Gyroscopic Investing

Getting harder and harder for the moral equivocators to keep defending bad behavior with previous bad behavior by the US or Christians.

clacy wrote: Getting harder and harder for the moral equivocators to keep defending bad behavior with previous bad behavior by the US or Christians.

...which has been done by nobody here... nor the president.

Thank you clacy!

I actually heard Obama's State Department spokesman say: "We cannot win this war by killing them."

Huh?

Yes, and it's too late for me to take any solace from the fact that Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld bear a huge responsibility for the rise of ISIS.

I am not convinced we need to take the fight to them.  First of all, that is exactly what they want, and it will be another war we can't win. They know that.  Bin Laden knew it too, and he sucked us right in.  Which is exactly what he said was his plan.  Now they are telling us the same thing, and we are supposed to rush right in?

Let the Arabs do it.  Their civilizations are on the line. 

We should stay out of this. Isis probably had a good reason to burn these people. It's Bush's fault or they were cold. Who are we, the world's biggest cause of evil to complain or act? Just because their leader said "see you in New York" should be irrelevant. How do we know that he wasn't planning a vacation?

They are playing you like a fiddle.  That ought to give you pause.

I Shrugged,

You really think they want us to fight them?  I haven't been watching the news at all... so excuse my ignorance on the matter.

I Shrugged wrote: They are playing you like a fiddle.  That ought to give you pause.

Oh, please.  This is not all Bush's fault.  He definitely played a role, but Obama has say and watched a total power vacuum take place due to the US pulling out, as well as the Arab Spring, which was totally botched by Obama. 

There is plenty of blame to go around.

The question is... What do we do going forward?

I'm pretty sure we can't defeat ISIS by refusing to talk about Radical Islam, which seems to be the Administration's policy.

I'm pretty sure we can't put boots on the ground in the entire region, ala Bush/Cheney.

So what do we do?

I also believe we can't stick out heads in the sand.  Saying we're playing into their hands by getting fed up with burning/be-heading people, is totally wrong IMO.

These people believe in an apocalyptic ending and have already stated they are headed towards Rome.

Someone, somewhere has to stand up to these barbarians.  The US certainly can't do it alone, but there is NO WAY they can be defeated without the US's leadership (as well as money/weapons/etc).

clacy wrote: I'm pretty sure we can't defeat ISIS by refusing to talk about Radical Islam, which seems to be the Administration's policy.

I'm pretty sure we can't put boots on the ground in the entire region, ala Bush/Cheney.

So what do we do?

The Pointedstick Doctrine: death from the skies! Time to dust off the napalm.

moda0306 wrote: I Shrugged,

You really think they want us to fight them?  I haven't been watching the news at all... so excuse my ignorance on the matter.

Their prophecy is that they will meet "Rome" in battle in Dabiq, Syria.  So they want whoever will play "Rome" to go there and be vanquished by ISIS so their prophecy becomes true.  But wait, there's more!  After "Rome" is vanquished and the retalliation against ISIS by whoever begins, they know fully well that they're going to all be decimated down to only a few thousand fighters remaining, but that is first necessary before Jesus (yes, THAT Jesus) reincarnates to vanquish their enemy in Jerusalem, so that the ISIS Caliphate can then rule all of the Middle East (or the entire world depending on the interpretation).  So that is why ISIS is building up their army with believers from around the world immigrating to Dabiq.  They believe the apocalypse is literally coming.

This is what religion does to people.

Pointedstick wrote:

clacy wrote: I'm pretty sure we can't defeat ISIS by refusing to talk about Radical Islam, which seems to be the Administration's policy.

I'm pretty sure we can't put boots on the ground in the entire region, ala Bush/Cheney.

So what do we do?

The Pointedstick Doctrine: death from the skies! Time to dust off the napalm.

Ya unfortunately I don't have a lot of great answers on this.  It looks like death and destruction is the only way these guys will be stopped. 

Pointedstick wrote:

clacy wrote: I'm pretty sure we can't defeat ISIS by refusing to talk about Radical Islam, which seems to be the Administration's policy.

I'm pretty sure we can't put boots on the ground in the entire region, ala Bush/Cheney.

So what do we do?

The Pointedstick Doctrine: death from the skies! Time to dust off the napalm.

+1

Yes, moda, they want to draw us into a fight. That's ISIS 101. Part of the apocalyptic plan.

Ad Orientem wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

clacy wrote:~
So what do we do?

~ napalm.

+1

+1

Pointedstick wrote: The Pointedstick Doctrine: death from the skies! Time to dust off the napalm.

You better hope your Doctrine doesn't run into this kind of resistance:

[align=center][img width=500]http://i.imgur.com/qOrwOK6.jpg[/img][/align]

clacy wrote:There is plenty of blame to go around.

True.

clacy wrote:The question is... What do we do going forward?

