieve.  Is it easier to get here by going through "proper channels" or just walk across the border?  Seems pretty obvious.  We ignore it at our own peril.  Of course that doesn't stop people from screaming racism or xenophobia or whatever.  Others will call it for what it is....common f*ing sense.