• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does the US have a moral responsibility to help combat ISIS?

Does the US have a moral responsibility to combat ISIS

  • Yes, it's a moral imperative.

    Votes: 12 30.0%

  • No, they're not a threat yet worthy of confrontation

    Votes: 3 7.5%

  • Yes, but only in a limited and supporting role.

    Votes: 13 32.5%

  • No, it's none of our business

    Votes: 16 40.0%
  • Total voters
    40
ecofarm said:
Genocide is "every little disturbance"?
Click to expand...

That word gets bandied about a lot, but even granting it, yes, it's none of the US business. People in that region apparently want to kill each other en masse, and have so for thousand of years. The Usians interfering only breeds the next generation of those who want to take the fight to American shores. So, unless the USFG wants to perform its own counter-genocide, it's better not to be involved at all.

One would think the last dozen years would have dampened the enthusiasm for the war drums, but I guess some people never learn.
 
lizzie said:
I don't view it as a moral imperative at all. Just an imperative to kill barbarians. I'm not usually one to support wars, but this is different from what we've seen before. They need to be eradicated.
Click to expand...

But in eradicating them, you radicalize even more Muslims and the problem grows and grows. This is a result of decades of American intervention in the Middle East. We stick our noses where they are not wanted and people get mad. Combine that with a radical religion and people get fanatical. It's never going to get better until we stop provoking them with our presence.
 
Citizen.Seven said:
That word gets bandied about a lot, but even granting it, yes, it's none of the US business.
Click to expand...

Keep apologizing for and ignoring genocide, such a "moral" position.
 
No apology needed. Ignoring things not of concern is just good manners.
 
Cephus said:
But in eradicating them, you radicalize even more Muslims and the problem grows and grows. This is a result of decades of American intervention in the Middle East. We stick our noses where they are not wanted and people get mad. Combine that with a radical religion and people get fanatical. It's never going to get better until we stop provoking them with our presence.
Click to expand...

Although I mostly agree with you, they are already over here and all over Europe, if what I've been reading is correct. I didn't support either of our actions in the ME since 9/11, but this group is a bit different, and they have huge amounts of financial backing, and are even more brutal than what we've been dealing with so far.
 
Yes. ISIS is a threat to the entire world. They need to be eliminated.
 
lizzie said:
Although I mostly agree with you, they are already over here and all over Europe, if what I've been reading is correct. I didn't support either of our actions in the ME since 9/11, but this group is a bit different, and they have huge amounts of financial backing, and are even more brutal than what we've been dealing with so far.
Click to expand...

Sure and you want to know where that backing is coming from? Our allies! Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey and many other countries we pretend are our "friends" are handing over tons of money to ISIS. Even if we did go in and killed off everyone in ISIS, that would only motivate other Muslim radicals to get even worse. The more we're involved, the worse it's going to get.
 
Absolutely none of our business. Iraq is a fake country and was always a fake country created by the British. Syria is a fake country. Saudi is a fake country. Iran is the only country in that region besides Turkey that has an actual geographical right to exist.


Americans should not be dying to fight radicals in a fake country that isn't going to be there in 100 years anyways. Simply bomb them. There is no reason to ever send troops. Ever. If a for profit journalist is killed that's no reason to invade a country in civil war.
 
Ryan5 said:
Iran is the only country in that region besides Turkey that has an actual geographical right to exist.
Click to expand...

Why do you think many liberals dont extend that line of thought to Israel, as it currently experiences a wave of terror from many of the same bad actors in the region?

Fake? And as for the rest its a tragedy what you have stated. Right down to the marxism.
 
US Conservative said:
Why do you think many liberals dont extend that line of thought to Israel, as it currently experiences a wave of terror from many of the same bad actors in the region?

Fake? And as for the rest its a tragedy what you have stated. Right down to the marxism.
Click to expand...

First off let's start with the grammar corrections then let's get to your illogical statements. It's "don't" not "dont". "It's" not "its".



Israel is a fake country created by another country. It won't be there in 100 years. Syria is merely a geographic expression as is Saudi and Iraq. Those are fake nations with opposing factions within them and always have been. They never were meant to be actual united nations and history is simply correcting itself. Israel has no natural borders unlike Iran. Israel could never have been created without foreign powers. Israel is a horrendous historical mistake that is going to sadly be another mass death in the future once Arab nations around it amass their inevitable power in the future. That blood and resulting genocide will be on the idiotic hands of those who created the temporary fake state of Israel. It's a disgrace that this future genocide will occur and historically it will be seen as such I've no doubt. Jews have always been internationalists and should never have been "given" a fake little country that is ultimately indefensible long term. I truly almost do wonder if it wasn't Hitlers last wish that such a thing happen. It seriously will go down in history as a disastrous decision for the Jewish people.
 
