Senate The Middle East Discussion Thread

I think even still, the Nusra Front (the legitimate regional Al-Qaeda branch) is much more important than ISIS in rebel-held Syria.

 

Considering that the ilk of ISIS massacres anyone deemed heretics without much thought (this would include Yazidis and Shiites - half the population of Iraq), it doesn't matter much to me who kills them. I'd be hard pressed to think of anyone worse controlling that place. I support US airstrikes, and any kind of strikes by any party, really. Although air strikes do have the disadvantages mentioned by Mr44, I think allowing ISIS to advance would be a far graver outcome. Of course, the best outcome would be if they could be defeated without airstrikes, but that may prove difficult.

 

Yeah my understanding is that ISIS is even killing moderate Sunni Muslims. These guys are the worst.

 

The Iraqi military, such as it is, should be able to easily crush the Islamic State. The fact that the by-all-reports-small group of fighters weren't simply stopped at the Syrian border is indicative of the weakness and unpopularity of Baghdad rather than the power of the IS. I don't see how "limited" airstrikes alone are going to address the fundamental problem that this whole situation is basically the fault of the sitting Prime Minister and his cronies who are marginalizing Sunnis and refusing to include them in any area of government and state.

Also, persecution of minorities isn't new nor is it unique in the region; Sunnis and Shi'a before, during and after Saddam Hussein victimized, expelled, and massacred the various ethnic and religious minorities of Mesopotamia area. Peoples such as Christians and the Yazidi have been steadily depopulating due to emigration for decades. Yes, it's unfortunate and depressing, but I don't see why it demands U.S. intervention any more than, to use one of many recent examples, Bahrain brutally crushing Shi'a resistance with the Saudi Arabian military's help (oh wait).

 

It looks like the first air strike was completed, but it looks like it was taken right out of Team America:World Police:

Pentagon press secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby said that two F/A-18 jets dropped 500-pound bombs on a piece of artillery and the truck towing it...Unknown if any militants were killed in the strike."

At least the strike seems to be contained to a truck on a road and not "3 homes and a farm were taken out to get 2 militants..." But, along the same lines, if the strikes are going to be so limited as to only blow up one truck at a time...eh....might as well save the money or use it for more humanitarian aid.

 

The other examples you cited, Darth Guy, were authoritarian regimes crushing dissent or making an example by massacring already marginalized groups that nobody cares about. In other words, they were doing that to project and maintain power. A means to an end. These lunatics genuinely believe that "devil-worshippers", as they call the Yazidis, should be exterminated. I'd say they're horrible beyond the usual horrible. I agree with you about the Baghdad central government, though.

 

This distinction doesn't actually show why one requires US intervention and the other doesn't.

 

The $2 trillion Hotel California

 

Right you are. I believe ISIS would eradicate these minorities outright, given the chance, which puts it at greater severity than aforementioned occurrences. I think that makes the moral whatever (I don't want to use the word "obligation") greater than usual. Normally, intervening in such situations would put you at war with a country, which one would usually want to avoid, but luckily ISIS is not a country. And you'll actually be greeted as liberators this time, seeing as nobody in their right mind likes the IS, and at least half of Iraq would like them gone.

 

Wanting the Islamic State out is not equivalent to wanting U.S. intervention.

 

But how does this translate to US intervention?

 

Right you are too. I got nothing, to be perfectly honest. I think the most vulnerable groups would want so, but that's just conjecture, admittedly. I hardly think there's opportunity to conduct a referendum on the matter, though, and the situation is kind of urgent.

 

The main transgression here isn't that you have nothing, it's that you tried to make some sort of distinction between ISIS and dictatorial governments without actually showing a difference.

 

the US actually doesn't actually care about "being liberators" or human rights or what form of government a country has.

We care about security and who will do business with us. that's all.

 

The main distinction is that when fighting dictatorial governments, you're forced to fight the reluctant population of said country stuck between a rock (you) and a hard place (the dictatorial government), whereas here we're talking about an organisation voluntarily committed to their cause. When fighting the dictatorial government, any harm you bring to the government will necessarily also harm the livelihood of the population at large. You can't harm the government without destroying the country in the process. Whereas here, if they are defeated before they advance further, that can be avoided to a large extent (although not a complete extent).

 

How is driving the Islamic State out of major cities-- including the second-largest in the country-- not going to cause harm to civilians? How is the U.S. propping up a weak, corrupt, sectarian government any better than taking it out?

 

I didn't say it wasn't going to harm civilians. It would harm less civilians than if they were allowed to take the entire country and then attacked, since Vivec asked about the distinction between fighting them, an organisation of fighters without a country, and a dictatorial government running a country. And I also didn't claim anything about the Iraqi government, but I'm sure you'll agree with me that they're better than these guys. I mean, can you think of anything worse than these guys? Maybe the Khmer Rouge? I don't know.

 

def not as bad as the khmer rouge. no way they've topped the khmer rouge. they havent had enough time, for one thing

 

Feel free to correct me with sources, but AFAIK the Islamic State hasn't actually followed up on a lot of their rhetoric yet. Although they've instituted harsh laws, they haven't going beyond the accepted norm of regimes in the region (which is slaughtering political opponents) and slaughtered thousands of minorities. I remember a seemingly well-corroborated (surprisingly there aren't a lot of journalists in their territory) story about them executing Iraqi army POWs, but that sort of thing is common in such conflicts.

And just because the Maliki regime is "better" doesn't mean they're worth supporting. It's that sort of dumb "pragmatism" that had the U.S. support Mubarak and the Shah.

 

Well that's just sickening
http://news.yahoo.com/iraq-official-militants-hold-100s-yazidi-women-190650001.html

 

Helping the government that happens to be in control of the country fight an invading force is not quite the same as "propping up" a dictatorship, though.

 

GenAntilles given that these people are probably devil worshippers, shouldnt we be forcibly converting them and/or giving their lands to christians and/or jews (who i think still have model minority status in the christosphere, that hasnt swung back around to virulent antisemitism yet, has it?)

i dont understand why yezidis are just now entering into "the lexicon". they get their **** rocked every time power shifts in the region (and sometimes just when someone happens to be bored). like, im not necessarily complaining, i think its cool that people are paying attention to an interesting ethno-religious group, i just think its fascinating how these groups kind of enter into the 24 hour media minds-eye and then they're, like, a watchword for a while.

i mean, hp lovecraft was referencing "yezidi devil worshippers" back in the day. its not new stuff

 

actually that's pretty much the definition of propping up a dictatorship

 

Yeah but HP Lovecraftian devil worshippers are cool. Although they get their world rocked enough and go insane all the time from the powers they're messing with on their own.

 

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/08/04/french-report-isil-leader-mossad/

ATTENTION EVERYONE:

Baghdadi is actually a MOSSAD AGENT. The Zionist state is using its agents to distract the world from the atrocities it's committing in Gaza. The Islamic State is a JEWISH PLOT to destabilize Muslim regimes so that they can CONQUER the Middle East AND profit from loaning Western countries money to intervene.

OPEN YOUR MINDS PEOPLE. This is real. Our Muslim President is being forced by his Jewish overlords. Why else do you think they didn't want Snowdrn getting out? Because it would EXPOSE the lies the mainstream media is telling us about the Middle East.