ISIS takes Palmyra

[mr friendly guy]

I never once denied that the US horribly botched the post-invasion stuff. And no shit they didn't get a good leader in place.

Of course, its not simply a matter of the US putting a leader in place. It has to be someone most Iraqis will accept.

Regardless, the fact that the US did not take the third option does not mean that it did not exist. It just means that the US didn't take it.

Er, I know you said the US botched things up. I agree with you on that score. I just see the third option as so far out that you may as well as end up where Flagg's position is. The US was more likely to not invade, than invade with a good plan for after they won. Most probably because they suffered from the delusional belief that Iraqi's would greet them as liberators, so no need to plan what comes after Saddam.

[Flagg]

You say you're not defending him, but it sure sounds like you are. At least, you seem to believe that he should have been left alone because it was him or ISIS. If that's what you're arguing, the burden of proof is on you, surely?

Umm, no. It's not. All I've said, all I've been saying, in response to your assertion that "The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in it" comment, and exactly what it means.

It means the US invades Iraq in March 2003, hundreds of thousands die, most of them civilians, and ISIS eventually forms and begins killing even MORE people while destroying priceless artifacts and monuments that can never be replaced because George W. Bush and every prominent member of his Administration lied about Iraq's and Hussein's non-existent connection to 9/11, that they possessed chemical and biological weapons and were capable of delivering them to the US mainland through use of unmanned "jet drones" (an impossibility without an aircraft carrier, which Iraq did not possess or in-flight refueling, a capability Iraq has never possessed to my knowledge), and not just allusions to, but virtual outright claims (I'm looking at you, Condi. That's a BAD Condi!) that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program or even an actual weapon. And a large number of Americans too stupid (or who knew very well they were being lied to and didn't care as long as we "Kicked some Arab ass!" as I'd heard it put by a coworker who got his jollies watching that poor journalist (whose name escapes me to the point that I can't find anything about him on Google, Wikipedia, or even the continuing uselessness of Bing) kidnapped in Pakistan being executed) to spot obvious lies and pure bullshit when they see it, and who all thought the world would be a better place without Saddam Hussein. That's an assertion that YOU made as well, I disagreed and had an actual argument to make (and it's an argument based 100% on facts which cannot be denied because it's exactly what fucking happened and all you did was throw around crap like "You're an apologist for brutal dictators!" or "You're defending Saddam Hussein!"
So no, my friend. The burden is on you to prove that the world is a better place with Saddam Hussein dead. So unless you completely devalue human life and precious history (which I sincerely do not believe to be the case), then you have quite the burden to prove.

Now, if this is to continue I expect a retraction (no apology necessary) of the insulting and untrue statements you've made about me directly in this thread (there for all to see) by 3pm PDT or I'm simply reporting the posts in question and will no longer engage with you in debates because I find you to be incredibly dishonest, consistently overreacting (as opposed to simply using sarcasm and hyperbole to make a point/joke), and though I'm no Grammar-Nazi, and I'm sure I have grammatical and spelling quirks that are incorrect and certainly annoy people, your constant misuse of "there, their, and they're" makes me want to stab myself in the eyes.

That very last bit was sarcasm and hyperbole BTW. Just in case someone thinks I'm "flipping out" and being totally serial.

But don't worry, I'm 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999995% positive nothing will come of it. Well, not for you, anyway. I mean it's not like someone accused me of raping my dead father without mod reprisal or anything in the last month. Apparently no one gives a shit about testing. Which is funny since I got 2 warnings from posts in threads in testing. Must be a glitch in the Matrix. I thought I took the fucking blue pill, but next thing you know, I wake up in bed with Morpheus. Could have been worse. Could have been Trinity.

[Kane Starkiller]

I don't think it really matters whether the world is a better place without Saddam. Most of the world wasn't much affected by Saddam one way or another. It's much more important to see whether Kurds, for example, are better off then whether Brazil was ever so slightly negatively affected by the collapse of the Baath party.

[Broomstick]

I don't think it really matters whether the world is a better place without Saddam. Most of the world wasn't much affected by Saddam one way or another

Um... isn't that sort of the point of people saying Saddam's removal was mistake? Most of the world wasn't much affected by Saddam. As opposed to now, when ISIS is literally conquering territory, destroying lives and history, and urging lone-wolf terrorist types to blow shit up in the West.

No, it is not a better world with Saddam gone. That's rather unpleasant to say, I think I just threw up a little bit, but it's the truth. Removing him, as it was done, made things more shitty.

[Borgholio]

No, it is not a better world with Saddam gone. That's rather unpleasant to say, I think I just threw up a little bit, but it's the truth. Removing him, as it was done, made things more shitty.

It is an unfortunate truth throughout history that having a mean person keeping a nation stable is often preferable to having the nation tear itself apart. Take a look at many of the most celebrated empires in history. They were ruled at times by people who made Saddam look like a schoolgirl at a Hello Kitty convention, but that was a damn sight better than having those empires fall apart and turn the world they ruled into shitholes for centuries afterwards. Take a look at Rome for instance. Some of their emperors were downright evil...but life under them was better than during the Dark Ages.

