A poll about our newest war for our dear DUers

[marym625]

It's easy. Just a yes or no question.

Do you agree we should be going to war against ISIS?

Thank you for your kind participation.

46 votes, 3 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes.
	10 (22%)
	No.
	36 (78%)
	3 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[bigwillq]

1. No (nt)

[yeoman6987]

151. I don't even begin to have enough information to make such a

Major decision as this. I have to pass on this. I trust the President on this. I have too. I have zero access to the intelligence and other realistic views on ISIS. I think this is irresponsible to even hazard a guess or even my wishes.

[bigwillq]

152. It's just a question on a message board.

Nothing is irresponsible here unless it's against the rules of the message board.


The OP asked a question, I answered.

edited

[yeoman6987]

157. If I had to answer now.....I would vote no.

I will in fact to keep your stats accurate.

[shenmue]

2. Not going to play this game

[marym625]

3. I'm sorry

I did not mean to make it sound like a game. I am seriously curious.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

99. If you'd prefer a thread along the same lines that is not looking for yes/no answers, try this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026242725

[pscot]

4. I'm a reluctant no

[marym625]

5. May I ask. .

Why you are reluctant?

I don't want to push anyone into reasons. That's why I made a poll. I actually wish we could do polls that didn't show names.

[pscot]

15. I think they're dangerous animals

but hard to get at. They deserve killing, but the cost is too high. There's a lot more to it than that, but that's the short answer.

[Maedhros]

34. Thinking of other people as "animals" that "deserve killing"

is a slippery slope that leads to very dark places for a nation.

[hatrack]

44. Animals don't do things like this to their fellow animals

Only humans.

Animals predate, and fight over mating and territory, but cats don't kill other cats because the Invisible Sky Cat told them that "White Fur Good, Black Fur Bad".

We're apparently too slow to figure out just how anomalous we are. I guess we're just all hypnotized by our own amazing super-stunning awesome specialness.

[FrodosPet]

144. I think mating and territory is the main reasons humans fight as well

They just throw in the Sky Daddy stuff to make it more interesting.

[pscot]

73. Which is why I think we should stay out

Our intervention has destabilized the entire Bloody Crescent from Benghazi to Kabul. The underlying issues are population, with 2/3 of the population under 30 and unemployed, and resource depletion, and there is nothing we can do to mitigate those factors. Like all humans, we're capable of terrible things; best keep our distance.

[marym625]

47. Thank you very much

For your reply.  agree with that. That they're hard to get at. And with your caveat as well, that the cost is too high.

(I just went to delete a different response and accidentally deleted the one to you. I think that's exactly what I said.

[MattSh]

69. Sounds a lot like "our man" Yatsenyuk...

Of course, he never called the ethnic Russians living in East Ukraine, Ukrainian citizens all, were dangerous animals. He just channeled his inner Hitler and called them "subhumans". But if you're subhuman, the pretty much implies you are an animal of some sort.

[sabrina 1]

149. Sssshhh, telling the truth about our guys in Kiev is likely to get you labeled as a 'Putin lover'!

Don't tell anyone it was a coup, either. Or that the first act of our 'guys' in Kiev was to make the language of Ukrainians, illegal. Which, and don't mention this either, caused Eastern Ukrainians to get the impression that they were in danger and needed some kind of protection.

And you must not state the facts that Crimeans acted swiftly to protect themselves, voting to leave a country that had just told them they would be second class citizens if they remained, if that.

Looks like it was good decision since they have not been part of the Kiev government's military assault on its own people.

Just keep all that to yourself though, because you would not want to have your patriotism questioned.

[LanternWaste]

114. I think danger also comes from half-wits who pretend to know who deserves to be killed

I think danger also comes from half-wits who pretend to know who deserves to be killed and who is or is not a human being versus an animal. There's a lot more to it than that, but that's the short answer.

[pscot]

124. ISIS are pretty sure they know.

But they are no danger to us unless we go there and poke at them. Which is just what we do.
Westerners go there and get caught up in it and killed. It causes us pain; we react.
The short answer is there is no short answer, but it's starting to look like early stage apocalypse to me.

