Jump to content
blah the Prussian

What to do about ISIS

Recommended Posts

With great power comes great responsibility?...anyone?...ok that was bad, my fault.

The lame reference aside, as a powerful force in the world, we also have an obligation to the less advantaged areas such as the Middle East and Africa. If we just leave them behind, then what kind of "liberty" are we really promoting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With great power comes great responsibility?...anyone?...ok that was bad, my fault.

The lame reference aside, as a powerful force in the world, we also have an obligation to the less advantaged areas such as the Middle East and Africa. If we just leave them behind, then what kind of "liberty" are we really promoting?

Oh no, I'm not talking about promoting "liberty" in the Middle East (what constitutes liberty is subjective anyway), but we should act, as we are now, to stop acts of genocide, which countries are obligated to do under international law. We are also obligated to help our allies in Iraq and Jordan, who are fighting ISIS. That is why we should intervene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give them a bunch of Waffle Ingredients, have them sell waffles and have the governemnt buy from those ISIS that sells their waffles.

Honestly, I don't really care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give them a bunch of Waffle Ingredients, have them sell waffles and have the governemnt buy from those ISIS that sells their waffles.

Honestly, I don't really care.

Welp, Blaze's point just got proven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give them a bunch of Waffle Ingredients, have them sell waffles and have the governemnt buy from those ISIS that sells their waffles.

Honestly, I don't really care.

America's Youth 2015, ladies and gentlemen.

This forum is for SERIOUS DISCUSSION. Please at least read the title of the forum before you make a post like this with no contribution whatsoever to the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm not sure that the "america is fat and lazy" circlejerk is any more serious than an admission of apathy.

While that may be true, it's an honest and from everything I have seen correct observation. The American people fail to understand their role, not just as a world superpower, but as citizens of their own country. Many adults are like this, and almost all of the teens that I have seen are apathetic and not aware of the real world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is easy to point fault at an entire group. what are you doing about it? what is the average englishman doing about it? frenchman? laotian? jordanian? australian?

see, in my eyes, using your own arguments, we americans should be at least fault. if we're ignorant, how can we really do anything? for those other "knowledgable" peoples of other nations, they should be the ones fired up and ready to take action, right?

the folly is actually believing americans are radically different from most of the world, especially the western world. we're all lazy, stupid, etc. etc.

Edited by Phoenix Wright

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is easy to point fault at an entire group. what are you doing about it? what is the average englishman doing about it? frenchman? laotian? jordanian? australian?

see, in my eyes, using your own arguments, we americans should be at least fault. if we're ignorant, how can we really do anything? for those other "knowledgable" peoples of other nations, they should be the ones fired up and ready to take action, right?

the folly is actually believing americans are radically different from most of the world, especially the western world. we're all lazy, stupid, etc. etc.

Yeah I will concede that first point somewhat. However, my main thought is that because we are a world superpower, (or at least the closest thing to) then we have an obligation to the rest of the world. Part of that obligation includes being aware of the issues taking place around us and trying to help find solutions.

Yes, Americans in and of themselves aren't very different. However, our country is the most powerful of all Western nations, maybe the entire world. So we can't just shrug and say, "Meh, I don't care about ISIS. Maybe Iraq or someone else can do something about them."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, the average Jordanian pilot is currently doing raids against ISIS positions. As I've said before, I would completely agree with Blaze if it was not the case that the Arab coalition and Iran are winning. As things stand, we should intervene on behalf of our allies if any unfortunate reversals happen. As a side note, I wonder how this period will be talked about in history books? I'm thinking "Great Middle Eastern War".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I will concede that first point somewhat. However, my main thought is that because we are a world superpower, (or at least the closest thing to) then we have an obligation to the rest of the world. Part of that obligation includes being aware of the issues taking place around us and trying to help find solutions.

Yes, Americans in and of themselves aren't very different. However, our country is the most powerful of all Western nations, maybe the entire world. So we can't just shrug and say, "Meh, I don't care about ISIS. Maybe Iraq or someone else can do something about them."

