ISIS takes Palmyra

[Lonestar]

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.

Well, not about ISIL in Iraq. I remain unconvinced that there wouldn't have been a Syrian Civil War.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, its not like Iraq was some paradise before then.

I'm not a big fan of the invasion, but I don't shed a tear for Saddam being overthrown. I just wish it hadn't been done ineptly and based on false pretences instead of a good cause.

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.

I swear, people make statements often without realising the bloody irony of what they say.

Fuck, are you seriously saying I'm no better than Saddam Hussein?

Look, I don't like how the Iraq war played out. I don't even particularly approve of the war happening at all. But Saddam Hussein was a fucking monster, and if nothing else, this much good resulted from the Iraq War- that man is no longer running a country.

But its true that you can't fix everything with war. I'll give you that much. War is sometimes necessary, but it should be both the last step and the first step. The last step after all attempts at diplomacy and peaceful reform have been made and the evil is so great that their is no other choice, and the first step before reconstruction and negotiation. America failed in both cases in Iraq.

[Flagg]

The US should have reacted more strongly against ISIL. This whole thing is a result of US foreign policy. As for backing the Syrians, both resolutely backing the rebels or Assad would have done much to alleviate the current instability.

While I agree this can be directly blamed on US foreign policy, seeing how well we did in Iraq and Afghanistan... (Hey, aren't we supposed to have left Afghanistan by now? Or was that another Obama "audible" seeing as how he felt Afghanistan was where the real fight was, and he was maybe right until we murdered Old Man Bin Laden. Once that happened it should have been "Mission accomplished, we trained your guys well, have fun dying President Karzai, hopefully you won't be stabbed in the ass on camera like Gadhafi, call all you want but we're renovating so you can't come visit.") are we really even capable just from a general leadership standpoint to have ever done much about ISIS/ISIL/Saudi Arabia's Goon Squad until they started taking and holding cities against "real" armies?

I mean just a total lack of leadership from the Legislative branch (unless it's a turd they can throw at the Black President) which is totally against it once Obama's for it, and for it once Obama's against it, even if they felt the opposite just weeks before (literally, it's that childish and frankly, insane) regarding anything Obama wants to do (and I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to get America into another Middle Eastern Clusterfuck that we caused). But I think he's smart enough to know that since we caused this we have to take the lead, except the very last thing The American people want (because they sure didn't want the Iraq War! ...Oh, wait...) is to put "boots on the ground" and see poor white and minority families crying as their sons and daughters, husbands and wives come home in flag draped coffins because "It aint our fault alla them Islamists is hating eachother! They's been fussin' and fuedin' for 6000 years, ever since the Earth was created!"

Even though it is our fault that ISIS/ISIL/THE ISLAMIC TERRORIST GROUP FORMERLY KNOWN AS PRINCE have torn a swath from Iraq to Syria and something has to be fucking done, and the ones who should be doing it are the ones that caused it to happen, as you said. But again, we come full circle and have to ask, is the United States Military capable from a leadership position (I'm talking the Military, not Civilian leadership) of defeating an enemy that will almost certainly change their tactics back to insurgent and guerilla warfare after our initial blitz and recapturing of the territory they hold. Will we also have to deal militarily with Assad's army and their chemical (and hopefully not biological) weapons? I mean we left Iraq with our tail between our legs because thankfully (at least it seemed so at the time) President Morsi refused to allow us to stay longer if we got to kill his people with impunity (what a dick! ).

But it's not like we were the cement holding that country together or anything. Oh wait, we totally were, because the former asshole's sons, who were the future cement got killed by the US, and the former asshole who was the cement got hanged, as we've all seen on that creepy "almost the same as when Al Qaeda was cutting people's heads off on tape" video. Now there is no cement and even under that hawk-in-disguise Hillary Clinton we won't be putting boots on the ground unless/until they attack us directly, at home or sink a ship killing a LOT of troops IMO.

[Flagg]

Well, its not like Iraq was some paradise before then.

I'm not a big fan of the invasion, but I don't shed a tear for Saddam being overthrown. I just wish it hadn't been done ineptly and based on false pretences instead of a good cause.

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.

I swear, people make statements often without realising the bloody irony of what they say.

Fuck, are you seriously saying I'm no better than Saddam Hussein?

Look, I don't like how the Iraq war played out. I don't even particularly approve of the war happening at all. But Saddam Hussein was a fucking monster, and if nothing else, this much good resulted from the Iraq War- that man is no longer running a country.

