ISIS: UK to decide on air-strikes

  • jaroslav123

    Posts: 600

    Sep 24, 2014 6:00 PM GMT
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/24/parliament-recalled-endorse-uk-airstrikes-iraq

    Bombing time.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Sep 24, 2014 9:25 PM GMT
    ISIS wants to kill the West writ large. ISIS hates egalitarianism, ecumenical cooperation, women's rights and LGBT rights. They would kill you because you are gay.

    While I am not trying to trivialize the decision to drop bombs, which is always a grave concern, on balance there's a clear "right" and a clear "wrong" side. What's more, we're NOT dropping nuclear bombs, but rather TARGETED airstrikes against known or suspected terrorist facilities. There WILL be casualties, just as there were in WWII. Casualties, in and of themselves, and unless and until they become out of proportion, should not chill us into letting bullies run roughshod.

    This is what we could, but are NOT, doing:

    tumblr_ncazi1sOU01tdyqk1o1_400.gif

  • jaroslav123

    Posts: 600

    Sep 25, 2014 10:02 AM GMT
    Svnw688 saidISIS wants to kill the West writ large. ISIS hates egalitarianism, ecumenical cooperation, women's rights and LGBT rights. They would kill you because you are gay.

    While I am not trying to trivialize the decision to drop bombs, which is always a grave concern, on balance there's a clear "right" and a clear "wrong" side. What's more, we're NOT dropping nuclear bombs, but rather TARGETED airstrikes against known or suspected terrorist facilities. There WILL be casualties, just as there were in WWII. Casualties, in and of themselves, and unless and until they become out of proportion, should not chill us into letting bullies run roughshod.

    This is what we could, but are NOT, doing:

    tumblr_ncazi1sOU01tdyqk1o1_400.gif



    You're assuming that I don't understant the threat of ISIS, which is always lovely and charming. Yes, I know they're bastards. The bombing method isn't cogent a tactic. It works in the short-run but never in the long-run: will lead to (as well as civilian deaths) more radicalisations and more people joining ISIS. It's like seeing a hornets nest and whacking it with a golf-club.

    We have to be agressive, but subtly so. Here, is the most cogent argument I've heard so far to decease the ISIS threat:
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/16/chelsea-manning-isis-strategy
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2014 12:28 PM GMT
    While air power alone can't win a war, it can certainly give one side a huge advantage. The bombing of ISIS will definitely assist those fighting them on the ground (e.g. the Kurds). We know they have armoured vehicles and heavy weapons and these should be fairly straightforward to target from the air. If they want to play at being a belligerent terrorist state, then they can expect to be targeted like one. Of course, we also need to target them in more subtle ways too (e.g. the online war and prove them incapable of governing responsibly), but, to not engage them militarily while we have the chance would be a big mistake.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Sep 25, 2014 2:05 PM GMT
    If you don't think that blowing away their known assets is crippling, but is rather a mere inconvenience, than I don't think you're properly appreciating how devestating the (1) physical loss of persons and materials is and (2) the loss of momentum in recruiting and propaganda is. Kind of hard to chest bump and recruit when your building is smoldering in the background and you hear the roar of an engine coming up on the horizon.

    The whole airstrikes can't do it alone seems a little too ivory tower. I say drop the target bombs of known or suspected ISIS fighters and/or supply sights. And letting the hornets nest fester is going to do nothing. Your metaphor breaks down. It's not a hornets nest, but a cancer. Chemo has its risks and is often ineffective, but we can't let perfection be the enemy of progress. They're thugs. Kill 'em.