It's not even THAT. It's the mere notion that something exists beyond the latest piece of gossip or hedonistic pleasure. I'm not saying enjoying Candy Crush is bad but for many people what is happening on Facebook, with news celebrities, the local gossip, and honestly dumb things that shouldn't even be happening in the first place matters more than even the most basic of outlier concerns. If someone made a major medical breakthrough, or some massive scandal involving their local coffee shop and it didn't immediately affect their iPhones or wifi they wouldn't even KNOW enough to care.

This is why the 'gluten free' craze even EXISTS. With even a tiny bit of thought it's easy to realize that people have been consuming glutens literally since civilization started and many have lived healthy lives or at least had their unhealthy lives be the result of something other than gluten. Yet now some people obsess over removing as much as possible with many of them not even knowing what 'gluten' even IS because they don't care. It doesn't affect them. The (fictional) threat of what it might do might have a direct effect on them so they care.

People dying in crime sprees? Apathy! Singer living a lifestyle that is outright disgusting and taking pride in it? Don't care! Making sure their muffins don't make their ****s fly off like in South Park while missing the point that it's satire of the entire movement? OMG! THAT'S SO IMPORTANT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we, as a people, aren't obligated to do anything at all. i'm not obligated to help the person 10ft from me, let alone 7000mi from me. we are not the world's protector just because of our position economically and militarily. we aren't the cops, parents, or guardians of the rest of the world. we can be allies/friends and help, but we will never be obligated to. this is the same for everyone in the world.

i agree we should be aware. who wouldn't though?

Incidentally, the average Jordanian pilot is currently doing raids against ISIS positions. As I've said before, I would completely agree with Blaze if it was not the case that the

that's an interesting twist on what i said, if that was indeed a reply to me.

should there be a reversal, where should our priorities lie then: the destitute at home, the middle east, north korea, or those regions in africa deemed "problematic," dangerous, corrupt, or what have you? why? and what about childen around the world making our clothing for us? should we help those countries to make human rights better too?

it is absolutely ridiculous and hypocritical of you all to expect other people to put their lives on hold to help others around the world, but not doing exactly that yourselves. (i'm assuming none of you have made it your #1 priority to fight isis, hamas, anti-semitism etc.)

apathy and inaction is nearly the same as awareness and inaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we, as a people, aren't obligated to do anything at all. i'm not obligated to help the person 10ft from me, let alone 7000mi from me. we are not the world's protector just because of our position economically and militarily. we aren't the cops, parents, or guardians of the rest of the world. we can be allies/friends and help, but we will never be obligated to. this is the same for everyone in the world.

i agree we should be aware. who wouldn't though?

that's an interesting twist on what i said, if that was indeed a reply to me.

should there be a reversal, where should our priorities lie then: the destitute at home, the middle east, north korea, or those regions in africa deemed "problematic," dangerous, corrupt, or what have you? why? and what about childen around the world making our clothing for us? should we help those countries to make human rights better too?

it is absolutely ridiculous and hypocritical of you all to expect other people to put their lives on hold to help others around the world, but not doing exactly that yourselves. (i'm assuming none of you have made it your #1 priority to fight isis, hamas, anti-semitism etc.)

apathy and inaction is nearly the same as awareness and inaction.

First of all, yes, that was indeed a reply to you. Second of all, I'm not saying we have an obligation to help any country in need, or donate money to help the destitute in Africa, or whatever. What I AM saying is that America has an obligation to assist those nations it has alliances with, such as Iraq and Jordan. We shouldn't be the worlds policeman, but we damn well should be making sure our word means something. Oh, and incidentally, it would raise quite a few questions if I fought ISIS, me being 15 and all. Child soldiers are, after all, illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would like to point out i said "average jordanian," not "average jordanian fighter-pilot," then.

an alliance is not necessarily a promise of action one way or another, especially for issues like these.

the point was not that you should be fighting isis, i attempted to illustrate the point that no one is going to drop their own life to aid in the cause of another nation's 7000 miles away, especially when that nation's root problems are systemic and can only be solved by its own people. islamic radicalism is the middle east's problem, and they should be the ones to solve it. an overwhelming military force won't help get rid of the problem anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we, as a people, aren't obligated to do anything at all. i'm not obligated to help the person 10ft from me, let alone 7000mi from me. we are not the world's protector just because of our position economically and militarily. we aren't the cops, parents, or guardians of the rest of the world. we can be allies/friends and help, but we will never be obligated to. this is the same for everyone in the world.

