• 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
The Middle East, with it's secular strife, has been a cluster**** for thousands of years. I agree that it may not have been the best of decisions to go in their militarily, however, once 9/11 happened, would couldn't afford to NOT go in there militarily in a substantive way.

The US didn't have a substantive response to our African embassies being bombed prior, and this lack of response begat the 9/11 attack. I shudder to think what a lack of response to 9/11 would have begat.

And you could go further back. Had not the tragedy of Black Hawk down in Somalia never happened, and the subsequent withdraw in the face of the Somali war lord's opposition, the perception of the US being weak may never have been started.

So 20/20 hindsight is always a losing game, and the situation is now what it is. Do we wait for major western countries to fall and / or come into major conflict with ISIS before we intervene? When ISIS's power is greater? Or do we try to preempt and thwart ISIS before they gain too much power? A difficult choice to make.

Fundamental tactics is to not fight on the ground and time of your enemy's choosing, but on the ground and timing of your choosing.

The only thing that gave the perception that we were weak was GW Bush who dropped the ball on Bin Laden and his plot. We even caught one of the hijackers training to fly 2 weeks before 911 and Bush did nothing to warn the airlines. There will always be people who want to hurt us no matter what we do. The key is intelligence that can stop the attacks before they happen. Terrorist thrive on conflict and death, normal people not so much. We can't keep on playing "whack a mole" with the world. It is a very dangerous game.
 
The only thing that gave the perception that we were weak was GW Bush who dropped the ball on Bin Laden and his plot.

I suppose it depends on which plot you are talking about. The one that came immediately mind was this:

You know, nipping the problem in the bud, before it grows larger and stronger, as it were.

We even caught one of the hijackers training to fly 2 weeks before 911 and Bush did nothing to warn the airlines. There will always be people who want to hurt us no matter what we do. The key is intelligence that can stop the attacks before they happen. Terrorist thrive on conflict and death, normal people not so much. We can't keep on playing "whack a mole" with the world. It is a very dangerous game.

Yeah, "whack a mole" isn't very productive. Probably need to be far more thorough, forceful, and deadly efficient without remorse, exactly as they are, unfortunately, except with better intel, weapons, and tactics.
 
I suppose it depends on which plot you are talking about. The one that came immediately mind was this:

You know, nipping the problem in the bud, before it grows larger and stronger, as it were.



Yeah, "whack a mole" isn't very productive. Probably need to be far more thorough, forceful, and deadly efficient without remorse, exactly as they are, unfortunately, except with better intel, weapons, and tactics.

At least Clinton tried to get Bin Laden much to chagrin of Republicans who said it was wagging the dog at the time. The info released last year proved that Bush brushed off all reports of Al-Qaida activity as a hoax perpetrated by Saddam Hussein and refused to warn the airlines or anybody about the impending "attack from the air" that he received repeated warnings about.
I think your are dreaming if you think Americans will become SS storm troopers anytime soon. We are tired of useless expensive wars that make things worse. Drones that kill terrorist leaders are the best offense against them as it denies them the targets that they desire.
 
Last edited:
North Korea, and even Iran to some extent, are similar pariah in the world, yet they have trading partners, though many times by extortion.
And N Korea is set send an army marching off somewhere?
I'd be surprised if NK could afford the gas to send a sizable convoy to their border let alone to conquer territory hundreds or thousands of miles away..

Iran is not really in the same ball park as ISIS when it comes to international acceptance.

To wage a campaign where in ISIS crosses Turkey or the Mediterranean to topple a European country would require much more than what ISIS will ever have.

There's a reason why they are associated with terrorism. Terrorism is (relatively) cheap.
The external threat from ISIS is more about terrorism than conquering armies.
 
The US military is a Public-Private partnership that directly and especially indirectly employs or leads to the employment of tens of millions of Americans. For every 5 US military employees there are probably at minimum 20 US citizens somehow employed through contracts that wouldn't exist for their companies without US military sponsorship. Many Americans simply don't grasp this.
The truth is a great number of private sector US workers aren't actually private sector. Their companies exist thanks to business dealings with the US military.
Expounding on your theory doesn't actually rebut our current sorry state of economic affairs which has included two massive wars.

Is it just military spending which boosts an economy? Or would any significant govt spending do?
 
Quote me entirely, I said we need will as well.
The will to stick to the plan no matter what, not forge new ones out our ass like Iraq 2003.
So we topple ISIS and split.
Then what happens in these weapon-rich, war-torn areas full of orphans and other war-embittered people?
Seems that is pretty much the conditions which got us where we are today.