[Metahive]

I'm a tad perplexed by the notion that the US invading Iraq as part of a coalition somehow exonerates it in some way, when it was the main instigator and drive behind it the whole way and most members of the coalition besides the UK send a token force at most. When Ol' Boney invaded Russia in 1812 he too was doing so as part of a coalition, yet would anyone say that this campaign wasn't Napoleon's own doing and its disastrous outcome anyone's but his personal failure?

[Flagg]

The thing is, if America has a duty to knock off every brutal dictator in the world it would end in nuclear fire. The fact of the matter is that there are very bad people who rule nations all over the world, and we do business with them daily. I can guarantee that if you are wearing clothing purchased from a major retailer, posting messages on this board with... well pretty much anything, or have electricity... well, you're contributing to very bad regimes. It's not as big a world as it used to be, but there are plenty of dipshit rulers, vice rulers, "Prime Ministers", etc., who deserve to have their heads on pikes.

But most of the time the cost of putting their heads up there comes in human lives, most of the time innocent human lives. And just because America has the power to topple these dipshits, doesn't give America the right to do it. And if we do choose to do so, we have an obligation to the people of the country we conquered to not leave it an oozing, festering, and infected boil that will burst under its own pressure and spray the conquered countries entire region in gobs of bloody infected pus that will cause previously minor wounds to become even bigger oozing, festering, and infected boils waiting to burst.

[Broomstick]

That was... disturbingly eloquent Flagg. Well put.

[K. A. Pital]

Now, I think that Saddam was a shitty ruler, and so is Assad. So was Qaddafi. But the problem is not the removal of these rulers who, crappy as they were, are the product of the region's political development in the 1960-1980 timeframe... No. The problem is that these leaders were or are in the process of being removed in such a fashion that makes them look good in comparison to what happened next.

What concerns US, obviously, it is perhaps good that it stops interfering. The world, and that includes America, has to grow up. Some problems cannot be solved with the barrel of a gun. Even if - and that is certainly not the case - the gun is being held in the right hands.

The price of adulthood is the destruction of cultural relics by madmen. The US and the West chose to consciously support Wahhabism from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan, first as a tool in the Cold War against the communists and later as a tool against Baathists. Germany is also culpable, even if less so; it maintains good relations with and arms crazy Wahhabist regimes (Saudi Arabia). And Britain too.

Europe and the US will now have to understand that the age of colonial wars is gone, and even neocolonial adventures are going to be hard to sell nowadays. Who will seriously support another Western operation in the region after Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya?

[Thanas]

The price of adulthood is the destruction of cultural relics by madmen. The US and the West chose to consciously support Wahhabism from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan, first as a tool in the Cold War against the communists and later as a tool against Baathists. Germany is also culpable, even if less so; it maintains good relations with and arms crazy Wahhabist regimes (Saudi Arabia). And Britain too.

Don't forget the massive contribution of Russia and China to those regimes, which in many cases dwarfs that of the west.

[Metahive]

Now, I think that Saddam was a shitty ruler, and so is Assad. So was Qaddafi. But the problem is not the removal of these rulers who, crappy as they were, are the product of the region's political development in the 1960-1980 timeframe... No. The problem is that these leaders were or are in the process of being removed in such a fashion that makes them look good in comparison to what happened next.

What concerns US, obviously, it is perhaps good that it stops interfering. The world, and that includes America, has to grow up. Some problems cannot be solved with the barrel of a gun. Even if - and that is certainly not the case - the gun is being held in the right hands.

The price of adulthood is the destruction of cultural relics by madmen. The US and the West chose to consciously support Wahhabism from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan, first as a tool in the Cold War against the communists and later as a tool against Baathists. Germany is also culpable, even if less so; it maintains good relations with and arms crazy Wahhabist regimes (Saudi Arabia). And Britain too.

Europe and the US will now have to understand that the age of colonial wars is gone, and even neocolonial adventures are going to be hard to sell nowadays. Who will seriously support another Western operation in the region after Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya?

Learn a lesson by some smashed cultural artifacts? You don't actually believe that yourself, do you? As if the guys who actually care about such things are the same ones who wreck stuff all over the world. Neither the Koch Brothers nor Rupert Murdoch will lose a single second of sleep over whatever happens in Palmyra.

[Kane Starkiller]

People often talk about stability hower in recent decades there was 1980-189 Iraq-Iran war, 1991 Kuwait Invasion, 1980s Al-Anfal campaign,The Libyan Chad conflict from 1970s to 1980s, Hama massacre in Syria etc. One can say these regimes were "stable" but it was unstable stability of minority ethnic groups exerting brutal dominance upon the majority. There is little surprise it ended the way it did and its hard to see how it could've ended any other way.

