These "no more war" assholes need to explain how we end the wars without ISIS taking over

[realmirage]

How do we get out of there without ISIS taking over those countries, becoming incredibly powerful and wealthy, and then funding attacks worldwide? Can these fucking geniuses explain their brilliant strategy that apparently they alone know about? We live in reality, and reality forces us to do shit we don't like but are necessary for our survival.

[John Poet]

1. Easy: Don't go over there and displace governments

which have them contained, in the first place.


Like---- Iraq, for instance. THAT was, in no way, "necessary for our survival". In most cases, that kind of talk is just propaganda.

[DemonGoddess]

2. Yeah, and who did that? That was the Shrub who did that

funny how that seems to be forgotten

[John Poet]

4. Yes, Shrub-- supported by a whole lot of Democrats who

gave him the authority to do it any time he liked....

Some of them acted surprised when he did it, but most of them just waved flags.

[think]

27. We just sent 560 troops and are preparing to send more for an up coming battle in Mosal

In case you haven't heard...

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/07/27/us-troops-move-down-to-battalion-level-with-iraqis.html

[DemonGoddess]

31. my POINT is

we wouldn't even BE in this mess but for Shrub and his oil cronies.

[FrodosPet]

116. This is truth

Now what? Let's pretend there is no time travel, that we cannot go back to the Bush administration and reverse the invasion. Let's go forward, not backward.

What do we do in the future that makes things better for the people we should care most about (the young, the old, women, LGBTQ, and the frail in Middle East)?

[Exilednight]

120. Easy, end dependcy on oil. We have the technology

To end it, but the right wants to keep it as justification for meddling in the middle-east.

[leftynyc]

139. No - NOT easy

How do we fight self-radicalized people in the US (and Europe while we're at it). Nothing at all to do with oil at all.

[Exilednight]

141. why do they radicalize?

[leftynyc]

143. It doesn't matter now

It's happening. This is my point. We can discuss the reasons all we want, we still have to deal with the consequences of our foreign policy blunders. Bitching about it solves nothing.

[Exilednight]

144. The first step in solvung problem is properly identifying it.

Bush said that they hate us for our freedom, but he was wrong. Saying it's about religion is akin to the freedom argument.

They hate us because we bomb their country, take their resources and leave the population in poverty while their 1% live as kings and princes.

How about we stop meddling in their lives and let them sort it out?

[leftynyc]

145. I'd take every single military person

out of the middle east if I could. All that's happening now is a continuation of a 1300 year old battle between sunni and shia. BUT, what do we do about immigration from Syria, Libya, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc? What do we do about Americans who are getting self-radicalized? Those are the immediate problems we need to address.

[Exilednight]

147. You'd see a lot less self radicalization here and in Europe if

We stopped meddling.

Things just as atrocious are happening in Sub Saharan countries, yet we see no radicalization of their immigrants to our country. We also rarely interfere in their politics or way of life.

[leftynyc]

148. While I'd be happy to navel gaze

with you anytime, that doesn't answer the OP's or my question. What should be done about immigration? About Americans that have become self-radicalized.

[Exilednight]

149. We have to take the first step before moving on to that step. As long as

We keep doing the same thing nothing will change.

As long as we depend on oil, this will be our reality. All we can do is stop those that we can, and grieve for those that we lost by the ones we did not stop.

It's a sad reality, buy it's pragmatic.

[leftynyc]

150. Sigh

You just refuse to acknowledge the problems that are problems TODAY and offer nothing but navel gazing. Sorry, not interested.

[Exilednight]

154. You're looking for a solution that doesn't exist. it's the same as your neighbor

Burning down your house and him telling you that you will thank him later for it. In the mean time you can live with him, but you and your family will have to live in a side room in the basement, and his wife and kids will mock your religion and tell you that you're interlopers in their slice of purity.

Eventually, someone is going to snap.

[leftynyc]

155. So just ignore it?

Pretend it's not happening? It looks to me like far too many have already snapped.

[Exilednight]

162. No. I never said ignore it.

What I am saying is that as long as we keep doing what we are doing then it is not going to stop.

We can't exploit their resources while destroying their country and expect anything to change.

There will always be radicalization as long as we keep fighting ISIS over their. The OP is strictly wrong on the premise that we can beat ISIS on the battlefield and then all our problems will be solved. It's just not true.

