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

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...

Not wanting to come across as an un-welcoming soul but I would much rather blow up ISIS over there, in Bunfuq Sandoon, than on Bourbon Street or 5th Avenue. I'm kinda selfish that way.

iacardsfan said:

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.

Click to expand...

Its legitimate for us to attack our enemies. They have openly threatened the US. Now they get to meet kinetic energy.

obvious Child said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well this is true but again, this truth only highlights the artificiality which is Israel. It isn't a naturalist esq state and doesn't function as one. It has an ad hoc racial nazism of sorts among its Jewish population. Nobody is much allowed to talk about this fact but the truth is Israel is an internally fascist country very much so in how it operates legally. It would as you mentioned tear itself apart if it ever had the time to do so. Its own society has massive, unfix-able contradictions (refusing non-Jews legal rights yet proclaiming to be a democracy).

The irony being that if Israel gave non Jews rights it would be voted out of existence by its Arab citizens.

Ryan5 said:

Well this is true but again, this truth only highlights the artificiality which is Israel. It isn't a naturalist esq state and doesn't function as one. It has an ad hoc racial nazism of sorts among its Jewish population. Nobody is much allowed to talk about this fact but the truth is Israel is an internally fascist country very much so in how it operates legally. It would as you mentioned tear itself apart if it ever had the time to do so. Its own society has massive, unfix-able contradictions (refusing non-Jews legal rights yet proclaiming to be a democracy).

The irony being that if Israel gave non Jews rights it would be voted out of existence by its Arab citizens.

Click to expand...

May Arab people vote in Israel?

Given the fact Israel is usually referred to as the only democratic party in the middle east, I was wondering whether all people living there have a right to vote independently of ...show more
Best AnswerAsker's Choice

Martin G answered 5 years ago
Yes they can vote. Every Israeli over the age 18 can vote, regardless of sex and religion.

There are Arab parties in Isreal and they do in fact have seats in Parliament; the United Arab List has a few as do Balad.

Most Arabs in Israel have all the same legal rights as every other Israeli citizen. However, these rights may be obscured in practice because of the political/religious turmoil and culture surrounding the country.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

What a load of crap...a moral imperative.

:roll:

This is little to do with morals and everything to do with fear.

There are plenty of horrific regimes around the world that mistreat their people - Saudi Arabia, North Korea, many African countries are a mess and on and on. And I don't see the American masses talking about a 'moral imperative' to help them. They could care less about them.

But since ISIS threatened America and beheaded a freelance journalist (who was pretty naive to be running around Syria to begin with - a lone American snooping around in a region that generally hates Americans...not a recipe for a long life)...now ISIS is the new mortal enemy.

Oh, they were fine when they were treating people horribly as long as they were fighting Assad. But now that they have branched out...now Americans are cowering in fear.

They always hated Americans, it is just that most Americans didn't care. But now that they have walked over a bunch of unmotivated Iraqi's who fled Mosul as soon as they got close...now they are a 'mortal threat'.

They are about 10,000 strong, have a little artillery, mostly run around in pickups or captured Humvee's and have ZERO air power...yet they are now a direct threat to America?

Ridiculous and hypocritical.

Let's call it what it is...it is not morals (this desire to stop them)...it is FEAR.

It is time America left the Middle East alone and got on with the business of fixing itself.

But no, ever since 9/11, the American masses have lost their backbone. They see terrorists everywhere and do whatever it takes to sleep better at night...invade countries, bomb civilians, support horrible regimes (like the Saudi Royal Family), torture people, detain the innocent indefinitely...not to mention get thousands of brave Americans killed in the middle of nowhere and spend trillions that America does not have in the process and on and on.

America has become the elephant being chased around the ring by a mouse....and the new mouse is ISIS.

eohrnberger said:

So far ISIS has taken some ground killed some people.

Al Qaeda did the same sort of thing, and the US didn't get involved until after 9/11, and then it was in a big way.