Your plan doesn't sound that much different than Rumsfeld's except you don't seem to be expecting Iraq to turn into a shining example of democracy 6 months afterward..
 
583A7191-DF24-445B-996F-B28472821070.jpg
 
So we topple ISIS and split.
Then what happens in these weapon-rich, war-torn areas full of orphans and other war-embittered people?
Seems that is pretty much the conditions which got us where we are today.

Your plan doesn't sound that much different than Rumsfeld's except you don't seem to be expecting Iraq to turn into a shining example of democracy 6 months afterward..

honestly i can give a flying **** if it turns into a democracy or not. I just want their faces in the sand enough for them to never be able to attack the U.S again.
 
At least Clinton tried to get Bin Laden much to chagrin of Republicans who said it was wagging the dog at the time. The info released last year proved that Bush brushed off all reports of Al-Qaida activity as a hoax perpetrated by Saddam Hussein and refused to warn the airlines or anybody about the impending "attack from the air" that he received repeated warnings about.

As opposed to Clinton pretty much ignoring the problem? Yeah, figures that'd be your position. The 'Blame Bush' position. The reality is as it always is, and that's it took many hands and many actions to get to where we are. It's pretty useless, beyond petty partisanship, to try to blame any single president.

I think your are dreaming if you think Americans will become SS storm troopers anytime soon. We are tired of useless expensive wars that make things worse. Drones that kill terrorist leaders are the best offense against them as it denies them the targets that they desire.

While I agree that drones seem to be the most effective, but it's like spraying Round Up on weeds. The weeds always come back at some point, and sometimes you have to actually pull the weeds out.

Rather presumptuous, that use of 'we', I think.

While I'm not saying that there isn't a war weariness in the nation, there is. What I am saying is that sometimes early engagement is the cheaper route, in terms of loss of life, financial commitment, better outcome, etc. than delaying engagement. The skill and wisdom is to recognize if the situation is one of these, to effectively marshal the needed support and resources, and to execute, limiting and controlling mission creep.
 
honestly i can give a flying **** if it turns into a democracy or not. I just want their faces in the sand enough for them to never be able to attack the U.S again.

I don't know if that's even possible. So what you are saying is that we should repeat the Russian experience in Afghanistan? That didn't work out so well for them, and I believe they were far more brutal about it than we were.
 
As opposed to Clinton pretty much ignoring the problem? Yeah, figures that'd be your position. The 'Blame Bush' position. The reality is as it always is, and that's it took many hands and many actions to get to where we are. It's pretty useless, beyond petty partisanship, to try to blame any single president.



While I agree that drones seem to be the most effective, but it's like spraying Round Up on weeds. The weeds always come back at some point, and sometimes you have to actually pull the weeds out.

Rather presumptuous, that use of 'we', I think.

While I'm not saying that there isn't a war weariness in the nation, there is. What I am saying is that sometimes early engagement is the cheaper route, in terms of loss of life, financial commitment, better outcome, etc. than delaying engagement. The skill and wisdom is to recognize if the situation is one of these, to effectively marshal the needed support and resources, and to execute, limiting and controlling mission creep.

Bush was a bungling buffoon, surrounded by idiots and yes that was a big reason for the terrorists success on 911. Republicans must start taking responsibility if they ever want to be President again.

Actually Round-up kills weeds so they can't come back. Its the seeds that sprout to form new weeds. We need to stop the production of the seeds of terrorism which is not by military force but by humanitarian aid.
 
Last edited:
Something which only came to light in 2014 made us look weak 13 years ago?

Probably need to be far more thorough, forceful, and deadly efficient without remorse, exactly as they are, unfortunately, except with better intel, weapons, and tactics.
At least you admit you want us to act like the bad guys.
Often people suggest the same as you but then try to weasel out of having to call what they have suggested evil.
 
I think we, as the strongest military power in the world, should be using our military power to protect people from violence before any other duty. If we want to claim the moral high ground, then we ought to be intervening to save people from the massacres that ISIS is carrying out. Humanitarian intervention is one of the few reasons that fighting can be noble.

Refreshing to hear this from a socialist.

ISIS are a bunch of hicks, they aren't dug in, and they can be rapidly expelled. HOWEVER, we will need to maintain a small military presence there to keep them out, probably for years. Once this has stabilized, Iraqi's will be on the front line, not the US. Thankfully most of the infrastructure still stands, even in ISIS territory.
 