[adigal]

101. And who else voted for it??????

Crickets, crickets.

[Warren Stupidity]

110. and Obama

We took down Libya and got Isis in there, we destabilized Syria and got Isis there too.

[JaneyVee]

3. Yeah because Saddam was such a gem.

How "progressive" to turn our backs on genocide and the raping of women and children.

[John Poet]

6. Well, then why don't we just invade Honduras

to kick out the right-wing coup government now murdering the people there,
who was helped into power by you-know-who?

[JaneyVee]

7. Are you advocating US military intervention?

[John Poet]

18. That is what your sentiment seems to suggest.

Your sentiment seems to support having gone into Iraq because Saddam was a bad guy murdering his own people.

If that's the test for invading other countries, then we should be in Honduras now,
and a whole list of other places around the world. Right?


No, I'm against the use of our military for "nation-building",
as I'm sure you're very aware, which is why I had a big problem
with certain candidates in the first place.

But now I understand why so many didn't have the same problem--
because they actually support it.

[JaneyVee]

21. Shrub caused a mess. A still ongoing mess.

[runaway hero]

30. Talking out of both sides of your mouth

You just said Saddam was no walk in the park, trying to shame someone for not supporting the Iraq War

And then GWB screwed up?

Which is it.

[FrodosPet]

124. The Prophet Mohammed and the Crusaders had their part as well

Bush is not competent enough to have started this crap on his own. He had 1300+ years worth of help.

[pangaia]

127. Oh that is a duzy.

You support military intervention in Iraq. YEA!

But not in Honduras because.. military intervention is wrong..

?????

That's way over my head.

[dflprincess]

24. And thanks to our illegal invasion

life is so much better now for women and children in Iraq and surrounding countries.

Sadaam was a SOB (and for a long time he was our SOB) but at least he kept the crazies in check.

[avaistheone1]

72. True. An illegal invasion it was.

You can bet your yellowcake on that.

[FrodosPet]

128. And if not for the invasion, his capture, and his execution

He would be immortal! Or if he wasn't immortal, his sons Uday and Qusay would have taken over and carried on his tradition of security through brutality.

There was never going to be an Islamist coup or another war with Iran if the Husseins remained in power.

[think]

29. Wow....

[Warren Stupidity]

112. So just to be clear on this, you supported a war of aggression against Iraq.

And you continue to support it.

Thanks for clarifying just how far to the right you are.

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. To late. We can't change it now.

How do we fix it?

[John Poet]

9. We DON'T fix anything by trying to shut down dissent here,

and that's what is suggested by the OP.

[DemonGoddess]

11. boy oh boy

you really didn't READ what realmirage posted did you?

[Agnosticsherbet]

16. The wars have cause massive problems with refugees.

The solution is to help strong governments come to power in Syria and other failed states.

[realmirage]

23. "no more war" isn't dissent, it's gibberish that has no basis in reality right now

We are only there because Bush destabilized the place and ISIS is trying to take over and literally kill us all. That's not alarmism, that is fact. There's no peaceful way out of this situation. We have to prevent ISIS from taking control.

[tazkcmo]

48. Then get busy.

You seem super concerned. Maybe you can be more directly involved in taking the fight to them.

[realmirage]

61. The war has already been going for quite some time if you haven't noticed. Please explain

how we pull out of there without destroying ourselves.

[avaistheone1]

73. Yes Bush started the Iraq war and subsequent administration continued the wars many long years,

and the current admin even started their own quagmires in Syria and Libya.

Then the problem is thrown in our laps without our consent. As a result I think you can expect some protests from Democrats.

[realmirage]

8. Hello? Are you responding to my OP from the year 2003?

I am talking about RIGHT NOW. How do we deal with REALITY right now? Not what republicans did in 03, not about how anyone voted in 03, I mean reality, right now. How do we do this "no more war" thing these assholes are chanting in the year 2016? Do you have a strategy for ending these wars we are stuck in without killing ourselves?

[John Poet]

10. Not by trying to shut up peace activists.

To me, that's what your OP suggests is your sentiment.

[DemonGoddess]

12. they're BoBers who are playing at being peace activists

Call it for what it is. A bunch of entitled twits, who, if Trumpler is elected will NOT suffer like the rest of us would.