[marym625]

125. It's said often around here

It seems to me that we've lost some humanity of late. The left I mean

[Maedhros]

153. I'll leave it to one who had seen death up close and personal,

a person who lost all of his friends to war:

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”

- J.R.R. Tolkien

[MohRokTah]

6. This is not as simple as "yes/no". eom

[Agschmid]

10. Yup.

[marym625]

13. my poll is

Doesn't mean your or my answers are.

Just trying to get a feel about what we here on DU are thinking

[MohRokTah]

20. Then your poll is useless.

This is far more complex than your poll.

[marym625]

24. alrighty then!

Of course it is. It's extremely complicated. And yet, the basic, I am against or for, is not.

I have done enough polls to know that some will reply to the post with their thoughts or facts. I also like to get a feel for what people are thinking high level, then go from there.

Not that you asked.

Thank you for your thoughts

[MohRokTah]

25. There is no basic "I am against or for" in this.

Only to ideological anti-all-war purists does such a black and white question enter into the discussion, and such extremists can be dismissed as having no valid position.

[marym625]

48. hence people explaining their thoughts

I am replying with a new post because I wanted to ask something.

Do you really think that people who are purist in their thoughts on war have no validity? That their reasoning is not worthy of even discussion?

I am 100% against the death penalty. Does that mean my reasons shouldn't be listened to? Or my vote in a poll should be negated?

I believe that there are times in which you have to fight. but I believe that's the exception to the rule. So my thoughts don't count?

[WillyT]

7. NO !!!

[marym625]

28. Thank you doll!

I appreciate you responding.

[dissentient]

8. Hell no. It is not our fight. Those who are very concerned about ISIS are welcome to

go hop a plane, and join the fight over there in the middle east.

Sorry, not buying the war hype yet. They have to come up with something more than snuff videos for me to start being fearful of ISIS.

[marym625]

14. I agree

And I don't think that ISIS can be fought in a war.

[Agschmid]

9. We already are at war...?

[marym625]

33. I'm sorry, I missed your reply

Not yet. But we know it's coming

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/11/politics/isis-aumf-white-house-congress/

[Laura PourMeADrink]

11. No. Hell No. No. Hell No. repeat in ad finitum et ultra

[marym625]

16. +a kabillion

[femmocrat]

12. I'm OK with Obama's strategy for now.*

Airstrikes and aid to other countries who are fronting the fight. I would like to see more aid to the Kurds and less US military involvement, though. I do not support the sending in of troops or any more "advisors".

*(Just my probably under-informed opinion.)

[marym625]

17. Thank you very much

I appreciate your thoughts on this

[Vattel]

19. Sort of yes.

I think we should help to protect the Kurdish region of Iraq. I don't think we should be trying to destroy ISIS.

[marym625]

22. Very thoughtful response

And I appreciate it. Can't say I completely disagree either. Protection is important. But it is everywhere and we sure aren't doing it in many places that need it

[Terra Alta]

21. No, no, a billion times no

Dumbya's little misadventure into Iraq is what created ISIL in the first place. If we go in there and destroy ISIL, something worse will take it's place.

[marym625]

23. That's exactly what I said to my brother this morning

Though I said ISIS. How is it so many don't understand that part?

[Terra Alta]

32. there are lots of people who think war solves everything

I really don't know why.

I hope one day for peace on the planet, but I don't think that day will come until humans are long gone.

[marym625]

37. I agree

I completely agree. Though I do believe we can do a hell of a better job than we're doing

[workinclasszero]

26. I think the question is wrong

ISIS is declaring war against all who don't support them, Muslim, Christian, atheist, Jew.

They have all ready declared they will bring war to Europe soon.

The correct question should be, Will you submit to ISIS dark age barbarism or defend yourself and your freedoms/way of life?

[marym625]

29. That's a valid point

But for now, it's us going after them. Good question for later though.
Thank you much for your thoughts

[dissentient]

40. So they hate us for our freedoms? Hmm, sounds familiar

[marym625]

46. Yes

Didn't you know? That's wwhy everyone hates us. Because we're so free.

[Caretha]

75. When they bring

war to Europe, will they be using their awesome air force or their navy and beaching the shores of Italy?

Inquiring minds want to know?