But its true that you can't fix everything with war. I'll give you that much. War is sometimes necessary, but it should be both the last step and the first step. The last step after all attempts at diplomacy and peaceful reform have been made and the evil is so great that their is no other choice, and the first step before reconstruction and negotiation. America failed in both cases in Iraq.

I'd rather have Saddam Hussein getting his ass wiped for him after taking a shit whilst sitting on his solid gold toilet seat with a complete inability to attack any of his neighbors and providing some stability in the region than ISIS/ISIL/I CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S NOT BUTTER tearing across Iraq and Syria killing anyone they don't like and destroying art and artifacts from thousands of years ago, the hundreds of thousands that have been killed as a result of the 2003 invasion I was totally, 100% against from before the beginning as it was an incredibly fucking stupid war of choice that would have required us to stay there for 50-100 years (which odds are, was the "Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld Plan", anyway), and the around 5000 Americans who I have trouble having much sympathy for since I tend to not root for the bad guy conquerors (and make no mistake, we were the bad guy conquerors).

So if you think things wouldn't be better with a monster who kept chaos in the region at bay other than... Whatever the fuck it is we have now, you're totally ignorant of the situation.

[Flagg]

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.

Dude, we went to war in Iraq for 3 reasons, none of them having anything to do with a "do good for the world" tic.

We went into Iraq for 3 basic reasons:
1) Bush was going to go in anyway as part of the whole neo-con Project for a New American Century along with him wanting to simultaneously get revenge because Saddam "Tried to kill mah daddy", and his wanting to upstage his father.
2)Oil.
3)To kick some Arab ass. Afghanistan in many Americans minds (at least most of the ones I knew and worked with at the time) wasn't "enough". We still wanted revenge for 9/11 and Afghanistan we pretty much just kind of... Waltzed into at first. Yes there were some hardcore battles, but nothing decisive. No real cities to capture. No "Shock and Awe" (which was for us, not the Iraqis). Most of them had been through the Gulf and Iran wars, they had had plenty of "shock and awe" for 2 lifetimes and really didn't want any more. But the America did. And America wanted it bad. And all the Bush Administration War Criminals had to do was say Iraq and 9/11 in the same paragraph enough for most Americans to just figure Saddam was behind it all (hell, many if not most (that haven't died of old age since) FOXNEWS viewers still think that was the case). Then you add on actual lies to not just get us pissed but to get us scared... Shit, they couldn't have don't a better job if they had 12 psychics channeling Goebbels.

[Adam Reynolds]

Airstrikes don't win wars. Sticking an 18 year old with a rifle on the ground is what wins the war.

An airstrike is a sledgehammer. Whether or not airstrikes can win you the war depends on your objectives, and whether the blunt instrument of an airstrike is capable of achieving those objectives. If all we want is for the Pied Piper of Assholes and his asshole friends to stop acting like assholes, that is something we can accomplish just by hitting them with the sledgehammer until they stop twitching.

Historically, airstrikes alone don't win wars in the sense of taking away the serious ability(or more importantly will) of the enemy to fight. There have been five cases against major powers and another eight against smaller ones. None were truly decisive on their own without being backed up by ground power in some sense. This is not to say that air power is irrelevant. Whoever controls the skies much more easily controls the ground underneath it. Though without support from ground forces, air forces tend to be somewhat impotent.

In both World Wars, Germany attempted strategic bombing campaigns against the UK. Both failed to have any serious long term impact. In WW2, the Allies struck at Italy, Germany, and Japan. Germany obviously only surrendered when Berlin fell. As for the Italians, their army was in tatters and the defense of Italy had already been handed over to Germany. Hardly a state conductive to continuing to seriously fight. As for Japan, they only surrendered after the Soviet declaration of war(ending their chances at negotiation through a neutral power) in addition to the threat of an inevitable invasion they could not possibly stop. And this is not to mention the shock of the atomic bomb, the months of conventional bombing alone had little impact.

In the smaller cases, we have Italy's bombing of Ethiopia(1936), a failure as the Ethiopians failed to surrender until the Italain army appeared. We have Japan's bombing of China throughout WW2, also a failure. Similarly the Soviet air campaign in Afghanistan and the American air campaign in Iraq(1991) were both failures in the sense of effectively coercing their oppoenents. The Soviets quit in Afghanistan and the Coalition in Iraq relied on a ground invasion.

Three more examples were somewhat sucessful in the sense that there was coercion following an air campaign. The American bombing of North Korea and North Vietnam arguably did have a degree of impact on the respective nations signing cease fire agreements. Though in the case of North Korea it was at least partially nuclear threats in addition to conventional ones, combined with the unending stalemate. In the case of Vietnam, while it had an immediate impact in that it caused the Paris Peace Accords, in the long term it obviously failed to stop the Vietnamese from taking the South. And in the case of Vietnam it was largely American air support for South Vietnamese ground forces rather than strategic bombing that had an impact.