[realmirage]

20. exactlyyyy

[sarae]

41. +1

so true

[adigal]

102. I'm just shaking my head at how you paint everyone with the same BoB brush

If you said that about any other group, you'd be reported. But it's ok, because Bernie.

[tecelote]

105. +1!

[cyberpunk]

123. If you dissent, you'll be beaten until you can't speak anymore. eom

[realmirage]

14. Again I ask, what meaning does "no more war" have if that's not possible without killing ourselves

[procon]

32. Is that what they are today? nt

[John Poet]

46. Why don't we start by rhetorically beating up on some peace activists?

You've made a good start on it already.

[realmirage]

65. Don't change the subject. I've asked you to explain how we get out of the wars

[workinclasszero]

35. Stop me if I'm wrong

But I believe a fucking republican started that war!

WTH are these jerks heckling DEMOCRATS???

Where the hell were they during the fucking republican convention??????

[realmirage]

38. AGREED

[John Poet]

43. Who continued the wars, after the GOP was no longer in power?

Democrats are not blameless there, and we've been in charge of the military for the past eight years...


Too many people here are becoming completely unhinged over a little free-speech chanting on the convention floor. It's REPUBLICANS who throw people out for expressing dissent. Democrats are better than that.


Well, looks like we survived, and President Obama coming up...

[workinclasszero]

67. Oh I get it...

After Shrub goes in kicks over the hornets nest O should have just said Fuck it, let ISIS take over.

Is that it?

[uhnope]

109. & 9/11? that was our fault too?

I agree about Iraq BTW but to think terrorism only happens in response to US actions is wrong. These forces exist in and of themselves, are killing all over the world, are the most medieval mass murderers, and they did come here on 9/11 and they've come to France and Germany. The OP is asking what to do. Je suis Charlie.

[Kentonio]

131. It was ultimately the result of long term US foreign policy.

That doesn't make it America's 'fault' because the people responsible for that horrific act of barbarity are the ones who deserve to bear the shame of it, but we can't shake off the responsibility of the terrible things we've had done in our name for the best part of a century and pretend it doesn't have any bearing.

[uhnope]

132. how exactly did we hurt poor Osama Bin Laden and those Saudi assholes who did 9/11? n/t

[lancer78]

167. By supporting Israel

and propping up dictators like Assad and the Shah in Iran.

[DetlefK]

113. Your solution to defeating ISIS is time-travel?

[leftynyc]

138. Looking backward is unproductive

at this point. isis is a threat - in the middle east, in Europe and in the US. Now what?

[stone space]

13. Guess I'm just another "no more war" asshole.

[realmirage]

17. Ok, so then you need to explain how we end the wars without ISIS taking over and us having

a large scale terrorist attack every week in the U.S.

If you can explain that, I'll listen.

[John Poet]

22. That you, W ?

I know, "we have to fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here".

I suggest we wait and if necessary, fight them over here.

We'll save big on travel costs, and we can let all the right-wingers with guns
be in the front lines.

[realmirage]

25. Do you know anything about the situation there?

Do you not know why Obama has kept us there? Have you not done any research the last 8 years?

[stone space]

28. wow

[lostnfound]

54. Another no more war asshole here, that's me. Nt

[realmirage]

59. Ok, so then explain your plan to get us out of Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan without ISIS

taking over and launching a mass attack on us regularly thanks to their vast new resources.

[procon]

39. We're the biggest dog on the planet and bad people are always testing us and our allies.

It's an unrealistic fantasy to think that we will be able to maintain our interests, our security, and our commitments with involving the military.

[leftynyc]

140. So your solution to isis is.....what?

Just let them take over the middle east, continue beheading children, making girls and women sex slaves? Set up a caliphate that will rival the middle ages?

[Uponthegears]

15. I wouldn't go there either

Don't take the immature behavior of a couple of dozen Yahoos as evidence that our intrusion in the Muslim world has saved lives or made things better for the PEOPLE of those lands.

[realmirage]

19. Ok, then you need to explain how we pull out of Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan without

ISIS taking over, spreading like a disease, and funding large scale terror attacks all over the world every week.

