quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
I think the biggest questions here are: (1) Is ISIS or IS or ISIL, whatever they are, a threat to the homeland and to American interests abroad? The answer is yes, and so that means we need to do something. (2) Yes, Foley did put himself in harm's way and while you can't avenge every atrocity, clearly the ISIS mentality is that failure to avenge would mean more open season on Americans anywhere. At the end of the day, there isn't any real alternative than to eliminate ISIS entirely. It would have been easier to kill Hitler for his landscapes, you know. He was a bit more difficult later on.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
I think the biggest questions here are: (1) Is ISIS or IS or ISIL, whatever they are, a threat to the homeland and to American interests abroad? The answer is yes, and so that means we need to do something. (2) Yes, Foley did put himself in harm's way and while you can't avenge every atrocity, clearly the ISIS mentality is that failure to avenge would mean more open season on Americans anywhere. At the end of the day, there isn't any real alternative than to eliminate ISIS entirely. It would have been easier to kill Hitler for his landscapes, you know. He was a bit more difficult later on.

Do you support attacking Russia? Do you support attacking pretty much every other country in the world?

Every single country could present some sort of threat to the USA and our interests abroad. And that's a problem. If you use the metric that anything that could present a threat to the USA or our interests abroad, you will give carte blanche to whatever administration is in the White House to attack whatever country it so desires. Do you really want to do that?

ISIS was fighting along side the rebels in Syria. They were fighting Assad. Did we give them arms for that fight? Well, we say we didn't, but do we know? I'm not saying we did, but I am saying it's possible. So, we could be - once again, for those keeping a mental list - could be waging war against an enemy that was armed by ourselves. This time, however, the time between arming them and fighting them is quite a bit shorter.

At this point in time, ISIS doesn't pose a direct threat to the USA. Only because we're so locked into ME oil does ISIS pose a threat to US interests. ISIS isn't another country. ISIS isn't bound to any territory. We can't know if we've routed them because they could be anywhere (sure as fuck sounds like al Qaeda all over again - and that is still going on). Can we really not think of anything more important to the US and US interests than a bunch of radical Islamic terrorists (and yes, this is but a faction within Islam, and not necessarily indicative of Islam in general) causing chaos and wreaking havoc in the ME?!?

Apparently, it's not just those who don't know history who will repeat it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
I think the biggest questions here are: (1) Is ISIS or IS or ISIL, whatever they are, a threat to the homeland and to American interests abroad? The answer is yes, and so that means we need to do something. (2) Yes, Foley did put himself in harm's way and while you can't avenge every atrocity, clearly the ISIS mentality is that failure to avenge would mean more open season on Americans anywhere. At the end of the day, there isn't any real alternative than to eliminate ISIS entirely. It would have been easier to kill Hitler for his landscapes, you know. He was a bit more difficult later on.

Do you support attacking Russia? Do you support attacking pretty much every other country in the world?
Every single country could present some sort of threat to the USA and our interests abroad. And that's a problem. If you use the metric that anything that could present a threat to the USA or our interests abroad, you will give carte blanche to whatever administration is in the White House to attack whatever country it so desires. Do you really want to do that?
ISIS was fighting along side the rebels in Syria. They were fighting Assad. Did we give them arms for that fight? Well, we say we didn't, but do we know? I'm not saying we did, but I am saying it's possible. So, we could be - once again, for those keeping a mental list - could be waging war against an enemy that was armed by ourselves. This time, however, the time between arming them and fighting them is quite a bit shorter.
At this point in time, ISIS doesn't pose a direct threat to the USA. Only because we're so locked into ME oil does ISIS pose a threat to US interests. ISIS isn't another country. ISIS isn't bound to any territory. We can't know if we've routed them because they could be anywhere (sure as fuck sounds like al Qaeda all over again - and that is still going on). Can we really not think of anything more important to the US and US interests than a bunch of radical Islamic terrorists (and yes, this is but a faction within Islam, and not necessarily indicative of Islam in general) causing chaos and wreaking havoc in the ME?!?
Apparently, it's not just those who don't know history who will repeat it.