Nothing.  They are killing people in the Sunni-majority regions of a far away land. 

clacy wrote:Saying we're playing into their hands by getting fed up with burning/be-heading people, is totally wrong IMO.

Saudi Arabia beheads people for sorcery and adultery as well.  Not our problem - we should condemn them (shame on both Bush and Obama for kowtowing to them) just as we condemn ISIS and do nothing further.

clacy wrote:Someone, somewhere has to stand up to these barbarians.  The US certainly can't do it alone, but there is NO WAY they can be defeated without the US's leadership (as well as money/weapons/etc).

Why is the US leadership required? Why do we need to defeat them?

Let's say they setup a crazy, behead-happy theocracy in western Iraq and eastern Syria, mostly composed of Sunnis.  Why is this our problem?  The US is running massive deficits.  Saudi Arabia has a budget surplus of tens to hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Why not let Saudi Arabia deal with them?  Germany has had budget surpluses recently in the billions - why not let them deal with it?  Both countries are much closer to Syria/Iraq than we are.

Why should we bankrupt our country further and impose massive debt on our children to try to force the population in the area in question to live under an oppressive government we pick rather than one they pick?

Because its the right thing to do? For us before they come to New York and Washington again and also for the civilized world? Because we can?

Reub wrote:Because its the right thing to do?

What precisely do you propose to do once we invade and kill a bunch of them?  Institute a democratically elected government that oppresses them until new terrorists form (hint: We tried that, it is called Iraq. Didn't go so well did it?)?  What was right about that?

Reub wrote:For us before they come to New York and Washington again and also for the civilized world?

Responding to or even preventing attacks on the USA is a reasonable thing to do.  For it to be successful, we should find a good way to do it.  Given our adventures in Iraq made the area worse, and that Afghanistan is sliding back into the gutter as well, it is pretty clear the strategy of "hey, let's invade - it will all turn out great!" isn't such a good one.

Because we can?

Killing people "because we can" is generally considered psychopathic.

moda0306 wrote: I Shrugged,

You really think they want us to fight them?  I haven't been watching the news at all... so excuse my ignorance on the matter.

It's not that they necessarily want us to fight them but according to the article in Atlantic they do have an expectation according to a prophecy that they will be attacked by "The Armies of Rome" and left only 5000 in number at which point Jesus is going to come to their rescue (that last part really blew my mind but that's what it said).

Since Rome has no army any more, I'm sure the prophecy will be interpreted to mean the U.S.A. if we attack and then they'll say bring it on.

If that all sounds silly there are many Christians who have similar views about the Middle East - just different battles fought by different people in different places before Jesus returns. I don't listen to such things any more but I suspect there is a lot of end time talk in churches right now about prophecies being fulfilled in the Middle East.

You've got some very good points, fnord. And I wonder how the rest of the world views the death penalty in the U.S. and how different states carry it out in our attempt to do it humanely. Electric chair..drugs..it has often gone awry and resulted in a painful death. I'd rather be beheaded.

However, ISIS does it slowly and painfully, and you don't have to murder someone to get the death penalty in ISIS territory, of course. At least the populace has a better chance of surviving with our oppressive govt rather than theirs. Or Saudi Arabia's.
---
I suppose it could even be argued that ISIS wouldn't exist without the West. I'm not talking about our training of mujahadeens (sp?) but the way our society churns out disenfranchised, isolated individuals. Not that it's our fault, exactly. These are part of the growing pains of capitalism. We're still figuring it out.

madbean wrote:

moda0306 wrote: I Shrugged,

You really think they want us to fight them?  I haven't been watching the news at all... so excuse my ignorance on the matter.

It's not that they necessarily want us to fight them but according to the article in Atlantic they do have an expectation according to a prophecy that they will be attacked by "The Armies of Rome"~

It does seem, though, that their agenda is to make the prophecy happen, and soon. Everything I've read said that Al Qaeda wanted to draw our soldiers into a fight and that the point of 9/11 was to make that happen, not merely to hurt our economy and spread terror.

madbean wrote:If that all sounds silly there are many Christians who have similar views about the Middle East - just different battles fought by different people in different places before Jesus returns. I don't listen to such things any more but I suspect there is a lot of end time talk in churches right now about prophecies being fulfilled in the Middle East.

It really is amazing how many susceptible people are to end-times beliefs. This sort of thing has been going on all throughout history.  One would think people would learn, but they don't.  There must be some weird part of the human brain hardwired to fall for such nonsense.  I look forward to the day when they find the gene that encodes, "Look for <insert any mystical nonsense here> as it is a sure sign the world will end soon."

fnord123 wrote: It really is amazing how many susceptible people are to end-times beliefs. This sort of thing has been going on all throughout history.  One would think people would learn, but they don't.  There must be some weird part of the human brain hardwired to fall for such nonsense.  I look forward to the day when they find the gene that encodes, "Look for <insert any mystical nonsense here> as it is a sure sign the world will end soon."