[avebury]

30. There are a lot more people/issues/things/whatever

that pose a far greater risk to us here in the US then ISIS. It seems like ISIS is used as a diversion to keep us from standing up to internal issues.

[marym625]

35. Same trick, different day

I wouldn't have a problem going to war against the 1%.

That's not serious. Well. Yeah. Not seriously. Sort of.

[Chemisse]

31. No. This is a war for those in the Middle East who are affected by the ISIS takeover of lands.

I am fine with helping out, limitedly, but they need to take the lead to fight for their own lands and their own safety.

[marym625]

36. I don't think this can be won through

War. People need to talk. To reason. Even with the unreasonable.

[geek tragedy]

61. Wait, you think dialogue with ISIS is the way we should

resolve this?

That is awfully naive. ISIS cannot be reasoned with. Just like the Khmer Rouge and Nazis.

[marym625]

63. I am not naive

Nor do I think we could or should just send over some negotiators. But you cut off the money and you open the lines of communication, instead of doing the same thing we did to create ISIS, and I believe that we would get farther than we will just bombing the shit out of innocent people. "Collateral damage" will be higher than ever.

[geek tragedy]

66. What lines of communication would you open with an apocalyptical death cult?

There is literally nothing to talk to them about.

What they want, they cannot be allowed to have.

The destruction of ISIS is not mandatory.

[marym625]

68. I promise to respond tomorrow

But right now I can hardly see and can't keep my eyes open. Just didn't want you to think I'm ignoring you

[marym625]

81. First

I am confused by your last sentence there. I thought that's what you wanted. I do too, just not by us dropping bombs all over the middle east.

There are always people in these groups that can be reasoned with. And even if blackmail is used or people bought off, it will be easier to destroy by them destroying themselves. We've done it before. Before we wanted our presence known in every conflict in the world. Whether we started it or not.

There are also groups and government's just as bad as ISIS. Why don't the people suffering at their hands deserve our help? Where's the outcry to bomb the shit out of them? I'm tired of us being a war mongering country.

I'm tired of hundreds of thousands of innocent people dying in my name. I'm sick of the war culture and the need to obliterate groups of people.

Who are we to call ISIS terrorists and not call ourselves the same. Children and families innocently living in a country we took arms against, burned alive by fire, napalm and white phosphorus. Innocent people tortured for a decade only to die and all in our name. Attacking a country for no other reason but money, using lies as an excuse while the perpetrators walk free and rich.

We are hypocrites. We created ISIS. Our continuation of tearing up the middle east will only breed more.

[stage left]

38. No.

[marym625]

39. Thank you. n/t

[stage left]

76. You're welcome!

I think a ground war against Isil is being sold to us by media and rightwing politicians like South Carolina's own "esteemed" senior senator, Lindsey Graham. I saw the very same thing happening in the days after 911. It's the politics of fear and I'm not buying it.

[marym625]

126. and in this day and age

We end up with thousands of military that are injured so badly that their lives are horrifically changed forever. The number of military brain damaged in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is astronomical. Then, the loving, caring country that we are, throw these people away.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

41. No. No. No.

That's 2 identical polls and I gave the same answer. Are there any more?

[marym625]

42. Oh, I missed the other one

Shoot. Was it before mine?

[Aerows]

43. I voted no

but I wish there was an option of Hell Fucking No.

[marym625]

45. LOL!

Judging from most of the people that replied with "no" that is exactly what it is

[Ykcutnek]

49. I think we should continue our campaign from the air.

Perhaps expanding it.

Blow them to smithereens wherever they gather.

And use every covert group we have at our disposal: Seals, Delta, JSOC, etc.

Hell, we should even task some of the dirtiest work to private forces.

But absolutely no ground war/invasion. That's an asinine way to fight in the 21st Century.

[marym625]

50. Thank you

I appreciate your thoughts.

I don't at all like the idea of the private companies being hired but that's me

[joshcryer]

51. It would legitimize them and their territories.

[marym625]

53. awesome point

Hadn't thought of that. Thank you

[donco]

52. They are psychopathic roaches

and need to be exterminated.

[marym625]

54. Thank you for your thoughts

I truly appreciate your reply

[Maedhros]

154. Yes, "exterminating" people has worked out so well in the past.

America Above All, eh?

