|
Is there an argument to be made that striking ISIS will make Sunni opinion of the US any lower than it can be? Erdogan seems to have a passing regard for them, but I don't know if that's because they're at relative arms length. Also, really glad the the Yazidi thing got national press, that made me cry. As an absolute principle, I think joining humanitarian aid with military intervention is an insidious way of mollifying public perception, but at the same time, I'm having a hard time feeling bad about. I suppose that means it's working?
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:54 |
|
|
Miltank posted:would IS have captured anti-air capabilities from Iraqi weapons caches? do we know what all we gave them? quote:The FIM-92 Stinger is a shoulder-fired infrared homing surface-to-air missile. It was originally designed by the U.S. and it entered service in 1981. These MANPADs are extremely dangerous and can effectively take down helicopters and aircraft. FIM-92 Stingers require specialized maintenance and care. It is believed ISIS looted FIM-92s from Iraqi military bases.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
I'm kind of surprised about this thread. I figured it'd be going 800 posts/hour with #handsoffyezidis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Don't you have to be able to see the target to hit it with a Stinger? I think the drones will be okay.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I'm kind of surprised about this thread. I figured it'd be going 800 posts/hour with #handsoffyezidis. Well, the last few times the U.S. intervened it didn't turn into rainbows and kisses so I think at this point everyone is resigned to what's going to happen next, though it's hard to imagine things could get much worse in Iraq.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
illrepute posted:Well, the last few times the U.S. intervened it didn't turn into rainbows and kisses so I think at this point everyone is resigned to what's going to happen next, though it's hard to imagine things could get much worse in Iraq. No way. Remember after the chemical attack in Syria? Just wait for this to get into the mainstream, and I bet poo poo will change fast. They are coming.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Yep. Peacock god.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Interesting that all the Syria-based #HandsOffSyria folks are suddenly quiet about western imperialism. From a narrative standpoint, this helps Assad fight terror. In reality, this sets a very scary precedent for the regime, and boosts the opposition more than anyone. I'm curious to see what happens if things get really bad and there's a huge movement to Syria from Iraq. Do you hit inside Syria then?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:
America is just doing what it does as the great Satan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Rip Testes posted:Add the US to that list now. In the context of the who's who they are up against and handing their asses to, no wonder they are getting some serious cred. That ISIS Press Officer guy from the VICE thing was good propaganda. The drone comment and stopping the interview to pepper some bullets over a hill at a sniper is going to touch a sympathetic nerve with many disenfranchised, angry people (some of whom really enjoyed playing CoD games).
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
There are two of you, don't you see? One that kills and One that loves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
Couldn't US air strikes just be used to keep ISIS from launching more attacks? As others have mentioned, they're kinda riding high on their own successes right now. Perhaps loving up a column or two heading into Kurdistan would force them to go back into guerrilla mode?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Interesting that all the Syria-based #HandsOffSyria folks are suddenly quiet about western imperialism. From a narrative standpoint, this helps Assad fight terror. In reality, this sets a very scary precedent for the regime, and boosts the opposition more than anyone. I'm curious to see what happens if things get really bad and there's a huge movement to Syria from Iraq. Do you hit inside Syria then? Oh for Christ's sake, is launching sick  s against tankie shitheads really that important to you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:Couldn't US air strikes just be used to keep ISIS from launching more attacks? As others have mentioned, they're kinda riding high on their own successes right now. Perhaps loving up a column or two heading into Kurdistan would force them to go back into guerrilla mode? I don't know, is martyring ISIS fighters going to drive others away from the area or is it going to draw them like a magnet to where the martyrdom is happening?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
Gen. Ripper posted:Oh for Christ's sake, is launching sick "Syria-based #HandsOffSyria folks" are Assad loyalists, not commies. It's PartisanGirl's clique. They're not saying anything now because this is in favor of Assad/Maliki/Iran.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Gen. Ripper posted:Oh for Christ's sake, is launching sick What?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
