• 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


  • Total voters
    40

a351

#NeverTrump
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2011
Messages
6,902
Reaction score
4,825
Location
Space Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Self explanatory thread title. What do you say?
 
No. The only way to stop being the world's policeman is to stop running to every little disturbance. Just put down the scanner, and hang up the spandex guys.
 
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.
 
Never liked the Us's foreign actions (as Libya, Syria).

But ISIS really need to be wiped.
 
The only combat I want U.S to do against ISIS is nuking. It is easy, effective, gets a message across and it's pretty instant while covering a huge area.

Well, I agree with Lizzie in terms of the question on whether we have a moral obligation to kill them.
 
No. The only way to stop being the world's policeman is to stop running to every little disturbance. Just put down the scanner, and hang up the spandex guys.

Genocide is "every little disturbance"?
 
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.
 
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.

.

To the bolded: Do you really think so? I would be surprised. Security has become so tight since the dept of homeland security was formed, and now the NSA has had the reins loosened and had their powers broadened. I would surprised if any major attacks happen over here nowadays. Perhaps I'm just naïve.
 
No. The US doesn't have a moral responsibility to combat Isis. A better question would be, is it in America's best interest to combat Isis? To that question, I'd answer with option number 4.
 
To the bolded: Do you really think so? I would be surprised. Security has become so tight since the dept of homeland security was formed, and now the NSA has had the reins loosened and had their powers broadened. I would surprised if any major attacks happen over here nowadays. Perhaps I'm just naïve.

The human is the most innovative, creative and persistent problem solver that planet has seen. Further, no man made thing is perfect or infallible. When the two meet, a persistent and resourceful enemy, and human flaws in man made security systems, there'll be a breach, and something will be through.

It has been reported, and only rumors perhaps, that ISIS leaders and Mexican drug cartels are talking. One can only imagine that they are talking about smuggling roots across the Southern US border for the purpose of infiltration for nefarious purposes.

No, it's far better to combat such an enemy on their ground and away from your 'soft underbelly'. Should they actually arrive here and strike here, can you imagine the severity of the abridgement of individual rights to catch them and keep them out, this close to home? Who knows, perhaps they'll assassinate congress (doing us favors?) or the president, which would throw the US government into a tail spin for some time.
 
The human is the most innovative, creative and persistent problem solver that planet has seen. Further, no man made thing is perfect or infallible. When the two meet, a persistent and resourceful enemy, and human flaws in man made security systems, there'll be a breach, and something will be through.

It has been reported, and only rumors perhaps, that ISIS leaders and Mexican drug cartels are talking. One can only imagine that they are talking about smuggling roots across the Southern US border for the purpose of infiltration for nefarious purposes.

No, it's far better to combat such an enemy on their ground and away from your 'soft underbelly'. Should they actually arrive here and strike here, can you imagine the severity of the abridgement of individual rights to catch them and keep them out, this close to home? Who knows, perhaps they'll assassinate congress (doing us favors?) or the president, which would throw the US government into a tail spin for some time.

The cartels have never known pain like being labeled a terrorist group. Hopefully they know that.
 
The cartels have never known pain like being labeled a terrorist group. Hopefully they know that.

Dunno. They seem pretty arrogant, killing border security and ATF agents, running people and drugs across the border pretty freely and all. Not to mention all the murdering and kidnapping they are doing within Mexico. Acting pretty much a terrorist organization already, one could say.

What additional pressures would come upon them should they be labeled a terrorist group?
 
Dunno. They seem pretty arrogant, killing border security and ATF agents, running people and drugs across the border pretty freely and all. Not to mention all the murdering and kidnapping they are doing within Mexico. Acting pretty much a terrorist organization already, one could say.

What additional pressures would come upon them should they be labeled a terrorist group?

In entering the war on terror as terrorists they would by fought by our military, and hopefully Mexico's. Im talking about making it rain. All day every day and they can watch their supply lines and portals of entry into the US disappear.
 
No, we've screwed up the Middle East enough. Time to call it done, learn from our mistakes, and get the **** out of there.
 
No, we've screwed up the Middle East enough. Time to call it done, learn from our mistakes, and get the **** out of there.

You do realize it was worse before we got there, right?
 
In entering the war on terror as terrorists they would by fought by our military, and hopefully Mexico's. Im talking about making it rain. All day every day and they can watch their supply lines and portals of entry into the US disappear.

I'd be OK with making it rain on the drug cartels.

Isn't the Mexican army already in combat with the cartels now?
 
Self explanatory thread title. What do you say?

a moral imperative? No. An imperative to eradicate a clear and present danger? Yes.

But, if we're going in to wipe out ISIS, then let's wipe out ISIS and not go in without a clear objective and a will to win at any cost. If this is war, then let's wage war, and not try to convert them to democracy.
 
Considering how our inane foreign policy blunders created it you might say we do.
 
Its typically indirect and not high intensity. This would be rooting out.

And I think you were referring to something a bit more high intensity action, I believe. Still OK by me.
 
Self explanatory thread title. What do you say?

I personally think so because of a couple different reasons. Firstly, of course, there is the blatant slaughter of women, children, and minorities. And we caused a lot of the ethnonational redistribution and instability that has allowed, in part, for some of this to occur. And even ignoring that last part, the strongest country in the world should come to the assistance, in however limited a capacity, to these innocent people. Also, I feel that if we were to ignore this and let it run its course or what have you, we'd be disrespecting the lives lost in the Iraq War. Though I think the war was started for illegitimate reasons, our men and women in uniform worked hard to achieve the goals that we managed to achieve in Iraq, and we lost many a good man and woman in the process. And I think to let all that country crumble, along with these innocent people, is both disrespectful to the sacrifices made by our military and in opposition to the things for which we stand.

I'd like to note that I can certainly see the non-interventionist side of the issue, and I'm not here to say the points made by the non-interventionist side are invalid. The bulk of conflict in the Middle East can trace its roots to the blow back of foreign intervention. But I do believe that foreign intervention done correctly can right some of the wrongs we have caused, and even if I was hardcore non-interventionist, I don't believe that I could oppose efforts to stop/prevent the killing of innocents on such a massive scale like is being done now. But again, it's just my two cents.
 
Back
Top Bottom