The final case comes from NATO's bombardment of Yugoslavia. This is arguably successful in that it led to an eventual NATO victory, but like the case of Japan in WW2 it is slightly more complicated(and oddly under similar circumstances). At the time NATO and President Clinton were threatening a ground invasion, combined with pressure from the Russians. And the demands of the peace agreement were also lessened. So in short, air attacks alone were not the sole cause, though they could be said to play a major factor.

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.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'd rather have Saddam Hussein getting his ass wiped for him after taking a shit whilst sitting on his solid gold toilet seat with a complete inability to attack any of his neighbors and providing some stability in the region than ISIS/ISIL/I CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S NOT BUTTER tearing across Iraq and Syria killing anyone they don't like and destroying art and artifacts from thousands of years ago, the hundreds of thousands that have been killed as a result of the 2003 invasion I was totally, 100% against from before the beginning as it was an incredibly fucking stupid war of choice that would have required us to stay there for 50-100 years (which odds are, was the "Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld Plan", anyway), and the around 5000 Americans who I have trouble having much sympathy for since I tend to not root for the bad guy conquerors (and make no mistake, we were the bad guy conquerors).

So if you think things wouldn't be better with a monster who kept chaos in the region at bay other than... Whatever the fuck it is we have now, you're totally ignorant of the situation.

Ah, the old false dichotomy between Islamic fundamentalist nut jobs and more secular but still brutal authoritarian nut jobs which apologists for dictators like to trot out to defend scum bags like Saddam Hussein.

Better than ISIS? Maybe. That doesn't make him a good thing, and to defend Saddam, you have to demonstrate that he was the only plausible alternative to ISIS.

[Thanas]

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 destabilized the entire region, destabilized the Assad regime by providing arms and help to the Rebels and creating an embargo, as well as creating ISIS by letting the Shia's conduct a campaign of ethnic cleansing.

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.

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. 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".

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.

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.

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

Because Obama is a well-known coward.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hell, it even lacks the nonmilitary means, as illustrated by the limited scale of aid to those fighting ISIL.

Are you high now? Compare shipments of arms to the Kurds and you will see that Europe sends a lot, certainly more than the US does.

Well, you asked me what I think would work. This is about the only thing that I am sure of would work in killing off the power of ISIS. As to it being unpopular, yeah, sure. But then again, the US broke it, they can bloody well fix it.

You do realize you are asking someone else to shed blood for your concerns? It will be my neighbors coming home in boxes or missing limbs, not yours.

How do you justify that?

"You caused the mess, now clean it up."

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.

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.

Agreed.

Apologies for not responding in full, but I will not debate five people at the same time.

[Flagg]

I'd rather have Saddam Hussein getting his ass wiped for him after taking a shit whilst sitting on his solid gold toilet seat with a complete inability to attack any of his neighbors and providing some stability in the region than ISIS/ISIL/I CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S NOT BUTTER tearing across Iraq and Syria killing anyone they don't like and destroying art and artifacts from thousands of years ago, the hundreds of thousands that have been killed as a result of the 2003 invasion I was totally, 100% against from before the beginning as it was an incredibly fucking stupid war of choice that would have required us to stay there for 50-100 years (which odds are, was the "Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld Plan", anyway), and the around 5000 Americans who I have trouble having much sympathy for since I tend to not root for the bad guy conquerors (and make no mistake, we were the bad guy conquerors).

So if you think things wouldn't be better with a monster who kept chaos in the region at bay other than... Whatever the fuck it is we have now, you're totally ignorant of the situation.

Ah, the old false dichotomy between Islamic fundamentalist nut jobs and more secular but still brutal authoritarian nut jobs which apologists for dictators like to trot out to defend scum bags like Saddam Hussein.

Better than ISIS? Maybe. That doesn't make him a good thing, and to defend Saddam, you have to demonstrate that he was the only plausible alternative to ISIS.

You've demonstrated that you don't know anything about the events that have gone on in the region, so you have no standing to accuse me of being an "apologist" for brutal dictators. And where did I defend Saddam Hussein, exactly?
I expect you to show how anything I've said makes me "an apologist for brutal dictators" and that I have said anything amounting to more than "Saddam is the lesser of 2 evils and held Iraq together" or immediately retract those 2 statements. It's 3am here. If you haven't done it by 3pm today, the moderators can deal with it because I'm not putting up with your lies any longer.