Seems likely that we've not learned from that experience, not learned the wisdom of fighting these types of people on their soil rather than ours, so we'll have to go through it again, on our soil, our citizens dieing, until we'll become involved yet again, and then again in a big way, with big expense and big collateral casualties.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Click to expand...

What we have learned from recent history is not to invade a country without having a clue what to do after we win. Because groups like ISIS are the result. ISIS make Saddam look like a Saint. So that is why we must help rid the world of ISIS...we created it by disturbing the balance of power in the M.E. We certainly must take out all the enemy's heavy equipment that we brought to Iraq and we can do that from the air. But the Iraqi's finally need to step up and unite to defend THEIR country too or it will never end. The horror of ISIS might be just what they need to do just that. You're welcome.

a351 said:

Self explanatory thread title. What do you say?

Click to expand...

Why do we know this stuff is going on? Then once we find out, why do we even care? It would be nice if we could stop every injustice in the entire world but luxuries like that aren't cheap. They cost the blood of 18-22 year old boys from our country. These nasty Arabs and Jews have been killing each other before Abraham was born. It's pretty arrogant to assume that killing off young American men will stop this 10,000 year old conflict. Let them kill each other. I don't care and have no incentive to care.

Why don't these idiots just convert to the religion with the most guns and then go have an ice cream cone. Geez! Convert or Die isn't a difficult decision. Just in case you guys don't know the correct answer is to convert.

Convert already you arrogant slime bags.

US Conservative said:

If the US wishes to be a world leader and defender of western values the answer is yes.

Click to expand...

Out time as world leaders is set to expire. I think we should voluntarily step down from the role instead of acting like we are invincible and having the title yanked from us at a very heavy cost.

vasuderatorrent said:

Out time as world leaders is set to expire. I think we should voluntarily step down from the role instead of acting like we are invincible and having the title yanked from us at a very heavy cost.

Click to expand...

Lots of self-defeatist share this view. Thanks for sharing the opinion.

iguanaman said:

ISIS make Saddam look like a Saint

Click to expand...

Saddam committed genocide twice, invaded neighbors twice, intentionally starved 400k children and institutionalized rape.

I don't think morals should always guide foreign policy. So although I think it is a moral imperative, the question if and what should be done is a different question, as far as I am concerned.

But if you ask me for moral obligation, I'd say yes, because ISIS is a result of the vacuum that came out of the flawed US Iraq invasion and very inept post-war reconstruction. I was against the Iraq war, among other reasons exactly because I was afraid something like ISIS might happen, but since the war was done, it is now America's responsibility to restore order post-war. The reconstruction and stabilization was obviously not finished yet.

German guy said:

I don't think morals should always guide foreign policy. So although I think it is a moral imperative, the question if and what should be done is a different question, as far as I am concerned.

But if you ask me for moral obligation, I'd say yes, because ISIS is a result of the vacuum that came out of the flawed US Iraq invasion and very inept post-war reconstruction. I was against the Iraq war, among other reasons exactly because I was afraid something like ISIS might happen, but since the war was done, it is now America's responsibility to restore order post-war. The reconstruction and stabilization was obviously not finished yet.

Click to expand...

I agree with this statement, also the US has strategic interests in not allowing the ME to spin out. The world still gets enough oil/gas out of the region that any serious destabilization from wars, invasions, revolts or radicals could upend the global economy. Energy is such a basic requirement for modern civilization, and there still aren't enough alternative sources in a growing world.

grip said:

I agree with this statement, also the US has strategic interests in not allowing the ME to spin out. The world still gets enough oil/gas out of the region that any serious destabilization from wars, invasions, revolts or radicals could upend the global economy. Energy is such a basic requirement for modern civilization, and there still aren't enough alternative sources in a growing world.

Click to expand...

Lol.

So it's America's moral responsibility because she needs the oil of the region?

That is not morality...that is opportunism and exploitation.
You should help people because they need the help, not because they need the help and they have something you want.

So, you only help those that can offer something in return?

Got it.


I strongly suspect that the vast majority of the people that voted 'yes' probably have a warped sense of what 'morality' really is.