[Uponthegears]

40. How about this

Since all so-called "popular" armies are totally dependent on the acquiescence/fear and/or support of a generally apathetic populace (meaning folks whose overriding concern is their day to day lives), spend our resources improving the lives of every day people instead of the armies of their leaders. (You know, kinda like we could have done in Afghanistan after we sacrificed their country and their lives to fight a surrogate war against the Soviets, but chose instead to let 2 million of them die). Strip them of that and the existing armies in those nations are more than a match for ISIL.

Now my war is the answer friend tell me why, if military might is the answer, ISIL, who is no where near as strong as its opponents in terms of equipment and troops, has not long ago been wiped from the face of the Earth.

[realmirage]

63. How do we improve their lives if they're being lined up on the ground

and having bullets put into their heads by ISIS as the many videos have shown? So we just show up and "improve their lives" while not doing anything about ISIS murdering them and taking over their country... That strategy doesn't make sense.

[Uponthegears]

70. They are not under constant control

ISIL lacks the troop strength to maintain constant control over even small areas of land. The only reason ISIL can come back to "occupied" areas is, as I explained before, the populace lacks the day to day resources to form social systems that, like us, are relatively unphased by these "example" murders. Supply the resources, ISIL may still kill on occasion but their political power dissipates.

Not to be condescending, but you might do better if you can come up with an example where even a superior military force defeated this kind of guerilla warfare (being generous btw, because ISIL really isn't even a guerilla army. On the ground they're ltitle more than a heavily armed street gang).

Oh, btw, though it really is irrelevant you your Third Way war is the only answer theory, lete add that when the US becomes the friend of every day Muslims instead of their oppressors, ISIL also loses its persuasive Internet presence. A needy "congregation" is essential for large scale fundamental movements.

[Uponthegears]

45. Oh, did I mention

That your "ISIL will conquer nations unless the US engages" is just a tad hyperbolic given that they have yet to conquer even some of the weak and unstable countries in which they already have a significant presence.

[Uponthegears]

47. Oh, and one more thing

Your OP was big on name calling . . . I am not going to respond in kind. We will see who is most deserving of those derisive terms.

[runaway hero]

26. You guys said Trump couldn't ban muslims

And you slam people for "no more war"

If we have more war... where are the refugees going to go? Here? Your house?

[realmirage]

36. We already have war. Explain to me how we end these wars without ISIS destroying us

If you can do that then you are a genius who knows more than Obama and every military expert in the world.

[runaway hero]

44. But that can't be possible

This is Trump's position right? Kill em and kill them dead. We shouldn't even have to talk about this but because we wouldn't pull out of the ME we ended up with this


What a shame.

[HassleCat]

33. We need more war

As long as it makes you feel safe.

[realmirage]

37. No, it's on you to explain how we get out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria without killing ourselves

Please explain how letting ISIS take over 3 countries for starters and gaining massive resources won't result in regular large scale terrorism in the U.S. and around the world.

[redstateblues]

133. Crickets

[HassleCat]

165. Playing into their hands

What you want is what Isis wants. Unending asymmetrical warfare. Bleeding us dry. My solution, walk away. If they attack us, retaliate, but do not get mired down for ten years, twenty years, etc.

[AngryAmish]

34. Issue Letters Marque to the Zetas

They gets 25% concession on whatever Iraqi or Syrian land they can take.

[jonestonesusa]

42. What most people mean is this.

No more wars of choice.
No more wars without clearly defined objectives.
No more wars without a formal declaration of war.
No more wars without a clear and present danger.
No more wars based on falsified intelligence.
No more wars on tactics (I.e. War on terror).
No more Democratic support for wars that resemble any of the above.

Some people are purely pacifist, but for others, no more war is shorthand for convictions like these. I would call these convictions progressive. Wouldn't you?

[procon]

53. It may not always be that simple.

I get your point, but we don't have the luxury of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Its not always going to be a full on war, but many other types of military engagements that we are involved for the needs of our country, and a whole host of reasons, obligations and commitments to our friends and allies.

No doubt there are situations that are less clear, where the fog of war obscures information that won't come to light until much later, as in WWII, Vietnam, Korea and countless other incidents. So, we can be more prudent and cautious, but it's impossible to shackle our foreign policy with such hard and fast restrictions.

[jonestonesusa]

55. So our recent wars have been

Last edited Thu Jul 28, 2016, 12:34 AM - Edit history (1)

Panama
Grenada
Iraq
Afghanistan
Kosovo
Proxy conflicts: Nicaragua, Guatemala, Lebanon, et al.