This is the problem with supporting the "Iraq Army" against ISIS. Iraq Army is actualy Shiites or at least that's how Sunni Arabs see them so they are unlikely to see them as liberators but as occupiers and US army as their allies. This was the biggest US mistake when invading Iraq. The idea that they can turn Iraq into a democracy and have it remain one country. Democracy means Shiites, which comprise 60% of the population, will dominate the country and Sunis and Kurds will never stand for that. It is no surprise that ISIS corresponds roughly to areas where Sunni Arabs are a majority and the fact that it rapidly spread throughout those areas but hit a wall when tried to conquer other areas means that for all its brutality it does depend on at least tacit support of the local population.
So what should US do? Enforce the borders of Syria and Iraq and try to make them one country again even while most of the different ethnoreligious groups don't want to live in a single country? This doesn't seem like a realistic option. The only realistic option is to support Shia and Kurd forces when ISIS tries to expand into their areas and perhaps try to support a Sunni rival to the ISIS.

[K. A. Pital]

Learn a lesson by some smashed cultural artifacts? You don't actually believe that yourself, do you? As if the guys who actually care about such things are the same ones who wreck stuff all over the world. Neither the Koch Brothers nor Rupert Murdoch will lose a single second of sleep over whatever happens in Palmyra.

As a whole the national consensus in the Western countries is now heavily against intervention. I think that is the attitude of adults. There was enough mess made by the last daring attack, and the world hardly needs another one. That is the lesson which is being learnt.

[His Divine Shadow]

I feel like we're getting some perspective on this whole 2003-2015 thing and I think it'll go down in history as the 10th crusade. I wonder if this will have consequences in a thousand years too.

[The Romulan Republic]

Learn a lesson by some smashed cultural artifacts? You don't actually believe that yourself, do you? As if the guys who actually care about such things are the same ones who wreck stuff all over the world. Neither the Koch Brothers nor Rupert Murdoch will lose a single second of sleep over whatever happens in Palmyra.

As a whole the national consensus in the Western countries is now heavily against intervention. I think that is the attitude of adults. There was enough mess made by the last daring attack, and the world hardly needs another one. That is the lesson which is being learnt.

Personally I think that's an overly simplistic attitude. Just because one intervention went badly does not mean all interventions are bad. What an adult should do is make careful decisions based on the circumstances at hand, not knee-jerk generalizations. Sure, some things are always a bad idea and I'm hardly a fan of war, particularly offensive war. But surely you would recognize that their are some circumstances where war is justifiable? And if "A horde of fanatics bent on conquering the world is committing mass murder, slavery, and torture and rapidly expanding and local governments are completely unable to deal with it on their own." doesn't qualify, what the fuck does?

Edit: Seriously, as an America, I would be very happy if not one of our soldiers ever had to step outside our borders again. But what's the alternative?

[Thanas]

After the fall of Palmyra, Isis also took the last remaining border outpost of Syria between Syria and Iraq. Isis territory is now a single block.

[K. A. Pital]

TRR, because IS cannot take over the world (their propaganda is just that, empty talk). Besides, we had the Taliban already. Of course, the destruction in these lands is going to be awful. But I ask again - what are the alternatives? Occupy Iraq again - this time for decades - and see how the locals start hating you even more, turning their wrath not against each other but against you? I see no good alternatives. The usual military wank is getting tiresome, and people are deeply disillusioned in the military. It is not gong to be some fun waltz across the desert, neither a 'mission accomplished', in Bush-speak. And without reviewing the relations with Saudis, Turkey etc. no change is possible, let's be honest. And no one is even talking about reviewing these relations.

Sorry, but the world is a very grim place.

[mr friendly guy]

Personally I think that's an overly simplistic attitude. Just because one intervention went badly does not mean all interventions are bad. What an adult should do is make careful decisions based on the circumstances at hand, not knee-jerk generalizations. Sure, some things are always a bad idea and I'm hardly a fan of war, particularly offensive war. But surely you would recognize that their are some circumstances where war is justifiable? And if "A horde of fanatics bent on conquering the world is committing mass murder, slavery, and torture and rapidly expanding and local governments are completely unable to deal with it on their own." doesn't qualify, what the fuck does?

Edit: Seriously, as an America, I would be very happy if not one of our soldiers ever had to step outside our borders again. But what's the alternative?

In principle I agree with you that just because we fuck up once, doesn't mean we might not get in right the next time. However in practice I just have very little faith in our ability to "get it right next time," that we may as well wait until such time we improve as a people so we won't be taken in by such simplistic propaganda the Bush maladministration was peddling.

That being said, perhaps limited intervention in the form of helping certain groups eg the Kurds might work to demonstrate that we can at least do small scale stuff right before going in for the large scale intervention.

[The Romulan Republic]

TRR, because IS cannot take over the world (their propaganda is just that, empty talk).

True enough. I guess its fair to say that things could be worse, and if you set the bar for intervention at "The enemy is capable of taking over the world", ISIS doesn't qualify.

