|
My Imaginary GF posted:I do not generally advocate for a policy of dehumanization; in the case of ISIS, an exception must have its costs and benefits weighed. And Hamas, and whatever the next group spawned by this kind of toxic thinking creates.
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 15:08 |
|
|
TildeATH posted:Why is it you only show up when someone says maybe regular people shouldn't wish for Roman-style political solutions to modern international crises? Why is it that "maybe regular people" advocate for policies which benefit ISIS? I am honest about the intent of the policies for which I advocate: to degrade and destroy ISIS. If you have a policy solution which has a reduced political cost for implementation and achieves these two objectives in a less messy manner, I'd love to hear it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Why is it that "maybe regular people" advocate for policies which benefit ISIS? I have a policy: degrade and destroy bad decisions. The implementation of this policy would be to end bad policymakers and annihilate their political base like AIPAC through targeted assassinations and nuclear weapons. Corrupt and terrible policymakers do far more damage to the United States and its interests than ISIS ever will but they will never face any consequences for it. I advocate changing that. Panzeh fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
Barring a massive ground campaign, bombing ISIS on its turf isn't going to really degrade and destroy ISIS. Are you sure your policies won't actually end up helping ISIS, MIGF?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
the boston bomber posted:Barring a massive ground campaign, bombing ISIS on its turf isn't going to really degrade and destroy ISIS. Are you sure your policies won't actually end up helping ISIS, MIGF?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:"Those drat dirty Nazi roaches just need to be exterminated wherever they live." It will also create the collateral damage and scattershot mentality that will create further fuel for ISIS 2: Jihadic Bugaloo, though. ETA: Anyway, having a positive goal is usually much better than just "fighting X". Supporting the Kurds in their fight against ISIS, using air-strikes as a lever to remove Maliki and bring in someone who would actually bring in Sunnis and is likelier to eventually crack down on Shia-led Sunni extermination seems sensible. Yammering about dehumanization and nukes like right-wing talk radio isn't. Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:America plays realpolitik for democratic ends. This is what brings freedom, truth, justice, and equality to the world and why, despite past mistakes, the American cause is peaceful. This is loving adorable. Your stunning lack of historical knowledge aside, I see you advocating "realpolitik" a whole lot, but I have yet to see you demonstrate any grasp of the concept. What I do see is a whole lot of dick-waving and hilariously naive buy-in of neocon talking points.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:That's a hard case to make. Generally dropping bombs on people degrades their ability to do stuff that doesn't involve being in tiny pieces spread over a large area. Yeah, just like Hamas has been degraded by all those bombs Israel dropped on them this summer, right? Airstrikes tend to be better at killing civilians and turning populations whole-hardheartedly against you than winning military victories. Not saying airstrikes will directly help ISIS necessarily, but you definitely won't beat them with airstrikes alone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:It will also create the collateral damage and scattershot mentality that will create further fuel for ISIS 2: Jihadic Bugaloo, though. the boston bomber posted:Yeah, just like Hamas, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Where were you Genocide Semantics Nazis when these assholes were spouting off: I said right there in that post that I didn't want that poo poo to happen, knock it off. It's nothing more than an observation that this cycle of anarchy will be almost impossible to stop so long as people exist to get pissed off about something or other. That's not a reason to wipe out entire populations and I never meant to imply such.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Why is it that "maybe regular people" advocate for policies which benefit ISIS? Because they recognize that the continued attempts to subvert and control a region wherein the people doing so do not recognize the inherent humanity of its inhabitants can only lead to a more degraded condition and never a less degraded one. Jesus Christ, we were fine with Saddam Hussein doing worse than ISIS ever did, even sending him more money when he was doing his worst. We were fine with all sorts of hosed up violations of basic human dignity because the guy doing it was on our side. As a result, we poisoned the entire region. Now, we're going in because this time they really are Orcs/COBRA/Nazis/Cartoon Evil Bad Guys and we promise that this time it's really clear cut and a few combat brigades are just what the doctor ordered. You don't think this is a legitimate policy claim, to argue for the treatment of a people in a geopolitical region as real human beings, because you support their continued oppression for lovely materialist ends like cheap gas for lovely SUVs. I'm actually okay with that, when you're wearing the Realpolitick Beanie and pretending like you're making Hard Choices. But then when you start talking about good and evil and supporting democracy and freedom, it sounds so blatantly, horribly dishonest that I feel the need to rail against it. You're not doing that, you're just feeding the Evil Compost Heap a new helping of Evil Table Scraps. You don't think this is