Ryan5 said:
First off let's start with the grammar corrections then let's get to your illogical statements. It's "don't" not "dont". "It's" not "its".



Israel is a fake country created by another country. It won't be there in 100 years. Syria is merely a geographic expression as is Saudi and Iraq. Those are fake nations with opposing factions within them and always have been. They never were meant to be actual united nations and history is simply correcting itself. Israel has no natural borders unlike Iran. Israel could never have been created without foreign powers. Israel is a horrendous historical mistake that is going to sadly be another mass death in the future once Arab nations around it amass their inevitable power in the future. That blood and resulting genocide will be on the idiotic hands of those who created the temporary fake state of Israel. It's a disgrace that this future genocide will occur and historically it will be seen as such I've no doubt. Jews have always been internationalists and should never have been "given" a fake little country that is ultimately indefensible long term. I truly almost do wonder if it wasn't Hitlers last wish that such a thing happen. It seriously will go down in history as a disastrous decision for the Jewish people.
Click to expand...

You open with complaints of grammar, and then proceed in a hateful rant. Is there a need for such hostility?
 
Ryan5 said:
Absolutely none of our business. Iraq is a fake country and was always a fake country created by the British. Syria is a fake country. Saudi is a fake country. Iran is the only country in that region besides Turkey that has an actual geographical right to exist.


Americans should not be dying to fight radicals in a fake country that isn't going to be there in 100 years anyways. Simply bomb them. There is no reason to ever send troops. Ever. If a for profit journalist is killed that's no reason to invade a country in civil war.
Click to expand...

Countries rise and fall, and it's quite arbitrary. Natural, physical borders like a river or mountain pass do not give any more legitimacy to a nation. I'm not sure why you think that's a prequalifier, but you're wrong. The borders of Germany are largely arbitrary and have changed many times over the past 150 years, does that make Germany less legitimate?

Just about every piece of land on earth has been taken with violence. It's simply the way it's always been. I see that you absolutely reject the idea of arabs coexisiting with jews. You seem to be on the same level of hateful intolerance as the violent extremists. Stop spreading hate.
 
lizzie said:
I don't view it as a moral imperative at all. Just an imperative to kill barbarians. I'm not usually one to support wars, but this is different from what we've seen before. They need to be eradicated.
Click to expand...

Eradicated?

Every soldier within it or just the organization?
 
US Conservative said:
You open with complaints of grammar, and then proceed in a hateful rant. Is there a need for such hostility?
Click to expand...


I'm trying to save lives and prevent fanatical, historically and ideologically contradictory JudeoChristian rightists from having Israel nuked. Your position of relocating a people solely based on a religion to a small plot of land surrounded by hostiles, that is the hateful, hostile position.



Just think when Arab nations reach their zenith in the future. Do you truly think Iran will forget how many of their scientists Israel murdered? Do you think other Arab nations will forget such transgressions? Israel is a ticking disaster and every single person who advocated it will be historically maligned.
 
a351 said:
Self explanatory thread title. What do you say?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's moral...I think it's self interest. Issis taking over an oil rich nation is bad news....if only we could bring Saddam back into power. He was a tyrant and bloodthirsty but he kept the Huns at bay...
 
It pains me to say that this is none of our business, because in all actuality it is. We created this mess. Without the US intervention over the past 20 years ISIS would not be a problem, but that does not mean we now have a moral responsibility to do something- if that action is going to result in further suffering of people. Why are we more prepared then we were almost 15 years ago when the original invasion of Iraq took place? How can we be sure that this time around we are going to get it right and not have to be back in 15 years correcting the wrongs of this time. Break the cycle of incompetence.
 
iacardsfan said:
It pains me to say that this is none of our business, because in all actuality it is. We created this mess. Without the US intervention over the past 20 years ISIS would not be a problem, but that does not mean we now have a moral responsibility to do something- if that action is going to result in further suffering of people. Why are we more prepared then we were almost 15 years ago when the original invasion of Iraq took place? How can we be sure that this time around we are going to get it right and not have to be back in 15 years correcting the wrongs of this time. Break the cycle of incompetence.
Click to expand...