Still, they are managing to conquer and wreak havoc in Iraq and Syria and launch terrorist attacks elsewhere even with the intervention we're engaging in, and if they cannot take over the world, it may be because eventually they'd expand far enough that major powers fighting them would no longer be optional. Better to fight them now than wait until they finish taking Iraq and Syria and move into, say, Turkey (triggering our NATO obligations).

Besides, we had the Taliban already. Of course, the destruction in these lands is going to be awful. But I ask again - what are the alternatives? Occupy Iraq again - this time for decades - and see how the locals start hating you even more, turning their wrath not against each other but against you? I see no good alternatives.

What about provide whatever aid we can short of a full-scale deployment on the ground, hopefully with the consent of the government of Iraq (which probably knows its fucked six ways to Sunday without our help) while encouraging reform in Iraq?

The usual military wank is getting tiresome, and people are deeply disillusioned in the military. It is not gong to be some fun waltz across the desert, neither a 'mission accomplished', in Bush-speak. And without reviewing the relations with Saudis, Turkey etc. no change is possible, let's be honest. And no one is even talking about reviewing these relations.

It is both insulting and hilarious to have my beliefs characterized as military wank.

And you're mistaken if you think America is "...deeply disillusioned in the military." War is a divisive topic, but the military is virtually idolized, except maybe on the fringe. Unfortunately.

Also, you are completely right that we need to change how we deal with the Saudis and Turkey.

Sorry, but the world is a very grim place.

No shit. Which is all the more reason why we have a responsibility to try to do what we can.

[The Romulan Republic]

Every day that ISIS persists, every time it takes a city, it sends a message to people all over the world that you can wage war on the world, on civilization itself, and win. That will encourage more recruits, more terrorism, more fanatical revolts. There is a certain kind of person that is attracted by strength and power, perhaps particularly when it is possessed by the "underdog" against the great powers (not that ISIS is in any way the underdog from the point of view of the innocent victims it is butchering). Such a myth must not be allowed to grow or survive. That is reason enough to intervene.

Besides, either we beat them now or they may grow until we have no choice but to fight them. What happens if they finish off Iraq and Syria and invade Turkey (a NATO member)? We fight them anyway, of course, only they'll be much stronger.

[Flagg]

I have decided to post a few of the things The Romulan Republic has alleged, both against me and recorded history, instead of going to the moderators for relief I will never get, so I'll just point out that The Romulan Republic has never retracted the many lies he's blatantly spewed directed at me in this thread, including but not limited to: "That I am an apologist for brutal dictators" and " That I had/have some special liking for Saddam Hussein." He has also failed to prove that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in it, ruling Iraq, an assertion he's made and demanded I prove the negative, when very recent history has proven it for me.

I also take issue with his lie that Thanas is biased against the Unites States of America simply for stating facts about my countries actions in recent history, and frankly since its inception, but that's for Thanas to deal with. I just get... Annoyed when someone tries to preemptively invalidate the arguments of another, who actually knows what they are talking about when in comes to these issues, when that someone has proven time and again that like Jon Snow, they know nothing, and their storyline has been boring as shit until very recently.

Just had to get that off my chest before this thread goes any further. So unless the lies (about me, not Thanas, he's a big boy) are repeated by the poster already mentioned they will not be brought up again by me unless I deem it relevant.

[TheHammer]

Why is so much time being spent discussing Iraq when Palmyra is in the middle of Syria?

While you might fault the US for Iraq's inability to defend its own territory (with Iraqi's themselves sharing the blame), how is the situation in Syria to be blamed on the US?

Germany isn't allowed to do certain things because of something called "World War Two" that happened, from your perspective, in the late stone age. Which event, by the way, thoroughly sucked for the average German even if not as badly as for the average German Jew/Gypsy/homosexual/communist/etc. Germany lost its country, was utterly taken over by the Allies, terms dictated to them, the country sawed in half with a literal wall erected to keep it divided, and told "you will NOT study war no more". With pretty much the whole fucking world standing in a wrecked Berlin willing to back that up with bullets.

It was at the cost of millions of lives and destroyed a great chunk of Europe. We're not anywhere even close to that in the middle east, and for that type of result that's what you really need. A population so worn down and decimated that they have truly capitulated and you can dictate the kind of terms that were dictated. But you need the resources to devote to that and a willingness to see it through.

In a way, the era of precision guided weapons while there are civilian casualties its nothing at all compared to how wars of the past were waged. And because of that you'll never reach that state of decimation. So you're left with the choice of trying to influence rather than dictate and well that doesn't work out so well with ideas that have been entrenched for thousands of years. It certainly isn't going to change over night.

Yeah, Thanas is kind of asking that we hand out that treatment to someone else - and wants the same level of success. I wish I knew how to go about that, but the brutal fact is that the US does not have the caliber of leadership these days that we had back then. We need a great PotUS and we're not even getting mediocre these days.