legitimate policy suggestion, but the reality is that you don't have a policy either, except for the US to become the Global Israel and mow the grass everywhere all the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:It makes ISIS a transnational group but the conflicts they are a party to are conventional non-international conflicts so they are covered under the same rules that apply to any other combatants in a civil war. Well, obviously you can. kustomkarkommando posted:Do you think they should get shoved in a trench and machine gunned or something? Honestly it'd be a pretty good way to deal with the problem. Absurd Alhazred posted:Oh, so suddenly it's about sympathy, then, after all this realpolitik and cold calculation? ISIS doesn't seem to be worrying about that too much, and to be honest "Someone at some point might want a vague idea of revenge against somebody" isn't really a very firm argument against summary executions of ISIS members.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:That's okay so long as it happens after the midterms. Considering he goal of the invasion was to stop the rocket attacks, yeah airstrikes and a ground invasion were pretty much completely ineffective at degrading Hamas' operational ability. Continuously blowing poo poo up, which is an apt description of US foreign policy in the region, is not a long term solution to the problems in the Middle East and will not actually reduce ISIS' control over most of their areas. Treating the Sunni populations that make up ISIS as sub-human filth only worthy of death will only validate to them their already horrifying perspective of America.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:
Yeah, he would if we were talking about the McKinley administration.  I tend to agree with Shadi Hamid the most on this kind of thing. Following the economic crisis and the Iraq war, as a country, our perception is among the most defeatist it's ever been. People want to look backwards, not forwards. It's a shame because it coincides with a truly multi-generational event in the Arab Spring, bringing about such a crucial time for the future of democracy in the Middle East. But people have such a lovely outlook on foreign policy, and more broadly, politics, that they demand the US to stay out of it. In the midst of the opposition to the Iraq war, we elected a defeatist President who lives and dies with "leading from behind" and the "Yemen model," even going so far as to sit by and watch while ISIS took over a facility containing expired but dangerous chemical weapons without doing anything substantial to stop it. And all the while, we have people decrying him as just as much of a war monger as Bush to keep the myth alive that foreign policy is something to be opposed on all fronts, not something flexible that we help shape. We saw what happened in Libya, where approval ratings for the US skyrocketed following the US' lone decisive action, and people still tried to portray it cynically to keep the defeatist train on the tracks. And that narrative won. It's getting ridiculous at this point. What needs to happen, and what people should be asking for, is for the US to start adopting a humanitarian approach to promote democracy rather than a security-centric approach towards the Middle East, as the humanitarian approach addresses the security issues in the long term. The shortsighted "Yemen model" accomplishes gently caress all as it doesn't address the actual problems, and obviously, the "NOPE. DON'T loving TOUCH IT" train of thought inherently accomplishes nothing as well. But these still seem to be the two most prevalent viewpoints. There's a huge link between the tyranny of Middle Eastern regimes and terrorism, and people tend to gloss over that to maintain the legitimacy of a lot of really dumb suppositions. When you have people like Assad and Saddam gassing their own citizens to make a point, and people like King Abdullah and Ayatollah Khamenei repressing the poo poo out of everything they possibly can in the region, you will get car bombs, and you will get extremists able to recruit and thrive. Taking the US out of the equation does nothing to solve that. Ruling out the lazy, borderline racist idea that the Middle East is inherently hosed and doomed that usually goes hand in hand with fundamental misunderstandings of basic concepts of the region, there's really only one option. The US has to take on a more increased role, and take on more liability, to push Middle Eastern governments to adopt international standards on human rights and representation. When one refuses and people rise up, we have to be there for them. It's the only way to legitimize democracy in the region, and in the absence of legitimacy for US ideals, you have legitimacy for its opposition: militias like ISIS. Putin isn't going to do it. China isn't going to do it. If we as a country do nothing, we're actively deciding to let millions of people, who just want basic poo poo like the right to elect a leader rather than have him inherit the position from his father, or to be able to go to a demonstration without worrying about snipers or artillery, burn. And that (lack of) action resonates just as loudly in the region as any bomb dropped on an orphanage. Obviously the US' track record in the region isn't very hot. Our track record on slavery in the mid-1850's was a bit lacking as well. But if you just resign yourself to that track record and don't demand improvement, you're just as much a part of the problem as the "let god sort em out" crowd. Anyways, here's an interesting piece by Hamid discussing how an approach like this could take form. https://csis.org/files/publication/TWQ_13Winter_Hamid-Mandaville.pdf Volkerball fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Vernii posted:ISIS doesn't seem to be