Can the West Live with ISIS?

[RoofGardener]

Non-intervention is what Yam is referring to RG. The isolationists ARE the interventionists. Big difference.

Ooooookay.... I think I understand what you mean by "Non-intervention", in context of Yamato's comments.

But... but.... "Isolationists are interventionists" ? OK... now I'm thoroughly confused. Surely "isolationists" are people who want nothing to do with conflicts in foreign territories ? How can isolationists be interventionists ????

[libstaK]

Sure looks like Syria is worried about.... Syria! And I can't blame Assad, however, let him tell China and Russia first.

And if those two cannot handle the menace known as IS, then the west can chime in.

Until then, *my* people should stay home

I think his point over the past two years was - Hey you Western Powers, when are you gonna realize you are not just arming rebels who want freedom in Syria, you are also arming Monsters the likes of which you are gonna regret ever helping.

[Mr.United_Nations]

uhh, *what* weapons cache would that be, the Apache helo that they "captured"...? the stingers they grabbed?

And I ask why, does anyone in IS even know how to use them?

perhaps not but they now how to use tanks and others, remember ISIS is different to the taliban, ISIS has thier own market

[Yamato]

Ooooookay.... I think I understand what you mean by "Non-intervention", in context of Yamato's comments.

But... but.... "Isolationists are interventionists" ? OK... now I'm thoroughly confused. Surely "isolationists" are people who want nothing to do with conflicts in foreign territories ? How can isolationists be interventionists ????

You think you do, and you'll know you do when you look it up in the encyclopedia.

Silent treatment is an example of isolationism. It's a poor idea for individuals, families, communities, and governments alike. Isolationists might be anti-trade, which closes down the flow of goods and services across borders. These policy ideas invite conflict. When no trade exists between borders, weapons and war are imminent.

[RoofGardener]

Weeeeell..... I dunno Yamato. The USA doesn't have a border with Afghanistan, or Iraq for that matter. So how does this factor into the isolationist/non-interventionist paradigm ?

[Yamato]

There is no paradigm. There's barely any relationship between the two things. Your business is your business and your business is not my business. If you can understand that, you're a non-interventionist too and you don't even know it. In order for anyone to actually agree with you, they first have to have nobody messing around in their own business first. And then when they do it themselves, it's okay. Everyone is a non-interventionist, they're just covered by their government and they don't have to show themselves for what they really are out of political expedience/convenience.

[RoofGardener]

Hmm... that seems a dangerously flexible definition ?

The US government might argue that middle-eastern oil IS its business ('cos it needs Oil)... therefore it can interfere in the ME whilst - by your definition/example, still being isolationist ?

[Yamato]

Hmm... that seems a dangerously flexible definition ?

The US government might argue that middle-eastern oil IS its business ('cos it needs Oil)

No, read some news articles in the US news about oil and energy and get caught up with reality broski

... therefore it can interfere in the ME whilst - by your definition/example, still being isolationist ?

Isolationists wouldn't interfere, that's true. That's one aspect of a foreign policy. How many countries are existing in the world today without interventionist foreign policies? Have you ever counted?

If that's the only aspect of foreign policy that EoT is thinking of, just like you are here, then he'll assume he's an isolationist. I'll take his word for it, but I do have doubts.

Let's say there was a natural disaster somewhere and my foreign policy is to help people apolitically, help them merely because they are human beings and for no other reason, especially reasons like the cheap tripe about who their leaders are. A true isolationist wouldn't want to do that. Some people get run over by tsunamis, but if the isolationist gets run over by anything he probably shouldn't expect any help from other countries, in kind.

An isolationist doesn't want to trade or talk. He doesn't want foreign relations. That's all the way across the field from where I'm playing, dude. Isolationism is just setting up the chess board for war, imho.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Yamato

[RoofGardener]

No, read some news articles in the US news about oil and energy and get caught up with reality broski

I was suggesting a hypothetical... sounds like I picked on a bad example !

Isolationists wouldn't interfere, that's true. That's one aspect of a foreign policy. How many countries are existing in the world today without interventionist foreign policies? Have you ever counted?

If that's the only aspect of foreign policy that EoT is thinking of, just like you are here, then he'll assume he's an isolationist. I'll take his word for it, but I do have doubts.

