It's not a lack of ideas. It's humility. Perhaps you should practice it answer man. HOWEVER, I do know that doing nothing is absolutely the wrong thing to do when people are dieing and ISIS wants badly to bring that here and if we do nothing the chances of that occurring increases exponentially. You seem to think this is acceptable. It would be the same as being a proponent of doing nothing about crime since people will always commit crime regardless. Stupid.
Hmmmm indeed. JUST FOR THE RECORD FOR THE READING COMPREHENSION IMPAIRED (i.e. Sweet Lou and Larsv8) I have said 2 things. 1. Doing nothing to stop ISIS is not the answer. 2. I am not enough of an expert to say what IS the proper thing to do. THAT'S IT.
The reason it's statistically irrelevant to Americans is because the people who matter are smart enough to know that they do need to worry about it. The reason you get to take your irresponsible isolationist stance is because of those "war hawks" who have done such a great job of taking care of those problems so that they never personally affect most Americans in the states most of the time. The reason IS got as strong as it is now is a combination of isolationist policies in action. The US' initial refusal to help the Syrian rebels forced them to seek outside help from anyone who would offer it and those who came to their aid were Islamic terrorists which radicalized the rebellion and directly led to the IS we know today. To make matters worse, leaving Iraq before they were capable of defending themselves adequately created a power vacuum where IS could operate outside of Syria. Basically over the past 7 years or so foreign policy has been mismanaged about as poorly as possible. Fault doesn't fall on any one politician or even one party, but it really needs to get fixed.
larsv8, thank you for your response. Maybe it's a matter of where we are posting from, but I do believe that there is a significant threat to us in Europe from violent Islamists (IS or otherwise). There have already been several major terrorist attacks, and there is a constant threat of them. It's hard to argue with statistics. But since you bring up statistics, there was a recent poll which showed that 1 out of 6 people in France support ISIS (this number seems too high, in my opinion, as it probably exceeds the percentage of Muslims in France but even if it was 1 out of 50, it would be crazy). You would be shocked to see how many Muslims in Europe sympathize with IS. It's not an abstract threat. Your view seems a bit US centric and isolationist to me. "Just because I do not perceive the threat where I live, it doesn't exist". The other issue you did not address is the one of the Yazidis and Kurds and Shiites in the region that is affected so far. Hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced and are being terrorized in the worst way (beheadings, crucifications, slave trade of women, rapes, etc. etc.). Do I have to take your stance as "it's not my problem because it's far enough away"? Would your response to Hitler have been the same? Do you think that the allied forces should not have intervened against the Nazis slaughtering Jews and terrorizing/invading foreign nations because "statistically, it didn't affect the way of life of people in Texas"?
Europe should do something about IS instead of waiting for the US to send troops on their behalf. This is a strawman argument. Half of Africa has the same problem. Should the US send troops there too? A list of atrocities across the globe that demand US troops would be appreciated, I'll forward your list to Obama. That's exactly what happened, and by continuing to play world police, the US is carrying an undue share of the burden of "world security" and subsidizing complacency by all the other able-bodied countries. The pendulum has now swung too far to the other side.
I agree that Europe should do something, but it's not an either/or. Have you heard of NATO? Or the UN? What is yours? I am eagerly awaiting proof of your forwarding of my googling skills to President Obama. Thank you in advance. http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts Just because you probably will not understand if I do not spell it out: I am not expecting the USA to get involved in all these conflicts on behalf of the rest of the world. But IS and militant Islamism are clearly a threat on a global scale that needs to be addressed. Here is another one for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2014 Guess what almost all of those have in common? Right. They were committed in the name of Islam. All over the world. What is exactly what happened? With regard to the US having to play "world police" - one thing I agree on is that it has to be a shared burden, rather than other countries solely relying on the USA to sort it out.
In all fairness the U.S. Didn't do **** until Pearl Harbor. They've always been a reactionary force. They saw the genocide and kept minding their own business.
folks here don't actually believe ISIS is gathering on the Mexican/US border, do they? I saw an unnamed local news affiliate pushing this angle the other day...