worrying about that too much, and to be honest "Someone at some point might want a vague idea of revenge against somebody" isn't really a very firm argument against summary executions of ISIS members. Aeons of the history of warfare and its consequences are, though. As in, you keep forgetting that in the "summary execution of ISIS members" you are going to capture non-ISIS members, people who were child-soldiered into it (like that 15-year-old), etc. These people have families and friends. Where did ISIS come from, and where does it get its support? In many cases from Sunni tribes in areas where the alternative is being butchered by Shia militias without recourse. If you want to destroy not just ISIS, but the next ISIS, and what fuels ISIS, you need to be very careful not to have the end of that story be "and that's when the American swine butchered your Daddy." Hence pushing Maliki out as a condition for air-strike support of local boots on the ground was the most sensible way to intervene, and it is good the US did it this way. But they do need to keep applying the leverage so that we're not in the same place 5 or 10 years from now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
If you think that as long as we just kill all ISIS members, the region will be a better place, you have a dangerously reductionist and borderline genocidal understanding of that area.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Where were you Genocide Semantics Nazis when these assholes were spouting off: MIGF is a gimmickposter. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Yeah, he would if we were talking about the McKinley administration. Putting that aside, and I feel like I have to keep bringing this up, what can we legitimately do to stop ISIS at this point other than wage a full ground war, which is just not going to happen? There's no endgame here that we can push with any sense of realism. I get that Obama is trying to get the other regional powers to step in and do the fighting for us, but they have other concerns (as we're seeing right now with Turkey going after the Kurds more than ISIS). I'm a bit surprised at Russia's lack of involvement considering Syria is a close client state, but China is the smart one here and staying out of it, which is generally what they do. If they get involved it tends to be in the background. Iraq is probably going to be a mess for another decade, along with Syria. I don't see that changing. Especially since Syria's a pile of rubble.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Yeah, he would if we were talking about the McKinley administration. It came from a claim that the USA had been doing God's work since the early 19th century. It's also a seminal work on imperialism and colonialism and the various arguments brought forth during the period in question in regard to the Philippines are directly applicable to the short-sighted, racist ideology on display today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
Hey is anything happening in the Middle East? Just curious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:It came from a claim that the USA had been doing God's work since the early 19th century. It's also a seminal work on imperialism and colonialism and the various arguments brought forth during the period in question in regard to the Philippines are directly applicable to the short-sighted, racist ideology on display today. If we're going to start quoting 19th century theories, we should probably remember that the next 100 years was spent laboriously proving that "Just leave it all alone and see what happens" is absolutely dogshit foreign policy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
Sergg posted:Hey is anything happening in the Middle East? Just curious. This may be more for the I/P thread, but a well-regarded Palestinian-Israeli medical intern died fighting for ISIS.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Yeah, he would if we were talking about the McKinley administration. So this sounds like a great strategy and everything, but what happens when the people of the Middle East get a chance to actually vote and they end up voting for and electing backwards rear end groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas? Because that's what happened. That kind of throws the whole "Push Middle Eastern governments to adopt international standards on human rights and representation" idea out the window doesn't it? Just because people get to vote doesn't mean they will vote in a way that will align with US interests.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:So this sounds like a great strategy and everything, but what happens when the people of the Middle East get a chance to actually vote and they end up voting for and electing backwards rear end groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas? Because that's what happened. That kind of throws the whole "Push Middle Eastern governments to adopt international standards on human rights and representation" idea out the window doesn't it? Just because people get to vote doesn't mean they will vote in a way that will align with US interests. Then you just hold Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood to those standards and see how they fare. Much like nobody's invading Israel for repeatedly voting in right-wingers. Nor is anyone invading the regions of France that voted FN.