All the reports are that they're taking over city after city in Iraq. I'm still not willing to send troops into harms way and get them killed in Iraq, and I don't want to start another trillion dollar war with hundreds of thousands of troops. But at this point I think that air strikes are kind of an in between solution, short of all out war but hopefully something that will help stop ISIS from taking over the country. I'm not in favor of getting involved in wars in which there's no threat to U.S national security but simply a bad dictator that we don't like, such as when we invaded Iraq, or when we got rid of Gaddafi. But I support military action in rare situations when there's actually a threat to America, and I don't think that we can just completely ignore a group that's beheaded two U.S citizens and has threatened to attack the United States. I think we have the right to defend ourselves, and at this point I believe that military action against this group is simply self defense and not at all similar to our past interventions in Iraq, Libya, Vietnam, etc.
Ted Cruz: We ought to bomb ISIS back to the stone age
All the reports are that they're taking over city after city in Iraq. I'm still not willing to send troops into harms way and get them killed in Iraq, and I don't want to start another trillion dollar war with hundreds of thousands of troops. But at this point I think that air strikes are kind of an in between solution, short of all out war but hopefully something that will help stop ISIS from taking over the country. I'm not in favor of getting involved in wars in which there's no threat to U.S national security but simply a bad dictator that we don't like, such as when we invaded Iraq, or when we got rid of Gaddafi. But I support military action in rare situations when there's actually a threat to America, and I don't think that we can just completely ignore a group that's beheaded two U.S citizens and has threatened to attack the United States. I think we have the right to defend ourselves, and at this point I believe that military action against this group is simply self defense and not at all similar to our past interventions in Iraq, Libya, Vietnam, etc.
Link? Sure they have some territory in Northern Iraq but I'm curious how many populated urban areas they actually control.
So, the fact that people from a certain group from a certain region threaten us gives us the right to bomb that region? You would never apply this reasoning to individuals (unless you believe I have the right to bomb the house of someone who threatens my life), why do you do so for the government?
Just from a utilitarian perspective, which do you think is more likely to harm our national security: ISIS as it is now, or the blowback that will result from the US directly bombing and provoking ISIS? These people hate the US with a fiery passion, and there's probably nothing they desire more than a direct confrontation in their own territory (whether on the ground or in the air). Plus, the fact that they're taking on the US will undoubtedly be a boon for their recruiting.
The blowback has already occurred due to 60-70 years of interventionist U.S policies as well as the initial air strikes in Iraq, so I think we have to finish what we started with the air strikes. They aren't going to just leave us alone and forgive us if we decide to leave them alone. The damage and the blowback has already occurred due to past U.S foreign interventions. Now we've reached a point where we have to deal with the blowback and defend ourselves.
I'm not advocating "bombing the region." I'm just advocating targeted air strikes to degrade ISIS and keep them from taking over Iraq.
green73
Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 13,670
So, you believe that past airstrikes have resulted in blowback, but you think that these just won't and will make all of it go away? Repeating the same mistakes over and over again is what got us into this mess in the first place. Bombing them won't do a thing other than help with their recruiting and make them even MORE likely to attack us. This is a decentralized terrorist group spread across miles of desert and being constantly fed by the conflict in Syria as well as funded by Saudi and Qatari donors with deep pockets. The idea that bombing will just make it all go away is the exact same lie they sell us every time. Every time, we buy it and end up playing right into our enemies' hands.
Also, if bombing a country that threatens to attack us qualifies as "defending ourselves" would you also support bombing North Korea and Iran?
Airstrikes = bombing. As I'm sure you'll agree, ISIS controls a large amount of territory. Airstrikes, even "targeted" ones, will mean killing plenty of innocent people under ISIS occupation.