That's kind of bullshit for the reasons cited above. And one can hardly blame Obama for not wanting to commit US troops considering he ran on the promise of getting troops out of the middle east. We were told this wasn't going to be a quick victory because we weren't taking the same tactic of "Smashing hard and fast and try to glue back together later" that we had in Afghanistan and Iraq. And judging history in the moment is a fools errand. We won't know for years whether this strategy pays off, but its got a chance to succeed by making Arab nations stand up and take responsibility - and one that may yet work in the long term.

Aside from the massive expense in blood and treasure, which our European allies likely will do dick all to help with, I believe the reason the US isn't invading is because we don't want to have to occupy the territory after the fighting is done. Been there and done that shit someone else can own their own middle eastern country.

If Thanas and others feel more direct intervention is needed, I'd like to second the calls others have had that Europe step up and handle this one. The US would certainly help you out, but you guys can own it, occupy it, and manage it and see if you're solutions to fix thousands of years of sectarian violence work out any better than ours did. If nothing else you have our bad examples to learn from right?

Germany is only allowed to defend itself, it is not allowed to project force abroad...

Factually inaccurate
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ea-ops.htm

Japan's own self imposed restrictions are probably what you were thinking of.

Here's a question for all of you: what are you willing to do to overturn ISIS? If you can't give a somewhat detailed answer then there's no point in arguing. How many civilian deaths? How many cities destroyed? Because that's what it will take. You can't say "nobody but combatants get hurt" because that's not how things happen in war. You can't say "no bombing mosques and schools" because if you do then the Bad Guys will set up operations in mosques and schools. War isn't about playing fair or being nice. If you're asking for war - because that's what this is - then at least be aware what you're asking for.

Again, I think its less a question of overturning ISIS, but what do you do in the aftermath that has most lasting impact. Civilians can die under ISIS, or they can die in having it removed. I think you have to cut out the cancer even though you're damaging healthy tissue to do so for the long term good.

[Simon_Jester]

Not really. Terrorists hide among civilians, their are a lot of them, and they are spread out over a vast area. So unless you're cool with carpet-nuking anywhere ISIS might have people, civilian casualties be damned, I'm skeptical of winning with airstrikes alone.

Edit: That's not to say that we can't shrink their forces, weaken them with airstrikes. Maybe enough for the local governments to win. I don't know. But it hasn't worked yet.

This is basically true, I think. To use airstrikes to full effect, you need troops on the ground directing them, spotting targets, occupying ground that the enemy abandons because they can't survive air attack while trying to hold it, and so on. Otherwise, after each airstrike the enemy just digs out of the rubble and keeps on doing business as usual to the best of their ability. Their ability may be diminished but it's not gone.

Without that use of troops on the ground, you're limited to strategic bombing. While strategic bombing can delay and weaken an enemy, you don't really get to control how much it will delay and weaken them. Not unless you use nuclear weapons, make a desert, and call it peace.

If you guys hadn't gone to Iraq in the latest bid to soothe your "do good for the world" tic and allowed your president get away with all that, we wouldn't even be having this thread.

Would Syria not be having a civil war if not for the invasion of Iraq? How would that work- would we have sat quietly while Saddam or one of his sons* intervened in the war? Would even that have prevented it?

Also, if invading a country was wrong last time, why are normally antiwar people urging us to invade another one, in a situation where the US would logically end up the target of both sides of the civil war because we hate both Assad and the fanatics opposing him.

*There's a good chance Saddam Hussein would be dead by now, given his age.

I'll be blunt. That is a stupid sentiment based on a twisted high handed morality that will only creates trouble. The endless need by certain countries in the world to moralise their justifications can only lead to more blood and suffering because they never ever think well far enough to justify the ends. Anyone who has the hubris to think that can create a better world just by conquering, blowing up stuff, I say fuck that person and he can go burn in hell for all the destruction and death he unleashed because he was too stupid to see that he is no better than his enemy.

OK, but if you're going to switch into that mode, I assume you also don't have a problem with Palmyra falling to ISIL? Because it sure looks like preventing that would have required sending soldiers into Syria to kill and blow stuff up.

The Gulf War gives even more interesting data. In forty-four days of bombing, only 1,028 Iraqi vehicles were destroyed. In one hundred hours of ground combat, 3,117 were destroyed. And in nearly three thousand successful sorties over Kosovo(only 44% of missions that were attempted), only 52 Serb armored vehciles were destroyed, for a total of 1 vehicle for every 57 sorties.

To nitpick... In the Gulf War, quite a few of those Iraqi armored vehicles destroyed during the ground offensive were destroyed by further air attacks- see the "Highway of Death" for examples of this.

To borrow a notion from John Keegan, the air force in the Gulf War campaign took a role broadly analogous to that of cavalry in gunpowder-era warfare. It could not break a determined, entrenched defender, but it could harass, it could raid, it could selectively destroy critical targets like the enemy's command posts and supply depots... and in pursuit of a beaten enemy force it became utterly deadly because there was no way for fleeing troops to escape its reach in time to avoid being attacked.