No doubt they disagree.

No doubt I don't much care.

DA60 said:

Lol.

So it's America's moral responsibility because she needs the oil of the region?

That is not morality...that is opportunism and exploitation.

You help people because they need the help, not because they need the help and they have something you want.

So, you only help those that can offer something in return?

Got it.


I strongly suspect that the vast majority of the people that voted 'yes' probably have a warped sense of what 'morality' really is.

No doubt they disagree.

No doubt I don't much care.

Click to expand...

Is it more moral for the modern world to collapse and a greater number to suffer, to satisfy some misguided sense of right and wrong?

ecofarm said:

Saddam committed genocide twice, invaded neighbors twice, intentionally starved 400k children and institutionalized rape.

Click to expand...

Ask an Iraqi who is worse.

By the way, while I don't believe the US has a moral imperative in the slightest, and I voted no accordingly, I do believe war is good for the US economy so I actually am in overall favor of military action. The US military is an industry and is a critical part of our society. In that sense, yes, I do believe we should bomb Isis. I do not believe we should ever use American troops for almost anything. Not only am I in favor of bombing Isis but I'm also in favor of controlled nuking of several countries.

a351 said:

Self explanatory thread title. What do you say?

Click to expand...

No, we have a practical responsibility for attacking ISIS. They have threatened the US. 'Nuff said.

a351 said:

Self explanatory thread title. What do you say?

Click to expand...

ISIS is only there because of the power vacuum we left after our illegal and unprovoked invasion of Iraq. We broke it - and as much as I hate interfering in the affairs of other nations with our military, we are duty bound to help fix it. We cannot fix it ourselves...but we should help those who are best suited to fix it.

iguanaman said:

Ask an Iraqi who is worse.

Click to expand...

You mean Kurds and Marsh Arabs?

The Baron said:

No, we have a practical responsibility for attacking ISIS. They have threatened the US. 'Nuff said.

Click to expand...

North Korea also threatens the U.S. and we don't attack them.

ecofarm said:

You mean Kurds and Marsh Arabs?

Click to expand...

Yes the Kurds. They are under attack at this moment by ISIL who are even more barbaric than Saddam. There would be no ISIL if we just kept him bottled up like Clinton was doing. It is obvious now that Saddam was a stabilizing force in Iraq and the region. He would be LHAO if he was still around.

iguanaman said:

Yes the Kurds. They are under attack at this moment by ISIL who are even more barbaric than Saddam.

Click to expand...

ISIS has killed 200k Kurds via chemical weapons genocide?

And let's not forget, Kurdistan is now a semi-autonomous region of Iraq. I'm pretty sure the Kurds are happy about that.

Some people give credit to ISIS more than it deserves.

ecofarm said:

ISIS has killed 200k Kurds via chemical weapons genocide?

And let's not forget, Kurdistan is now a semi-autonomous region of Iraq. I'm pretty sure the Kurds are happy about that.

Click to expand...

Where do you get 200K? Is that what "curveball" told us? 5000 is more like it. Both Iraq and Iran used gas during their war the Kurds were likely just collateral damage.
Did Saddam Hussein Gas His Own People?

The Kurds are fighting for their very existence now, Saddam was never so bold.

Coin said:

Never liked the Us's foreign actions (as Libya, Syria).

But ISIS really need to be wiped.

Click to expand...

Could you explain why ISIS is so different?

Is there a direct threat to the United States? If not, and In suggest a link would be damned thin, then what even gives the US the right to go in. In Iraq V 1.0 the US had the backing and encouragement of most of the world, including Arab nations. In Iraq V2.0 you had none and the very reason for going in was a lie. Now, in Iraq V3.0 you have even less, not a hint of weapons of mass destruction and no clear and present danger to the United States of America.

I don't recall the international community ever asking that the US be the world's policeman from every "Domino Theory" police action to young girls being kidnapped or what women wear in Afghanistan. The reasons for US military intervention become less clear every day, the outcomes usually an arbitrary pull out followed by revolution.

It's time to hang 'em up.