Yes you are. If you can help a starving person, and knowingly don't, then you're doing something that's unethical.

If the USA doesn't clean up its own mess that it started (ISIS came about because of the Iraq War, since ISIS was Al Qaeda in Iraq and they came because of the Iraq War) then that's wrong.

It's also a general ethical truth that if you have power to do something good for the sake of someone else, and you knowingly don't, then you're in the wrong, ethically. For example, if I saw a woman getting raped in the corner of a street as I was walking, and I could call the police (at no risk to myself), but I choose not to, then that would mean I'm doing something wrong.

Similarly, the US has the economic and military power to help out more against ISIS, but they don't, I think because of public opinion. That's wrong. It's the typical selfish, American materialistic viewpoint: "I'm an American, all I care about is me, my money and the Second Amendment." Do you really think we shouldn't interfere when things like this are happening?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3090886/ISIS-execute-man-BAZOOKA-shocking-new-video.html

Edited by Chiki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you are. If you can help a starving person, and knowingly don't, then you're doing something that's unethical.

If the USA doesn't clean up its own mess that it started (ISIS came about because of the Iraq War, since ISIS was Al Qaeda in Iraq and they came because of the Iraq War) then that's wrong.

It's also a general ethical truth that if you have power to do something good for the sake of someone else, and you knowingly don't, then you're in the wrong, ethically. For example, if I saw a woman getting raped in the corner of a street as I was walking, and I could call the police (at no risk to myself), but I choose not to, then that would mean I'm doing something wrong.

Similarly, the US has the economic and military power to help out more against ISIS, but they don't, I think because of public opinion. That's wrong. It's the typical selfish, American materialistic viewpoint: "I'm an American, all I care about is me, my money and the Second Amendment." Do you really think we shouldn't interfere when things like this are happening?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3090886/ISIS-execute-man-BAZOOKA-shocking-new-video.html

You cannot apply interactions between people to interactions between nations. The issue here is that the Middle Eastern War is a lot more complicated than one woman being raped. There is no advantage that can be gained from not calling the police in this situation, and it comes at no cost to yourself. By contrast, we don't know if assisting in the Middle East would open up a whole new can of worms. Finally, as I have said before, the forces currently arrayed against ISIS are doing a fine job of beating them, and the US is sending assistance. There are no ethics to international politics, its what is in the best interests of the country that should effect decision making.

i would like to point out i said "average jordanian," not "average jordanian fighter-pilot," then.

The Jordanian military is the only one doing the fighting in any war. If citizens want to help, they can join the army. However, you made it sound like there weren't any Jordanians fighting ISIS, which is what I took issue with.

an alliance is not necessarily a promise of action one way or another, especially for issues like these.

Care to elaborate? Not being an ass, just curious.

the point was not that you should be fighting isis, i attempted to illustrate the point that no one is going to drop their own life to aid in the cause of another nation's 7000 miles away, especially when that nation's root problems are systemic and can only be solved by its own people. islamic radicalism is the middle east's problem, and they should be the ones to solve it.

They are solving it. This topic isn't about what the US should do, its what the world, primarily the forces most likely to dictate a peace, should do.

an overwhelming military force won't help get rid of the problem anyway.

And here we get to the root of the problem, eh? It seems inevitable that ISIS will lose, but the question is, will another uprising happen? Maybe the handling of the defeated Germany and Japan could be used as inspiration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot apply interactions between people to interactions between nations.

..Interactions between nations is just a more complicated version of interactions between people. The same ethical principles apply.

By contrast, we don't know if assisting in the Middle East would open up a whole new can of worms.

How could the situation be worse than it is now? I don't see it getting worse unless ISIS takes over the entire Middle East or something at this point. Why would a US invasion make that possible?

