This is why they Hate us.

[YmirGF]

I don't think that claim is being made, just the idea that we have made it worse by pumping so much money into something that just becomes more and more of a problem.

I'm having trouble articulating what I am thinking on this...

I am just concerned that people from the Facebook generation will look at these situations and seek an easy fix. Someone suggested that we should just stop bombing and let them all just sort things out. I'm afraid it's a bit too far gone for that though. It's not that simple. On the other hand, it's not "our" job to fix the world either. I know I don't have the solution, but in this instance my gut tells me to support Assad, quell the rebellion and annihilate the Islamic State. The idea is, that would give us some leverage from a "grateful" Assad. Perhaps at that point we could sit down and convince him to ride off into the sunset and take up residence in the south of France and let someone else take over. Obliterating the counties infrastructure is a dimwitted idea, at best. My thinking is if we can ease Assad out of power AFTER the turmoil dies down and have a free election to find his replacement and accept the result regardless of where the chips fall. (I know there are large holes in all this, but I don't see a better solution.)

 

[George-ananda]

Well, I guess we need to consider the idea that we might be making evil more prevalent by trying to stop something in such an ineffective way. No military effort in the middle east has seemed to remotely remove Islamic terrorism.

If anything, we're just turning the witnesses into terrorists themselves.

Are we to turn a blind eye to the slaughter of civilians by the Taliban, ISIS, etc.. They are the evil instigators in these messes. What do you say when innocent civilians are begging for protection and assistance? And we are winning the war as President Obama just said today'; ISIS has not had a military victory since June.

 

[leibowde84]

Evidence? I think there's a lot of lies going around about Assad, just like there were a lot of lies going around about Gaddafi.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack

You should do some research on it. Assad is a monster. But, then again, Iraq is a shining example of why dictators like that seem to stabilize countries in the middle east. So, it's a tough one.

 

[sayak83]

I'm having trouble articulating what I am thinking on this...

I am just concerned that people from the Facebook generation will look at these situations and seek an easy fix. Someone suggested that we should just stop bombing and let them all just sort things out. I'm afraid it's a bit too far gone for that though. It's not that simple. On the other hand, it's not "our" job to fix the world either. I know I don't have the solution, but in this instance my gut tells me to support Assad, quell the rebellion and annihilate the Islamic State. The idea is, that would give us some leverage from a "grateful" Assad. Perhaps at that point we could sit down and convince him to ride off into the sunset and take up residence in the south of France and let someone else take over. Obliterating the counties infrastructure is a dimwitted idea, at best. My thinking is if we can ease Assad out of power AFTER the turmoil dies down and have a free election to find his replacement and accept the result regardless of where the chips fall. (I know there are large holes in all this, but I don't see a better solution.)

Question:- What did the West do right in Japan, South Korea and West Germany and doing wrong in Iraq and Syria? It appears to me that occupation and reconstruction is damned hard and very unpopular and bloody work. If one is fighting an aggressive war, one should be prepared to go all in and be prepared to slog as long as it takes. US is powerful enough to wage and win skirmishes while keeping the domestic society at peace, but winning an actual war is impossible. For now US has settled for battle of attrition against ISIL which it knows it will win, even if Syria gets converted into a depopulated graveyard. ISIL simply has nuisance value for the West and nothing else. The amount of people saved by not starting a draft and not putting boots on the ground and investing an extended occupation of the entire Central Middle East is far more than a few people killed here and there due to terrorist attacks

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack

You should do some research on it. Assad is a monster. But, then again, Iraq is a shining example of why dictators like that seem to stabilize countries in the middle east. So, it's a tough one.

I'll look into it more. I distrust what the UN, EU and the US says about their enemies as a default at this point, given their history of lying.

 

[leibowde84]

Question:- What did the West do right in Japan, South Korea and West Germany and doing wrong in Iraq and Syria? It appears to me that occupation and reconstruction is damned hard and very unpopular and bloody work. If one is fighting an aggressive war, one should be prepared to go all in and be prepared to slog as long as it takes. US is powerful enough to wage and win skirmishes while keeping the domestic society at peace, but winning an actual war is impossible. For now US has settled for battle of attrition against ISIL which it knows it will win, even if Syria gets converted into a depopulated graveyard. ISIL simply has nuisance value for the West and nothing else. The amount of people saved by not starting a draft and not putting boots on the ground and investing an extended occupation of the entire Central Middle East is far more than a few people killed here and there due to terrorist attacks

Fair point.

 

[leibowde84]

I'll look into it more. I distrust what the UN, EU and the US says about their enemies as a default at this point, given their history of lying.

You should try to resist judging current leaders for the faults of leaders past, imho. The US is not a single entity. It is a massive, diverse population, leaders and citizens alike. I think it's unfair to judge Obama for crimes committed by Bush and the like.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You should try to resist judging current leaders for the faults of leaders past, imho. The US is not a single entity. It is a massive, diverse population, leaders and citizens alike. I think it's unfair to judge Obama for crimes committed by Bush and the like.

Oh, I ultimately mean the ones who are guiding the US's imperial foreign policy. I don't really have much against Obama. I pity him, actually.