We need to stay there in low numbers but long term, yes-like post ww2 europe. And much like staying in europe prevented the soviets from expanding east, our forces here would keep terrorists, iran, and russia out of Iraq. THAT is how you break the cycle of dictators and tribal clashes.

As a libertarian, how do you reconcile that ISIS is the clear aggressor here and other nations wish to defend themselves? They have already declaired war on the US, and openly threatened us as well.
 
Ryan5 said:
First off let's start with the grammar corrections then let's get to your illogical statements. It's "don't" not "dont". "It's" not "its".

Israel is a fake country created by another country. It won't be there in 100 years. Syria is merely a geographic expression as is Saudi and Iraq. Those are fake nations with opposing factions within them and always have been. They never were meant to be actual united nations and history is simply correcting itself. Israel has no natural borders unlike Iran. Israel could never have been created without foreign powers. Israel is a horrendous historical mistake that is going to sadly be another mass death in the future once Arab nations around it amass their inevitable power in the future. That blood and resulting genocide will be on the idiotic hands of those who created the temporary fake state of Israel. It's a disgrace that this future genocide will occur and historically it will be seen as such I've no doubt. Jews have always been internationalists and should never have been "given" a fake little country that is ultimately indefensible long term. I truly almost do wonder if it wasn't Hitlers last wish that such a thing happen. It seriously will go down in history as a disastrous decision for the Jewish people.
Click to expand...

Gotta disagree there. Israel, while it is a creation of another is not doomed because of its neighbors.

Israel is doomed because of the agreement made in the very beginning by Ben Gurion to amass political power. Israel already has a 50% income tax rate on top of the US welfare to support its military and massively out of control growing religious welfare population. While Israel seems to recognize that its biggest threat is in fact internal, every little external threat removes that focus. Israel without major change to how it treats its ultra orthodox who are literally breeding like rabbits and do nothing good for the economy are going to destroy Israel. It was once said that give Israel 6 months of peace and it will tear itself apart. I suspect that is largely true.

The Arab nations do not possess the military capacity and their leaderships are finding friendly terms with Israel beneficial. Israel's greatest threat does not lie outside its borders. It comes from within.
 
I think a better question would be whether we have reason to combat them for our own security purposes.

Moral reasons frankly take a second place to that, I think.
 
US Conservative said:
We need to stay there in low numbers but long term, yes-like post ww2 europe. And much like staying in europe prevented the soviets from expanding east, our forces here would keep terrorists, iran, and russia out of Iraq. THAT is how you break the cycle of dictators and tribal clashes.

As a libertarian, how do you reconcile that ISIS is the clear aggressor here and other nations wish to defend themselves? They have already declaired war on the US, and openly threatened us as well.
Click to expand...

We cannot change tribal traditions, not with millions of dollars or with crates of weaponry or with blood. Those tensions run deeper then what the US can, and should do.

As for ISIS declaring war on the US, they are not a nation, they are a group with radical beliefs. They are not a state sponsored group, so to put boots on the ground is not only irresponsible but immoral. We can on the other hand keep tabs using intelligence on the group and take proactive measures back home to secure ourselves.
 
iacardsfan said:
We cannot change tribal traditions, not with millions of dollars or with crates of weaponry or with blood. Those tensions run deeper then what the US can, and should do.

As for ISIS declaring war on the US, they are not a nation, they are a group with radical beliefs. They are not a state sponsored group, so to put boots on the ground is not only irresponsible but immoral. We can on the other hand keep tabs using intelligence on the group and take proactive measures back home to secure ourselves.
Click to expand...

As for your first paragraph what does that have to do with my comments?
As for the second, THEY CONTROL LAND. In that way, they are a "state". By your logic any non-govt entity would have its way with the USA.
 
US Conservative said:
As for your first paragraph what does that have to do with my comments?
As for the second, THEY CONTROL LAND. In that way, they are a "state". By your logic any non-govt entity would have its way with the USA.
Click to expand...

Not true, I just acknowledged that the US can monitor and defend itself in times of need, but that does not mean putting boots on the ground.
 
th


Miss me yet?

iliveonramen said:
I don't think it's moral...I think it's self interest. Issis taking over an oil rich nation is bad news....if only we could bring Saddam back into power. He was a tyrant and bloodthirsty but he kept the Huns at bay...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom