How long? How many bombs? How many civilian deaths?

[cali]

How much infrastructure damage? What is the metric for success? How much will it cost? Will the cost of a new war or a new front on a war, impact budgets for infrastructure and social welfare? Will our military action boost recruitment of ISIS?


I think these are fair questions to ask.

And Arab allies are not, this is a U.S. intervention. Yes, we got other countries to ally with us, but this will be widely viewed as U.S. directed and led.

And how ironic is it that Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two very oppressive, fundamentalist regimes are our allies? Not to mention that individuals in both countries have provided funding for ISIS- and in Qatar it's been done quite openly.

[JEB]

1. Obvious questions that should have been answered before any bombs fell.

But I suspect that the cost is regarded as a benefit and that civilian death has become acceptable. We got us another bloody resource war featuring lots of money making for the MIC.

[Bigmack]

2. You are missing the point....

... we need to throw our weight around in the world. We need to scare the brown people. We need to use our nifty war toys. We need to feed the jingoism that is a central part of our national character.

All that covers up the moral erectile disfunction this country has ... we can't seem to find our place in the world unless that place involves bombing the shit out of somebody.

I don't believe in much... but karma has a way of coming back on people, and karma is a bitch.

[Autumn]

3. Guess none of that matters. When this is over there will be another.

It's an unending thing.

[NightWatcher]

4. but but but they beheaded a couple of journalists

I'd bet we've already killed at least 2 innocent civilians who just happened to be less important than journalists who knowingly entered a hostile zone.

[bullwinkle428]

6. Good thing those allied countries don't behead anyone. Oh, wait a minute...

[NightWatcher]

22. Saudi Arabia whacked two dozen heads in August

and they are our war buddy

[kwassa]

34. ISIS has murdered thousands of people.

and will murder thousands more.

Anyone they capture gets executed, and the video of the shooting gets posted online. They execute hundreds of people at a time.

[NightWatcher]

42. So do the juntas in Central and South America, Boko Harum, ....

We do not belong in the middle of a fight between religious sects that have been around for more than 2 thousand years. If the Sunni want to wipe out the Shia and the Wahabi want to destroy the Kurds, or whatever, it concerns us not.

This is not our fight

[kwassa]

43. This is different, and it will be our fight if we do nothing.

This is simply another version of our battle with Al Queda .... except this group is worse than Al Queda, who weren't violent enough for them. ISIS grew out of Al Queda. They will bring it to us with all the members they have recruited from the US with passports to this country, potentially some of the greatest terrorists ever.

This is a fight between fanatacism and moderation, essentially, not between religious sects, as the ISIS group is murdering Sunnis as well as Shiites, and destroying historic Sunni shrines, demanding that all adhere to their extreme version of Islam or die.

[kwassa]

5. How many threads will you start on the same topic?

If you start one more, will you convince more people?

And what is you alternative means of stopping ISIS, who is a threat to the entire region and to us?

[msanthrope]

7. Beat me to it. Of course, this makes a nice change from the HRC threads. nt

[m-lekktor]

9. i hope she starts many more, her threads on this topic are excellent. nt

[bigwillq]

15. This

[L0oniX]

17. ^^^this^^^

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. "You're with us or you're against us"? We should be silent in the face of war?

[kwassa]

23. Should we do nothing in the face of ISIS?

What is your solution to this problem?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Nobody has a "solution" to the problem.

Do you?

[kwassa]

32. Doing something has a potential of a solution. Doing nothing has no potential.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. It sure as hell has a potential for making the situation worse.

We did "something" in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Iraq, Afghanistan. To name but a few of our "do something" efforts. All with the promise of a solution.

[kwassa]

38. But is has a potential to make something better, too.

at least prevent another humanitarian disaster, like the ones we ignored in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, or in Rwanda. Millions died, no one intervened.

And doing nothing, as I said, has no potential to prevent the mass murder by ISIS.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. All wars are based on Good Intentions.

Even the psychopaths of ISIS have what they conceive to be "good intentions".

They do it, so we should do it, is a piss poor excuse for waging war.

[kwassa]

40. No. Most aren't, actually.

The intiators might claim a noble cause as an overlay for that which is either a power grab or ethnic hatred, or other forms of not-so-noble impulses.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. No kidding. All "leaders" adopt the Noble Cause justification.

Sometimes they believe it. Just as our leaders have adopted many, many, times in the past to justify our long list of wars.

Will this "Noble Cause" actually solve anything in ME? Will the Shia, Sunnis, Kurds, Christians, Jews, respond to our good intentions with real peace negotiations. See Palestine/Israel for precedents.

[kwassa]

44. If we don't try, we will have a disaster on our hands.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. And, if we try, we'll probably have a disaster on our hands.

[grahamhgreen]

11. Answer the questions. They'll be asked until answered, duh.

[cali]

12. don't like it? don't read my ops. simple.

I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm presenting information- and just anti this military intervention and asking questions.

I don't know what the answer is. I do know that recent history informs us that our actions will more likely than not, add to the clusterfuck that we created in the region. I don't see ISIS as a threat to the U.S.

[mythology]

20. Except you didn't actually present any information

You asked some questions, but I don't think that any answer would satisfy you.

You also didn't ask how many would die if we do nothing? I don't believe that doing nothing removes moral culpability.

For example if I saw somebody bleeding after an accident and I just kept walking, leaving them to die, then my choice to not act resulted in their death.