[olddots]

55. no

I'm sad sbout the yes votes but used to them

[marym625]

56. Me too

Not used to them but sad about it.

Once we are in it a little, we're in it all the way

[marym625]

57. interesting

As of this moment, it's a 17% go to war vote. On a democratic site.

To the people who think that my poll is useless, to me, that's a very important number.

Do we need to get deeper? Of course. But that's what is happening here. Almost 1/5 of the people think war is right and justifiable

[geek tragedy]

58. How do you define "go to war?"

Right now we're bombing them, and very few people think it's a bad thing that we're doing so.

Does that count as going to war?

[marym625]

59. Does in my book

I guess I said that badly.

Yes, some people think we should just bomb them with no boots on the ground. I think we're doing just what we did in Vietnam and Iraq (at first) and there's no turning back. It's wrong and there's nothing right about it.

[geek tragedy]

60. Nothing right about stopping ISIS from committing

genocide and destabilizing the entire Middle East?

Sorry, I think the pacifist/isolationist playbook is inapplicable to this context.

ISIS needs to be destroyed, one way or another. We shouldn't be the primary fighters over there, but there is not a compelling argument against us helping out those who are taking on ISIS.

[marym625]

62. and I appreciate your thoughts on this

I also didn't say we shouldn't help. But not militarily.

There are ways of fighting and helping without bombing the shit out of innocent people. There are also many places in the world that need as much help and have been suffering for years at the hands of people as bad or worse than ISIS. I don't see anyone yelling for us to go to war and bomb the shit out of the Congo.

Please know, I am serious about my thanks and respect for your opinion.

[geek tragedy]

67. Non-miltiary help is useless if everyone gets butchered and enslaved by ISIS. Military action and

aid is absolutely necessary.

Food aid won't prevent them from taking cities and towns.

Only bullets and bombs will.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. There is only one reason we are involved in the wars in the Middle East...

[marym625]

65. BINGO!

You win!To

If they continue to increase oil production in the Congo, we might actually help those people. Help them then take their oil.

[NM_Birder]

130. I see this all the time, so I gotta ask.

Exactly whose oil are we taking ?

No clever "no war for oil", or Bush lied people died for oil",........... which countries have fallen under the United States so we could take thier oil ?

Really, do you know where we get our oil ?

[marym625]

131. so you want to test me?

I love the assumption that I am uniformed.

Canada. Hence the push for the Keystone pipeline.

But it's the oil cartel that we want to please. Doesn't matter where we get our oil or how much we could cut off. It's making those that control the money happy

[hack89]

134. America just over took Saudi Arabia to become the largest oil producer in the world

We became the world's largest producer of natural gas in 2010. We have cut our oil imports by 60% and imports continue to fall.

We are quickly becoming energy independent.

[marym625]

136. yes.

And the strikes, both current and to come, the disasters including just Wednesday in Torrence California and the accident in North Carolina Monday, are indications that our production will slow and soon.

It doesn't change the fact that oil is a big reason for the US to be in the middle east.

Actually, I can't find anything saying 60%. I know we took over the Saudi role but I don't see 60%. Not saying it isn't true but please link it.

[hack89]

137. Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and Russian are four of the top five countries we get oil from

with Saudi Arabia being number 2. 78% of our oil imports come from non-ME countries.

60% of our imports come from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela.

[marym625]

138. Yes, I realize that

Sorry, I read your last post incorrectly about the 60%

How does that change the fact that oil is a huge reason the US is in the middle east? .

[hack89]

139. Perhaps because oil is no longer a huge reason the US is in the middle east?

it is one of many reasons.

[marym625]

141. How is what you said

Any reason to think that the US main concern in the middle east isn't oil? That's like saying that the kochs don't care about money because they have enough

[NM_Birder]

150. LOL !

I guess it's not an assumption anymore, no test required. Canada,.....Canada is your example. Nothing in the Congo, the middle east, South America....Canada and the KS pipeline, .......... that is your answer. thanks.

[marym625]

156. What exactly is your problem

The question was where we get most of our oil. Not all of our oil. The correct answer is Canada.

Edit: You didn't ask most, I just answered most.

Your question was completely irrelevant. Your attitude is simplistic and childish. Your thinking that oil isn't a key factor in our involvement in middle east conflicts is simplistic and naive.