But I (as a German) would say in hindsight that I am very glad that the USA did get involved and helped to defeat the Nazis. One can only look the other way for so long in the face of violence and crimes against humanity. Besides, it is not a war the USA can really decide to stay out of. The war of Islamism vs. the USA has already been declared long ago. At the latest on September 11, 2001.
Gathering there? No, but it is a point where they could enter the country illegally and Arabs already do enter the country illegally there so it's not really a stretch to think that they might go that route if they wanted to pull off an attack. Contrary to popular belief, it's not just Mexicans entering the US illegally from the southern border.
Incorrect. The reason it is statistically irrelevant is because it it just is. In places where the US does not offer said protection, it is still statistically irrelevant. What war hawkish methods have we employed in China, who has the same amount of terrorism related deaths per capita as the US? How about Iran who has lower per capita deaths? Its a fallacy and you are living in a fantasy world if you think your government is somehow protecting you or the war hawks are doing some great job. You wanna know who did a great job at containing ISIS? Saddam Hussein. We enabled ISIS by overthrowing Hussein. Turns out there are just bad people in the world. It doesn't matter how many "contain", another one will just step in and take its place. My views are US centric, because I am in the US. It is not my responsibility to control this situation. I have traditionally been pro-helping these atrocities, but I think you are underestimating the danger of our own economic environment. We simply cannot afford it anymore. I am not willing to risk the solvency of the US over the long term to police the world. Protect our borders and be done with it. When we have gotten our country back under control, then we can worry about helping others. Its terrible what is happening to those people, so were the following atrocities which the US did not feel the need to intervene: 1.) Burundi Civil War (300k dead) 2.) Bangladesh Liberation War (269k dead) 3.) Liberia and Sierra Leone (300k) 4.) Darfur (300k) 5.) Uganda (500k) 6.) Rwanda (1m) 7.) Ethiopia (2m) 8.) Cambodia (2m) There is death in this world. There are ethnic and religious conflicts, and there will always be. It happens whether we intervene or we don't. Again, I think its horrible, I wish it didn't happen, but it does. To try and contain all this will cause more harm than good. Allied forces did not go into Europe to liberate the Jews. They went into Europe to stop a perceived threat in Hitler, and in the process they stopped the Holocaust. I am not sure what my response would be, as that happened almost 70 years ago. A completely different time and place.
Agreed. And the same goes for Assad. We are better off with him controlling the country. Fair enough. Personally, I think that the world needs the USA, but I can respect your viewpoint. I agree that these are all terrible, and I wish there was a better way for the world community to step in and prevent atrocities. I guess the difference is that most of those were indeed regional conflicts, whereas the pawns of violent Islam IS/Al Qaeda/Boko Haram/Taliban (the last ones arguably the least) appear to clearly be targeting the USA, and the Western way of life. And as I said, violent Islam has already declared war against the USA and the free world, at the latest on September 11, 2001. I just don't think it is a conflict you can decide to stay out of. Fair enough. As I said, in hindsight, I am more than glad that the USA did NOT stay out of it.
Now this I agree with. We need to start making it a priority to take care of the people here first. Fix our infrastructure (which is way over due), stop the illegal immigration issues that are ruining this country, and protect the borders. In particular, the one to our south.
Make of it what you will. http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/imminent-terrorist-attack-warning-feds-us-border/
There is definitely a link between narcotics trade and violent Islamists. Al Qaeda had and has people in the Iguazu area, which is a well-known drug-trafficking hotspot. I believe that is also where that Khalid Sheik Mohammed who murdered Daniel Pearl and was involved in 9/11 was doing "business".