Let's say there was a natural disaster somewhere and my foreign policy is to help people apolitically, help them merely because they are human beings and for no other reason, especially reasons like the cheap tripe about who their leaders are. A true isolationist wouldn't want to do that. Some people get run over by tsunamis, but if the isolationist gets run over by anything he probably shouldn't expect any help from other countries, in kind.

An isolationist doesn't want to trade or talk. He doesn't want foreign relations. That's all the way across the field from where I'm playing, dude. Isolationism is just setting up the chess board for war, imho.

Hmm..... so China - during its Middle Kingdom period - might be regarded as Isolationist, and modern-day Sweden or Switzerland might be regarded as non-interventionist ?

[Yamato]

I was suggesting a hypothetical... sounds like I picked on a bad example !

Hmm..... so China - during its Middle Kingdom period - might be regarded as Isolationist, and modern-day Sweden or Switzerland might be regarded as non-interventionist ?

In general I think that's probably the case although if you pick specific examples throughout history (I haven't studied hundreds of years of Swiss history) then I'm sure there are exceptions. Which makes labeling more complicated for me but I think you have the bug correctly there. Switzerland was non-interventionist in World War 2. People have famously accused Switzerland of housing bank accounts for Nazis/Axis and trying to paint them as non-neutral for such reason, which would make sense if they also weren't banking for groups and individuals belonging to the Allies at the same time. Sweden was at times in history a formidable naval power, the strongest in the Baltic region at least over long periods of time, it probably wouldn't earn a non-interventionist badge in many of its details, I'm sure it had colonial ambitions at some points however those ambitions materialized but I know Sweden does have a proud legacy of engineering and building its own military hardware in-house in more recent generations. Its combat aircraft in the 2nd half of the 20th century were at least the equal of their contemporaries when they first flew. That may be more of an isolationist quality where it doesn't farm out imports but takes care of itself instead.

I ask the question all the time, how do I get maximum value for what I'm trying to do in life? More times than not, I have to look at imports and "Made in China" to find the best bang for the buck to satisfice my demand. If I was a manufacturer of consumer goods, say flip flops, I might purchase some 3D printers from Stratasys which is a joint US-Israeli firm. I wouldn't have any problem with doing these things provided the economic activity was my choice to make. Because I don't have this freedom of choice, due to taxation and policy, I now find myself avoiding Chinese or Israeli goods. But if I buy "Made in the USA", I can't hide behind a false assumption that the USA isn't creating humanitarian disasters in the world either, so there really is no escape from the principle when government is involved. The principle of letting people have freedom of choice, letting people keep what they earn to decide for themselves how best to spend those resources, dies in the face of patriotic nationalism and politically upright interventionism.

[RoofGardener]

Thanks for that Yamato. I'd always thought of interventionism from the military angle, without including the commercial one, as per your examples.

So tarifs and import/export taxes are a form of Interventionism. I guess that makes sense, when you think about it.

However, is it always necessarily wrong ? For example, I believe the USA restricts exports of certain high-end military equipment. It is VERY sensitive about Stealth technology, for example. I don't think ANYONE is allowed to buy B2 bombers or F117 stealth fighters. But then, I'd say that is probably a wise move ?

[bee]

.

It's becoming more and more obvious that the 'West' cannot live with IS (aka ISIS)...

The stakes have just been raised with the world-wide public beheading (via the internet) of James Foley.

By a ''British'' jihadist no less....

I remember many years ago seeing a TV discussion where a muslim contributor said that he wasn't a British Muslim..

He was a Muslim living in Britain...His words made me realise that we had a big problem...

And James Foley's executioner illustrates this point very clearly...

There is much talk here of how to stop '''Britons'''' going to fight in Iraq and Syria...but if they are prevented

from leaving the country no doubt they will 'do their bit' for the jihad here...so it's difficult to know what

to do for the best...one thing for sure these people..who have been raised and educated in Britain

cannot be bribed or coerced or A. licked into giving up the Jihad...and the Government had better

realise that from the beginning.

Time to build some secure prisons on a remote island maybe...?...dunno... ?

These jihadists, living in Britain, where-ever they are lurking are a danger here or abroad...

And every other European country will have a similar problem...

.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Does anybody in here seriously think that ISIS would even exist had Saddam Hussein been left in power?