1) Russia? No. Neither Russia nor Putin has a death wish. Putin plays chess, not checkers. He's not going to launch an ICBM at the US. There is a lot we could do, but none of it involves troops.

quote:

2) Metrics. That's right, you need a metric. Reasonable people can disagree on what that is. In my view, ISIS presents a relatively near-term threat of launching terrorist attacks on the homeland or on American interests abroad. In addition, left unchecked, they could take over additional parts of the Middle East and further jeopardize oil, etc. So, yes, i regard them as a much, much larger threat (in terms of dealing with them through combat operations) than Russia.

quote:

3) Did we arm ISIS in Syria? Maybe. You're right. We don't know. Look at what happened with the Taliban. Stupid decision if we did it.

quote:

4) Since ISIS, as does AQ, value death more than life, and since they make Putin look like a moral giant, and since they are absolutely holy warriors and growing by leaps and bounds, yes, I think they are different and must be dealt with now. Before they metastasize into something much worse.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I'm sorry, but you already put the criteria out there. Does Russia pose a threat to the homeland or US interests abroad? Yes, Russia certainly does. Thus, you support attacking Russia, too. Unless you just want to pick on a smaller opponent?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I'm sorry, but you already put the criteria out there. Does Russia pose a threat to the homeland or US interests abroad? Yes, Russia certainly does. Thus, you support attacking Russia, too. Unless you just want to pick on a smaller opponent?

Seriously?
You really believe that Russia is as likely to attack the United States as the caliphate is?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
I think the biggest questions here are: (1) Is ISIS or IS or ISIL, whatever they are, a threat to the homeland and to American interests abroad? The answer is yes, and so that means we need to do something. (2) Yes, Foley did put himself in harm's way and while you can't avenge every atrocity, clearly the ISIS mentality is that failure to avenge would mean more open season on Americans anywhere. At the end of the day, there isn't any real alternative than to eliminate ISIS entirely. It would have been easier to kill Hitler for his landscapes, you know. He was a bit more difficult later on.

Do you support attacking Russia? Do you support attacking pretty much every other country in the world?
Every single country could present some sort of threat to the USA and our interests abroad. And that's a problem. If you use the metric that anything that could present a threat to the USA or our interests abroad, you will give carte blanche to whatever administration is in the White House to attack whatever country it so desires. Do you really want to do that?
ISIS was fighting along side the rebels in Syria. They were fighting Assad. Did we give them arms for that fight? Well, we say we didn't, but do we know? I'm not saying we did, but I am saying it's possible. So, we could be - once again, for those keeping a mental list - could be waging war against an enemy that was armed by ourselves. This time, however, the time between arming them and fighting them is quite a bit shorter.
At this point in time, ISIS doesn't pose a direct threat to the USA. Only because we're so locked into ME oil does ISIS pose a threat to US interests. ISIS isn't another country. ISIS isn't bound to any territory. We can't know if we've routed them because they could be anywhere (sure as fuck sounds like al Qaeda all over again - and that is still going on). Can we really not think of anything more important to the US and US interests than a bunch of radical Islamic terrorists (and yes, this is but a faction within Islam, and not necessarily indicative of Islam in general) causing chaos and wreaking havoc in the ME?!?
Apparently, it's not just those who don't know history who will repeat it.

1) Russia? No. Neither Russia nor Putin has a death wish. Putin plays chess, not checkers. He's not going to launch an ICBM at the US. There is a lot we could do, but none of it involves troops.

I'm sorry, but you already put the criteria out there. Does Russia pose a threat to the homeland or US interests abroad? Yes, Russia certainly does. Thus, you support attacking Russia, too. Unless you just want to pick on a smaller opponent?

No, I said we had to do "something." Not "attack." Creating words to make your argument is not a good argument. "Something" could include putting our missile defense systems back in Poland, advocating for Ukranian membership in NATO, etc.

quote:

2) Metrics. That's right, you need a metric. Reasonable people can disagree on what that is. In my view, ISIS presents a relatively near-term threat of launching terrorist attacks on the homeland or on American interests abroad. In addition, left unchecked, they could take over additional parts of the Middle East and further jeopardize oil, etc. So, yes, i regard them as a much, much larger threat (in terms of dealing with them through combat operations) than Russia.