Here's an interesting perspective from Corey Robinquote:Readers of this blog will know—I hope—that I have a nearly physical revulsion toward all things imperial and militarist. But sometimes I have a reaction that points in the opposite direction. When terrible things happen to other people in other countries, and the cries for humanitarian intervention mount, I feel an emotional tug: We should do something to stop those terrible things! But then I think about someone who lives somewhere that doesn’t house a planetary armory. Does my doppelganger in Costa Rica or Lichtenstein feel that same tug? I don’t mean the natural human empathy for people who suffer; I mean that combination of guilt and duty that makes one feel like a poo poo, a bad person, for not doing anything or for opposing those who want to do something. I’m curious about this—how the state’s possession of a global artillery, and its assumption of a global duty, insinuates itself into the inner life of the imperial citizen, how a humanitarian sense of guilt and responsibility is the privilege, the lived experience, of imperial power. At least as that power is experienced by its holders. What say you, non-American, French, UK, Germany Russia Israel etc posters? And for the Americans/French/UK/Germany/Russia/Israel posters in the thread, what would you be advocating be done if you were a citizen of a small country with no military to speak of like Costa Rica or Austria?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:What? "Tankie" comes from when shithead British communists supported the crushing of the Hungarian revolution in 1956 by tanks (hence, the name). It mainly refers to kneejerk "AMERICA BAD" shitheads nowadays.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
tatankatonk posted:Here's an interesting perspective from Corey Robin Kurdish, Yezidi, and Syrian politicians and civilians aren't trying to find every camera they can to plead for help from Costa Rica. What would you say about the emotional tug people actually in the country who are dealing with the direct repercussions of ISIS are feeling? Are they naive to the situation, or is it Robin, who at least in this excerpt, boils the whole thing down to an abstract philosophical concept? Not even taking into context any of the thoughts or opinions of people in the region and instead treats it like it's our imaginary burden that we've created for ourselves, and even implies that listening to those pleas or treating them with empathy is perhaps a colonialist hangover. I'd support a US intervention, at the least to push back ISIS from Kurdish territory and to gain enough control of Shingar to provide an escape route for Yezidis, regardless of where I lived. And it seems that is widely supported among the only population that really matters in this situation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Aurubin posted:Is there an argument to be made that striking ISIS will make Sunni opinion of the US any lower than it can be? Erdogan seems to have a passing regard for them, but I don't know if that's because they're at relative arms length. Also, really glad the the Yazidi thing got national press, that made me cry. As an absolute principle, I think joining humanitarian aid with military intervention is an insidious way of mollifying public perception, but at the same time, I'm having a hard time feeling bad about. I suppose that means it's working? Yeah my biggest fear is that we could end up with a Khmer Rouge situation as a result of the air strikes. The US needs to be drat careful with its targeting. Other than that this seems like the least worst possible course. Not that that's much comfort.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I don't know, is martyring ISIS fighters going to drive others away from the area or is it going to draw them like a magnet to where the martyrdom is happening? If they come out in the open, hopefully it draws them like a magnet. Utterly destroying vehicle columns in open ground is a core competency of the US military. People always seem to forget that martyrdom means those people are dead, and the "rallying" effect of it doesn't mean poo poo if they die faster than they can be replaced. Not to mention the loss of skills and training that accompanies it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
door Door door posted:Yeah my biggest fear is that we could end up with a Khmer Rouge situation as a result of the air strikes. The US needs to be drat careful with its targeting. Other than that this seems like the least worst possible course. Not that that's much comfort. Really if there were any justice Kissinger would also be in the dock at that court in Phnom Penh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Kurdish, Yezidi, and Syrian politicians and civilians aren't trying to find every camera they can to plead for help from Costa Rica. What would you say about the emotional tug people actually in the country who are dealing with the direct repercussions of ISIS are feeling? Are they naive to the situation, or is it Robin, who at least in this excerpt, boils the whole thing down to an abstract philosophical concept? Not even taking into context any of the thoughts or opinions of people in the region and instead treats it like it's our imaginary burden that we've created for ourselves, and even implies that listening to those pleas or treating them with empathy is perhaps a colonialist hangover. I'd support a US intervention, at the least to push back ISIS from Kurdish territory and to gain enough control of Shingar to provide an escape route for Yezidis, regardless of where I lived. And it seems that is widely supported among the only population that really matters in this situation. No, I don't think he's reducing it to a cold philosophical abstract. He's asking 'what would we propose if we didn't have the world's most powerful military at hand?', which