[marym625]

166. Ah

I see now where you found this post.

Thanks for your participation in DU.

[hack89]

135. We are not dependent on their oil anymore.

we have become the number one oil and natural gas producer in the world. We have slashed our oil imports from the ME drastically.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

146. If that's the case, why are we still butting in?

Despite our endless failures there?

[hack89]

147. I can't give you an answer that will fit on a bumper sticker.

Have you considered that it is a complex problem in a complex region with complex causes?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

148. I have indeed considered that.

And, using violence to curb the violence in the Middle East has proven, time after time, to only produce more violence. Most of the Middle East would be a backwater, usually ignored, if not for the oil. Look at the ongoing and much more brutal civil wars in sub-Saharan Africa that are ignored or pooh-poohed as "tribal-disputes". Much of our economy is still dependent on oil, if only because the oil states have a great impact on the world economy in the way of loans, grants, taxes, etc.

The question that's important enough to frighten "the West" into intruding is, "What will happen if ISIS succeeds in overthrowing the oil states and stops the flow of oil and money to the west?"

I contend that our interests are NOT humanitarian or to "spread democracy" or the other convenient platitudes, but the much more crass interests of capitalism and the protection of capitalism. Worse, a brief glance at history will tell us that our interventions have been fruitless and actually added to the chaos and that a new one will, in all likelihood have the same (or, worse) results.

[JDPriestly]

70. I voted yes -- reluctantly, but yes.

Isis is a very dangerous movement that believes that killing those who disagree with its religious beliefs is justified. We have seen this kind of movement before. It is extremely dangerous. We should not accept the vicious intolerance of this group toward those who hold beliefs other than their own.

ISIS is essentially an extreme right-wing group that wants to make everyone conform to their narrow set of beliefs. That is precisely the kind of movement that has to be fought against by countries like ours that are, believe it or not, far more liberal than many. The extremism of ISIS will destroy the intellectual, moral and social fabric of the society opportunities in the societies that they invade. They will take the Middle East that is just now starting to emerge from a dark period backward. They will destroy the questioning that began with the Arab Spring. They will destroy education for women. They will leave a wasteland.

I generally oppose war, but ISIS is a really dangerous movement.

The American Civil War was important. It was a war against an ignorant, unjust institution: slavery. ISIS wishes to impose an ignorant, unjust form of the Islam on the people it manages to dominate. The fight against ISIS is to some extent perhaps about oil, but more importantly, it is about the freedom of the people in the Middle East to have a culture that is not dominated by an extreme form of religion.

This sounds trite and is likely to be misunderstood, but living in Los Angeles, living in a city that includes many cultures and religions (a Buddhist temple literally a short walk from my house), I have Muslim friends. They are not at all like the followers of ISIS. They are peaceful, normal people. I firmly believe in and practice tolerance, but not of criminal behavior. ISIS is a criminal organization. I do agree that the people most affected by ISIS, those in the Middle East should take the lead in fighting its aggression against their communities. But I also know that the US stirred the pot in the Middle East and is partly responsible for having created the problems that have given rise to ISIS. A peaceful resolution of the situation is needed, but I don't think that ISIS is ready for that yet. So war it will be. But if we deal with the situation firmly now, the war will not last that long. If we wait, ISIS will gain strength and the fight will be much worse than it would be if we resist the tendency to give in to extremism at this point. ISIS is extremist.

[marym625]

83. Thank you for your thoughtful response

Some of it I agree with, some I don't. But I really appreciate the time taken and response given

[Widget2000]

71. No. We need to get serious about alternative energy

cut off ties with Saudi Arabia, and let the beast starve.

[marym625]

84. I don't have a problem with that

We need to get away from big oil. It, the laws it creates, the land, water and air it pollutes, the money that it takes from the poor and the middle class, all need to GTFO

But it won't happen in our lifetime

[Widget2000]

105. Maybe it will, with the right incentives...

Interesting positioning by Tesla re: "home batteries" to break the grid system. Of course, this would mean breaking up utilities monopolies, but if a company like Tesla sees big $$, we might just get some momentum. Already, some states are nervous about what this means, and are trying to outlaw "off the grid", but if the momentum builds, this could really revolutionize how we create, store, and use energy.