Thing is, no successful army of the gunpowder era won wars with cavalry alone. Even the armies with very good cavalry had to use it as an adjunct to large infantry/artillery forces that had more firepower and more ability to "bite and hold" ground or seize a fortified location.

Conversely, in the Serbian bombing campaign, a lot of the bombing was not aimed at armored vehicles. Bombing attacks aimed at a SAM site or an enemy airfield or a power plant aren't going to blow up any tanks, but that doesn't mean they aren't having an effect.

The basic conclusion, though, remains sound- strategic bombing of a determined enemy won't force them to stop fighting, and often can't force them to stop actively engaging in offensive operations. Not unless you're willing to make a nigh-unlimited commitment of the heaviest available aircraft and weapons, with wild indifference to collateral damage

I may be mischaracterizing your position here and I apologize in advance if so, but...

Why is this only the US's fault or only the US's problem?

The US did not create the Syrian Civil War- Assad did.

Because the US is the western nation which...
1) destabilized the entire region,
2) destabilized the Assad regime by providing arms and help to the Rebels and creating an embargo...
3) as well as creating ISIS by letting the Shia's conduct a campaign of ethnic cleansing.

I broke your reply here into three separate points, because they merit separate replies:

1) The Middle East was unstable long before most US intervention in the region- the US became involved but did not create that problem, because it's existed pretty much ever since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and has been violent ever since the European colonial empires left in the 1940s and '50s.

2) Did you oppose those steps at the time? In the early phase of the Syrian Civil War, Assad looked like the greater evil. Now he looks like the lesser evil. Were you content to leave Assad alone when he was gassing his own cities to suppress opposition to his rule?

3) Could you please expand on the campaign of ethnic cleansing to which you refer, and in which country it took place?

The US did not create ISIL, either.

ISIS support in Iraq can be directly linked to US policies and the policies of US puppets. WIthout that support, they would not be the thread they are now, and without the US-trained military being completely useless they would not be making the gains they made in Iraq either.

As I asked Fin, would the Syrian Civil War not have happened? Would religious fundamentalists not have become involved? While the US intervention is part of the background to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL's emergence, that is not the same thing as saying the US created ISIL or is responsible for ISIL, or is uniquely the only nation that should feel an obligation to do something about ISIL.

Especially when, by your own admission, the main reason for stopping ISIL is that they are committing atrocities and crimes which any civilized nation would reasonably oppose.

On a related note- The US spent vast sums training the Iraqi military; their uselessness is in spite of US efforts, not because of it. The US does not have a magic "inspire patriotism and courage in foreigners fighting for a government that is supported by an occupying army" spray. If it did, I assure you that spray would have been used on the Iraqi army during the Bush administration, as it would no doubt be far more cost-effective than the training we actually supply them with.

It is intellectually dishonest to blame the US for trying and failing to do something unless you have a clear idea how it could have been done better.

If your preference is "better it had not been done at all, very well, except I'm not sure that having Saddam Hussein or one of his sons in power in Iraq would have 'fixed' the Syrian Civil War.

And if we're looking at proximate causes of the fall of Palmyra to the barbarians... The US is far from the only country to piously denounce both Assad and the more fanatic of his opponents while doing nothing but a few pathetic trifles to exert any control over the situation.

The US however is the only country in the area which however does have the means to strike at ISIS at will with little danger in return.

This represents an active choice on the part of every nation in the region which is not the US. Why are they not prepared to do anything? Why is only the US physically prepared to do anything, the US which is already committed to not backing Assad (who has used nerve gas on his own major cities)?

When did you come to the conclusion that the US should intervene to support Assad against those rebelling against his authority?

So how was the massive ISIS convoy allowed to assemble and march uncontested - and unmolested by airstrikes which could easily have destroyed the whole convoy - for over two days? Because the US stood idly by and said "not our problems, let the Syrians have it".

The US has the forces and is employing them in other respects, and does not maintain the bulk of its airforce on standby as a rapid reaction force to batter ISIL columns in motion across the desert... precisely because the US is NOT directly intervening in the Syrian Civil War on any major scale. By contrast, the US IS intervening in Iraq on a somewhat larger scale, though still not as large as I'd like.

If this situation is fit to make you go cry in a corner, you should ask yourself: in hindsight, should you have been lobbying the German government to intervene back in 2011 or 2012 when this could have been averted?

You know that I am on record for spending more on the German military, yes? At least give me the courtesy to assume that it is factored in how I vote. And you should also know that I am as active I can be with safeguarding cultural treasures.

Acknowledged.

Were you in favor of such increases in German military spending back in 2011 and 2012?

How about back in 2005 or so, which is when the money should have been spent, in order to build up the capability that would be needed for Germany to successfully intervene in 2011-12?

If the answer is 'yes' to both, my compliments on your foresight and good historical judgment; you have avoided the exact mistake that cost democratic Europe so dearly in the 1930s.

If the answer is not 'yes' to both, then behold! The mistake is repeated for all to see... I, for one, hope people learn from it this time.