The fact is that the only people Saddam Hussein was being a brutal asshole to were the people he had direct control over. Why not invade Syria instead? They HAD and HAVE chemical weapons and have used them within the last 2 years. The last time Saddam had chemical weapons was right before we blew them all up in the Gulf War. The last time he used them was in the '80s when he was our ally during the Iran/Iraq war. Saddam Hussein was as capable of invading his neighbors as an ant is to figuring out all the number in pi.

And Hussein was factually better than ISIS/ISIL/I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER on March 19, 2003. He wasn't massacring people based on religion. He wasn't waging a holy war, plundering and destroying ancient sites, and blowing up sites holy to other religions. It is cold hard fact. Saddam Hussein being in power in Iraq was better, more stable, and a much better fucking place to live than it is now. You cannot deny this unless you're a member or supporter of ISIS/ISIL/I LOVES TO GO SWIMMIN' WITH BOW-LEGGED WOMEN, not that I'm saying you are, because I don't go around calling people apologists for brutal dictators simply because they point out that the dictators in question are the lesser of 2 evils. Hussein was a gnat, the fanatical assholes running around Syria and Iraq now? They are the motherfucking sand worms from 'Tremors'. A gnat can be slapped with a single hand and killed. When you figure out how to kill a bunch of sand worms from 'Tremors', let the POTUS know.

[The Romulan Republic]

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?

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. Nor was it solely responsible for the utter inability of the Iraqi government to get its act together. And surely some responsibility goes to the cunts who are actually fighting for ISIS?

And as far as dealing with this situation is concerned, what does it matter? We all have a responsibility to do something. ISIS is an enemy of civilization. They are an enemy of everyone who isn't them.

So the US is responsible, not because it is the only country that caused this disaster but because ISIS is a bunch of mass-murdering expansionist pieces of shit that have to be stopped and America has the ability to do something to stop them. Germany is responsible for doing what it can for the same reasons. Every fucking nation on Earth has a responsibility to do something. So don't try to put it all on one country that you don't like because it makes things simple or absolves your nation of responsibility or fits your agenda or whatever your motive is.

[Flagg]

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. Nor was it solely responsible for the utter inability of the Iraqi government to get its act together. And surely some responsibility goes to the cunts who are actually fighting for ISIS?

You know, you accuse people of a lot of shit, I think it's time you started proving it. I'm an American and I cannot recall a time where Thanas has said anything about America that he couldn't back up, or if he was wrong and corrected did not concede immediately. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe he is actually entirely correct in the vast majority of what he says about what America does, and has well founded opinions based on that? Because I don't think it has.

What was the primary instigator for the destabilization and chaos in the Middle East? Answer: The Iraq War, spearheaded and lobbied for by the United States of America and the only other major participant as far as putting boots on the ground was the UK. Those facts alone make it clear that mainly the United States of America, with the aid of mainly the UK and a bunch of "allies" that gave us a few troops here and there and some equipment and money so we could pretend it wasn't pretty much unilaterally the United States behind the war.

The destabilization caused by the United States and UK destroying Iraq, and then saying "fuck it" and leaving in 2011 left room for ISIS/ISIL/I'VE FALLEN AND I CAN'T GET UP to form, and the inaction of the United States regarding Syria was the nail in the coffin of sanity for the region allowing all hell to break loose.

Just because YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DOES NOT MAKE IT UNTRUE. I don't like the fact that it's spring because my allergies fuck up my sinuses. But it's still spring. Absorb the facts, accept them, understand them, then form an opinion. Not the other way around.

[Thanas]

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. And then you get pissy at me?

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.

And surely some responsibility goes to the cunts who are actually fighting for ISIS?

Sure. But without some cause they would not get the support. And the underlying cause is the instability.

And as far as dealing with this situation is concerned, what does it matter? We all have a responsibility to do something. ISIS is an enemy of civilization. They are an enemy of everyone who isn't them.

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.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'd rather have Saddam Hussein getting his ass wiped for him after taking a shit whilst sitting on his solid gold toilet seat with a complete inability to attack any of his neighbors and providing some stability in the region than ISIS/ISIL/I CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S NOT BUTTER tearing across Iraq and Syria killing anyone they don't like and destroying art and artifacts from thousands of years ago, the hundreds of thousands that have been killed as a result of the 2003 invasion I was totally, 100% against from before the beginning as it was an incredibly fucking stupid war of choice that would have required us to stay there for 50-100 years (which odds are, was the "Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld Plan", anyway), and the around 5000 Americans who I have trouble having much sympathy for since I tend to not root for the bad guy conquerors (and make no mistake, we were the bad guy conquerors).