What does "degrade" mean? You're assuming that ISIS has a fixed supply of weapons and fighters and can just be whittled down if we keep bombing long enough. As I said in my previous post, they are being fueled by fighters flowing into Iraq from the civil war in Syria (in addition to foreign volunteers enticed in part by the idea of fighting the US) and they have a funding stream from wealthy donors in the Gulf states. We're playing right into their hands by putting American blood and treasure at risk and thinking we can just destroy them quickly and easily. Same mistake we've made countless times before. Either we will give up after wasting tons of lives and taxpayer dollars or we will be there for a LONG time.
As for "taking over Iraq" I'd like to see a cite. Has ISIS made any major advance lately? They already have Russia, Iran, Syria, Turkey, and the Kurdish Peshmerga fighting them. No need for us to get involved and increase the risk of even more blowback.
Last edited:
I think the blowback has already occurred, and now we're at a point where we have to defend ourselves from the blowback that has already taken place. Bombing them at this point isn't going to make them more likely to attack us, because they already want to attack us and kill all of us. Do you believe that they'll just leave us alone if we leave them alone?
No. I don't think that either Iran or North Korea are a threat to our national security. They're both third world countries that are both contained where they are and aren't expanding. Iran doesn't hardly have a military to speak of. They couldn't attack us if they wanted to, and they've never made any indication that they wish to attack the United States. On the other hand, ISIS is a group that's rapidly expanding, is trying to take over the entire Middle East, has millions of dollars to work with, have already beheaded two U.S citizens, have stated that they want to launch attacks against us, and have hundreds of U.S citizens fighting for them who could easily use a passport to get back to the United States and start launching attacks. The two situations aren't even similar. As I've said, I'm generally very anti war and very anti interventionist. I just think this situation is an exception. It's essentially an example of us defending ourselves, rather than intervention.
Interventions cause blowback. The blowback from our previous interventions has already occurred. The blowback from this one is a different story and will be worse the more we meddle in this conflict.
You're assuming that we can destroy ISIS if we just bomb enough. I've already pointed out why that simply isn't possible without massive expense of blood and treasure and that any attempt to do so would be exactly what our enemies would like us to do. This goes back to the mafia example I gave earlier. If your life is threatened by the mafia (leave police out of it for the sake of argument since there's no higher police force the US can appeal to in the case of ISIS), would you try to kill every member of the mafia, or try to take precautionary measures to prevent the mafia from getting to you? Our focus should be on the homeland (I agree with your previous statement regarding the 2nd Amendment) not vain attempts to win a fight we can't win against an enemy in his own turf.
It will certainly help with their recruiting and make us even more likely to be the prime target of their attacks. They're fighting a bunch of other enemies at the moment, so if we aren't one of them they're going to devote less resources toward trying to attack us.
Who knows? Obviously if they could have everything their way, they would destroy the US. But, I think the threat would be lessened if we weren't bombing them and giving them more reason to attack us and increasing their support among the local population. Regardless, bombing isn't going to make ISIS go away, so it's a futile waste of lives and resources.
Last edited:
There are no good options. Past mistakes by our government have led to the rise of ISIS and a complete mess. But I think that launching targeted airstrikes against them is a less bad option at this point. Doing nothing and allowing them to take over Iraq is not a good idea. It's not in our national security interests to allow a hardcore terrorist organization that wants to kill us to take over a country and set up their own government. There's absolutely nothing immoral about air strikes in this situation. It's an act of self defense and is consistent with libertarian principles.
I can't find the article I was reading. There are articles talking about ISIS taking over Iraqi cities, but they are from August 7th.
Agreed.
The IS is hardly first world...
They both control more territory than ISIS. You still haven't provided evidence that ISIS is continuing to make advances and expand its territory.
Why does the size of their military matter? You think ISIS is going to launch a ground invasion of the US or something? If they do attack us, it will be through an individual or small group of individuals attempting to conduct a terrorist attack. No amount of bombing will be able to prevent that. The solution to prevent that is simply to uphold the 2nd Amendment (the 9/11 hijackers could've been stopped if the FAA hadn't banned pilots from being armed).