 

[YmirGF]

Question:- What did the West do right in Japan, South Korea and West Germany and doing wrong in Iraq and Syria? It appears to me that occupation and reconstruction is damned hard and very unpopular and bloody work. If one is fighting an aggressive war, one should be prepared to go all in and be prepared to slog as long as it takes. US is powerful enough to wage and win skirmishes while keeping the domestic society at peace, but winning an actual war is impossible. For now US has settled for battle of attrition against ISIL which it knows it will win, even if Syria gets converted into a depopulated graveyard. ISIL simply has nuisance value for the West and nothing else. The amount of people saved by not starting a draft and not putting boots on the ground and investing an extended occupation of the entire Central Middle East is far more than a few people killed here and there due to terrorist attacks

That is certainly a nuanced view of the Islamic State. I'm not even sure what it's supposed to mean, then again, I'm not very clever.

Killing ISIS will also not end islamic terrorism.

No, given how widespread the cancer already is, clearly it would not, but it might just give other groups a reason to pause and rethink things.

 

[YmirGF]

That sure worked when al-Qaeda was around

I hadn't realized that they had been defeated and disbanded. Learn something new everyday.

 

[George-ananda]

Winning a war against a small force at the cost of many collateral lives.

You do understand they will kill tons of innocents in villages when need be. One can only guess how many innocent lives have been saved by coalition efforts.

Killing ISIS will also not end islamic terrorism.

We view ISIS as isolated terrorist attackers. The innocents in Iraq and Syria see it as an invading killing machine.

 

[YmirGF]

Well, I guess we need to consider the idea that we might be making evil more prevalent by trying to stop something in such an ineffective way. No military effort in the middle east has seemed to remotely remove Islamic terrorism.

My own guess is that is largely because our military and political leaders do not have the foggiest idea of what they are up against.

If anything, we're just turning the witnesses into terrorists themselves.

I am not so sure that is actually true. If it is true then we are making a huge mistake taking in refugees fleeing the region.

 

[sayak83]

That is certainly a nuanced view of the Islamic State. I'm not even sure what it's supposed to mean, then again, I'm not very clever.


No, given how widespread the cancer already is, clearly it would not, but it might just give other groups a reason to pause and rethink things.

Why is the west spending so much money on problem that has such a marginal effect on them? Please find a Western country in the list below,
http://intelcenter.com/reports/charts/killed-country-2014/
http://www.smh.com.au/world/terrori...rrorism-index-2015-finds-20151119-gl2puz.html
The problem is serious, but not in the West. So maybe, just maybe, the solution should geared towards where the problem is actually serious?

 

[YmirGF]

Why is the west spending so much money on problem that has such a marginal effect on them? Please find a Western country in the list below,
http://intelcenter.com/reports/charts/killed-country-2014/
http://www.smh.com.au/world/terrori...rrorism-index-2015-finds-20151119-gl2puz.html
The problem is serious, but not in the West. So maybe, just maybe, the solution should geared towards where the problem is actually serious?

I am truly sorry, but your point is a bit confusing. What, exactly, is your point?

 

[sayak83]

I am truly sorry, but your point is a bit confusing. What, exactly, is your point?

That while terrorism is a problem, its one problem among many and the current level of anxiety and focus on it is unnecessary.

 

[YmirGF]

That while terrorism is a problem, its one problem among many and the current level of anxiety and focus on it is unnecessary.

Oh, I get it. We should be focusing on important issues like Climate Change, traffic accidents and gun deaths. Are you up for a War on Poverty?

 

[sayak83]

Oh, I get it. We should be focusing on important issues like Climate Change, traffic accidents and gun deaths. Are you up for a War on Poverty?

I am not picking out topics. But on a $ to lives saved or improved ratio, do you think the money spent on terrorism is likely to provide adequate returns for it to be among the top 5-6 topics determining national concern or policy? Note also that every other topic you quoted has a metric of measure (GDP, unemployment rate, accidental deaths, crime rates, CO2 etc.).Could you please tell me the metric by which I should measure the effectiveness of the money spent on anti-terror policy?

 

[psychoslice]

Humans are just stupid idiots, and so called bad crap is always going to happen while we remain stupid idiots, it takes two to start an argument, but only one to finish it, I wonder who that will be ?.

 

[YmirGF]

I am not picking out topics. But on a $ to lives saved or improved ratio, do you think the money spent on terrorism is likely to provide adequate returns for it to be among the top 5-6 topics determining national concern or policy? Note also that every other topic you quoted has a metric of measure (GDP, unemployment rate, accidental deaths, crime rates, CO2 etc.).Could you please tell me the metric by which I should measure the effectiveness of the money spent on anti-terror policy?

I'm not entirely sure what to tell you, but terrorism isn't a "business as usual" thing that can be clearly pegged. I guess it boils down to how lucky you feel. Heck, if you ask folks in some quarters their definition of terrorism they would likely say it is a large white cop asking for your ID.

 

[esmith]

I am not picking out topics. But on a $ to lives saved or improved ratio, do you think the money spent on terrorism is likely to provide adequate returns for it to be among the top 5-6 topics determining national concern or policy? Note also that every other topic you quoted has a metric of measure (GDP, unemployment rate, accidental deaths, crime rates, CO2 etc.).Could you please tell me the metric by which I should measure the effectiveness of the money spent on anti-terror policy?

So, you are basing in on a cost to return basis? In other words if it takes X number of dollars to kill a terrorist B and the same amount of dollars spent on something else, say Z, returns X+Y dollars we should spend it on Z vice B. Is that what you are saying?