Most of these were wars of choice, diplomatic solutions not fully explored, few cases of clear and present danger to the US, lots of unintended consequences and lack of public oversight, setting poor precedents for prudent policies.

War is too damaging and blunt of a policy tool to use so capriciously. It needs clear and limited objectives along with strong public consensus. In a democracy anyway.

Others think otherwise. Indeed.

[procon]

58. Its still not a one size fits all solution, yeah? nt

[jonestonesusa]

69. I agree it's not a one size fits all solution

but no more wars is mostly meant to be a chant. It's not meant to be a treatise on just war theory.

Meanwhile sounder processes are needed to reduce the number of wars of choice. Other Western democracies have done this. We should too.

[SammyWinstonJack]

81. Doesn't matter, it's less about the ones shouting No more war, and more about who they're shouting

it to or about, you understand.

[riderinthestorm]

49. Muslim countries need to take over this fight.

It's a thousand year plus civil war we can't get into.

[realmirage]

57. Ok so explain how we do that. Explain how those 3 countries, which have failed to

stop ISIS on their own, are going to prevent them from taking over the day after we leave.

[riderinthestorm]

62. KSA, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE - ie, some of the richest countries in the world step up

Its their fight.

It's their civil war. Our involvement is only making it worse.

[realmirage]

64. Ok so now explain how we convince them to do that, and explain HOW they can beat ISIS

when powerful western countries are having such difficulty.

[riderinthestorm]

68. Nope. It's their civil war. We just get out.

We don't have to "convince" them of anything. This is a civil war that's raged for more than a thousand years. We're only making things worse because we don't know and can't follow the shifting alliances.

Hence it turns out we're funding groups beheading 10 year olds....

It's long past time to implement Bernie's plan. Walk away. Now.

[Arazi]

75. You're an educated Hillary supporter? You read Bernie's positions?

right?

He spelled this all out.

His supporters and CODE PINK are 110% correct that we MUST get out.

Nobody has to "convince" anybody. Our getting out ensures the civil war participants begin to bear the brunt of this. Not us

[cyberpunk]

125. We're not having difficulty. We're pussyfooting it.

If we really wanted to fight a war with the aims to end a war, we'd have been done with this in six days. Hell, how long did Desert Storm last? But we're more fixated on surgically striking and droning people, which COULD be useful if y'know, we weren't giving the adversary time to rest on their laurels and put a new person in the high-level spot we just surgically vacated. We have to make a choice, all or nothing, and at least stop pussyfooting around the situation. I'm against the wars we've been embroiled in for the past fifteen years, but y'know what, as a veteran, if we're gonna try to withdraw, we either let the adversary take the land, or we carpet bomb it till the rubble bounces.

War isn't pretty, and this administration needs to stop thinking it can be made pretty/

[anoNY42]

106. My GOD man

if our small force of soldiers leaves the ME, do you really think that ISIS will just have a cake-walk into every part of Syria, Iraq, and other countries?

1.) ISIS is a Sunni group, they will have no pull in Shiite areas.

2.) ISIS doesn't have the manpower to actually occupy all of those countries. They will be limited to terrorist-style attacks and maybe some take-overs of smaller cities.

3.) If we leave, perhaps other nations in the region will re-double their own efforts in this fight.

4.) Russia (at least in Syria).

[TexasBushwhacker]

71. I so agree

Granted, GWB invading Iraq created the vacuum that allowed ISIS to come in, but still, ISIS is mostly a problem in the ME. The UK, France, Germany and others are responsible for their own homeland security. We just can't afford, in money or lives, to be the police of our planet.

Saudi Arabia has the third or fourth biggest military on the planet. Egypt's isn't too shabby either. Where are they in the fight against ISIS.

[mike_c]

51. that's one of the most preposterous things I've seen all day....

No more war assholes? Really? What the hell has happened to DU?

[realmirage]

56. I'm referring to the chanters at the convention. I think it's clear that their timing is idiotic.

[John Poet]

77. There's a nasty infestation of authoritarian professed-Democrats

who have no regard for protest, and no respect for dissent, now posting on DU and complaining about every little chant on the convention floor.

It's like we have a bunch of Spiro Agnews running around in here....

