OT: Terrorist attacks in Paris

[Rerisen]

In that sense you're right. I would rather accept a few sporadic shooting attacks (which we happen whether we bomb them or not), than fight an open-ended war in the ME.

I think there is a big difference between what we are doing in Syria and 100,000+ troops on the ground as in the Iraq war.

The costs of war in the ME have proven to be far greater than the costs of fighting the terrorists at home.

That's only because you don't believe that things can get much worse in the ME if we leave, in a way that can expand outside the region. I see a lot of room for it to get worse.

More failed states and internal instability will only increase the amount of people being radicalized there as all sense of normalcy becomes obliterated. How many Syrians are now fighting in extremist groups, who if not for a civil war in Syria, would be leading somewhat normal lives? A war that started internally by the way and is primarily driven by the regional power struggle of Gulf States vs Iran, not by us.

[TimRobbins]

It sounds like you are fighting an old battle that realities have moved on from. I don't think anything we are doing over there at this point is about trying to 'enforce our values'. Other than a base value of 'stop trying to kill our people'. Obama isn't bombing ISIS because he is a Neocon who thinks the ME believes in democracy, if just given a chance.

I don't think there is any great allegiance to ancient borders, but rather the simple truth that no one can imagine a way to control these territories or deny them from nutjobs, other than the nation state.

I really don't know what Obama believes in. He has never once articulated the end-game for this war. There's one thing I can pretty much guarantee you - Syria and Iraq will never revert back to being nation states under the old colonial borders. That will never happen and those still holding on to those dreams are the ones fighting an old battle that the reality has long ago moved on from. The local population has rejected those borders.

To me, talking about "power sharing" and democracy and "regime change" is the epitome of trying to force our values. If the message was just "stop trying to kill our people", it would be a lot easier to swallow, but that's not the message - it's still "we will tell you how to live, how to govern yourself, under which borders, and what's right and what's wrong". This entire way of thinking needs to go away.

[Rerisen]

To me, talking about "power sharing" and democracy and "regime change" is the epitome of trying to force our values. If the message was just "stop trying to kill our people", it would be a lot easier to swallow, but that's not the message - it's still "we will tell you how to live, how to govern yourself, under which borders, and what's right and what's wrong". This entire way of thinking needs to go away.

It would be very dangerous to walk away from rebel groups we once supported - at least tacitly - and abandon them to face Assad, Russia and Iran.

The US abandoned the Mujahideen after Afghanistan and they didn't forget, I'd expect the same blowback sentiment here.

[R3AL1TY]

It's the same old cycle. The U.S. or western alliances mingle in foreign affairs. Then terrorist attacks spiral out of it later down the road.. Then it is too late for these western alliances to back out of these affairs.

[TimRobbins]

I think there is a big difference between what we are doing in Syria and 100,000+ troops on the ground as in the Iraq war.

There's a difference, but it's still war,and it's still very costly, even when you only use air power.

That's only because you don't believe that things can get much worse in the ME if we leave, in a way that can expand outside the region. I see a lot of room for it to get worse.

More failed states and internal instability will only increase the amount of people being radicalized there as all sense of normalcy becomes obliterated. How many Syrians are now fighting in extremist groups, who if not for a civil war in Syria, would be leading somewhat normal lives? A war that started internally by the way and is primarily driven by the regional power struggle of Gulf States vs Iran, not by us.

I have no doubt ISIS can never expand outside the region. ISIS relies on local support. It's not realistic.

Syria was never a real country. It was doomed ever since it was established and becoming a failed state was the only possible outcome for Syria. Same goes for Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen and any other "country" that the French and British tried to manufacture.

Clinging on to the colonial borders is a futile effort. New borders and a new order need to naturally emerge out of the chaos. It will get worse before it gets better, but unless we allow for them to find their own way, it will never get better and we will continue to fight this endless war over non-existent borders and an order which is no longer relevant.

[TimRobbins]

It would be very dangerous to walk away from rebel groups we once supported - at least tacitly - and abandon them to face Assad, Russia and Iran.

The US abandoned the Mujahideen after Afghanistan and they didn't forget, I'd expect the same blowback sentiment here.