So if you think things wouldn't be better with a monster who kept chaos in the region at bay other than... Whatever the fuck it is we have now, you're totally ignorant of the situation.

Ah, the old false dichotomy between Islamic fundamentalist nut jobs and more secular but still brutal authoritarian nut jobs which apologists for dictators like to trot out to defend scum bags like Saddam Hussein.

Better than ISIS? Maybe. That doesn't make him a good thing, and to defend Saddam, you have to demonstrate that he was the only plausible alternative to ISIS.

You've demonstrated that you don't know anything about the events that have gone on in the region, so you have no standing to accuse me of being an "apologist" for brutal dictators. And where did I defend Saddam Hussein, exactly?

I have followed the war in Iraq since it started. While I am not an expert on the subject, I am certainly not completely ignorant about it.

And what did I say about the situation that was wrong? That its good Saddam Hussein is gone? Disagreeing with you is not the same as being ignorant, you arrogant asshole.

Even if what came after was worse, that doesn't mean Saddam Hussein being gone is a bad thing unless he was the only alternative.

As for you defending Saddam Hussein, you attacked me for being glad Saddam Hussein was gone and you seem to feel he was the only alternative to ISIS.

I expect you to show how anything I've said makes me "an apologist for brutal dictators" and that I have said anything amounting to more than "Saddam is the lesser of 2 evils and held Iraq together" or immediately retract those 2 statements. It's 3am here. If you haven't done it by 3pm today, the moderators can deal with it because I'm not putting up with your lies any longer.

In pretty much every fucking thread you argue with me in these days, you accusing me of violating rules and threaten to report me to the moderators, and every time I give your worthless ass the same answer. Put your money where your mouth is and do it or shut the fuck up. Don't try to threaten me with moderators to intimidate me or act tough. I am tired of threads I participating in getting dragged into the metaphorical gutter by your worthless posturing shit.

Anyway, I never explicitly said that you were an apologist for dictators or anything like that. I basically said that your argument was one that such people like to use, which I believe is true. Of course, I expect that you'll say this is a lie too. But I don't give a fuck. If you want to try to get me banned or something in lieu of honest debating, go ahead and try.

But frankly, you seem to be saying that Saddam Hussein was a necessary evil, at least. Does that make you an apologist? A legitimate question if you can't prove that position, I'd say.

The fact is that the only people Saddam Hussein was being a brutal asshole to were the people he had direct control over.

Oh, he was only viciously attacking his own people. That's enough reason to loathe him.

Why not invade Syria instead? They HAD and HAVE chemical weapons and have used them within the last 2 years. The last time Saddam had chemical weapons was right before we blew them all up in the Gulf War. The last time he used them was in the '80s when he was our ally during the Iran/Iraq war. Saddam Hussein was as capable of invading his neighbors as an ant is to figuring out all the number in pi.

If I said that I was in favour of invading Syria you could pull the same lines that you do with invading Iraq- that its an evil American invasion and getting rid of Assad will cause ISIS to take over.

But yeah, I'd say there's actually a better case for invading Syria than there was for invading Iraq, or would be if not for the fact that Russia seems to have their backs.

And Hussein was factually better than ISIS/ISIL/I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER on March 19, 2003. He wasn't massacring people based on religion. He wasn't waging a holy war, plundering and destroying ancient sites, and blowing up sites holy to other religions. It is cold hard fact. Saddam Hussein being in power in Iraq was better, more stable, and a much better fucking place to live than it is now. You cannot deny this unless you're a member or supporter of ISIS/ISIL/I LOVES TO GO SWIMMIN' WITH BOW-LEGGED WOMEN, not that I'm saying you are, because I don't go around calling people apologists for brutal dictators simply because they point out that the dictators in question are the lesser of 2 evils. Hussein was a gnat, the fanatical assholes running around Syria and Iraq now? They are the motherfucking sand worms from 'Tremors'. A gnat can be slapped with a single hand and killed. When you figure out how to kill a bunch of sand worms from 'Tremors', let the POTUS know.

I never denied Saddam Hussein is better than ISIS. That doesn't mean he's a good thing.

Nor are those the only two conceivable governments for Iraq.

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?

[The Romulan Republic]

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. Nor was it solely responsible for the utter inability of the Iraqi government to get its act together. And surely some responsibility goes to the cunts who are actually fighting for ISIS?

You know, you accuse people of a lot of shit, I think it's time you started proving it. I'm an American and I cannot recall a time where Thanas has said anything about America that he couldn't back up, or if he was wrong and corrected did not concede immediately. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe he is actually entirely correct in the vast majority of what he says about what America does, and has well founded opinions based on that? Because I don't think it has.