[marym625]

107. Thanks for the links

I was reading about that the other day. It is really something great. Actually, the grids are so archaic in most places, it will soon be a necessity to be off the grid.

[RandiFan1290]

72. Something this thread is missing

http://todaysmilitary.com/contact-a-recruiter

No excuses.

I'm sure you have kids or grand kids that are able to sign up.

[marym625]

85. nope. no kids

And I wouldn't allow them to join if I had any. Not with the warmongering policies we have anymore.

Sorry. I'm really tired. Not on my game

[L0oniX]

74. FUCK NO !

[marym625]

86. +1

[KamaAina]

77. Okay, you 17 Yes voters, care to explain why?

[marym625]

80. Some did.

But I am going to watch to see if you are responded to

[Liberal_in_LA]

95. some one needs to take out ISIS

[KamaAina]

98. But why does it have to be us?

Why does it always have to be us?

[marym625]

128. Maybe we just like war

We create the horrible regimes and groups, then we try to obliterate them. This causes more horrible regimes and groups, etc, etc, etc

It's up to 25 yes votes

[Kaleva]

78. We are already at war with ISIS and very few are complaining about it.

[marym625]

87. I know

It's sad but we live in a country that a full 25% don't believe in evolution

http://www.alternet.org/story/148826/16_of_the_dumbest_things_americans_believe_--_and_the_right-wing_lies_behind_them

[Glassunion]

79. It's not a simple yes / no

If yes... What kind of war? If no... What route of inaction is taken?

[marym625]

89. I understand there are complexities

I am just looking for a high level answer right now. So yes is any kind of war. No is no war. I will go further with this later

Thank you for your reply

[ileus]

82. isis deserves this little vacation, to work it out of their system.

It's time we let folks vent a little. After all we've done to them over the years we should give them a little slack.

[marym625]

90. uhm. no sarcasm thing

But I am going to assume it's sarcastic

Thank you for your thoughts

[Adrahil]

88. A qualified yes....

Provide logistical and intelligence support, airstrikes, and SOF. No conventional boots on the ground and if the countries in the region aren't willing to take the lead, GTFO.

[marym625]

91. Thank you

I appreciate your thoughts on this. Seems many agree with you

[Throd]

92. "When did you stop beating your wife?"

[marym625]

93. Oh a long time ago

We weren't legally married so it wasn't any fun anymore.

I assume you have a point. I am at a loss as to what it is. Care to explain?

[Throd]

94. It is an old example of a poorly framed question.

[marym625]

96. Nice

Have you heard this one? Call me up to call me down?

Thanks for your reply

[TheKentuckian]

97. I'm a big believer in getting the fuck out and get off the crazy Superman complex

We can't even run and fund our own country and have done nothing but fuck up in the region at a staggering cost and make bad worse but we just must DO SOMETHING. FUCK THAT.

A standing army is a cancer on a free society and a peaceable world. We are eating the seed corn while we rockheadedly stack blowback as our country fucking rots.

Fuck this shit, if your moral outrage meter is pegged then head your ass on over there or at least send a contribution instead of demanding yet another dumbass fool's errand of a war.

[marym625]

101. yep

Thank you. I agree.

[hunter]

100. Isis is like a fantasy football league.

Sadly, they do kill people, but the "real" world is a lot bigger than that.

In my utopia, the U.S. dollar isn't linked to the international petroleum markets.

Middle Eastern Fundamentalists would have no prize to claim.

Leave the fossil fuels in the ground, we of the planet earth win.

[marym625]

102. +1

I like your utopia

Thank you

[Albertoo]

103. Not a simple yes/no (like Glassunion)

• Can't/shouldn't engage boots (or planes) on the ground (in the air)

Let muslims fight it out among themselves, or ISIS will use the 'Ugly Americans' card.

• But can't let a pack of crackpots rule a country (raise taxes, get oil income)

Or they would have the means to fight offensive jihad (which is on their menu)

I hope Hillary knows how to walk on a tightrope.

[marym625]

109. I appreciate your thoughts and

I think those are good questions. But I just wanted a very high level yes or no for now. Though I do very much appreciate all the responses.