"American interests abroad"

What would those be? Should there even be any "American interests abroad" that we should be defending? Should we really insert ourselves into a foreign country for "American interests" and not direct threats to the USA?

Depends what those interests are. In some cases, we are bound by treaty. In other cases, American companies may have mutlibillion-dollar investments. In other cases, we may be setting a precedent if, for example, we allow ISIS to kidnap random American tourists from the heart of Europe. There are other interests that aren't worth protecting, obviously.

quote:

3) Did we arm ISIS in Syria? Maybe. You're right. We don't know. Look at what happened with the Taliban. Stupid decision if we did it.

al Qaeda, the Taliban, Iran, Iraq, the list goes on and on.

quote:

4) Since ISIS, as does AQ, value death more than life, and since they make Putin look like a moral giant, and since they are absolutely holy warriors and growing by leaps and bounds, yes, I think they are different and must be dealt with now. Before they metastasize into something much worse.

Never know when the Russian bear might come growling back, though. Better deal with it now before it metastasizes into something much worse.

Don't you see how your "criteria" could very easily lead to a shitstorm the likes of which we've never seen before?!? What country doesn't pose a threat? China? North Korea? Cuba? Mexico? Canada? India? France? Okay, I'll give you France.

Any country could be labeled as being a threat to the USA or American interests abroad. Your ideas would make for a very lonely country.

Incorrect. I didn't spell out detailed criteria. I said reasonable people could disagree. Labeling a country a threat isn't sufficient. You need to make a compelling case before you just go all-in on them. So again you are not correctly representing my ideas. Out of the countries you listed, the only one that could conceivably pose a threat requiring a military option is N. Korea. They collaborate with Iran. We have a treaty with S. Korea, also. Does that mean we need to attack N. Korea today? No. Kim Jong-un doesn't want to be martyred.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I'm sorry, but you already put the criteria out there. Does Russia pose a threat to the homeland or US interests abroad? Yes, Russia certainly does. Thus, you support attacking Russia, too. Unless you just want to pick on a smaller opponent?

Seriously?

You really believe that Russia is as likely to attack the United States as the caliphate is?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

I don't believe the caliphate has the ability to attack the US like Russia does. Do you? It's not just who is likely to do so, but who can. ISIS isn't in a position to pose a direct threat to the US in the near future. Russia is in that position, but it's very unlikely that they'll exercise that opportunity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

In an act of brazen shocking brutality, the Islamist terrorist group IS today brutally executed a US citizen they had been holding. The execution, thought to be IS's response to US bombing raids on its forces in Iraq, was posted to the Internet. The executor seemed to have a British accent. That a UK citizen can murder a US citizen in Iraq underlines the international aspect of IS's plans to establish an Islamic Caliphate in North Iraq and NE Syria.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2014/aug/20/iraq-crisis-outrage-over-isis-beheading-of-us-journalist-james-foley-live-updates

It is hard to see how the US can let such a direct challenge pass unanswered. Some have suggested that the execution, and its styling as a direct challenge to the US, are a measure of how effective recent US air strikes against IS forces have been. Obama has been clear that there will be no "boots on the ground" in response to IS provocations.

So how should the US respond to this outrage? What are the implications for the ME generally? Will this lead to 'mission creep' and a more substantial US involvement in the Iraq/Syria imbroglios? More generally how should the West respond to IS, a group with a horrifying agenda of dragging the world back into the Dark Ages? What is the most effective strategy to adopt?

Has the old order in the region, which has held since the days of Sykes-Picot and the Otttomans collapsed beyond repair?

hey don't ya know these people are just misunderstood, and we should EMBRACE THEM, not oppress them?
and that the VAST majority of them are peace loving an all that?
and that Israel should be condemned for standing up to these types of people?

I just got one question, IF the vast majority of them are peace loving etc etc etc, why don't THEY stand up to these people and stop them?

1) Because they are dividing the country along Sunni/Shiite/Kurdish lines, and people like it that way (the Kurds certainly opposed their intrusion north).

2) Same reason people don't stand up to violent criminals with military arms here. Hello.

realllyyy guess you haven't heard what's happening in Ferguson Mo

You are a moron.