Well, arguing that the US is the only country responsible for ISIS in this thread, for one thing.

What was the primary instigator for the destabilization and chaos in the Middle East? Answer: The Iraq War, spearheaded and lobbied for by the United States of America and the only other major participant as far as putting boots on the ground was the UK. Those facts alone make it clear that mainly the United States of America, with the aid of mainly the UK and a bunch of "allies" that gave us a few troops here and there and some equipment and money so we could pretend it wasn't pretty much unilaterally the United States behind the war.

Their was war in the Middle East long before the Iraq War.

And even if their hadn't been, the list of parties guilty for the catastrophe in Iraq includes:

The American government.
The British government.
Other US allies.
The Iraqi government.
Assad's government.
The cunts actually fighting for ISIS.

The destabilization caused by the United States and UK destroying Iraq, and then saying "fuck it" and leaving in 2011 left room for ISIS/ISIL/I'VE FALLEN AND I CAN'T GET UP to form, and the inaction of the United States regarding Syria was the nail in the coffin of sanity for the region allowing all hell to break loose.

Hyperbole aside, you're basically right about this. And yet, other parties share the blame.

Just because YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DOES NOT MAKE IT UNTRUE. I don't like the fact that it's spring because my allergies fuck up my sinuses. But it's still spring. Absorb the facts, accept them, understand them, then form an opinion. Not the other way around.

Likewise.

[The Romulan Republic]

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. And then you get pissy at me?

Fair enough.

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.

I don't deny it, nor do I want to minimize it. But their are other parties that are responsible as well.

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.

Glad to see that you feel that someone non-American is to blame.

And I feel that anyone who signed on is at least partly responsible, even if relatively slightly.

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.

Does that completely negate the choices that government made once it was in place?

Sure. But without some cause they would not get the support. And the underlying cause is the instability.

One cause I suppose, but hardly the only one.

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.

Their are a lot of people responsible for the situation, but America's government certainly holds a lot of the blame. And I won't argue points b and c. But point d is overly harsh, even if it has an element of truth. America is fighting. Just not as well as it could be.

Regardless, its everyones' problem in the end.

[Thanas]

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.

I don't deny it, nor do I want to minimize it. But their are other parties that are responsible as well.

What other parties are responsible for the US invasion of Iraq, meaning them not joining in the invasion would have stopped the invasion? I count the US and UK. You count...who?

And I feel that anyone who signed on is at least partly responsible, even if relatively slightly.

Yeah, so Palau with its 30 or so soldiers is less than 0.0015% responsible, considering the US put over 190.000 troops in the field. Quite frankly, anybody who tries to direct responsibility away from the US to those nations is just stupid or an apologist.

Does that completely negate the choices that government made once it was in place?

No, but you can't invade a nation, fail at rebuilding it for over 8 years and then think it will suddenly be filled with choir boys, especially when you know you left a sectarian, instable government in place.

Sure. But without some cause they would not get the support. And the underlying cause is the instability.

One cause I suppose, but hardly the only one.

No, it is the main cause for the spread of Isis and their power. Had Iraq had a functioning state and a functioning military, they would not have captured a single town. Had Saddam Hussein been in power, they would not have done anything. The removal of state power and destruction of the Iraqi State, perpetrated by the US, is the main cause for the Sunni rebels taking over.

Their are a lot of people responsible for the situation, but America's government certainly holds a lot of the blame. And I won't argue points b and c. But point d is overly harsh, even if it has an element of truth. America is fighting. Just not as well as it could be.

America is doing very little. What percentage of their forces are actually dedicated to fighting ISIS? Go on, post the numbers and then tell me with a straight face that the USA views ISIS as a serious problem right now.

[The Romulan Republic]

What other parties are responsible for the US invasion of Iraq, meaning them not joining in the invasion would have stopped the invasion? I count the US and UK. You count...who?

Perhaps no one else could stop it by not participating, but they could have chosen not to actively participate in it, or to participate in it in a different way.

Yeah, so Palau with its 30 or so soldiers is less than 0.0015% responsible, considering the US put over 190.000 troops in the field. Quite frankly, anybody who tries to direct responsibility away from the US to those nations is just stupid or an apologist.

Fortunately, I have no intention of doing so.

Stop fixating on Palau and admit that governments besides America's and Britain's have responsibility for their actions. America having more responsibility does not change that.

No, but you can't invade a nation, fail at rebuilding it for over 8 years and then think it will suddenly be filled with choir boys, especially when you know you left a sectarian, instable government in place.

Fair enough, though this contradicts your earlier claim that the US was completely responsible for the failure of the Iraqi government.