I think is an enormously valuable question to ask. The endgame of this crisis will be a political solution, not a military one (if there was a military solution, why wasn't all of this put to bed in the mid-2000s when the full force of the US military was available in the region?), and brainstorming from that headspace is useful for people otherwise seduced by the idea of military intervention. America, and every other country capable of doing so, has a moral responsibility to airlift food and water and medical supplies to the Yezidi, just like they have a moral responsibility to airlift food and water and medical supplies to the Palestinians in Gaza. The American military has a very long and established track record when it comes to even 'limited' interventions, and that track record shows us again and again that it just leads to more and more death and no solutions. People are justifiably wary of those who are crying out "Think of the Yezidi! Bomb them!" because "Think of the [Kurds/Montagnards/Cubans/Belgians]" has been a political strategy for liberal interventionists since, gosh, I don't know, 1900? Obama kills kids. The American military kills kids. I don't trust or expect them (and don't forget that the airstrikes will be called in by the fabulously incompetent New Iraqi Army, so expect an orphanage to be blown up tomorrow) to handle this in a way that doesn't kill more innocents needlessly. This isn't out of some vague cynicism, it's because I've been alive for the last decade and I know exactly what happens when the US decides to "help" with bombs. Not trusting intervention and interventionists isn't cynicism, it's having a loving functioning memory
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
So far as I can tell this War Nerd article on ISIS still pretty much holds: http://pando.com/2014/06/23/the-war-nerd-like-it-or-not-whats-happening-in-iraq-right-now-is-part-of-a-rational-process/
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
I've found this to be useful to help map out what is going on with ISIS. http://iswiraq.blogspot.com/
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
Like, gee willikers dudes, "airstrikes" and "bombs" aren't a euphemism for something else, they're bombs. They are high explosives. They kill people and blow buildings up. And they're being dropped by an air force that can't even prevent its pilots from dropping bombs on its own friendly troops! And those guys have radios and poo poo!! Are you going to feel bad when the first bomb goes astray and blows up a building full of peshmerga or Yezidi that's 500 meters from the ISIS siege lines? I know that sounds ridiculous, but hey! It's not! That has happened so many times in recent history.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
I'll laugh if the response is You coldhearted bastard, do you want the Yezidis to die??
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
Using airstrikes to push back ISIS while we get rid of Maliki and come to a political arrangement that brings the rebelling Sunni tribes in Western Iraq back into the government isn't a bad strategy. Beyond which, gently caress ISIS.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
tatankatonk posted:Like, gee willikers dudes, "airstrikes" and "bombs" aren't a euphemism for something else, they're bombs. They are high explosives. They kill people and blow buildings up. And they're being dropped by an air force that can't even prevent its pilots from dropping bombs on its own friendly troops! And those guys have radios and poo poo!! Are you going to feel bad when the first bomb goes astray and blows up a building full of peshmerga or Yezidi that's 500 meters from the ISIS siege lines? I know that sounds ridiculous, but hey! It's not! That has happened so many times in recent history.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
Agreed, we can solve all our problems through airstrikes. This has never gone poorly before.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
Festive Transvestite posted:Agreed, we can solve all our problems through airstrikes. This has never gone poorly before. Yes, that's exactly what I said.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Using airstrikes to push back ISIS while we get rid of Maliki and come to a political arrangement that brings the rebelling Sunni tribes in Western Iraq back into the government isn't a bad strategy. Beyond which, gently caress ISIS. It sounds like the absolute best option to me. I can't really see any other option being better for anyone involved. Doing nothing isn't going to help anything. Surprisingly enough I'm very much okay with how the U.S. seems to be approaching this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
tatankatonk posted:No, I don't think he's reducing it to a cold philosophical abstract. He's asking 'what would we propose if we didn't have the world's most powerful military at hand?', which I think is an enormously valuable question to ask. The endgame of this crisis will be a political solution, not a military one (if there was a military solution, why wasn't all of this put to bed in the mid-2000s when the full force of the US military was available in the region?), and brainstorming from that headspace is useful for people otherwise seduced by the idea of military intervention. America, and every other country capable of doing so, has a moral responsibility to airlift food and water and medical supplies to the Yezidi, just like they have a moral responsibility to airlift food and water and medical supplies to the Palestinians in Gaza. The American