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:So this sounds like a great strategy and everything, but what happens when the people of the Middle East get a chance to actually vote and they end up voting for and electing backwards rear end groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas? Because that's what happened. That kind of throws the whole "Push Middle Eastern governments to adopt international standards on human rights and representation" idea out the window doesn't it? Just because people get to vote doesn't mean they will vote in a way that will align with US interests. The obvious answer: we support a populist revolution against those regimes when they attempt a power grab that pisses off moderates and minorities. I have yet to see a case in ME politics where this does not occur. Absurd Alhazred posted:Then you just hold Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood to those standards and see how they fare. Much like nobody's invading Israel for repeatedly voting in right-wingers. Nor is anyone invading the regions of France that voted FN. The regions which voted FN in France would disagree with your assessment that France is not being invaded. In fact, I'd argue thats why many areas have voted FN My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:The obvious answer: we support a populist revolution against those regimez when they attempt a power grab that pisses off moderates and minorities. I have yet to see a case in ME politics where this does not occur. Go home, MIGF, you're drunk. quote:The regions which voted FN in France would disagree with your assessment that France is not being invaded. Not by the US and her glorious allies, though. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:The obvious answer: we support a populist revolution against those regimes when they attempt a power grab that pisses off moderates and minorities. I have yet to see a case in ME politics where this does not occur. Counterpoint: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman ... Really our track record of gently and no-so-gently coaxing Middle Eastern countries into adopting democratic reforms is pretty poor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Kaal posted:If we're going to start quoting 19th century theories, we should probably remember that the next 100 years was spent laboriously proving that "Just leave it all alone and see what happens" is absolutely dogshit foreign policy.  You're right, the history of US foreign policy in the 20th Century can be characterized as "just leaving it all alone and seeing what happens". Maybe the fact that we didn't literally conquer the world, burn the cities of our enemies and salt the earth after it, Roman style, is making you think this? Because otherwise that's pretty much a flat out lie US foreign policy has mostly been based on flat out lies for that period, though, so I guess this isn't surprising icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Counterpoint: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman ... We got the Sauds to ban slavery. Progress in institutional development and human development is best measured on the scale of generations. I'm not claiming that improvement of the process is swift and has immediate benefit; I am claiming that the process is more important than the agents which operate under its system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:
I think he's talking about how for WWI and WWII the USA didn't really want to get involved in the former and was split on the latter, but yeah while the USA was initially not involved in either, by the end they went all in and later started loving with other countries based entirely on "Eh you might later become a problem, better set up a military dictatorship".
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:So this sounds like a great strategy and everything, but what happens when the people of the Middle East get a chance to actually vote and they end up voting for and electing backwards rear end groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas? Because that's what happened. That kind of throws the whole "Push Middle Eastern governments to adopt international standards on human rights and representation" idea out the window doesn't it? Just because people get to vote doesn't mean they will vote in a way that will align with US interests. Hamas doesn't count because Palestine has been subjected entirely to the security-centric strategy I referred to. For the same reason ISIS thrives off Assad's massacres, Hamas thrives off Israeli massacres. I believe a decade or two of good faith towards the Palestinian people would effectively destroy Hamas. As far as the MB, Morsi was a terrible president, but he could've been endured for an election cycle had the process through which the constitution was drafted and the government created been not godawful poo poo (after Morsi was elected, they started to have negotiations about what exactly "President" was), and the US taken a more proactive stance against the military. The whole refusing to call it a coup saga shows how weak the will was to end tyranny in Egypt. icantfindaname posted:
I wonder how well a Charles Lindbergh speech on isolation would've been received at a concentration camp during the two years the US sat about talking about the "Old World" before Pearl Harbor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I wonder how well a Charles Lindbergh speech on isolation would've been received at a concentration camp during the two years the US sat about talking about the "Old World" before Pearl Harbor. WW1 might have ended significantly better if the US hadn't intervened? If Germany and the Allies had ended on more equal terms we might not have had Hitler. The fact that the only example you can come up with of US interventionism being successful might actually have been a failure is pretty god drat telling
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
