[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
That was hyperbole? So it’s sort of relevant? They are killing people by the hundreds and thousands, destabilizing an unstable region. Amassing people to western targets to carry out attacks, enslaving and selling people,etc. Their crimes against humanity range far and wide. They have prophesied attacking Europe, Israel, and the U.S. and indeed already a related arm of their jihad got to France. And you say, just because it’s a threat doesn’t mean we have to do anything about it?[/quote]
The U.S. is doing something about it. The U.S. is bombing them and giving limited support to countries that are actively fighting them with ground troops.
Let’s be clear- you are saying that the U.S. needs to go beyond this and send ground troops into the fray. I am saying the U.S. doesn’t have to do that yet. This is the argument we’re having right now. Please don’t descend into a straw-man argument.
[quote]pat wrote:
The problem with learning our lesson the hard way is that people die. And yes, it means that if there is a legitimate threat to you country or our allies you totally and completely extinguish it and you do that as quickly as possible. What possible advantage could come with pussyfooting around the issue? How would that help in anyway?[/quote]
Because there are ramifications to every action, and it is entirely possible that the ramification of sending ground troops into the war is greater than the ramification of not sending ground troops into the war.
If we can believe the analysis in that Atlantic article posted here a while ago, then the entry of U.S. ground troops will simply cause ISIS to regain its vigor and, indeed, have a new rallying cry. It may cause hundreds of thousands to rally to its banner and infuse new blood and even greater power to something that is starting to weaken.
And the U.S. simply doesn’t have the will to wage war on a large scale right now. Going into a ground war against ISIS without the collective will of the country doesn’t seem like a good idea to me.
[quote]pat wrote:
And no, comparing the destruction of ISIS with banning potato chips makes no sense whatsoever at any level. We’re not trying to impose a lifestyle, we’re trying to stop ruthless murders from carrying out their acts of terror. Clearly they wanted a reaction, the way to deal with that is the give them what they wish for in a way they cannot handle it. [/quote]
You misunderstood the comparison then. I’m not comparing activity to activity. I am comparing reaction to reaction.
Some people see something genuinely dangerous activity (obesity really is killing the country slowly), and react without considering the full ramification of the actions. You see something genuinely dangerous, and react without considering the full ramifications of the actions.[/quote]
Well now your moving the goal posts here. First you said they are no threat, now they are and we’re doing something about it.
Which is it? Are they a threat or not?
My contention is very simple, if you commit to military action you commit to accomplish a stated goal, which in this case is the destruction of ISIS. Performing an action like that with half effort is more dangerous than full effort. While we slowly drop bombs on them, they are slaughtering people, real human beings as human as you and I. They also have the ability to adjust and maneuver. It doesn’t matter if their goal is to engage the U.S. military in it’s full fury. Granting them that goal doesn’t mean it will serve them well or their goals are any level. It will likely destroy them. Being destroyed is not their goal.
Most military analysts agree that boots on the ground is a foregone conclusion. We’re either going to destroy ISIS or let them have the land and commit the genocide and terrorize the world like they wish.
To say they are no threat to us is naive as hell. To say they are no threat, but then they are a little threat which demands little action is just silly.