Massacre... a consequence of US leaving Iraq...


moralist

Recommended Posts

Michael. I have a couple of very simple questions for you to consider...

Why aren't the "decent Muslims" standing up to the Islamic fascists when they overwhelmingly outnumber them?

Why aren't the "decent Muslims" prevailing over the Islamic Fascists?

Greg,

You will find some answers in this thread.

Short answer. "Decent Muslims" are standing up to Islamic fascists. Most, however, are living their normal day-to-day lives and not paying attention. Even here in the USA, voting turnout is dismal. Most people simply don't involve themselves in politics. I imagine when the "decent Muslims" discover what is facing them with the fundamentalists, it is too late.

But there are good signs. They sure as hell threw Morsi's ass out in Egypt.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 267
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Adam, the Muslim Brotherhood Army marching across Sinai gets destroyed there. In any case, they tried to take over Egypt and failed.

The real military advantage is the threat of whacking that dam. The actual destruction would be incomparably greater than bulldozing the entirety of Gaza into the Mediterranean. The special moral base of Israel would go out the window. It's not what God "gave" the Jews (that's cake frosting unless you believe that with all your irrational heart), it's the Holocaust. Both countries would be destroyed in different ways. The Israeli lobby in the US would become an ineffectual joke. Not only would the Jews lose Israel, they'd lose most of America. It would be better for Israel to use nukes than to blow that dam.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

r

We also don't know where things would stand today if the U.S. had kept troops in Iraq.

Ghs

We do know that the full force of Western military might would be no match for IS. We also know that to allow IS to expand and strengthen will be a great morale booster to the global Jihadists. We also know that it is a war that ultimately we are all eventually going to have to fight. And we know that the longer it is evaded the more tragic it will become.

If it's the last intervention by the USA for many years (by a Coalition force, preferably) this would be the one that counts. ISIS must be eradicated, whatever the uncertain geo-political outcomes. I think I see multiple stirrings by Muslims worldwide, many more beginning to give -at least- their tacit support to Islamicists.

IS is the point of that spear. The silver lining? Many of the vilest humans in memory are all together in one place in open territory.

Where does the U.S. Constitution authorize the American government to eradicate vile human beings in other countries? I must have missed that clause.

Ghs

Pretty much unanswerable. Quite so, but where was the clause to invade Iraq in the first place? (Easy, in hindsight - at the time I was ambivalent about it. Now, I would not even try express my feelings about the sheer scale of all the losses without gain). A following question: how did the morally selfish and essential 'war on terror' become a war on another country? Ahh, rhetorical and gratuitous I know. Still, it goes to show that a nation should pick its conflicts - and its friends and allies - most carefully and objectively. Iraq was an irrational exercise in futility, and its consequences leaves one final responsibility for the USA - I think. Which, is with minimal deployment of US soldiers, aiding the Kurds to get rid of IS (one more terror gang, after all). Then it's good night nurse, and Iraq can be left to its own devices. The war on terror has to continue. I believe it should be accomplished with fast and unpredictable in-and-out missions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Seven Stages of Interventionism

1. There is a humanitarian crisis. Bombing must commence immediately to help the good guys.

2. Bombing is not enough. U.S. forces are required on the ground, albeit temporarily, to ensure a stable government.

3. We're making progress, but U.S. troops cannot leave until the occupied country's army is well trained.

4. If we pull out now, the thousands of American losses will have been in vain.

5. U.S. forces performed heroically. We saved a country from tyranny.

6. It's not our fault the local government is so damned corrupt.

7. There is a humanitarian crisis. Bombing must commence immediately to help the good guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Seven Stages of Interventionism

1. There is a humanitarian crisis. Bombing must commence immediately to help the good guys.

2. Bombing is not enough. U.S. forces are required on the ground, albeit temporarily, to ensure a stable government.

3. We're making progress, but U.S. troops cannot leave until the occupied country's army is well trained.

4. If we pull out now, the thousands of American losses will have been in vain.

5. U.S. forces performed heroically. We saved a country from tyranny.

6. It's not our fault the local government is so damned corrupt.

7. There is a humanitarian crisis. Bombing must commence immediately to help the good guys.

Ah the circularity of controlling your citizenry with corrupt, costly foreign policy.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Seven Stages of Interventionism

1. There is a humanitarian crisis. Bombing must commence immediately to help the good guys.

2. Bombing is not enough. U.S. forces are required on the ground, albeit temporarily, to ensure a stable government.

3. We're making progress, but U.S. troops cannot leave until the occupied country's army is well trained.

4. If we pull out now, the thousands of American losses will have been in vain.

5. U.S. forces performed heroically. We saved a country from tyranny.

6. It's not our fault the local government is so damned corrupt.

7. There is a humanitarian crisis. Bombing must commence immediately to help the good guys.

Sickly amusing, FF. However, that's my point -- nation x avoiding such subjectivity and endless cycles of irrationality. I think the presumption placed upon the USA (internally and externally) to be the perennial good guy coming to the rescue is immoral. However, I've also come to believe the intervention/isolation dilemma is a false dichotomy. Not one or the other, but rather policies founded upon self-interest and shared values seem to be the rational course. I'll be accused of naive simplification, but my view is that a nation should act like an individual would. Friends are essential, trading partners necessary, and allies practical. You mess with my friends, and you mess with me - also the deals and treaties I make, I will honour - though not to a sacrificial degree.

(Sorry, guys. I am butting in big time. It's not my country, except for my long identification with America and what it stands for).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Francisco Ferrer

The Seven Stages of Interventionism 1. There is a humanitarian crisis. Bombing must commence immediately to help the good guys.2. Bombing is not enough. U.S. forces are required on the ground, albeit temporarily, to ensure a stable government.3. We're making progress, but U.S. troops cannot leave until the occupied country's army is well trained.4. If we pull out now, the thousands of American losses will have been in vain.5. U.S. forces performed heroically. We saved a country from tyranny.6. It's not our fault the local government is so damned corrupt.7. There is a humanitarian crisis. Bombing must commence immediately to help the good guys.
If America didn't have an interventionist foreign policy, today we would be playing second fiddle to the British Empire. Or worse, the Nazis, as allied victory was only possible due to the US taking over much of the infrastructure and trade networks of Britain in the Middle East, as well as Roosevelt's Total War policies and the extreme amount of economic control they required.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Francisco Ferrer

The Seven Stages of Interventionism 1. There is a humanitarian crisis. Bombing must commence immediately to help the good guys. 2. Bombing is not enough. U.S. forces are required on the ground, albeit temporarily, to ensure a stable government. 3. We're making progress, but U.S. troops cannot leave until the occupied country's army is well trained. 4. If we pull out now, the thousands of American losses will have been in vain. 5. U.S. forces performed heroically. We saved a country from tyranny. 6. It's not our fault the local government is so damned corrupt. 7. There is a humanitarian crisis. Bombing must commence immediately to help the good guys.
If America didn't have an interventionist foreign policy, today we would be playing second fiddle to the British Empire. Or worse, the Nazis, as allied victory was only possible due to the US taking over much of the infrastructure and trade networks of Britain in the Middle East, as well as Roosevelt's Total War policies and the extreme amount of economic control they required.

You can't make a case for interventionism with this terrible rendition of history, both real and imagined. You are only arguing for the world of today, and not very well.

--Brant

this is a difficult place for intellectual pinatas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Infidel's contention is strengthened by the tacit approval of the billions of so-called "decent moderate Muslims" who have NO problem with their religion being perverted by Islamic fascists. Why? Because that perversion is already built into the religion itself.

Greg

They are not in fact perverting it. It is often stated that they are, but never is any example provided of just how in fact it is being perverted.

Of course. The perversion was already in the religion itself.

It's up to the Muslims to reform their own religion... except there simply are not enough good Muslims to do it... but there are plenty for a rise of a "Fourth Reich".

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael. I have a couple of very simple questions for you to consider...

Why aren't the "decent Muslims" standing up to the Islamic fascists when they overwhelmingly outnumber them?

Why aren't the "decent Muslims" prevailing over the Islamic Fascists?

Greg,

You will find some answers in this thread.

Short answer. "Decent Muslims" are standing up to Islamic fascists.

Unfortunately way too few...

Most, however, are living their normal day-to-day lives and not paying attention.

How do you ignore chopped heads?

Even here in the USA, voting turnout is dismal. Most people simply don't involve themselves in politics.

Voting is only a symptom. The real cause is the people who have created a government that operates by exactly the same values they live by..

I imagine when the "decent Muslims" discover what is facing them with the fundamentalists, it is too late.

Bullseye, Michael.

By then, it will be all out World War between Western civilization and the Islamic fascists.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Brant Gaede

You can't make a case for interventionism with this terrible rendition of history, both real and imagined. You are only arguing for the world of today, and not very well. --Brantthis is a difficult place for intellectual pinatas
Today's world is exceptionally nazi-free, so I can't complain. I don't think your criticism was very constructive, as you didn't back up your charge that my rendition of history is "terrible" with anything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine when the "decent Muslims" discover what is facing them with the fundamentalists, it is too late.

Bullseye, Michael.

By then, it will be all out World War between Western civilization and the Islamic fascists.

Greg

Not going to happen. That would be way too much against way too little.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Brant Gaede

You can't make a case for interventionism with this terrible rendition of history, both real and imagined. You are only arguing for the world of today, and not very well. --Brant this is a difficult place for intellectual pinatas
Today's world is exceptionally nazi-free, so I can't complain. I don't think your criticism was very constructive, as you didn't back up your charge that my rendition of history is "terrible" with anything.

I know. This is an Objectivist site. Your ideas do not engage the philosophy. Your knowledge of history is full of confirmation bias. I'm truly sorry because as a troll you seem to be a nice guy, but you are a troll here even if you don't know it. No, I'm not going to back up my charge. As you will now discover, there's a lot more I'm not going to do, like calling you a troll twice.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Brant Gaede

I have stated upfront that I am not an objectivist in my intro post.

If it is your personal belief that I'm trolling simply because I hold some views contrary to your own, that's fine. We can agree to disagree.

However, I think it's a bit disingenuous of you to attack my argument (and me personally) while not extending me the courtesy of doing the same for you.

As for myself, I think it's possible for people to respectfully disagree with each other, even when it comes to our most deeply held and dear convictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real military advantage is the threat of whacking that dam. The actual destruction would be incomparably greater than bulldozing the entirety of Gaza into the Mediterranean. The special moral base of Israel would go out the window. It's not what God "gave" the Jews (that's cake frosting unless you believe that with all your irrational heart), it's the Holocaust. Both countries would be destroyed in different ways. The Israeli lobby in the US would become an ineffectual joke. Not only would the Jews lose Israel, they'd lose most of America. It would be better for Israel to use nukes than to blow that dam.

Are you talking about the Aswan Dam, Brant? If yes, what possible scenario for Israel attacking Egypt's dam do you foresee? The two countries are bound by a peace treaty -- I don't find any indication that blowing that dam is part of any Israeli strategy, nor can I suggest under what circumstances Israel would think it a smart or effective thing to do.

On the subject of the Iraqi dam seized by ISIS forces (Mosul dam), it looks like ISIS will be forced from the dam under US attacks from the air and Pershmerga (KRG armed forces). The latest news today suggests this battle will be won against ISIS. They have at the moment few conventional arms to elude destruction from the skies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you talking about the Aswan Dam, Brant? If yes, what possible scenario for Israel attacking Egypt's dam do you foresee? The two countries are bound by a peace treaty -- I don't find any indication that blowing that dam is part of any Israeli strategy, nor can I suggest under what circumstances Israel would think it a smart or effective thing to do.

On the subject of the Iraqi dam seized by ISIS forces (Mosul dam), it looks like ISIS will be forced from the dam under US attacks from the air and Pershmerga (KRG armed forces). The latest news today suggests this battle will be won against ISIS. They have at the moment few conventional arms to elude destruction from the skies.

Bill: I was talking about the Aswan Dam as a doomsday scenario.

I heard of the same report on the Mosul dam beginning to be secured by anti-Isis forces...

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Brant Gaede I have stated upfront that I am not an objectivist in my intro post. If it is your personal belief that I'm trolling simply because I hold some views contrary to your own, that's fine. We can agree to disagree. However, I think it's a bit disingenuous of you to attack my argument (and me personally) while not extending me the courtesy of doing the same for you. As for myself, I think it's possible for people to respectfully disagree with each other, even when it comes to our most deeply held and dear convictions.

You're not conversant with or engaging the philosophy. If you were to attack the philosophy, that would be fine. I attack it all the time.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There ARE good muslims out there, the problem as I see it is the west's refusal to use techniques like the Israeli's in ferreting out the moles/radicals etc. They informed us long ago what we shouldddd be doing to protect our airline's security and we ignored them. We still ignore them. I would feel much safer flying anywhere on an Israeli jet than on a Canadian or American one...

Also one cannot ignore that within Israel there are over a million muslims living quiet happily and peacefully. They cherish living in Israel because in their homeland groups like ISIS would kill them for not following ISIS's brand of Islam.

Maybe the answer is to screen better, protect the western values better and just get the hell out of the Middle East completely. Don't trade with them, don't help them militarily or otherwise and just let them kill one another until they have their own enlightenment period. It makes no sense to support the "left" hand of Islam vs the "right" hand of Islam. Just leave them rot with their own choices. (And let them self destruct/kill one another). I do however support the aid given the Yazidi people and help them relocate out of that mess.

Maybe ostracism will in fact work the best. No monetary aid, no technology, no medical advances, no export of food. Just pull out completely. Then if they attack us, kill the living shit out of them.

As an aside I too was against the Iraq invasion. When Chrétien stood up to Bush and basically said "fuck you" I was pretty proud of him even though I did not like the liberal party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bullseye, Michael.

By then, it will be all out World War between Western civilization and the Islamic fascists.

Greg

There may be such a war but do not be too anxious to have it. We might loose this one. War with the Islamic Fascists means war with the Islamic domains, the dar as Salaam whose population is 1.2 billion and which has people placed all over the world. The fascists and fanatics are well embedded in the population as a whole so we would end up killing tens of millions, perhaps even hundreds of millions and still not get all the fascist bastards. And if there is such a war two broad oceans will not protect the continental United States this time, as it did back in the 1940s.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now