Finally, as I have said before, the forces currently arrayed against ISIS are doing a fine job of beating them, and the US is sending assistance.

Absolute bullshit.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/28/middleeast/isis-how-to-stop-it/

This was written just a week ago.

Edited by Chiki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, we aren't obligated. That was poor word choice. But, given the situation, I think we do need to help, especially if things go south. Iraq is our ally, and it was not long at all after the US left Iraq that major operations by ISIS began to take place. Put yourself in the Iraqis' shoes: An ally who is more powerful economically, militarily, and politically only uses a few airstrip especially to stop the terrorist group ravaging your country.

As for calling me ridiculous and hypocritical, I couldn't sign up for the military. At least, not legally. Also, I don't think it is hypocritical to support US involvement in Iraq. I never said I wouldn't go over to fight. But it is okay for me to support a cause even if I can't directly fight for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, we aren't obligated. That was poor word choice.

No, it was the perfect word choice, don't listen to the others.

As for calling me ridiculous and hypocritical, I couldn't sign up for the military.

I'd say it's unethical to even sign up for the US military considering the shit they're up to for the most part in the world.

Edited by Chiki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it was the perfect word choice, don't listen to the others.

Well, I suppose it is good that you like it, but obligated was just a bit too strong. More like...compelled in just about every way that we can be (morally, politically, etc.)

I'd say it's unethical to even sign up for the US military considering the shit they're up to for the most part in the world.

That may be true. Or it may not be. All a matter of your perspective on US involvement in and around the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..Interactions between nations is just a more complicated version of interactions between people. The same ethical principles apply.

Why? A leader of a country, be it a King or a President, has the duty to focus on their country above all else. That is their job. If they put the welfare of the people of other countries over the welfare of their own people, they are being bad rulers. If a person puts the welfare of another over themselves, they are not being a bad person, because that is their choice. A leader speaks for their people, and must act in their best interests.

How could the situation be worse than it is now? I don't see it getting worse unless ISIS takes over the entire Middle East or something at this point. Why would a US invasion make that possible?

Touché.

Absolute bullshit.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/28/middleeast/isis-how-to-stop-it/

This was written just a week ago.

The notion that these tactics are new is idiotic. ISIS is using the same tactics as Imperial Japan- they combine fanaticism on the battlefield with brutality to inspire fear in the enemy. Their warfare is entirely morale based. They are currently up against the bedraggled Iraqi and Syrian armies, both of whom are glorified National Rifle Associations. If they beat them, however, they go up against the Iranian and Israeli armies, both of which are well trained, led, and equipped. They cannot win. Even if they advance in some areas, they lose in others, like at Tikrit. ISIS essentially suffers from a lack of actual competence, compensating for it with fanaticism; they are similar to the Waffen SS in this regard. If they go up against an army that knows what they're doing they will lose; simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

first, let me clear up two mistakes on my part:

1. the use of the word "obligated." i thought that this was the word that was devoid of any ethical connotations or denotations, but it's actually compel, according to google dictionary. (iirc, those around me have always said "moral" obligation if one needed to bring in an ethical argument. it appears that that is redundant for the word, though.) from an ethical viewpoint, i do indeed feel that the united states should at least feel some form of obligation to help life on earth thrive, human or otherwise. i do not think a person should be forced to do so. moreover, i don't think every decision should be based off of a particular school of ethical thought in the first place.

2. it was my understanding that we were talking about the general populace of nations, not just their militaries.

Yes you are. If you can help a starving person, and knowingly don't, then you're doing something that's unethical.

If the USA doesn't clean up its own mess that it started (ISIS came about because of the Iraq War, since ISIS was Al Qaeda in Iraq and they came because of the Iraq War) then that's wrong.

It's the typical selfish, American materialistic viewpoint: "I'm an American, all I care about is me, my money and the Second Amendment." Do you really think we shouldn't interfere when things like this are happening?

i find it interesting that the wording was changed from "we" to "me," so as to try and make me feel guilty? i don't see why you would change the language i used, since it's the most appropriate.

i was not around when the us fucked with the middle east, did not vote for those who caused the mess in iraq (seeing as i could not vote at the time), and cannot do anything about the situation at all.