Just a little food for thought

[meryt-tetisheri]

Does anybody in here seriously think that ISIS would even exist had Saddam Hussein been left in power?

Just a little food for thought

A game is being played, political yoyo, or the de-baathification & re-baathification of Iraq

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/08/21/the_re_baathification_of_iraq?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=%2ASituation%20Report&utm_campaign=AUG%2022%202014%20SITREP

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

I am truly against US intervention in IS, as you may know. Many in this thread think the west *should* intervene, so I offer up the following compromise:

Yes, there is a way for the West to rid the world of ISIS, *without* the loss of troops and - not only without spending all that money on a prolonged war, but actually making a profit at it, while lowering the crime rate, to boot!

ISIS has 15,000 fighting thugs. The US has 1.4 million street gang thugs and there are hundreds of thousands of gang bangers in the UK. Now, we don't need *all* that thuggery to take out ISIS but this situation does give us a chance to empty the streets of thugs in key cities like New York, London, Chicago, Birmingham, Los Angeles, Liverpool, and Detroit.

We'll get the Bloods, the Crypt, the Yiddishers, the Hoxton Mob, and Watney Streeters, and send them - and their knives, guns, numchucks, and assorted bric-a-brac over to Mosul! And all we have to tell them when we drop them off is,....

"ISIS GOTS ALL THE MONEY, DRUGS, AND VIRGINS".

(pics of actual virgins unavailable)

Now, we have a lot of satellites flying over Iraq. Lets put them to good use, video all the fighting, vehicle jackings, etc., then sell the vids to Sky TV and ESPN to show to their sports audiences for their watching pleasure.

Imagine coming home from work, turning on the tube at six to get the days highlights, then sit back at eight and go to "live action". IS v. the Crypts, or IS vs the Watney Streeters. Nice!

And yes, it is very Ok to root for both sides!

Enjoy!

[TSS]

You're are about 5 decades to late for the Watney streeters ...other then that, good idea...

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

A game is being played, political yoyo, or the de-baathification & re-baathification of Iraq

http://www.foreignpo... 22 2014 SITREP

Meryt-tetisheri,, we all have opinions.

Back in the day, the West would hold Hussein up for public ridicule by slamming him for his treatment of the Shiite Muslims in the south. Of course, if a US ally did same, the US would praise them for warring with Muslim terrorists. But I digress. In reality, Saddam hated Muslim terrorists and dealt with them heavy handedly. Saddam wanted a secular government and I would think that if Saddam was around today, ridding the planet of this ISIS pest would be a top priority

just an opinion

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

You're are about 5 decades to late for the Watney streeters ...other then that, good idea...

that might be because I have 5 decades (at least) to be able to fall behind :--)

[Yamato]

It's like musical chairs who we're helping and who we're harming over there. ISIS driving into Iraq with our own armored fighting vehicles; it's ridiculous. Where's the criticism of who really supports ISIS? Why does almost everyone in the US, at the instant its government changes its mind who it beds with, just fall right into agreement with whatever the flip flop? Looking at 30+ years of involvement in the Middle East, it looks like making friends with enemies and making enemies of friends, and it squeezes out common sense that should dictate after a point that we don't know what's best for any of these places, and what we've been paying for isn't worth the cost. I know enough to know, or am honest enough to admit that I don't know, what kind of nation the people who live there find acceptable for themselves. That is ultimately their call, no matter what we do or how much money we spend or how many complaints or excuses for the status quo we make. It shouldn't be up to bureaucrats splicing together their political differences with foreigners. If we leave it up to them, the results have been universally catastrophic.

[odas]

Does anybody in here seriously think that ISIS would even exist had Saddam Hussein been left in power?

Just a little food for thought

No. Just like Hitler would not existet if wwl was not blamed ecclusively on Germany.

Every mistake we do now WILL have consecquences downstreem. The notion that all muslims are terrorists did not help years ago and will not help either. The constant demands that a white caucasion muslim from canada has to appologize for what a brown arab muslim does in irak is stupid to say in a nice way. Should bosnian muslims demand an appology from an american christian for all the athrocities comited by a srebian christian? That would be crazy because besides the religion they have nothing incomon just like the ones who share the islamic religion.

That said, not only the west but also the east can not live with barbaric ISIS. The world needs to come together to vipe out ISIS from the face of earth and it looks like there is some sort of talks between iran saudi arabia and usa.