[SammyWinstonJack]

84. Hillary decided to run for president, that's what happened to DU.

[cyberpunk]

126. Neocolonial "liberals". eom

[rjsquirrel]

52. The self-marginalizing loony left

just embarrassing

[zipplewrath]

60. Law enforcement

I know it is a radical idea, but it could work. We "arrest" folks instead of killing them without trial. Alternately, we put them on "trial" without the presumption of guilt?

[AgadorSparticus]

66. The problem with some people is that they live in Ivory towers.

Theycan't handle realityn. Reality is too messy for them.

[realmirage]

78. You got it right Agador. I didn't say I like it, but

I don't see any other way. Neither does Obama. Do these people think we can chant peace at ISIS and resolve the whole thing?

[bigwillq]

74. Proud NMWA!!!

[jalan48]

76. About the same way we got out of Vietnam-we left.

Oh, and our government told us back then if we left the Communists would just keep going and take over Australia. See the pattern?

[realmirage]

80. Please tell me you aren't comparing ISIS

to Vietnam. I simply can't.

[jalan48]

82. That's what I'm telling you. It's never ending war for the US.

[realmirage]

83. No. Go research the aims of North Vietnam

and then come back and we'll talk. I'm sorry but the comparison just can't be made if you know anything about both conflicts.

[jalan48]

85. LOL-our government lied to us about Vietnam-you know that right?

[realmirage]

86. I am trying to be restrained here.

To anyone who knows their history, comparing ISIS to North Vietnam and the communism domino theory is an incredibly ill informed argument. I would just encourage you to find some good sources and do a bit of reading. I'm trying to explain this without offending, but some research is in order on your part jalan

[jalan48]

89. Stay relaxed.

Our government lies to us about the need for wars. Vietnam and Bush's War come to mind. It's called propaganda. I'd advise you to pay more attention to what is going on and not fall so easily for what you read in the corporate media or hear from our Defense Department.

[realmirage]

90. Our government isn't saying it, ISIS is.

"ISIS makes no secret of its ultimate ambition: A global caliphate secured through a global war. To that end it speaks of "remaining and expanding" its existing hold over much of Iraq and Syria. It aims to replace existing, man-made borders, to overcome what it sees as the Shiite "crescent" that has emerged across the Middle East, to take its war -- Islam's war -- to Europe and America, and ultimately to lead Muslims toward an apocalyptic battle against the "disbelievers."

CNN got this fact and others in the article directly from ISIS. It is reality.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/11/middleeast/isis-syria-iraq-caliphate/

[jalan48]

91. The real message is fear.

People tend to be more submissive and easier to rule when they are afraid. Why do you the US has been in an almost constant state of war since WWII?

[realmirage]

93. So the Paris attacks, Orlando, etc aren't real huh?

[jalan48]

94. Yep-they are. How do you fight a war against ideas, especially religious ones?

Some Republicans think we should use nuclear weapons in the M.E. and turn it into a "parking lot".

[realmirage]

95. You prevent those ideas from getting control of countries

and thus gaining massive resources to carry out even more terrorist attacks on a larger scale and with more frequency

[jalan48]

97. It sounds like a good idea.

I just don't think the killing and torturing we have done there since 2003 has made us many friends. We helped create this mess and now we are to be there for how many years because some people have crazy ideas? Eventually the public will tire of the obscene carnage and expense and we will leave, just like we did in Vietnam. By then we will have a new boogie man who will get us if we don't start a war.

[anoNY42]

107. Al Queda

never controlled a country, and yet people still committed attacks in its name overseas. Kicking ISIS out of the ME would not kill the ideas that inspire terrorism.

[MrWendel]

79. The only thing necessary...

for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
-Edmund Burke

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

87. We lost. Get out. Get over it.

[realmirage]

88. Am I in the twilight zone?

If we leave, ISIS gets control of 3 countries, and what do you think will happen then? Think about it, I'm interested to know what you think

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

96. We've been through the "falling dominoes" before. Remember?

When the Vietnamese were going to storm the shores of Malibu after taking Thailand and Japan and Canada?

We lost. What we're doing now isn't working...as usual.

[tecelote]

108. Or, it's working exactly as planned.

Oooeee, do we make a lot of profit from our wars!