The rebel forces we supported (FSA) have been wiped out. Now it's ISIS and Nousera fighting Assad/Iran and we shouldn't be backing either side. The only people we shouldn't walk away from is the Kurds - we should keep our indirect support of them.

Afghanistan is a great example of why we should walk away. It's never too late to walk away.

[Rerisen]

I have no doubt ISIS can never expand outside the region. ISIS relies on local support. It's not realistic.

Expand as in their ideology, recruiting more crazies to do their bidding. Of course not as in taking over foreign governments.

Bin Laden's lesson of the strong horse and the weak horse should not be forgotten. Leave them alone, ISIS will become a very strong horse.

[Rerisen]

It would be very dangerous to walk away from rebel groups we once supported - at least tacitly - and abandon them to face Assad, Russia and Iran.

The US abandoned the Mujahideen after Afghanistan and they didn't forget, I'd expect the same blowback sentiment here.

The rebel forces we supported (FSA) have been wiped out. Now it's ISIS and Nousera fighting Assad/Iran and we shouldn't be backing either side. The only people we shouldn't walk away from is the Kurds - we should keep our indirect support of them.

Afghanistan is a great example of why we should walk away. It's never too late to walk away.

The waters are a lot more muddied as to who is under who's banner. That's why we are objecting to most of the targets Russia is bombing, as while we aren't supporting them directly, these myriad groups are being supported by Saudia Arabia, Turkey, and the other Sunni gulf states, while we prefer only focus on ISIS. Mainly because while these other groups might be radical in their own right, they have only local designs, unlike ISIS, who now has global ambitions.

[TimRobbins]

Expand as in their ideology, recruiting more crazies to do their bidding. Of course not as in taking over foreign governments.

Bin Laden's lesson of the strong horse and the weak horse should not be forgotten. Leave them alone, ISIS will become a very strong horse.

Their ideology cannot be killed. This isn't Al-Qaeda. These guys are offering a real alternative and a way of life many of the local population crave. At some point we will need to accept the existence of the theocratic Sunni Islamic State. It is not going away. The only way to fight them is to let them reach their limits and get bogged down on their own.

[Rerisen]

Expand as in their ideology, recruiting more crazies to do their bidding. Of course not as in taking over foreign governments.

Bin Laden's lesson of the strong horse and the weak horse should not be forgotten. Leave them alone, ISIS will become a very strong horse.

Their ideology cannot be killed. This isn't Al-Qaeda. These guys are offering a real alternative and a way of life many of the local population crave. At some point we will need to accept the existence of the theocratic Sunni Islamic State. It is not going away. The only way to fight them is to let them reach their limits and get bogged down on their own.

I have my doubts how many truly want to live in the 7th century. If you are part of the ISIS hierarchy actually enforcing the law and getting perks, maybe, but the local populations, they will go with whoever offers them the best deal. I don't see the Sunni's in Jordan revolting to join the caliphate, because their country isn't a basketcase. And it wouldn't be hard for the Iraqi government to make them a better deal, but for sectarian divides. You condemn power sharing as futile but it was never actually tried. They would of course have to come to that realization on their own, not by outside force.

[TimRobbins]

I have my doubts how many truly want to live in the 7th century. If you are part of the ISIS hierarchy actually enforcing the law and getting perks, maybe, but the local populations, they will go with whoever offers them the best deal. I don't see the Sunni's in Jordan revolting to join the caliphate, because their country isn't a basketcase. And it wouldn't be hard for the Iraqi government to make them a better deal, but for sectarian divides. You condemn power sharing as futile but it was never actually tried. They would of course have to come to that realization on their own, not by outside force.

I don't think Jordan or Lebanon have a shot at keeping it together. Their collapse is inevitable. There is already wide-spread support for ISIS in Jordan.

Power sharing is something we came up with, but has been completely rejected by the local parties. They're simply not interested.
I still can't understand why the czech republic and Slovakia can split up, Yugoslavia can break up, the Soviet Union can break up, yet Iraq ans Syria just have to stay together and "power share" when they clearly don't want to stay together. Why are European countries free to draw up and adjust their own borders while ME countries aren't allowed to do that and must stick to the colonial borders no matter what? This simply makes no sense whatsoever.