No, it is the main cause for the spread of Isis and their power. Had Iraq had a functioning state and a functioning military, they would not have captured a single town. Had Saddam Hussein been in power, they would not have done anything. The removal of state power and destruction of the Iraqi State, perpetrated by the US, is the main cause for the Sunni rebels taking over.

Removing Saddam Hussein was not the problem in and of itself. Failing to ensure that he was replaced with something else that was functional was the problem.

America is doing very little. What percentage of their forces are actually dedicated to fighting ISIS? Go on, post the numbers and then tell me with a straight face that the USA views ISIS as a serious problem right now.

Oh, I don't deny that America could do more. And it is shameful that it is not.

Edited the last sentence for accuracy.

[Broomstick]

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.

The American perception (whether it is factually true or not is a different matter) is that if the US rolls in and kicks ass the rest of the world will then turn around, wave pictures of the inevitable dead civilians that will occur during such an operation, and condemn the US for being a bully. Obviously, the unwashed masses are less than enthused about such a prospect.

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".

You are correct that the convoy could have been stopped/destroyed and wasn't. Two points:

1) the US as a whole doesn't care nearly as much about "things", no matter how historical or culturally valuable, as you do, and
2) you are really expecting a nation that has demonstrated such incompetence in the region to fix this?

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.

Yes, that should be noted. It should also be noted that some of us Americans in this thread have been opposed to the Iraq invasion from before it ever occurred. Let's keep a distinction between the collectives known as "Germany" or "the United States" and the individuals participating here so things don't go entirely off the rails.

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

Because Obama is a well-known coward.

I don't hold out hope for any of the 2016 prospects being any better, and some of them would be even worse. Which is another reason I'm not enthused about the US "fixing" the problem - yes, we have a very capable military but the leadership at the top is a serious problem.

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.

And what about the weeping and wailing about Assad using gas against civilians? The calls to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! In retrospect would it have been better to back the guy who uses poison gas against civilians than the barbarian horde?

There are no good answers here.

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.

The problem is that for the voting American there are no viable alternatives. There are alternatives to voting, of course, but I'm not sure America going down that road would be better than the current mess.

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 if the US acts and fucks it up again the US will be criticized for acting - damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Well, you asked me what I think would work. This is about the only thing that I am sure of would work in killing off the power of ISIS. As to it being unpopular, yeah, sure. But then again, the US broke it, they can bloody well fix it.

You do realize you are asking someone else to shed blood for your concerns? It will be my neighbors coming home in boxes or missing limbs, not yours.

How do you justify that?

"You caused the mess, now clean it up."

At a certain point you have to ask if the person continually causing the mess is capable of cleaning it up.

If I thought the US could actually fix this mess I'd support your position but recently it seems every time the US marches into the Middle East everything gets worse, not better. The problem isn't the military, which has the equipment and training, it's the politicians trying to micro-manage the war and a deep lack of understanding that there is no way to use a military solution that doesn't involve some bystanders also getting horribly killed.

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.

I'm OK with those conditions, too. I do understand the legal situation is more complicated for Germany than for other nations (yes, it's a bitch when something that happened 70 years ago is still having consequences).

[mr friendly guy]

Ah, the old false dichotomy between Islamic fundamentalist nut jobs and more secular but still brutal authoritarian nut jobs which apologists for dictators like to trot out to defend scum bags like Saddam Hussein.

Better than ISIS? Maybe. That doesn't make him a good thing, and to defend Saddam, you have to demonstrate that he was the only plausible alternative to ISIS.

To be a false dichotomy there must exist at least a third choice in real life. Presumably that requires
a. A leader to replace Saddam who is compable to preserving stability and isn't a total dick
b. The US made plans for the post Saddam era and found such a person to help them.

I am not even going to debate the first point since I think you'll agree with me that with all the people in the world, somewhere out there will be someone who fits that bill.

However the second point looks very dubious, what with the US awesome belief that the Iraqis would come out and greet them like liberators with flowers and all that schick. The fact is, the US didn't plan for the post Saddam era very well so talking about a third option is a moot point.

[The Romulan Republic]

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.

[Broomstick]

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?

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.

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.

The thing is, it took some really, really terrible horrible things to overturn the Bad Guys back then. Horrific things that people are still arguing over 70 years later. Things that are, at best, justifiable only as the lesser evil. If the world moved against ISIS in a similar matter not only would Terrible Things happen, we'd get to seem them live on CNN these days. Imagine if we had seen something like the firebombing of Dresden live, as it actually happened (as people are still arguing whether or not that was justified, and will no doubt continue to argue the matter going forward).