Seriously though, it's hard for me to believe people that call themselves Democrats will put down anti-war protesters and defend our continued destabilizing of other countries.

I saw a comment above on how we had to overthrow the Iraqi government because Saddam was killing his own people. To stop him from these abhorrent acts, we went in and killed many, many more.

Anti-War should be a major Democratic platform. It makes me sick that it's ignored.

[DefenseLawyer]

153. Even worse, the North Vietnamese were going to be puppets of the Chinese

Never mind the fact that that Vietnam and China had hated each other for a thousand years and Ho Chi Minh would never have willingly capitulated to Chinese control of Vietnam. It had to be true, because I mean, they were all commies, right?

[Joe the Revelator]

92. 'No more war" is a goal, not a policy

Some people don't understand that.

[LeftyMom]

98. They're already collapsing. Turns out administering territory is expensive.

They can't pay their fighters' salaries. Which means they're slowly trickling back out, disillusioned, and new ones aren't coming.

Of course the attraction in the first place was getting to fight the west, fighting other muslims isn't much of a recruiting message.

[Maru Kitteh]

99. It's quite possible to be utterly opposed to war and NOT be a total asshole @ the Dem convention.

These things are not mutually exclusive, although some of DU seems to be painting this as an either/or choice today.

[The Second Stone]

100. The world is a very violent place, and how we protect ourselves and help

our allies has consequences regardless of which way we choose, but those consequences are different in both long and short term obligations and lives. ISIS is the result of the Iraq power vacuum. And it's a lot worse than Saddam Hussein was for us, and for the people living there. They are opportunists using religion as a front for being warlords. We broke it, and we have to participate in the fix.

[David__77]

103. I support those who chanted "NO MORE WAR."

I think it was a fitting counterpoint to the speaker.

[anoNY42]

104. Uh

"We live in reality, and reality forces us to do shit we don't like but are necessary for our survival."

Even if ISIS took over the entirety of Iraq and Syria, how exactly would they threaten the survival of the US? Do those countries have nukes?

Edit: You state over and over again that if we pull out of the region, ISIS will take over and "destroy" us. Yet you don't ever explain exactly how a rogue state with no allies would be able to "destroy" us, the most powerful nation in the world. Will ISIS take over the Iraqi Navy and sail over here and start shelling our coastline with their 6-inch guns?

[B Calm]

111. As a Vietnam veteran, I applaud them!

[DetlefK]

114. As a Vietnam veteran, can you answer the question?

What will happen if the US walks away and stops fighting ISIS?

[B Calm]

115. Can you?

[DetlefK]

119. Step 1: Don't stop bombing the shit out of ISIS.

Step 2: Start talks with Saudi-Arabia, Qatar and all the other supporters of islamic extremism and try to get them to do something about the imams who spread islamic extremism.

[B Calm]

121. And you still haven't answered your own question

[DetlefK]

122. Sorry, my bad. Here is my answer:

If the US keeps bombing ISIS, that leads to
* millions of refugees
* tens of thousands of people dying because of overall warfare
* tens of thousands of people executed/tortured/raped/ sold into slavery by ISIS
* thousands of new islamic terrorists joining ISIS

If the US stops bombing ISIS, that leads to
* millions of refugees
* hundreds of thousands of people dying because of overall warfare
* hundreds of thousands of people executed/tortured/raped/ sold into slavery by ISIS
* tens of thousands of new islamic terrorists ISIS



Take your pick.

[B Calm]

129. Looks like no win situations for the USA, unless you are a war profiteer.

[DetlefK]

130. This is not about the US.

If decision A kills 100,000 people and makes the US look like a war-hungry aggressor and if decision B kills 10,000 people and makes the US look like a war-hungry aggressor, then I suggest picking B.

[B Calm]

135. Are you willing to put your life in arms way for this never ending war?

[DetlefK]

137. Pfft. I might as well ask you the counter-question:

Are you willing to accept responsibility for the deaths/rapes committed by ISIS that you could have prevented if only you had fought them?


People die either way. The question is, which scenario has less death and suffering.

[anoNY42]

151. This is perverse

1.) there is absolutely no confidence that we could prevent ISIS-like atrocities by sending in troops or bombing. My evidence is the presence of our troops in the middle east and our bombing, and the persistence of those atrocities. Even if we went in and cleaned house, there would still be religious strife and we would probably just encourage more muslims to join the fight since we would be seen as "at war with Islam" in some places.