Citation needed.
There are plenty groups that would like to do that. None of them have any chance of succeeding, and ISIS is no exception.
Exactly why bombing is futile. Their cash flows from rich donors in the Persian Gulf aren't just going to stop because we bomb them. If anything, they will increase because those donors will be overjoyed at the chance to kill Americans and once again mire us down in Iraq.
You don't think those journalists understood the risk when they entered a literal war-zone? Should we wage war every time an American reporter is killed in a foreign combat zone?
That's not an argument in itself. North Korea has also said that. Besides, as I stated previously, bombing them won't destroy them or prevent them from launching an attack.
Cite? From what I've read it's mostly UK citizens. Regardless, how is bombing them going to prevent those citizens from conducting an attack?
Why not? Assuming you're referring to my mafia analogy, it demonstrates the futility of trying to protect yourself against an individual attack by attempting to wipe out a well-funded and well-supplied organization that is NOT just going to disappear.
Hate to keep repeating this but...if a member of a gang threatens your life and you respond by bombing his house, with no concern for those who live near him or what his gang will do in retaliation, that isn't justified self-defense and it will likely end up getting you killed.
I'm only going to do this once.
Minding our business is a good option.
Letting foreigners control US foreign policy is not a mistake. It is intentional. ISIS is proven to be a CIA/Mossad controlled front, that is, if it even really exists outside of our Zionist and CIA controlled media. Can you prove ISIS even exists without citing a news source controlled by Zionists?
Why? It's not our problem and it's not our responsibility to police the world. Syria and Iran have enough military might to destroy ISIS if allowed to. Why is it our problem? Why do we need to spend money we don't have when their neighbors are more than capable of handling it on their own. At what point do we stop trying to "fix" everything, when our "fixes" only ever makes things WORSE? I can't believe this is even a topic! IT'S ABSURD AND THIS FOREIGN POLICY IS INSANE!
Why is it ok in Saudi Arabia then? Btw, who is "us"? People like you post a lot of shit using words like "us" and "our" yet I notice you don't ever say "Americans".
Are you talking about Iraq or Syria? Like I correctly predicted months ago, this whole thing would start with pretext building in Iraq but somehow morph into a Syria campaign. So where are you talking about launching air strikes? We both know any "air strikes" would end up being on Assad's military, not ISIS. It's all bullshit propaganda to justify another offensive overthrow of an elected government!
That is not self defense! BOMBING A FOREIGN COUNTRY THAT DID NOT ATTACK US IS NOT SELF DEFENSE! It is the same insane and failed foreign policy that has left Americans trillions in debt and hundreds of thousands of people DEAD.
Im fucking sick of you lying propaganda spewing Israel-firsters on this forum trying to get Americans to pay for and die over and draw blowback to protect countries Americans don't even have fucking TREATIES with! SICK OF IT AND SICK OF ALL OF YOU! (Mod edit)
Minding our business is a good option.
Letting foreigners control US foreign policy is not a mistake. It is intentional. ISIS is proven to be a CIA/Mossad controlled front, that is, if it even really exists outside of our Zionist and CIA controlled media. Can you prove ISIS even exists without citing a news source controlled by Zionists?
Why? It's not our problem and it's not our responsibility to police the world. Syria and Iran have enough military might to destroy ISIS if allowed to. Why is it our problem? Why do we need to spend money we don't have when their neighbors are more than capable of handling it on their own. At what point do we stop trying to "fix" everything, when our "fixes" only ever makes things WORSE? I can't believe this is even a topic! IT'S ABSURD AND THIS FOREIGN POLICY IS INSANE!
Why is it ok in Saudi Arabia then? Btw, who is "us"? People like you post a lot of shit using words like "us" and "our" yet I notice you don't ever say "Americans".