That mob facing ISIS would all be dead for a while now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

hey don't ya know these people are just misunderstood, and we should EMBRACE THEM, not oppress them?
and that the VAST majority of them are peace loving an all that?
and that Israel should be condemned for standing up to these types of people?

I just got one question, IF the vast majority of them are peace loving etc etc etc, why don't THEY stand up to these people and stop them?

Look, BY, it wouldn't hurt you to do just a *bit* of reading on this subject, would it? That comment was pretty embarrassing, frankly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

To loosely quote Joe Biden, ISIS is a really big fucking deal. Barack even interrupted his golfing vacation to speak about it for a minute the other day

http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksat/news/2014/08/18/pol-obama-hiatus-vacation.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin
realllyyy guess you haven't heard what's happening in Ferguson Mo

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

To loosely quote Joe Biden, ISIS is a really big fucking deal. Barack even interrupted his golfing vacation to speak about it for a minute the other day

http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksat/news/2014/08/18/pol-obama-hiatus-vacation.html

Dude, enough with the golfing cracks, please. I generally agree with you, but this is just ridiculous. I don't much care for our current President either, but much as I dislike HIM, I believe in our country. Respect the position if not the man. That goes for others here as well. Have a little fucking respect. You may not have liked "W's" politics, but respect the damn position.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I don't believe the caliphate has the ability to attack the US like Russia does. Do you? It's not just who is likely to do so, but who can. ISIS isn't in a position to pose a direct threat to the US in the near future. Russia is in that position, but it's very unlikely that they'll exercise that opportunity.

9/11 ring any bells? A few Muslims with razor knives and a penchant to please Allah made for a big news day. And ISIS is known to be so radical that al-Qaeda has distanced itself from them
Throw in a Southern border that is so porous that Mexico may as well be a state.
No, no threat there... None at all.

quote:

(For bonus points, name the last time Putin swore that he would raise the Russian flag over the White House)
ISIS Threatens America: ‘We Will Raise The Flag Of Allah In The White House’
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/08/isis-threatens-america-we-will-raise-the-flag-of-allah-in-the-white-house/#ixzz3AzjVeIdV

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
I think the biggest questions here are: (1) Is ISIS or IS or ISIL, whatever they are, a threat to the homeland and to American interests abroad? The answer is yes, and so that means we need to do something. (2) Yes, Foley did put himself in harm's way and while you can't avenge every atrocity, clearly the ISIS mentality is that failure to avenge would mean more open season on Americans anywhere. At the end of the day, there isn't any real alternative than to eliminate ISIS entirely. It would have been easier to kill Hitler for his landscapes, you know. He was a bit more difficult later on.

Do you support attacking Russia? Do you support attacking pretty much every other country in the world?
Every single country could present some sort of threat to the USA and our interests abroad. And that's a problem. If you use the metric that anything that could present a threat to the USA or our interests abroad, you will give carte blanche to whatever administration is in the White House to attack whatever country it so desires. Do you really want to do that?
ISIS was fighting along side the rebels in Syria. They were fighting Assad. Did we give them arms for that fight? Well, we say we didn't, but do we know? I'm not saying we did, but I am saying it's possible. So, we could be - once again, for those keeping a mental list - could be waging war against an enemy that was armed by ourselves. This time, however, the time between arming them and fighting them is quite a bit shorter.
At this point in time, ISIS doesn't pose a direct threat to the USA. Only because we're so locked into ME oil does ISIS pose a threat to US interests. ISIS isn't another country. ISIS isn't bound to any territory. We can't know if we've routed them because they could be anywhere (sure as fuck sounds like al Qaeda all over again - and that is still going on). Can we really not think of anything more important to the US and US interests than a bunch of radical Islamic terrorists (and yes, this is but a faction within Islam, and not necessarily indicative of Islam in general) causing chaos and wreaking havoc in the ME?!?
Apparently, it's not just those who don't know history who will repeat it.

1) Russia? No. Neither Russia nor Putin has a death wish. Putin plays chess, not checkers. He's not going to launch an ICBM at the US. There is a lot we could do, but none of it involves troops.