If not the German government, who should have done something?

The US, they started this whole mess in the middle east in the first place.

On the contrary, the British and the French started it, the Israelis have been methodically making it worse for no real benefit to themselves since 1973, and the Soviets did a good deal to stir the pot in the 1960s, '70s, and '80s. The US merely catastrophically mismanaged it so badly as to share a large fraction of the blame.

Again, I fail to see the direct chain of events by which the US caused the Syrian Civil War, as opposed to, say, Assad causing the war. Or the various backers of ISIL.

If doing something was not possible, why was it not possible?

Because Obama is a well-known coward.

That is why doing something was not done, on the US's end. Not why it wasn't possible- as you point out repeatedly, the US could have intervened.

Was doing something not possible for Europe? If so, why? If it was possible, why was it not done? The US is not the only country that should be expected to behave like a responsible adult willing to protect innocents from screaming lunatics.

Even if the US had a good track record on that issue, which it does not, then surely other countries should be able to do it properly as well.

Change your opinions and worldview and actions, to minimize the risk of something like this ever happening again... or don't complain when it does happen again.

That's rich coming from an American, the nation famous for cutting and running after fucking up two countries in a row and then doing very little to fix them.

MY opinions and worldview have already been changed. That many of my countrymen have bean curd for brains, is not something I know how to fix.

Want to be the hegemon? Don't get pissy because you are asked to act like a responsible hegemon. Besides, a lot of this is the fault of the US anyway by destabilizing Iraq so they get full blame for the aftermath of the shit job they did there.

Syria would be experiencing a civil war whether the US had invaded Iraq or not.

The intensity would be much lower, and the civil war would be over by now had the US not sent massive shipments of arms to the rebels. It is very dishonest to go and sit there claiming the US somehow was not involved in jumpstarting the Syrian civil war.

So the answer was to sit there and let Assad kill the 2011-12 rebels, so that the vicious rebels of 2014-15 would not come into existence.

I just want to make sure I'm clear on this- the solution to the Syrian Civil War was to NOT arm the people fighting a tyrant and being gassed and missiled in their own major urban centers.

For the good of preventing the sack of Palmyra.

Did I get that right? If not, why not?

Moreover, speaking for myself I don't want the US to be a hegemon.

Did you vote for Obama or the Republicans? Then maybe, in your own words, examine american politics for the reason the US is acting like a hegemon. In future, oppose that kind of politics... or don't complain when this happens again.

I voted for Obama because the alternative outcome was a more hegemonic, and more stupidly hegemonic, American hegemon than even Obama would try to create. In the coming election cycle, I intend to gauge my vote as closely as possible to minimize the scale of the American-hegemon problem.

And you will note... despite this, I DON'T complain about the existence of the American hegemon. So I'm already following my own advice.

The US should never have been so heavily involved in the Middle East in the first place, so why is it now only the US that is condemned for not taking effective action to protect it?

You broke it, you bought it. The US is involved, it can easily act, they have the means to act, so they can take the criticism if they are not acting.

And of course, no one else is, because they chose to lack the means to do anything consequential other than complain?

So, Thanas, would you be willing to put German boots on the ground to save Palmyra and other cities like it? How many and for how long?

I'd personally would be OK with that, if the US:
- does the transporting, as we do not have the equipment to do so
- acts within UN laws and subjects their soldiers to the criminal court.
As neither will happen, this point is moot. Germany does not have the means to put boots on the ground and the legal situation is complicated.

Why does Germany lack the transportation equipment? Is your nation too poor to afford aircraft or ships? Is your government too stupid to foresee the need to do such a thing?

Surely not...

Thanas, saying you're hypothetically okay with your country paying part of the cost, but only in a hypothetical scenario that I don't believe will happen is pretty fucking meaningless. Its easy to demand other country's citizens fight and die, isn't it?

Well, you asked me under what scenario I would be ok with sending German troops. I outlined the bare minimum that would be necessary for Germany to even be able to act, as without transport we cannot get there and without a legal mandate we cannot fight due to our US-imposed constitution...

Fair enough. That is a valid reason for Germany to do nothing, I suppose.

Why, then, has the UN not provided the mandate? ISIL has killed thousands if not millions, pillaged multiple World Heritage sites already, and generally thrown half the region into chaos. Surely there are grounds for seeking a UN mandate to oppose them.

And to place the blame for ISIS entirely on America is absurd and proof of your anti-American bias. America was not the only country invading Iraq.

It organized the thing. It was by far the largest troop provider. Without the US planning and arguing for the whole thing it would not have happened. It was the driving force and main instigator. Anybody who denies this or tries to minimize this is at best an apologist.

The only country that went along with it that mattered was the UK, who I also blame for this mess, but who played a minor role anyway. Now, what other country did have a meaningful contribution to the Iraq war? Don't come at me with this coalition of the willing bullshit that includes countries like Palau. There was only one country that called the shots, only one country that planned and carried out the occupation.