Honestly do you think a region that is absolutely unwilling to separate church (mosque) and state is ever going to be anything like the Western democracies of the world? And in the cases where the church and state are separate it's done with an iron fist? You only get 2 options in the Middle East, secular dictators, and theocratic dictators. Neither of which the US would have anything do with if they weren't sitting on top of all that oil that drives the world economy. I am a bigger fan of the "Get off fossil fuels, cease all activity in the Middle East be it militarily, diplomatically, economically, etc, and let it burn." The effects of decades of colonialism, imperialism, and neo-colonialism isn't going to fix itself with us continually bombing and occupying the region. But of course, the western world isn't going to get off the oil until it runs out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:WW1 might have ended significantly better if the US hadn't intervened? If Germany and the Allies had ended on more equal terms we might not have had Hitler. Nowhere did I try to make a comprehensive list of successful US interventions, and not only that, but I also made it clear that the US' track record is irrelevant because what is clear is that the electorate plays a role in foreign policy decisions and has agency. This post is textbook bad faith arguing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
Misandrist Duck posted:The US dropped weapons, ammunition and medical supplies to Kurdish forces in Kobani this weekend. Yessssssssssssssss. I am so tired of Turkey's bullshit in preventing this from happening even earlier.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 08:17
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Nowhere did I try to make a comprehensive list of successful US interventions, and not only that, but I also made it clear that the US' track record is irrelevant because what is clear is that the electorate plays a role in foreign policy decisions and has agency. This post is textbook bad faith arguing. Not to mention US intervention being the cause of Hitler (a ridiculous string of circumstances to be sure) robs agency from all other actors involved in the postwar settlements. Of course, the US getting involved is a legitimate question, but to say that's what caused Nazi Germany is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
In case you thought there was a single facet of the region which was not sharpening its edges, Saudi Arabia is getting ready to execute one of the most prominent Shiite clerics in the country for extremely concrete and grounded reasons. Nothing will come of this I'm sure, now least of all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Honestly do you think a region that is absolutely unwilling to separate church (mosque) and state is ever going to be anything like the Western democracies of the world? And in the cases where the church and state are separate it's done with an iron fist? You only get 2 options in the Middle East, secular dictators, and theocratic dictators. Neither of which the US would have anything do with if they weren't sitting on top of all that oil that drives the world economy. The West is already significantly less dependent on oil than they used to be, but we have to consider the fact that if the United States vacate the area, it is likely that the Chinese or some other major power would step in to fill the void. I agree that the colonial history of the region is important to remember, but many of these sectarian problems had boiled over or at least simmered for centuries before the West were ever involved. Just because the oppressors are nasty people does not mean that the oppressed are necessarily nice or innocent at all. I am far from arguing for some sort of White Man's Burden (especially since most of the ideologues that I grew up with in my family are Chinese nationalists with some residual Maoism... there can be limits to assimilation even for born American citizens). I simply don't think the West should think of ourselves as so important that everything around the world is somehow about us. We are definitely not the ultimate force of all that is good on Earth, but we are not the final source of all evil either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:In case you thought there was a single facet of the region which was not sharpening its edges, Saudi Arabia is getting ready to execute one of the most prominent Shiite clerics in the country for extremely concrete and grounded reasons. Nothing will come of this I'm sure, now least of all. That's sure to strenghten the traditional friendship between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 10:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 15:08 |
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:ISIS isn't an ethnic group, it isn't a religion, and it doesn't even a coherent political ideology. It is a marauding horde of bandits, lunatics, and warlords. It is right and proper to wish for its total destruction. There is a large chasm between wishful thinking and proactive endeavors and it cannot be bridged by the use of indiscriminate death mechanisms. Snipee posted:I simply don't think the West should think of ourselves as so important that everything around the world is somehow about us. We are definitely not the ultimate force of all that is good on Earth, but we are not the final source of all evil either. I think the argument in favor of Western intervention is simply that the world is a finite space, and were we not to have "interests" to take care of around it, someone else would be doing it. Pompous nonsense frankly, and pompous nonsense underlines so much of the behavior we see. Especially when we look at the American political slide towards pure oligarchy. The fights that Lockheed Martin, Exxon, Pfizer and Nescafe want to have are not in any of our interests, even MyIdiotGirlFriend's. i am harry fucked around with this message at 13:23 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 13:17
|
|