At least Clinton tried to get Bin Laden much to chagrin of Republicans who said it was wagging the dog at the time. The info released last year proved that Bush brushed off all reports of Al-Qaida activity as a hoax perpetrated by Saddam Hussein and refused to warn the airlines or anybody about the impending "attack from the air" that he received repeated warnings about.
I think your are dreaming if you think Americans will become SS storm troopers anytime soon. We are tired of useless expensive wars that make things worse. Drones that kill terrorist leaders are the best offense against them as it denies them the targets that they desire.

Clinton let Bin Laden go.
 
honestly i can give a flying **** if it turns into a democracy or not. I just want their faces in the sand enough for them to never be able to attack the U.S again.

That wont happen unless we maintain a limited presence there, probably long term. It will be low-intensity.
 
Possibly, but I would be personally more convinced for intervention if oil supplies are threatened.
 
Something which only came to light in 2014 made us look weak 13 years ago?


At least you admit you want us to act like the bad guys.
Often people suggest the same as you but then try to weasel out of having to call what they have suggested evil.

We knew Clinton let OBL go years ago, this was just evidence that Clinton was aware of his folly-in a very untimely admission.
 
That wont happen unless we maintain a limited presence there, probably long term. It will be low-intensity.

So you want to "limit" terrorism by providing targets and recruiting slogans in their home countries? It is our continued meddling on their lands that is providing the fodder for their propaganda that we wish to destroy all Muslims.
 
Clinton let Bin Laden go.

He tried to get him at least. GW Bush forbid even the mentioning of his name lest it distract from his childish goal of ousting Saddam. Bush dropped the ball on Bin Laden and 911 was the result.
 
So you want to "limit" terrorism by providing targets and recruiting slogans in their home countries? It is our continued meddling on their lands that is providing the fodder for their propaganda that we wish to destroy all Muslims.

Look at what happened in Iraq after we left-it was initially stable and then ISIS moved in (often to "rest" after being expelled from Syria).

We need to not give them a base, and then maintain a presence so they can't come back in. Thats all we need to do-exactly what Obama's generals and the Iraqi military TOLD Obama before he pulled out for politics.
 
He tried to get him at least. GW Bush forbid even the mentioning of his name lest it distract from his childish goal of ousting Saddam. Bush dropped the ball on Bin Laden and 911 was the result.

He had OBL targeted, and held off. Thats a piss poor attempt, why even risk the assets if you dont have the balls to pull the trigger?
 
What do you think a ME with MORE Iranian and Russian influence, as well as more terrorism will do to world oil supplies?

Russia, as far as I can tell, benefits immensely from our continued deep presence in the Middle East. It allows Russia to move a bit more forcefully in Europe.

Intervention with ISIS is certainly tempting on a humanitarian front, but I personally think the Left has undervalued the notion that tangible benefits from intervention are worthwhile pursuits.

If one is to engage militarily, might we as well point to some sort of material benefit? A war for oil to me might not be as folly as a War to spread democratic values.
 
What do you think a ME with MORE Iranian and Russian influence, as well as more terrorism will do to world oil supplies?

More reason to reduce our oil consumption. Less US consumption = Less US vulnerability. Furthermore, the US's #1 export is refined oil products. Furthermore, the Russians themselves have a clear benefit of reducing Islamic terrorism given that they themselves have been the target many, many, many times. If you had any understanding of history (which you have demonstrated time and time again you do not), you'd know this. As for the Iranians, they are still screwed on the sanctions with only a few buyers, all of which are giving them exceptionally bad deals. Anyway, let them spend treasure and blood there. It's about time the US stop playing police man.

Your positions stem from a foundation of gross ignorance.
 
More reason to reduce our oil consumption. Less US consumption = Less US vulnerability. Furthermore, the US's #1 export is refined oil products. Furthermore, the Russians themselves have a clear benefit of reducing Islamic terrorism given that they themselves have been the target many, many, many times. If you had any understanding of history (which you have demonstrated time and time again you do not), you'd know this. As for the Iranians, they are still screwed on the sanctions with only a few buyers, all of which are giving them exceptionally bad deals. Anyway, let them spend treasure and blood there. It's about time the US stop playing police man.

Your positions stem from a foundation of gross ignorance.

Russia is a stanch supporter of Iran-which is the worlds largest state sponsor of terrorism. And they are also Shiite, not sunni. That wont help in Iraq-and it might hurt if Iraq begins to refine the Iranian oil Iran can't.

As for oil dependency-world oil prices are set by supply. We need to be drilling here more. There are simply no alternatives to oil at this time (nuclear is promising) to power a 21st century economy period.
 
Back
Top Bottom