Nor was it solely responsible for the utter inability of the Iraqi government to get its act together.

Yes it was. The Iraqi Government was built and recruited by the US. You can't just go "didn't have anything to do with it" after occupying the place for over half a decade.

Let me note that I do not deny the US government's responsibility for the current order in Iraq, with one caveat.

I must note that some things (like producing a fighting and competent Iraqi Army) are things the US sincerely tried to do and failed because they are hard. At the end, not even Saddam Hussein had much luck assembling an Iraqi army that could actually fight; what chance did we, a bunch of foreigners, have?

More generally, though, my real question is, why do we assume ISIL exists only because of the US's actions in Iraq? Are there not plenty of Sunni fundamentalists throughout the Middle East? Was Assad not already a brutal tyrant before the invasion of Iraq? Was he not already likely to provoke a revolt against his tyranny?

It matters because there is only one country that matters when it comes to invading other nations far away right now. It matters because this also happens to be the country which destabilized the whole thing in the first place. It matters because this is also the country that doesn't have the balls to finish what it started.

So you got a country that:
a) is largely responsible for this mess in the first place
b) has the means to act
c) claims it is the leader of the free world
d) does not act in a meaningful manner
No other country except the UK (and even there b is debatable) fulfills all the criteria.

What I do not understand is why nations that do NOT claim to "lead the free world," but which can clearly afford the means to act, get a free pass on failure to act meaningfully.

If the US is full of idiots, why is only the US expected to do the obviously-right thing? Surely the sensible approach would be to do the opposite- to demand that the US stay out, while sensible nations go in and solve the problem before it spirals completely beyond all semblance of control.

Instead, "it's Tommy this, and Tommy that, and chuck 'im out the brute, but it's 'thin red line of heroes' when the guns begin to shoot." Suddenly heavy military assets are needed, and everyone regrets not having them available, so they blame the person who invested in them ahead of time for not having retroactively used them in the 'right' way to avoid the present crisis.

[The Romulan Republic]

I have decided to post a few of the things The Romulan Republic has alleged, both against me and recorded history, instead of going to the moderators for relief I will never get,

This is quite tiresome.

And it comes across as posturing from someone who knows they don't actually have anything legitimate to complain about.

so I'll just point out that The Romulan Republic has never retracted the many lies he's blatantly spewed directed at me in this thread, including but not limited to: "That I am an apologist for brutal dictators" and " That I had/have some special liking for Saddam Hussein."

I already addressed the first accusation and have nothing further to add at this time. If a moderator takes issue with what I said, they can tell me that themselves.

The second is something I never said. Not even close. I checked the thread just in case I'd forgotten.

The fact that you place your false allegations in quotes as if to imply that those are my exact words is especially dishonest.

As for any other "lies", I'm not sure what you're referring to, though based on your track record its probably bullshit, and I can hardly address your accusations if you do not specify what it is you're accusing me of. This stinks of cowardice and dishonesty- a vague accusation that it is effectively impossible to defend myself against because it lacks real substance.

He has also failed to prove that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in it, ruling Iraq, an assertion he's made and demanded I prove the negative, when very recent history has proven it for me.

I think that on the whole the world is a worse place now than when Saddam Hussein was in power, but it is debatable weather that was an inevitable result of Saddam Hussein being removed or simply a result of the way in which replacing him was bungled. Frankly, I don't think we can prove that either way. We don't know what would have happened if things had been done differently. That said, I am very skeptical that the only two possible realities are one with Saddam Hussein in power and one with ISIS.

I also take issue with his lie that Thanas is biased against the Unites States of America simply for stating facts about my countries actions in recent history, and frankly since its inception, but that's for Thanas to deal with. I just get... Annoyed when someone tries to preemptively invalidate the arguments of another, who actually knows what they are talking about when in comes to these issues, when that someone has proven time and again that like Jon Snow, they know nothing, and their storyline has been boring as shit until very recently.

Already addressed as well.

I think that Thanas has engaged in exaggerated and inaccurate criticism of the US. That is my honest opinion, not a lie. It is possible that I am mistaken, but the fact that you disagree and feel that everything he says about America is one hundred percent correct does not make it a lie.

As for your personal attacks on me, you know jack about my life and your opinion of it is irrelevant.

Just had to get that off my chest before this thread goes any further. So unless the lies (about me, not Thanas, he's a big boy) are repeated by the poster already mentioned they will not be brought up again by me unless I deem it relevant.

Get the fuck over yourself.

Unless a moderator tells me otherwise, I will not address anything else you post in this thread. I have come to the conclusion that an honest, intelligent debate is largely impossible where you are concerned, I am already discussing this topic with several other posters, and I have limited time and you are a waste of it. If you wish to take that as an admission of defeat, I can't stop you. But I will not entertain your bullshit any longer.

I replied to this post only because I did not wish to lend any credence to your accusations against me by allowing them to go unanswered.

[K. A. Pital]

Thanas offers only fact-based criticism of the US, for as long as I can remember, and that is quite long.