I don't even want to think about what HC would do. Highly doubt I would agree. But good comment

Thank you

[jobycom]

104. "I've hired you to start a war. It's a prestigious line of work, with a long and glorious tradition.

Jesus, quit being so easily manipulated.

The enemy is always evil, always barely human, always driven by some horrible ideology that makes them into monsters. Communism, Islam, anti-colonialism, whatever. This nation has exterminated an indigenous population on this continent, enslaved a population kidnapped from another continent, and waged war just about every five to ten years its entire history, and always against some horrible intractable enemy busy killing babies, virgins, and Christians.

So you don't like an enemy who murders people in horrific ways because of their brutal ideology? The US in Fallujah fired into crowds of protesters, dropped bombs on civilian neighborhoods, shot civilians for being out of their houses when ordered to stay in their houses, and used white phosphorus against civilians, killing dozens by deploying weapons that literally melted the flesh from the bones of people. We killed thousands of people in a city because the city told us to get out since we had already overthrown the person we had invaded to overthrow.

Is ISIS worse than that?

It's a never ending cycle. We are always being told that the US is a peaceful nation only rarely driven to war, and yet we are always at war against some enemy that is so much more horrible than the last enemy that they just can't be allowed to live. One more war. One more war. One more war. Iraq. Iran. Lebanon. Grenada. Panama. Vietnam. Korea. Japan. The Philippines. Cuba. Nicaragua. Libya. Somalia. Serbia. Afghanistan. Columbia. Who can even remember them all?

Seriously, at some point you think we'd catch on. We're like the cat chasing the laser dot, sure it's really real this time.

You oppose every war, or you never stop war. It's that simple.

[marym625]

108. +1000

I said pretty much the same thing in a response to someone here, though you said it better

I keep coming back to a documentary I watched the other night. It was Weather Underground. It talks about this, how violent our country is. That was 40 years ago. And we haven't changed.

Well said. Thank you

[Maedhros]

155. THANK YOU.

The truth is a rare commodity on DU these days, especially in matters of war.

You are spot-on.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

106. I think "Should the US be joining in the war against ISIS" might be a fairer question.

"Going to war" doesn't strictly imply "starting a war", but it has connotations of that.

The options here are not war vs peace, it's war not involving the USA vs the USA joining in and hopefully helping the less-evil (but still in many cases fairly appalling) side win. As to the answer, I picked "I don't know" - I don't see a good outcome either way.

[marym625]

110. It's a good question

For now, I was just looking for a high level, yes or no to war. I realize for some, that's not something they can answer. For others, it's cut and dry.

Thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate it

[Donald Ian Rankin]

113. "Yes or no to war" is a much worse question than the one you asked.

The question you actually asked, "Should the US go to war against ISIS", while not the formulation I would have chosen, is a perfectly justifiable one, and arguably it's completely fair.

But "yes or no to war" absolutely isn't - the two options are "yes to a war with US involvement" and "yes to a war without US involvement". "No war" is not an available choice.

[marym625]

119. Thought it obvious I was referring to this post

[B Calm]

111. Only if we send two ground troopers, George W Bush & Dick Cheney!

[marym625]

112. Well there ya go!

And they might win. Couldn't think of two more evil people to send from the USA

[Octafish]

115. Treat them as the criminals they are.

INTERPOL needs to find out who they are and arrest them immediately. If they resist, fry 'em in place.

Otherwise, treating their prosecution as a war only serves to grow their cause, whatever that may be.

[marym625]

120. interesting thought

Thanks for the reply

[MineralMan]

116. Can't vote. Not a simple yes/no question.

The whole situation is much more complicated than that.

[marym625]

121. I appreciate that

Thanks

[randome]

117. Using the word 'war' is bogus from the start.

ISIS is not a country, they are a terrorist organization. For the good of everyone -Muslim and American and everyone- they need to be stopped.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[marym625]

122. Don't know what else to call

Bombing places. Pretty warlike

[ozone_man]

118. I think the better question is

why did we destroy Iraq, Syria, and Libya, allowing ISIS to gain a foothold? Why did we destroy secular, sovereign countries to allow religious fanatics to take over? We can't blame it all on Bush either. Obama shares plenty of blame, and continues to arm, and train Syrian "rebels".