And related to the above post: Fmr. CIA operative: ISIS cells are here in the U.S., and they’re capable of striking Militant group ISIS released another gruesome video, showing the beheading of a second American, journalist Steven Sotloff. The terrorist group has gained strongholds in eastern Syria and northeastern Iraq, and, according to a former CIA operative, ISIS cells have already infiltrated the U.S. "The people who collect tactical intelligence on the ground, day-to-day – and this isn't Washington – but people collecting this stuff say they're here, ISIS is here, they're capable of striking," said CNN national security analyst and former CIA operative Bob Baer. "They don't know what their plans and intentions are. But it's a definite concern," said Baer. U.S. intelligence agents are keeping an eye on suspected ISIS militants who they believe have come across the Mexican border, or are American citizens that have come back from Syria, says Baer. "They can't prove it. They're waiting to get enough intelligence to actually run them in. And then there's the unknown, of how many people have come back they're not even aware of," said Baer. "The people who do this for a living are very alarmed," he says. Video at the link: http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2014/09/02/fmr-cia-operative-isis-cells-here-in-the-u-s-and-theyre-capable-of-striking/ This is not a goddamned game. It is not a joke. These people WILL attack us here. We ARE a target of theirs. The time for dithering is over. The time for half-a$$ing it is over. The time for giving morons like larsv8 a second breath's worth of attention is over. It's time to actually do something about this. Even Congress agrees: After Steven Sotloff Murder, Congress Demands a Vote on Obama’s ISIS War In the wake of ISIS’s latest alleged killing of an American journalist, leading lawmakers from both parties are calling for a bigger role in the U.S. war against the terrorist group. Leading lawmakers in charge of foreign policy reacted Tuesday to the reported beheading of American journalist Steven Sotloff by increasing their calls for more congressional involvement and oversight of President Obama’s war on ISIS. The latest apparent ISIS atrocity against an American citizen added to the congressional anger at the Obama administration for what many critics call an incomplete and unclear plan to confront the group both in Iraq and Syria, following President Obama’s admission last week that “We don’t have a strategy yet” for dealing with ISIS in Iraq and Syria. The two leaders of the House Foreign Affairs Committee said Tuesday that they want to lead the charge for more congressional oversight by holding hearings and forcing a vote on Obama’s ISIS war within 60 days of the commencement of airstrikes in Iraq last month. “The beheading of poor Mr. Sotloff really just brings back that we are dealing with a dangerous adversary…Congress needs to play a vital role and we are determined that the House Foreign Affairs Committee will lead the way,” said Rep. Eliot Engel, ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “We believe that before the president can continue beyond 60 days of doing airstrikes in Iraq or anyplace else, he would have to come to Congress and get Congress’s authority to continue.” Full Story: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/02/after-steven-sotloff-murder-congress-demands-a-vote-on-obama-s-isis-war.html More: Lawmakers to Obama: Hit ISIS Lawmakers from both parties on Tuesday exhorted President Obama to broaden the military campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) after the group released a second video that appeared to show the beheading of an American journalist... “Let there be no doubt, we must go after ISIS right away because the U.S. is the only one that can put together a coalition to stop this group that’s intent on barbaric cruelty,” said Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) in a statement. Nelson announced he would offer legislation next week that would give Obama clear authority to strike ISIS in Syria. http://thehill.com/policy/defense/216466-lawmakers-want-obama-to-hit-isis Please note: this is bipartisan. I am sure Valerie Jarrett is whispering in his ear dire warnings about what could happen to his poll numbers, but he has cover for this. It's time for him to make a decision.
I don't know what course of action people are suggesting for eliminating the ISIS threat, but to me, this is not an easy one. It is likely that some of these guys are in the U.S., and they have the capability of striking here. Although there are likely early in their planning and not likely to be able to execute and Al Qaeda style of attack. We will need to move against them - ideally in one fell swoop in a coordinated effort globally. But I will say this again, this can't be USA vs. ISIS as that will strengthen extremist movements in the long run. ISIS is born out of the remnants of Al Qaeda. And these guys will just keep popping up over and over in one new form or another. We have to get Sunni states involved in being a big part of breaking apart ISIS. In the meantime, we do need to hit their ability to strike against us without committing ground troops if possible. I don't see the case for ground troops deterring that threat to have been made here yet or anywhere for that matter.
