You can’t reason with a group like ISIS/ISIL. Regardless of the surface trappings, violent extremism like that can’t be stopped with humanitarian aid. History is a cruel teacher, but it’s shown us time and again that the only effective resistance for wanton cruelty and violence is the precise, targeted application of violence by a relatively just nation.
It’s like a rabid dog. You don’t kill it because you enjoy killing, you kill it dispassionately and professionally; by killing it you make the community safer.
Tl;dr – some folk just need killing.
or simply have our government stop funding its parents al-CIAda…the bandage approach is not going to solve anything, US foreign policy has to be completely changed, we help create these monsters…if the global leaders we are, then in that same stance you should hold against israel for the genocide handed to Gaza.
Did you just compare Israel defending itself against Hamas terrorists to ISIS cutting the heads off innocent people?
You’re a fucking idiot.
Hamas is the same as ISIS. Same f$&ked up ideology and goals. The best thing that could happen to the Gazans is to have Hamas eradicated, releasing them from their brutal rule.
You can’t reason with crazed Religious Zealots that believe that if you die killing those who don’t believe what you believe God will Reward them with Sexual Favors
Look some people need to be killed I FOR ONE am just *FINE* with that fact! And in the case of IS-whatever it is this week, yeah that’s true!
But we had better be damned clear on who/why and ready to deal with the fall out before we go slaptering blood and treasure all over some far off land.
All I’m saying is let’s think this through first.
You approach it “To Kill a Mockingbird” style, like Atticus Finch putting down the rabid dog, not the mob at the Maycomb jail.
I hope Washington can open their eyes and realize that we will have to fight ’em. Better to fight ’em where they are now than to wait until they are stronger yet and on our shores.
Why any civilized person would waste a dime on the Middle East (save for oil extraction) is beyond me.
When you say “a relatively just nation,” what is this nation, and what nation is it being compared to?
Any comparison to the state of Iraq would, I think, be misguided, as the amount of success that IS has had thus far in Iraq clearly shows that Iraq, as a state, does not have control of its population or borders, making statehood questionable for Iraq.
A comparison would then have to be between the “justness” of two other states, with, I am assuming, the more just state being preferred for action?
Relative justice considerations create a situation in which a sliding scale of justice can be used. In such a case a sliding scale of retribution can be used, based on how just a state is, which itself could lead to rights violations of the kinds you are concerned with. This makes for a pretty sticky and ambiguous situation.
If the U.S. is just in its attacks, justice must be independent and exclusive to the justice of other states. In this case, what is perhaps most important is the moral implications of the initial 2003 invasion of Iraq, i.e. was the 2003 invasion just?
Depending on how you answer the last question, the U.S. may indeed have something of a moral obligation to destroy IS and restore the integrity of Iraq as a state. Furthermore, since you mention making communities safer as a motive for destroying Iraq, I would venture to say that you are indeed suggesting humanitarian aid as a motive and solution. That being said, humanitarian and can come in the form of humanitarian intervention, such as men with big guns.
But all moral considerations aside, having a stable Iraq is good for the U.S., as control of strategic territory always is good for a state’s security.
TL;DR, the situation in Iraq is morally ambiguous, the security situation is not. Dead IS is good for US.
I was thinking in a historical context. No nation-state is perfect, but some are better than others.
Comments are closed.