2.) Are you willing to accept responsibility for whatever Kim Jong-un does in North Korea, because of course we could send in our military and "stop" him. Are you willing to accept responsibility for the crackdown in Turkey because we are not invading or bombing to stop it? We can play this game all day!

[B Calm]

152. Thanks for answering my question.

[Fast Walker 52]

117. enact an embargo on arms sales, for one

stop arming Saudi Arabia also, and boycott their asses.

Diplomacy-- terrorists fight because they want something tangible.


War only makes more problems. War is a racket.

Don't be an asshole by dismissing peacemakers.

[Fast Walker 52]

118. "Six Steps Short of War to Beat ISIS"

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/09/11/six-steps-short-war-beat-isis

[Glassunion]

134. After more than 14 years of the wrong answers and the disasters that followed, do you have anything

to suggest? Should we simply plod along killing folks in a foreign land forever? In 2014 ISIS had an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 fighters according to the CIA. If you look at Operation Inherent Resolve, it is reported that the airstrikes have killed between 10,000 and 25,000 fighters, and ???? civilians. This should imply (to me at least), that at great expense in both money and civilian casualties that at least 1/3rd of ISIS fighters should have been gone by now. Here in 2016, the CIA estimates that ISIS currently has around 30,000 fighters. So, 30,000 - 10,000 = 30,000. I'm not great at math, but something about that simple equation does not look right to me.

Saying "No more war", is a slogan, or motto. However reading it, and making the black and white assumption that "No More War" is equal to a complete and total withdraw from the Middle East, and washing our hands of the entire conflict, is a very lazy assumption.

If we keep repeating the same failed tactics for the past 14 years, we will not get a different result, and it's quite naive to believe we will.

[TransitJohn]

136. Oy, vey.

What's next? "We are fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here"? GTFOOH with that claptrap, please.

[Orsino]

142. I'm opposed much more to the undeclared, endless pseudowars we keep fighting for Cheney.

End those, and we'd have fewer al-Qaedas and ISES.

Our response to shitshows our wars create ought not to be more wars. And if we still feel we must fight, let's try to make the case to the UN, and do it together.

[cpwm17]

146. The anti-war crowd are almost always proven right.

Wars always suck.

We're the one who broke the ME because the anti-war crowd were not listened to. We were the aggressors and we are the wrong people to fix the ME. The longer we stay the longer the war mongers have to ruin more countries, which was their goal in the first place. This disaster is no accident.

[realmirage]

160. Ok, so tell me what you think will happen if we pull out of there tomorrow and ISIS gets control

of 3 countries and all their resources. I'm interested to know what you think the world will be like.

[cpwm17]

161. We're not the only nation fighting ISIS.

The US has also been targeting Assad, which helps ISIS. The US helped murder Qaddafi, while we were allegedly fighting the fundies. Of course it was the US which attacked Iraq in the first place, which is crime number 1.

If the US doesn't exit this war, we will take out Assad (or find ourselves in a conflict with Russia over Syria) and then target Iran. If you think the Iraq War was a fiasco, an attack against Iran would be much worse. This could be a long time in the future, but that is where we could be heading. There are too many corrupt politicians and crazies in our government, and too many wealthy Americans willing to bribe our politicians to get their war.

The more we war, the worse things get.

[realmirage]

163. Watch this, which I know you wont

because no one ever wants to research, but you'll see some of the problems with your assessment if you do

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/rise-of-isis/

[yurbud]

156. get our allies like Turkey to stop buying oil from them? other allies from funding them?

[realmirage]

159. I agree, and we've been trying, but we can't force Turkey to do anything

[yurbud]

166. freeze the assets of those trading the oil and even ban exports of oil from Turkey

which we did to Iraq for over a decade.

[yurbud]

168. It's funny how the legal and diplomatic niceties only matter when it would really solve a problem

[GeorgeGist]

157. Maybe if the "more war" assholes had a plan

that worked.

[realmirage]

158. It has been, mostly. There have been a couple of errors, as will happen, but

I don't see right now what they could be doing that is better than what they are doing.

[chascarrillo]

164. MORE WAR MORE WAR MORE WAR MORE WAR MORE