military has a very long and established track record when it comes to even 'limited' interventions, and that track record shows us again and again that it just leads to more and more death and no solutions. People are justifiably wary of those who are crying out "Think of the Yezidi! Bomb them!" because "Think of the [Kurds/Montagnards/Cubans/Belgians]" has been a political strategy for liberal interventionists since, gosh, I don't know, 1900? Obama kills kids. The American military kills kids. I don't trust or expect them (and don't forget that the airstrikes will be called in by the fabulously incompetent New Iraqi Army, so expect an orphanage to be blown up tomorrow) to handle this in a way that doesn't kill more innocents needlessly. This isn't out of some vague cynicism, it's because I've been alive for the last decade and I know exactly what happens when the US decides to "help" with bombs. If we didn't have the worlds most powerful military, we'd be debating over what the country that does should do. Yes the end game is probably not going to be ISIS being removed from the face of the earth, but Erbil and Baghdad falling, and ISIS running rampant through the middle east with no force to stop them, is not going to be a part of that political solution. That is the worst case scenario for the entire region. You have a very selective memory. I don't recall a whole lot of people saying "Think of the Rwandan's" or "Think of those living in Srebrenica" and half assed US treatment of those tragedies open and shut allowed those situations to degrade into what was previously though unimaginable. Intervention is not nearly as objectively a failure as the Iraq War has caused everyone to perceive it to be. You realize people are insulted when we give them weak aid like that right? When Syrians were hit with the second largest chemical weapons attack on a civilian populace in human history, and the world responds by giving them gas masks? You think those shipments get treated as liberators? Were it an invasion, I'd agree with your point, but when the airstrikes aren't predicated around "The world must understand that what we say, goes" like in the Persian Gulf war, or targeting 1.8 million human shields like in Gaza, newer types of weapons have a pretty solid rate at preventing civilian casualties. Libya is a fine example, which the country supported in the lead-up, and continued to support after it was said and done. ISIS is also in control of cities where the vast majority have fled, and they have to travel across open stretches of desert to move from one front to the other in their caliphate. I really don't think collateral damage is going to be the defining characteristic of this campaign, but I will sadly change my tune the second that claim is shown otherwise. tatankatonk posted:I'll laugh if the response is You coldhearted bastard, do you want the Yezidis to die?? I wouldn't say that, but your time could be better served finding and asking Yezidi's, Kurds, and Arabs what they think of the prospect of intervention as opposed to reading the opinions of a self professed militant anti-imperialist who lives thousands of miles away.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:
Oh, come off it. If I'm a first-worlder reading about socialism in the third world, what does that make you? An American liberal interventionist licking his chops and waiting for the USAF to start killing people in Syria so you can feel like you're on the moral side of things?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
Lmao, and what use is "I don't think collateral damage will happen, but I'll be publicly sad if it does happen"? I'm sure the people killed will rest easy knowing you're willing to eat crow right up until the next political crisis happens and you're screaming for more bombs to be dropped.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
Yeah man! Bomb em' from afar! This will work! Ask Mullah Omar, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda in Iraq-cum-ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, and every other militant group that has survived and thrived in the face of Western precision munitions. This time it'll work. Afghanistan? No, I don't know what you're talking about-
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
Vernii posted:If they come out in the open, hopefully it draws them like a magnet. Utterly destroying vehicle columns in open ground is a core competency of the US military. That's a big if. And the wily guys who have been active since OIF tend to send the young and dumb guys to get martyred; a million Islamist Caros can die without affecting institutional memory. woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 06:20 on Aug 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
Now I know what it sounds like if Ron Paul posted on these forums. I'm just waiting for the Letters of Marquee explanation so technically our hands don't have any blood on them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Vernii posted:If they come out in the open, hopefully it draws them like a magnet. Utterly destroying vehicle columns in open ground is a core competency of the US military. People seem to forget because the "if" you mention has not actually happened in the countries occupied by American troops. Dropping bombs on militants does not endear you to anyone. It radicalizes and destabilizes and leads to more ISIS clones springing up in 2024.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:54 |
|
|
Well that GBS'ed quickly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 06:19
|
|