I'm sorry, but you already put the criteria out there. Does Russia pose a threat to the homeland or US interests abroad? Yes, Russia certainly does. Thus, you support attacking Russia, too. Unless you just want to pick on a smaller opponent?
No, I said we had to do "something." Not "attack." Creating words to make your argument is not a good argument. "Something" could include putting our missile defense systems back in Poland, advocating for Ukranian membership in NATO, etc.

quote:

quote:

quote:

2) Metrics. That's right, you need a metric. Reasonable people can disagree on what that is. In my view, ISIS presents a relatively near-term threat of launching terrorist attacks on the homeland or on American interests abroad. In addition, left unchecked, they could take over additional parts of the Middle East and further jeopardize oil, etc. So, yes, i regard them as a much, much larger threat (in terms of dealing with them through combat operations) than Russia.

"American interests abroad"
What would those be? Should there even be any "American interests abroad" that we should be defending? Should we really insert ourselves into a foreign country for "American interests" and not direct threats to the USA?
Depends what those interests are. In some cases, we are bound by treaty. In other cases, American companies may have mutlibillion-dollar investments. In other cases, we may be setting a precedent if, for example, we allow ISIS to kidnap random American tourists from the heart of Europe. There are other interests that aren't worth protecting, obviously.

quote:

quote:

quote:

3) Did we arm ISIS in Syria? Maybe. You're right. We don't know. Look at what happened with the Taliban. Stupid decision if we did it.

al Qaeda, the Taliban, Iran, Iraq, the list goes on and on.

quote:

4) Since ISIS, as does AQ, value death more than life, and since they make Putin look like a moral giant, and since they are absolutely holy warriors and growing by leaps and bounds, yes, I think they are different and must be dealt with now. Before they metastasize into something much worse.

Never know when the Russian bear might come growling back, though. Better deal with it now before it metastasizes into something much worse.
Don't you see how your "criteria" could very easily lead to a shitstorm the likes of which we've never seen before?!? What country doesn't pose a threat? China? North Korea? Cuba? Mexico? Canada? India? France? Okay, I'll give you France.
Any country could be labeled as being a threat to the USA or American interests abroad. Your ideas would make for a very lonely country.
Incorrect. I didn't spell out detailed criteria. I said reasonable people could disagree. Labeling a country a threat isn't sufficient. You need to make a compelling case before you just go all-in on them. So again you are not correctly representing my ideas. Out of the countries you listed, the only one that could conceivably pose a threat requiring a military option is N. Korea. They collaborate with Iran. We have a treaty with S. Korea, also. Does that mean we need to attack N. Korea today? No. Kim Jong-un doesn't want to be martyred.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin
realllyyy guess you haven't heard what's happening in Ferguson Mo

Much as has been shown from Ferguson, I've yet to see any beheadings from there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

To loosely quote Joe Biden, ISIS is a really big fucking deal. Barack even interrupted his golfing vacation to speak about it for a minute the other day

http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksat/news/2014/08/18/pol-obama-hiatus-vacation.html

Dude, enough with the golfing cracks, please. I generally agree with you, but this is just ridiculous. I don't much care for our current President either, but much as I dislike HIM, I believe in our country. Respect the position if not the man. That goes for others here as well. Have a little fucking respect. You may not have liked "W's" politics, but respect the damn position.

I think the issue here is that Obama does not believe in our country. He bows to potentates, supports the Muslim Brotherhood, ignores the Iranian opposition, golfs, laughs inappropriately, acts as though he is an intellectual but doesn't even know how to pronounce "corpseman." The problem here is that Obama hates America -- what it is and what it stands for. Now, as contrast, I despise Wilson and FDR. I'm no fan of Carter, and not a great fan of Clinton's either. But I don't doubt for one minute that they loved the US, just as I don't doubt Neville Chamberlain loved Britain. I have seen no evidence whatsoever, and much contrary to it (prior associations, Ayers, Wright, et al.) that strongly suggests Obama does detest the country. Do I respect the USA and what it stands for, yes. Do I respect the Office of the President as an abstraction, yes, even when Carter was there. But I do not respect the Office as a practical matter given who the present occupant is.