Facing now a true common enemy could make us put byside our stupid little differences.

[+and-then]

No. Just like Hitler would not existet if wwl was not blamed ecclusively on Germany.

Every mistake we do now WILL have consecquences downstreem. The notion that all muslims are terrorists did not help years ago and will not help either. The constant demands that a white caucasion muslim from canada has to appologize for what a brown arab muslim does in irak is stupid to say in a nice way. Should bosnian muslims demand an appology from an american christian for all the athrocities comited by a srebian christian? That would be crazy because besides the religion they have nothing incomon just like the ones who share the islamic religion.

That said, not only the west but also the east can not live with barbaric ISIS. The world needs to come together to vipe out ISIS from the face of earth and it looks like there is some sort of talks between iran saudi arabia and usa.

Facing now a true common enemy could make us put byside our stupid little differences.

This is my attitude as well. So many choose to use the situation to lay blame - yet do nothing to address what is coming. When FRANCE is more concerned and willing to step up than the US, then the world should have some idea how dangerous a situation exists regarding these animals. Evil unchecked is a precursor of genocide. There always is a negative for every positive development. The internet and social media have shrunk our world into a very small community and since people are not as nationalistic as they were 60 years ago it is possible to divide their support even from the country of their origin. And amorphous concepts can be used to grow evil acts in ways and with rapidity that may have no precedent. IS will grow unless it is physically stopped.

[meryt-tetisheri]

Meryt-tetisheri,, we all have opinions.

Back in the day, the West would hold Hussein up for public ridicule by slamming him for his treatment of the Shiite Muslims in the south. Of course, if a US ally did same, the US would praise them for warring with Muslim terrorists. But I digress. In reality, Saddam hated Muslim terrorists and dealt with them heavy handedly. Saddam wanted a secular government and I would think that if Saddam was around today, ridding the planet of this ISIS pest would be a top priority

just an opinion

Saddam wanted a secular government, until his last days in power when he invoked 'jihad'. He was also cruel and violent, but not on the same level & scale as IS. Just my opinion

[Phaeton80]

[RoofGardener]

Hmm.... a VERY interesting post, Phaeton80 ... thanks for linking that video. The chap seems reasonably informed, and he has an interesting angle on things.

I'd recommend everyone takes the time to watch the video. (it IS a bit long.. but... ).

On the other hand... it is against Orthancs rules to blindly post a link - or an embedded video - without including some text describing what it is. In essence, doing so is disrespectful to your fellow forum members.

Right.. stay behind after school, and write out "I will not post blind links" on the blackboard, 100 times.

Hmm...

That seems a bit mild.

OK.. stay behind after school and write out...

"I will not post blind links on the grounds that the inhabitants of Llanfair­pwllgwyn­gyllgo­gery­chwyrn­drobwll­llanty­silio­gogo­goch might consider it a form of antidisestablishmentarianism, and could distract them from cooking cooking Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipson, as cited in Arisophanes's play "Assemblywoman".

100 times.

Yeah.. that should keep him busy for a while

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

No. Just like Hitler would not existet if wwl was not blamed ecclusively on Germany.

Every mistake we do now WILL have consecquences downstreem. The notion that all muslims are terrorists did not help years ago and will not help either. The constant demands that a white caucasion muslim from canada has to appologize for what a brown arab muslim does in irak is stupid to say in a nice way. Should bosnian muslims demand an appology from an american christian for all the athrocities comited by a srebian christian? That would be crazy because besides the religion they have nothing incomon just like the ones who share the islamic religion.

That said, not only the west but also the east can not live with barbaric ISIS. The world needs to come together to vipe out ISIS from the face of earth and it looks like there is some sort of talks between iran saudi arabia and usa.

Facing now a true common enemy could make us put byside our stupid little differences.

Good points, but as far as I am concerned, the ISIS problem is easier for Russia/China to dismantle than the West.

Why, oh why, must the USA - and I suppose, UK too, get involved with every sneeze that happens on the other side of the world?

Didn't we screw things up enough already? It was the 2003 Iraq invasion that ultimately led to the formation of ISIS, something that could never have been done with Saddam in power. We did NOBODY in Iraq in favors.

EDIT: spelling

Edited August 25, 2014 by Earl.Of.Trumps