Are you talking about Iraq or Syria? Like I correctly predicted months ago, this whole thing would start with pretext building in Iraq but somehow morph into a Syria campaign. So where are you talking about launching air strikes? We both know any "air strikes" would end up being on Assad's military, not ISIS. It's all bullshit propaganda to justify another offensive overthrow of an elected government!
That is not self defense! BOMBING A FOREIGN COUNTRY THAT DID NOT ATTACK US IS NOT SELF DEFENSE! It is the same insane and failed foreign policy that has left Americans trillions in debt and hundreds of thousands of people DEAD.
Im fucking sick of you lying propaganda spewing Israel-firsters on this forum trying to get Americans to pay for and die over and draw blowback to protect countries Americans don't even have fucking TREATIES with! SICK OF IT AND SICK OF ALL OF YOU! (Mod edit)
Last edited:
Christian Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 19,707
Does this apply to every war supporter, or just TC? And, just for curiosity, are you a Christian? Do you actually believe in Hell? Or is this just a rhetorical comment?
I condone the rest of this post, but not this. I don't wish anyone goes to Hell, no matter how stupid they are (And yes, TC, I think you're being downright stupid here. And really, considering how bad what you are supporting is, that's the nicest thing I can say that I can reconcile with my conscience. I hope you'll forgive me later.)
I know exactly who they are and they know who they are. Political rhetorical debate goes out the window when real lives are on the line and the shills are pushing the exact same propaganda playbook that lead to the biggest foreign policy failures for America in the last 35 years (they are grand successes for Israel and bankers though, of course). Yes, I hope they burn in hell and I hope their children get hit by cars on the way to school tomorrow as karmic payback. I'm sick of watching it happen, sick of seeing vets with PTSD commit suicide when they get home because they're ashamed of what they did over there once they realized they were lied to and used, sick of watching the dollar die a slow painful death while elderly American's standard of living declines. Just plain sick of it. The success of the American people is the last thing on anyone's minds these days and it's disgusting, while the cause of it all is OBVIOUS to anyone paying attention.
Sorry dude but you seriously sound like a neocon. I don't think you're trying to but you do. You keep repeating the same MSM war/fearmonger talking points ("ISIS is going to take over Iraq") with zero evidence. If the only evidence you can find of ISIS advancing is from a month ago, most likely they've stopped advancing.
I've already explained why bombing ISIS isn't ethically justified self-defense and why it won't make us safer.
Last edited:
(Mod edit). I'm advocating nothing more than self defense, and I'm not advocating any ground troops either. You're user name fits you very well.
Last edited:
So I guess Rand Paul is a neocon?
Christian Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 19,707
I'm mad to. I actually advocated banning TC and the other warmongers from RPFs because I don't think Bryan should be giving the neocon puppets (I don't care that TC isn't actually a neocon, he's PLAYING IN THEIR HANDS) a free platform to support the idea that warmongering and Ron Paul/libertarianism are in any way comparable. But... I don't wish for anyone to burn in Hell. Even if not a single gullible person who wants to engage ISIS is actually a Christian, I'd still want them to repent. And their children CERTAINLY aren't responsible for their stupidity.
I think TC is being stupid here. Same thing with my dad. They don't understand what they are doing. They've been brainwashed. Or at least, that's what I'd like to think. I'd like to think that they are actually dumb enough to believe "this time will be different." The alternative would be even worse.
I'm depressed at this right now. I go here as one place to ESCAPE the statism I see every day... its really the only reason I post here anymore after the ridiculousness of the religion forum and how its been run, and now this place is overrun with it. I'm SERIOUSLY considering just giving this place the middle finger, I have other things I can be doing with my time than debate statists HERE. I'd rather debate them in person and on forums that aren't dedicated to a man that I consider a hero...
It would be nice if we could actually have an intelligent, civil conversation over these issues, but that obviously isn't possible. I'm done debating this issue here if we can't even have a civil and constructive debate over foreign policy issues.
Similar threads
