Gyroscopic Investing

Jan Van wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote:But a week or so of letting the Navy and Air Force clue these murderous savages in to the fact that, no; God is not amused by the mass murder and torture of innocent men women and children is not going to cause me to lose any sleep.

Who's God? What has he to do with this? Or do you mean, now it's a Christian sect that's threatened, all of a sudden it's time to start bombing them? Weren't they already killing people left and right?

Actually it was intended as a rhetorical turn of phrase. I gather from your comment that you believe that mass murder and genocide are not to be interfered with? That's is not intended as a shot. There a number of people, usually anarchists, who take exactly that sort of position. But it is not one that I can agree with.

No, that's not my view, just wondering what exactly changed since IS aka ISIL already was murdering lots of people before this past week...

Jan Van wrote: No, that's not my view, just wondering what exactly changed since IS aka ISIL already was murdering lots of people before this past week...

Mostly it is a question of scale, as cold as that sounds. Until recently ISIS was a fairly minor criminal gang, albeit an exceptionally brutal one. But over the course of the last month they have effectively taken over a third of what we used to call Iraq and appear to be on the verge of overrunning much of the rest. And of course wherever they go, they bring their "convert or die" approach to governance. And in this case there appears to be ample evidence that they mean it.

I am a non-interventionist by inclination, but I have some limits. In addition to the humanitarian consideration there is a cogent argument to be made that if this group is allowed to rise unchecked, at some point they are likely to become a threat to the West. In such a case I'd rather do what we can to degrade them now while ISIS still has powerful enemies on the ground who can fight them effectively.

Ad Orientem wrote:

Jan Van wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote:But a week or so of letting the Navy and Air Force clue these murderous savages in to the fact that, no; God is not amused by the mass murder and torture of innocent men women and children is not going to cause me to lose any sleep.

Who's God? What has he to do with this? Or do you mean, now it's a Christian sect that's threatened, all of a sudden it's time to start bombing them? Weren't they already killing people left and right?

Actually it was intended as a rhetorical turn of phrase. I gather from your comment that you believe that mass murder and genocide are not to be interfered with? That's is not intended as a shot. There a number of people, usually anarchists, who take exactly that sort of position. But it is not one that I can agree with.

Do you think we should have a draft to provide the soldiers neccessary to get an army in place and permanently based there, and everywhere else that you think military action should be taken? Or, do you think only a volunteer military is acceptable to stop these "genocides"?

Jan Van wrote: No, that's not my view, just wondering what exactly changed since IS aka ISIL already was murdering lots of people before this past week...

Maybe the economic reports have been coming in bad and we need some military campaigns to "unite us" prior to a recession.

Or maybe the pres really really cares about those people. 

Would the bombing have started now if the Yazidi were Shia?

Jan Van wrote: Would the bombing have started now if the Yazidi were Shia?

Difficult to say. We can be sure it wouldn't have if they were Palestinians! zing!

Jan Van wrote: Would the bombing have started now if the Yazidi were Shia?

Probably not. Humans always care more about people who appear to be more like themselves. It's why westerners routinely ignore genocides in Africa and the parts of the middle east where there aren't white-looking pseudo-Christians. And just to make the liberals cry, there ain't nothing that can ever be done to change this.

Kshartle wrote: Difficult to say. We can be sure it wouldn't have if they were Palestinians! zing!

Well, we'd send $225million in aid!

Jan Van wrote:

Kshartle wrote: Difficult to say. We can be sure it wouldn't have if they were Palestinians! zing!

Well, we'd the government would send $225million of our money to their leaders in aid!

Tightened that up for you 

Kshartle wrote:

Jan Van wrote:

Kshartle wrote: Difficult to say. We can be sure it wouldn't have if they were Palestinians! zing!

Well, we'd the government certain agents who consider themselves part of a non-existent entity called government would send $225million of our money to their leaders in aid!

Tightened that up for you 

...and a bit more

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Jan Van wrote: Well, we'd the government certain agents who consider themselves part of a non-existent entity called government would send $225million of our money to their leaders in aid!

Tightened that up for you 

...and a bit more

Thank you, I was going to tighten it up further and include guns and dungeons but we'll let it stand

Jan Van wrote: Would the bombing have started now if the Yazidi were Shia?