Germany is only allowed to defend itself, it is not allowed to project force abroad. That is the reality. However, there's nothing wrong with a hypothetical. Thanas was asked his opinion, he gave it. Jabbing him because of the legal limitations of his nation is no more fair than holding an individual American responsible for the fuckwads running the asylum. That distinction between the individual and the collective I mentioned, that's an example.

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.

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.

Saddam would not have been overthrown if it weren't for the US under Bush II. The rest of the world (and some of us Americans) were satisfied with simply containing him to Iraq. That one IS on the US.

And surely some responsibility goes to the cunts who are actually fighting for ISIS?

Well, yeah, sure, but ISIS didn't occur in a vacuum.

So the US is responsible, not because it is the only country that caused this disaster but because ISIS is a bunch of mass-murdering expansionist pieces of shit that have to be stopped and America has the ability to do something to stop them.

The problem is the US leadership in the Middle East affairs sucks. The US military makes a fine gun but are you sure the finger on the trigger is a competent and responsible gun user?

Germany is responsible for doing what it can for the same reasons.

Yes, but Germany has limitations the rest of the world (other than Japan) does not. But thanks, Germany, for letting us evacuate the dead and wounded to your territory, and putting up with American bases on your soil - which is about the extent of the legal assistance Germany can give. Unless you can suggest something more that doesn't violate the law?

[Lagmonster]

So what do you suggest, Thanas, if you find airstrikes an insufficient US response? Place thousands of troops on the ground (effectively an invasion of Syria) to defend Palmyra? Is their any less direct and potentially costly solution that would be likely to achieve results?

It would seem to me that the best thing to do is an escalation of what has been done: Expend resources to move teams in (with the approval of the local academic and political representatives, 'natch), fly out as many artifacts as can be moved, and then say, "Okay, you boys have fun, you can have your toys back once you've stopped being little cretins". Obviously, that still results in a lot of destroyed relics, but you do what you can without risking too much.

[Broomstick]

Removing Saddam Hussein was not the problem in and of itself. Failing to ensure that he was replaced with something else that was functional was the problem.

If the party(s) removing the brutal dictator can't competently set up a new government in his place then leaving the brutal dictator in place would have been the lesser evil.

See, there's theory on one side over here. And then there is actual practice and reality, over there, on that side. In between there is frequently a gap the size of the Grand Canyon, if not Valles Marineris.

There is what we would like to have happen, and what is actually likely to happen given the facts and reality.

[The Romulan Republic]

The question is weather America couldn't effectively replace Saddam Hussein, or simply failed to do so.

Edit: I mean, its not like we gave it our best effort, is it?

[Thanas]

Perhaps no one else could stop it by not participating, but they could have chosen not to actively participate in it, or to participate in it in a different way.

And again - does it matter? We are talking about the below 1% of troops here. I don't see how this fixating on the other members of the coalition of the willing does matter in any case given their contributions were miniscule and most left the country within the first two years anyway.

Fortunately, I have no intention of doing so.

Stop fixating on Palau and admit that governments besides America's and Britain's have responsibility for their actions. America having more responsibility does not change that.

Forgive me, but this seems like a blatant attempt to shift blame. The US was responsible first and foremost. If a nation sends less than 1% of the troops involved, it gets very little say in things. So how about you go ahead and try to prove that the other governments mattered and contributed in a manner that was impactful to the occupation. Sending less than a hundred or at best a couple hundred soldiers (which nearly all of the nations involved did) is meaningless, as is the share of blame and responsibility those nations have.

Fair enough, though this contradicts your earlier claim that the US was completely responsible for the failure of the Iraqi government.

It is, by collapsing the existing Government and failing to replace it with a stable Government even though they had the tools, obligation and power to do so.

Removing Saddam Hussein was not the problem in and of itself. Failing to ensure that he was replaced with something else that was functional was the problem.

Nobody existed who could do that, so the two problems are actually the same. And let us not forget that the US went into Iraq with no plans whatsoever for the actual occupation, meaning they screwed this up from the start. Am I the only one who remembers that the US had a huge problem in keeping the freaking capital of the country supplied with electricity? It is not as if the US tried very hard to run a competent occupation.

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.

To be honest, the US already does all of those things, so at this point I would view it as a positive if the drone swarm and the fighters were actually targeting people who unequivocally deserve getting hellfired more than some tribal guys from Yemen, aka people running around Iraq and Syria with black flags and happily introducing slavery to the region.

The question is weather America couldn't effectively replace Saddam Hussein, or simply failed to do so.

Does it matter? In my opinion they didn't want to wait, so they blundered in before occupation plans could be organized.