The Jordanian military is the only one doing the fighting in any war. If citizens want to help, they can join the army. However, you made it sound like there weren't any Jordanians fighting ISIS, which is what I took issue with.

see (2). sorry for the miscommunication.

Care to elaborate? Not being an ass, just curious.

if, for some foreseeable or abundantly clear reason, could lead to an overall decrease in the well-being of the united states, i don't think the us should feel obligated to help. big problems for the united states as a result of our invasion is not totally nonsense, either.

And here we get to the root of the problem, eh? It seems inevitable that ISIS will lose, but the question is, will another uprising happen? Maybe the handling of the defeated Germany and Japan could be used as inspiration?

i don't think i'm equipped to answer this question beyond my feeling that warring with terrorist groups doesn't serve as a long-term, or short-term, really, solution. the middle east has to change.

Well, I suppose it is good that you like it, but obligated was just a bit too strong. More like...compelled in just about every way that we can be (morally, politically, etc.)

That may be true. Or it may not be. All a matter of your perspective on US involvement in and around the world.

that's pretty much what obligated means, apparently (see (1)). so "compel" is probably the word i'll use. basically, i don't think the us should be forced to help out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's pretty much what obligated means, apparently (see (1)). so "compel" is probably the word i'll use. basically, i don't think the us should be forced to help out.

Ok, I understand now. Yeah, the US isn't necessarily forced to help, but we aren't without reason that maybe we should help. I guess that had kinda been the point I've been trying to make the entire time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, I'm aware of why we're still involved. It just seems that the general public, rightfully so of course in theory, is more in support of continued involvement because of the moral obligation to help rather than the economic factors that are truly directing the west. It's just a tragedy that we rely so much on one resource that, as you said, it becomes a "good reason" to go to fucking war over, similar situation have occurred all throughout history and that you'd think we'd learn from them eventually. But I guess it's naive in this day and age to think that that would change :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? A leader of a country, be it a King or a President, has the duty to focus on their country above all else. That is their job. If they put the welfare of the people of other countries over the welfare of their own people, they are being bad rulers. If a person puts the welfare of another over themselves, they are not being a bad person, because that is their choice. A leader speaks for their people, and must act in their best interests.

Completely missed my point. I said that interactions between nations are fundamentally interactions between people (since interactions btw. nations take place because of people).

The notion that these tactics are new is idiotic. ISIS is using the same tactics as Imperial Japan- they combine fanaticism on the battlefield with brutality to inspire fear in the enemy. Their warfare is entirely morale based. They are currently up against the bedraggled Iraqi and Syrian armies, both of whom are glorified National Rifle Associations. If they beat them, however, they go up against the Iranian and Israeli armies, both of which are well trained, led, and equipped. They cannot win. Even if they advance in some areas, they lose in others, like at Tikrit. ISIS essentially suffers from a lack of actual competence, compensating for it with fanaticism; they are similar to the Waffen SS in this regard. If they go up against an army that knows what they're doing they will lose; simple as that.

Then why are they winning?

i do not think a person should be forced to do so. moreover, i don't think every decision should be based off of a particular school of ethical thought in the first place.

Every school of ethical thought thinks that you should help others if it's within your power to. It's completely uncontroversial.

Also, you said you don't think every decision should be based off of a view in ethics. This is completely ad hoc. Which actions are ok to base off of a particular school of ethical thought and which actions should not? We know some must be, and because it's ad hoc to draw a line somewhere, it follows that all actions must.

i find it interesting that the wording was changed from "we" to "me," so as to try and make me feel guilty? i don't see why you would change the language i used, since it's the most appropriate.

i was not around when the us fucked with the middle east, did not vote for those who caused the mess in iraq (seeing as i could not vote at the time), and cannot do anything about the situation at all.

I don't expect you to do anything. All I think you should do is to admit that the US should send in troops (or do much more at least) to get rid of ISIS.

Edited by Chiki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...