It's not just mystical religious people who are susceptible. Right-leaning survivalist types essentially believe the same thing with a government collapse Mad Max flavor in which naturally they will be the survivors. Secular leftists believe the same "end times"-type happening, but to them, it's an environmental catastrophe that wipes away humanity. Same impulse, different story.

TennPaGa wrote: Also, +100 to fnord123.

Wasn't it Nathan Hale who said My one regret is that I have but one plus to give fnord.

dualstow wrote:I suppose it could even be argued that ISIS wouldn't exist without the West.

I think the majority of the blame belongs to Britain in particular, with France deserving a lesser share.  After WWI they carved up the middle east along artificial lines to maximize the stability of their colonies and protectorates.  The general strategy was:

• Carve up a geographic area such that it contains 2-3 significant ethnic groups - ideally with one being somewhat smaller than the other two.
• Put the smaller ethnic group in charge, and support them with the (British, French) army. This makes them dependent on (Britain, France) because they know without military support the larger groups will not leave them in charge.
• Encourage the other two ethnic groups to dislike each other.  This keeps the two big groups at each other's throats, making it easier for the small group +army to control them.

This works great as long as one is running a colony like Syria or Iraq as a colony, with a military force that is far superior to the natives' capabilities and one is willing to knock heads (kill folks who get out of line) now and then.  It even works passably when the colony is replaced with an iron-fisted dictator (typically of the minority ethnic group), but only as long as the populace feels the dictator has similar (asymmetric) levels of power as the colonial power's army did.

This works really badly when the people realize the dictator doesn't have as much power as before and depose the dictator, or an external force does the same thing.  Trying to install democracy actually makes the problem worse, because it means the majority group(s) will now use their majority to get payback. The only solution is to let them fight it out and form new countries along ethnic lines - this is what Kurdistan is (although most people won't admit it) and it is reasonably stable.  The same should be done for the Sunni region of Iraq/Syria.  It will be extremely bloody and horrible while they fight, but in the long run it is even more bloody to try to keep all these people who hate each other in the same country using force. Will it be a barbaric theocratic country? Maybe - but it will be the barbaric theocracy they want.

Ever wonder why Iraq has Sunnis, Kurds, and Shias that hate each other?  Or Syria has Sunnis and Alawites?  The above is why - and it is the root of why those places are so screwed up today.  I respect the strategic thinking of colonial Britain and France, but it sure left major headaches for post-colonial times.

Pointedstick wrote:It's not just mystical religious people who are susceptible. Right-leaning survivalist types essentially believe the same thing with a government collapse Mad Max flavor in which naturally they will be the survivors. Secular leftists believe the same "end times"-type happening, but to them, it's an environmental catastrophe that wipes away humanity. Same impulse, different story.

You know, you are absolutely right, both about Right and Left.  I was unfair to pin it only on religion/mystical stuff.

P.S. Thanks y'all for the +

fnord123 wrote: I think the majority of the blame belongs to Britain in particular, with France deserving a lesser share.  After WWI they carved up the middle east along artificial lines to maximize the stability of their colonies and protectorates.  The general strategy was:

• Carve up a geographic area such that it contains 2-3 significant ethnic groups - ideally with one being somewhat smaller than the other two.
• Put the smaller ethnic group in charge, and support them with the (British, French) army. This makes them dependent on (Britain, France) because they know without military support the larger groups will not leave them in charge.
• Encourage the other two ethnic groups to dislike each other.  This keeps the two big groups at each other's throats, making it easier for the small group +army to control them.

This works great as long as one is running a colony like Syria or Iraq as a colony, with a military force that is far superior to the natives' capabilities and one is willing to knock heads (kill folks who get out of line) now and then.  It even works passably when the colony is replaced with an iron-fisted dictator (typically of the minority ethnic group), but only as long as the populace feels the dictator has similar (asymmetric) levels of power as the colonial power's army did.

This works really badly when the people realize the dictator doesn't have as much power as before and depose the dictator, or an external force does the same thing.  Trying to install democracy actually makes the problem worse, because it means the majority group(s) will now use their majority to get payback. The only solution is to let them fight it out and form new countries along ethnic lines - this is what Kurdistan is (although most people won't admit it) and it is reasonably stable.

This is so, so, so true.

At the same time, the region is experiencing a wave of fundamentalism that threatens to forge new countries not along stable homogenous ethnic lines, but according to how much territory the bloodiest most psychopathic butchers can take for themselves. It would be great if Turkey, Syria, and Iraq would get together and make a Kurdistan, or if the Kurds could even fight hard enough to get it for themselves, but the more likely situation seems to be that ISIS takes over all of these places, at least for a time, and during that time, they basically massacre hundreds of thousands or millions, and wipe out a lot of smaller ethnic groups entirely.

If people want our help defeating these lunatics, I think we should help. And quite a few groups in the region have been begging for it.