[marym625]

123. That's the billion dollar question

And we'll never get a real answer from the PTB

[bowens43]

127. Not an easy yes or no. I am usually vehemently anti war but these vile idiots to be stopped.

It may not be our problem now but if they continue to grow it will be our problem. We as a free nation can not sit by and allow this to continue. I am not in favor of troops on the ground but we need to continue to wage an air war against these murderous scumbags.

[marym625]

129. Thank you for your reply

I would ask, how is what you are saying any different than what was said about our involvement in the Vietnam War? Which was then expanded into Cambodia and Laos.

The common response from the military at that time was, "I would rather fight them here than in new York, Chicago (whatever city or town)"

At what point do we stop going into the middle east and creating more enemies with our audacity and arrogance?

I know that ISIS is a horrific group. I don't see anything good coming from us joining this fight. And the "collateral damage," which I believe will be higher than ever when bombing a group spread out so far, and without clear borders, is not worth it to me.

[bluedigger]

132. A reluctant yes.

There are times when evil has to be countered. WWII is a good example. Even though the Allies created the conditions which led to the rise of Nazism through the ruinous Versailles Treaty and it's onerous reparations, they still had to act to stop it's spread. We created the condition for IS by unjustly invading Iraq, but I think if you broke it, you bought it. I don't think we need to or should reintroduce ground troops to the ME (special ops excepted), but we should support any other States that are willing to fight them as much as possible. Call it a proxy war. I think this will be the great ideological struggle of this century, and it would be immoral to wait for it to come to the West.

[marym625]

133. Thank you

I understand where you're coming from. Don't necessarily agree but I get it.

Thank you for your thoughts

[fadedrose]

140. Depends on what you mean by going to war . . .

If the President and his cabinet don't know the right thing to do, how in the hell would any of us know. It's not like they're lying about WMD to get us worked up.

If a country asks for help, financial or requests for food or weapons, seems like a good idea to give it them so they can fight ISIS. They need help.

We are already in war with them anyway.

[marym625]

142. Thanks for your thoughts

I appreciate your reply.

Us helping with food and aid isn't even close to the same as bombing countries.

[nilesobek]

143. It should be a personal decision.

Really, anyone promoting a warfare campaign should be ready to don the uniform and fly right on over there and get started. Of course, there's not much glamour to digging rifle pits, carrying water and ammo and waiting for the next attack. By all means, the 1% should send their sons and daughters over there right now. The people clamoring for war are usually the ones dodging the draft, sending their kids to Ivy League schools and finding poor people to fight their wars and do the work. Sorry, but when it finally comes down I won't be defending their coastal mansions. They are on their own.

[marym625]

145. +1000

100% agree

[RKP5637]

158. I voted pass becasue I don't think there is enought information to make a call

on this.

[marym625]

159. more than fair

May I ask, what are your thoughts on the fact we're moving forward with war without enough information?

I respect your opinion and am curious as to your thoughts

[RKP5637]

160. I need a definition of what you mean by war. An all out assault, troops

on the ground, all of that? Or special ops continuing, etc., for example.

[marym625]

162. Any military involvement

I don't mean "advisers" like we sent to Vietnam. But special ops (not CIA) and bombing, etc.

I don't think that we're going to get in a little and not end up all in. We don't do that anymore.

[RKP5637]

164. I know what you mean, it feels like a déjà vu. Why, does the US always

get so involved. In all honesty, I can't answer it right now, not because I don't want too, but because it has not played out enough. I trust Obama to make the right decision in my absence of full knowledge. There are a multitude of gray areas, just a yes/no for me at least is not possible. BTW, I do like your questions!

[marym625]

165. Thank you!

I understand your reluctance and appreciate your explanation.

I really appreciate your comment on the question. Especially considering the shit I've gotten about it.

[Maedhros]

161. When has our war-making in the Middle East resulted in a positive outcome?

In every single case, we leave nothing but suffering in our wake.

What makes one think that this time will be different?

[marym625]

163. got me.

In fact, I don't see how this won't be the absolute worst ever. As I said a few times on this thread, bombing the shit out of ISIS means bombing indiscriminately throughout a large area, covering multiple nations, without a clear enemy. The loss of innocent lives will be astronomical