[dice]

It sounds like you are fighting an old battle that realities have moved on from. I don't think anything we are doing over there at this point is about trying to 'enforce our values'. Other than a base value of 'stop trying to kill our people'. Obama isn't bombing ISIS because he is a Neocon who thinks the ME believes in democracy, if just given a chance.

I don't think there is any great allegiance to ancient borders, but rather the simple truth that no one can imagine a way to control these territories or deny them from nutjobs, other than the nation state.

I really don't know what Obama believes in. He has never once articulated the end-game for this war.

"degrade and ultimately destroy" ISIS

if that's the war you're referring to

[TimRobbins]

"degrade and ultimately destroy" ISIS

if that's the war you're referring to

That's not an end-game.

[dice]

"degrade and ultimately destroy" ISIS

if that's the war you're referring to

That's not an end-game.

of course it is. it's may not one that's acceptable to you, but it's an end-game. i don't think obama has any grander scheme for the middle east. and it's grander schemes that caused a lot of this

[TimRobbins]

of course it is. it's may not one that's acceptable to you, but it's an end-game. i don't think obama has any grander scheme for the middle east. and it's grander schemes that caused a lot of this

Bombing them will not achieve this goal.

Besides, limiting the discussion only to ISIS is meaningless. What is Obama's strategy for the ME beyond ISIS? Is he going to continue to engage and try to micromanage every single country in the ME like we've been doing for the past 50 years? Or does he have a different strategy? Is he going to try and force the colonial borders? ISIS is the symptom, not the disease.

[art_barbie]

of course it is. it's may not one that's acceptable to you, but it's an end-game. i don't think obama has any grander scheme for the middle east. and it's grander schemes that caused a lot of this

Bombing them will not achieve this goal.

Besides, limiting the discussion only to ISIS is meaningless. What is Obama's strategy for the ME beyond ISIS? Is he going to continue to engage and try to micromanage every single country in the ME like we've been doing for the past 50 years? Or does he have a different strategy? Is he going to try and force the colonial borders? ISIS is the symptom, not the disease.

i agree with you analagy...but what exactly is the disease in your opinion?

[waffle]

so the nut case in Colorado apparently said "no more selling baby body parts" or some such, so is Carly F. an accomplish? Since she vastly conflated the issue? Relying on info/films etc. that have been proven to wrong/and or poorly done cut up jobs?

Confused people trust politicians, or sometimes aliens. You say stupid stuff, stupid people are listening.

[AKfanatic]

so the nut case in Colorado apparently said "no more selling baby body parts" or some such, so is Carly F. an accomplish? Since she vastly conflated the issue? Relying on info/films etc. that have been proven to wrong/and or poorly done cut up jobs?

Confused people trust politicians, or sometimes aliens. You say stupid stuff, stupid people are listening.

It is funny (not the right word) that a Muslim preaching hate needs to be stopped, yet an American politician preaching hateful and dangerous rhetoric had become the norm. Hell the leading candidate on the republican side has used hate speech to fire up the base and keep poll numbers high.

There's certainly a lot of stink going on across the world, but we've gotten steaming piles all over our front lawns that we ignore.

[TimRobbins]

i agree with you analagy...but what exactly is the disease in your opinion?

The disease is the wars/instability in the region (Middle East). The vast majority of this instability is created and maintained by the West and its insistence on forcing the colonial borders/nations on people who clearly reject them.

[dice]

of course it is. it's may not one that's acceptable to you, but it's an end-game. i don't think obama has any grander scheme for the middle east. and it's grander schemes that caused a lot of this

Bombing them will not achieve this goal.

Besides, limiting the discussion only to ISIS is meaningless. What is Obama's strategy for the ME beyond ISIS? Is he going to continue to engage and try to micromanage every single country in the ME like we've been doing for the past 50 years? Or does he have a different strategy? Is he going to try and force the colonial borders? ISIS is the symptom, not the disease.

you may be right about all of this. as for the part in bold, i don't think it matters. and i think obama knows that it doesn't matter. he's going to be in office for only another year. his focus is going to continue to be on managing the ISIS situation with limited risk to american personnel