[cali]

24. I'm not looking for "satisfaction"

and spurious, sophomoric comparisons such as the one you give are just so ridiculous.

Oh, and I've never suggested doing nothing.

Now return to your happy warrior mode in threads cheering bombing. I know, I know. you proudly stand with the President.

[kwassa]

29. and what have you suggested doing?

[kwassa]

28. You are trying to convince everyone. Hence, all these threads.

and we who see ISIS as a great threat to the region and the US will disagree with you.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

16. Who the fuck do you think you are? If you don't like it, go outside or something. nt

[kwassa]

30. King of the Universe, of course.

Bow down!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. In war, truth is the first casualty. Aeschylus

There seems to be many here that are echoing Bush's "If you're not with us, you're against us" mentality if anyone questions the wisdom or humanity of waging yet another war.

From a BBC article this morning:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29004253

To understand how the Islamic State economy functions is to delve into a murky world of middlemen and shady business dealings, in which "loyal ideologues" on differing sides spot business opportunities and pounce upon them.

IS exports about 9,000 barrels of oil per day at prices ranging from about $25-$45 (£15-£27).

Some of this goes to Kurdish middlemen up towards Turkey, some goes for domestic IS consumption and some goes to the Assad regime, which in turn sells weapons back to the group.

"It is a traditional war economy," notes Jamestown analyst Wladimir van Wilgenburg.

[cali]

13. yes, there's decidedly a "with us or against us" contingent here.

Not surprising given the partisanship.

[randome]

14. Three years. Eleven thousand and six. Sixty-three. A lot.

The reluctance of anyone to ally themselves with ISIS. Two hundred six billion dollars. A more united Mideast. No.

Anything else you want to know?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[cherokeeprogressive]

18. Long. Lots. Way too many.

[morningfog]

19. Forever. Thousands. We don't care how many.

Hey! We got some Arab nations to join our illegal war, that makes it not illegal or something!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. The "civilian deaths" card is a bad one to play when opposing fighting ISIS

because the answer is "probably significantly fewer than if not".

The strong argument against doing so, in my view, is the likely benefit per financial cost: US air strikes will probably do some good, hindering ISIS's depredations somewhat and saving more innocent lives than they take, but the money could almost certainly save significantly more lives elsewhere.

[cali]

25. You haven't a clue as to whether or not that is true.

For all you or I know, it could be significantly more- particularly if one is considering the long run. Perhaps military intervention will result in greater instability and a wider civil war in Syria.

I think your argument is just... silly.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. Hence "probably" rather than "certainly".

Yes, it is certainly possible that US air strikes could do more harm than good, and we'll never know for sure.

But your argument applies with rather greater strength to your own post OP than to my response - it's rhetorical questions are based on the assumption that air strikes will increase, rather than decrease, civilian deaths and infrastructure damage.

To answer you specific point, I think that a more-bombed ISIS is likely (by no means certain) to result in less instability in Syria than a less-bombed ISIS.

[Maedhros]

35. Bombing ISIL is what they want.

Their recruitment will skyrocket. Getting bombed by the U.S. legitimizes their movement and gives them credibility. We have seen this dynamic play out over and over with our drone campaigns.

You are engaging in pure fantasy in order to try and make Obama's war-making palatable.

[kwassa]

31. no, his guess on the subject is different than yours.

You simply want him to agree with your guess. You don't know, either. Nobody does in any definitive way.

I think ISIS is a major threat. You don't.

[Comrade Grumpy]

33. Well, so far, the air strikes appear to be so pinpoint they've hardly been noticed.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Sep-23/271668-residents-flee-raqqa-after-us-led-air-strikes-witnesses.ashx#axzz3EA7DQVnS

<snip>

The U.S.-led coalition has carried out at least twenty strikes inside Raqqa province, a stronghold of ISIS.

The attacks, which took place in the early hours of Tuesday, hit several buildings and military bases occupied by IS in the province, including the 93rd Brigade and Tabqa military airport, which the group seized last month, as well as the main administrative building in the city.

The two-storey building, which lies in a densely populated area in the city centre, was used as an office by the group, which had turned its basement into a prison.

The fate of prisoners was not immediately clear.

"In the city itself, the destruction is not visible. You can barely notice it. Besides, the only thing that was damaged in the attack was the administrative building but it was not completely destroyed," Abo Mohamad said.

"The strike was so precise that it only hit the building itself, the surrounding houses were not damaged. They hit the building with four rockets."

<snip>

Maybe tough luck for those prisoners, though.

[sabrina 1]

36. Does it matter? There are policies in place and the US, as Rove once told us 'is an Empire now'.

Empires are different from democracies. Empires invade other countries for their resources which they need in order to maintain their Imperial Status.

Rove was, apparently right. We the people have NO say in anything our government does.

So why even ask them for answers?

It's up to the people now to stop wasting energy and time trying to get some accountability from this government, it just isn't going to happen.

However if the people want change badly enough, they have the power to get it.

They can start by never electing anyone who has a history of voting for all these foreign adventures and working hard to produce better and more honest candidates.

It will happen, sooner or later, it always has throughout history. When it will happen, who knows? But not anytime soon so long as there are apologists to help keep this whole rotten system going.

[JI7]

45. we would have to cut off the entire middle east including Israel

and that's not going to happen.