Yes. But it would have been Iran doing it. The reason we are needed is because no one over there gives a flying F--- about the Yazidi or the Christians.

Kshartle wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote:

Jan Van wrote: Who's God? What has he to do with this? Or do you mean, now it's a Christian sect that's threatened, all of a sudden it's time to start bombing them? Weren't they already killing people left and right?

Actually it was intended as a rhetorical turn of phrase. I gather from your comment that you believe that mass murder and genocide are not to be interfered with? That's is not intended as a shot. There a number of people, usually anarchists, who take exactly that sort of position. But it is not one that I can agree with.

Do you think we should have a draft to provide the soldiers neccessary to get an army in place and permanently based there, and everywhere else that you think military action should be taken? Or, do you think only a volunteer military is acceptable to stop these "genocides"?

Unless the enemy is on the Brooklyn Bridge I am opposed to conscription.

Ad Orientem wrote: Unless the enemy is on the Brooklyn Bridge I am opposed to conscription.

Do you mind if I ask you why? Feel free to be very brief.

Kshartle wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote: Unless the enemy is on the Brooklyn Bridge I am opposed to conscription.

Do you mind if I ask you why? Feel free to be very brief.

For the same reason I don't believe that police officers should be conscripted. Unless there is a mortal threat to an orderly and safe society, I don't believe in compulsive military service or law enforcement. What's going on in the former country of Iraq is nothing less than barbarous criminality on a massive scale. But it does not yet rise to the level of being a threat to our safety and society here in the Unite States. When force is required to stop something that is universally (or nearly so) recognized as a moral evil, the level of force should be no more than that required to end the immediate threat. In this case, I am hopeful that the Kurdish army with some timely support from US air-power will check ISIS.

Ad Orientem wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote: Unless the enemy is on the Brooklyn Bridge I am opposed to conscription.

Do you mind if I ask you why? Feel free to be very brief.

For the same reason I don't believe that police officers should be conscripted. Unless there is a mortal threat to an orderly and safe society, I don't believe in compulsive military service or law enforcement.

What reason is that? Your response is just a re-statement of belief as is the follow up sentence. I'm not trying to be difficult, I want to understand why you think that young men should not be pressed into military service. Why do you consider that wrong? I agree with you on that point, but I suspect it must be for different reasons and I'm curious what yours are.

MangoMan wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote: For the same reason I don't believe that police officers should be conscripted. Unless there is a mortal threat to an orderly and safe society, I don't believe in compulsive military service or law enforcement.

What reason is that? Your response is just a re-statement of belief as is the follow up sentence. I'm not trying to be difficult, I want to understand why you think that young men should not be pressed into military service. Why do you consider that wrong? I agree with you on that point, but I suspect it must be for different reasons and I'm curious what yours are.

Kshartle, why not women as well?

I guess if AO agrees that young men shouldn't be forced into the military I would assume he feels the same way about women. I could be wrong. Maybe he thinks women should and men shouldn't. That would be very odd. I've never heard that argument from anyone ever.

This is an informative view of the situation that I listened to last night.

http://issuesetc.org/2014/08/11/3-the-p ... olf-81114/

... Mountaineer

Ad Orientem wrote:

dualstow wrote: Totally. I mean, we could have minded our own business while Panzers were rolling into Poland -- come to think of it, we did, as long as we could.

Of course the flip side of that, is that there would have been no panzers rolling into Poland, if we had minded our own business in 1917.

Precisely.

TennPaGa wrote: What amazes me about Congress's behavior is that they act like they need permission to have a say.

Perhaps having a say means taking responsibility for the results and no one wants that.

"I have seen the buck (but it sure don't stop here)"

Why is Obama not arming the Kurds?  We should be heavily arming them so they can do the dirty work. 

clacy wrote: Why is Obama not arming the Kurds?  We should be heavily arming them so they can do the dirty work.

We are arming the Kurds... and we are bombing their enemies.

Ad Orientem wrote:

clacy wrote: Why is Obama not arming the Kurds?  We should be heavily arming them so they can do the dirty work.

We are arming the Kurds... and we are bombing their enemies.

Technically speaking yes, but we're not doing very much of either. 

On a scale of 1-10, we're at maybe a 2 in the bombing category and maybe a 3 in providing armaments.

Feeling bad for Foley's family right now.
(I don't think we have a current Syria thread, so I'll just put it here).