Fire department can’t put out every fire - should it not bother putting out *any *fires, then?
Arsonists, Fire Department or just a bunch of Keystone Cops?
I didn’t express myself well; that’s surely not what I think.
What I was trying to say (but failed to do well) was that it sounds awfully disingenuous for Ravenman to claim that he’s against ISIS strictly for humanitarian reasons. There must be other reasons since there are so many other areas in the world besides ISIS-land where people are being oppressed (including some relatively close to the US). So, why would he choose to use the US’s finite resources to go after ISIS? It can’t be solely for humanitarian reasons since there is nothing unique about ISIS from a humanitarian perspective.
In other words, what are the other, truly motivating factors influencing him (and those with similar opinions) to want to go after ISIS?
Trolling is not permitted on the SDMB.
Stop it. Warning issued.
[ /Moderating ]
Why don’t we concentrate on Mexico. They have beheaded a bunch of people there also but we don’t seem to care about that. We are even more responsible for what is going on in that country what with our drug laws and drug habits, but of course that doesn’t matter to most people in this country. No, instead we are worried about ISIL. I just don’t get it.
You break it, you buy it. Fine. By 2005 The United States stabilized Iraq long enough to have fairly open free elections. The people chose al-Maliki. We advised him to include both Sunni AND Shiite brokers in positions of authority, he chose not too. In 2011 he told the US to leave, staying would mean we would have become an occupying force. There are US soldiers stationed in Okinawa, Germany, South Korea. They are there with their government’s acceptance.
Not only is Daesh not America’s fault, we never had any legitimate cards to play to help or hurt their cause.
And yet Daesh is America’s problem because we have a massive advanced military with global reach. We CAN intervene. When horrible shit happens someone on Earth we are always culpable for the suffering that could have been avoided had we chosen not to intervene.
Hi up_the_junction, please watch this site for your Syria news. Its a map of Syria with markers linking you to various twitter accounts reporting on the war. Two things you might find interesting: 1) there’s a huge variety of media sources involved in the reports on the map; 2) Russia spends most of its time bombing rebels-other-than-ISIS. In fact I can guarantee most reports of their bombing runs will be around Aleppo and Latakia. They’re there to promote Assad, not fight ISIS.
For those of you who believe regional powers should handle ISIS, I want you to describe in two paragraphs what it will look like in Iraq and Syria if we leave ISIS to Turkey, the Gulf States, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan and Russia. Include the various Kurdish factions, the various Syrian Islamic militant groups, the various Syrian/Iraqi ethnic groups such as Turkmen, Assyrians and Yazidis, and the Syrian refugees in your answers. What I really want to see is a plausible sequence of events that doesn’t involve ISIS having permanent territory.
Another thing you might find interesting about the website is it shows the American-brokered cease fire has been largely upheld.
Sorry, didn’t mean to sound snarky at all. I understand now.
I think the three primary reasons America intervenes in ISIS but not in most African issues are because:
-
As someone mentioned, “You break it, you buy it;” the US invaded Iraq in 2003 and hence has a certain responsibility to see to it that things are stable and well in Iraq;
-
ISIS is a terrorist group and if they could, they’d probably be striking America and/or killing American citizens. The Rwandan genocide in Africa, for instance, did not involve terrorists who were going to strike America, and so despite all of its horror, there was less national-security reason to go after Rwandan killers than after ISIS terrorists.
-
Oil. Now, the US doesn’t need oil from Iraq, but anything that affects the Middle East could be bad for the world economy. Most African genocides, slavery, etc., do not affect the world economy much. Again, not saying that we SHOULDN’T intervene in Africa, I’m saying that’s why we don’t.
And then there is of course the ISIS genocide of people in Iraq, etc.
This doesn’t address the OP’s question.
I hate people matter-of-factly saying we created ISIS: Sure, we had a big part in destablizing the region with the absurd and illegal iraq war. But that’s not the same thing as founding a group so extreme that it’s abhorred by even al qaeda: that rapes, mutilates, desecrates for [del]fun[/del] extremist ideologies.
And once again the people in favour of doing nothing want to have it both ways:
: It’s all our fault, so better from now on to do nothing
: It’s nothing to do with us; let’s do nothing
I’ll bite that bullet, if you’ll excuse the pun. I don’t think continuous slaughter characterizes the region, that’s merely a perception fueled by only hearing about the conflicts and no other news.
But anyway, peacekeeping forces can and have helped a great deal in many conflicts. And in many places, such as poorer African countries, relatively few soldiers and little equipment are required.
It mostly doesn’t happen because the electorate of developed countries essentially don’t care. A handful of American, British or French soldiers dying in some african country most people can’t find on a map is enough to prompt a withdrawal.****
(missed edit window)
I also wanted to say destabilizing iraq is only part of what allowed ISIS to emerge. The (arguably bigger) factor is the chaos in Syria.
And that chaos was spontaneous, you think?
No. Do you think it was caused by the US?
Quite frankly, yes.
Admittedly it is quite murky, with Qatar, the Saudis, Israel an Turkey also playing the field, to say the US is the main instigator.
With the track record of the US staging coups and revolts over the past 60 years or so, you think this one, this one, is really genuine?
Interesting how you don’t see Iran as a factor too.
Until I have good reason to think otherwise, yes. And cynical consiracy theory memes “I bet America had a hand in this!” do not constitute good reason.
There was a popular uprising in Syria, just like in many neighbouring countries, brutally put down by Assad. Then it all kicked off.
But you seem to disagree. So which one of these are you saying:
- That the whole arab spring was secretly instigated and managed by the US
- That the arab spring was a popular uprising, but the US brought it to syria specifically (because…reasons)
- That the US made / helped assad brutally put down the protests (again, why?)
- Something else?
What benifit would Iran have from a dysfunctional Syria???
Or are you saying that they are a cause exactly because the close ties with Assad and the route to the mediterranean, and that something just had to be done about that?
No, I’m say that they’re more deeply involved in Syria than any other nation, and they have no small involvement in Iraq, too. I’m also saying that if they hadn’t spent tens of billions of dollars and thousands of soldiers to prop up the Assad regime, it would have fallen long before DAESH was a factor. DAESH is a direct result of the civil war lasting as long as it has.
Currently, DAESH’s continued existence only helps Iran, as it gives them an excuse to crush the remaining legitimate opposition to Assad’s rule, and gives them international stature as DAESH’s purported enemy.
Several weapon drops, when the protests escalated, are a good reason.
Some of the first successes of ISIS and Nusra against the Syrian and Iraqi army were due to them having night-vision goggles.
- As said, wouldn’t put it beyond them. Would you?
- Maybe Tunisia and Egypt were genuine. Lybia no.
- What??
- Could be it is all Saudi plus Qatar and US is only sideways involved.
No, because that would be dumb.