ISIS Crisis

[ulf]

The UN is a relatively useless body (lol columbia is a John Bircher), so I can't get too hung up on their opinion on the matter.

Exactly. UN approval to destroy ISIS? Seriously? Should I get permission before starting chemo too? They are a cancer and should be wiped off the face of the earth no matter where they hide. They are a danger to everyone including Syria and UN nations.

We are entering a country without approval from that government. We aren't getting approval from that government about where we bomb. How does that not alarm anyone else? I don't like the Assad regime, but this seems like an issue to not involve them. And if we don't involve them, there should at least be approval from a governing body (the UN).

I thought I read they agreed to let us get involved there.

[obhave]

My issue is that the US is basically saying "we can do what we want" regardless of approval from the nations we are carrying out attacks in. Since coordination with Assad won't happen, it seems like we need approval from the UN to not make this seem like an overstep of power.

I'm all for stomping out ISIS. But if we are going to call it a coordinated effort, all parties involved should be part of that coordination.

[obhave]

The UN is a relatively useless body (lol columbia is a John Bircher), so I can't get too hung up on their opinion on the matter.

Exactly. UN approval to destroy ISIS? Seriously? Should I get permission before starting chemo too? They are a cancer and should be wiped off the face of the earth no matter where they hide. They are a danger to everyone including Syria and UN nations.

We are entering a country without approval from that government. We aren't getting approval from that government about where we bomb. How does that not alarm anyone else? I don't like the Assad regime, but this seems like an issue to not involve them. And if we don't involve them, there should at least be approval from a governing body (the UN).

I thought I read they agreed to let us get involved there.

They agreed to let airstrikes happen if they could approve them. They are worried the US will start hitting their strongholds along with ISIS.

[PensFanInDC]

My issue is that the US is basically saying "we can do what we want" regardless of approval from the nations we are carrying out attacks in. Since coordination with Assad won't happen, it seems like we need approval from the UN to not make this seem like an overstep of power.

I'm all for stomping out ISIS. But if we are going to call it a coordinated effort, all parties involved should be part of that coordination.

You are willing to let ISIS continue to grow and strengthen because Syria refuses to let the US, along with all the other nations that have signed on, do what needs to be done?

This isn't the second Iraq war or Afghanistan. This is a serious and credible threat to the entire world.

[obhave]

My issue is that the US is basically saying "we can do what we want" regardless of approval from the nations we are carrying out attacks in. Since coordination with Assad won't happen, it seems like we need approval from the UN to not make this seem like an overstep of power.

I'm all for stomping out ISIS. But if we are going to call it a coordinated effort, all parties involved should be part of that coordination.

You are willing to let ISIS continue to grow and strengthen because Syria refuses to let the US, along with all the other nations that have signed on, do what needs to be done?

This isn't the second Iraq war or Afghanistan. This is a serious and credible threat to the entire world.

I realize they won't work with Assad, but at least get approval from the UN. I personally believe this is against international law. And I fully believe the US will go from not only fighting ISIS but also Assad more aggressively, which will become a second long war in the region.

[Troy Loney]

My issue is that the US is basically saying "we can do what we want" regardless of approval from the nations we are carrying out attacks in. Since coordination with Assad won't happen, it seems like we need approval from the UN to not make this seem like an overstep of power.

I'm all for stomping out ISIS. But if we are going to call it a coordinated effort, all parties involved should be part of that coordination.

You are willing to let ISIS continue to grow and strengthen because Syria refuses to let the US, along with all the other nations that have signed on, do what needs to be done?

This isn't the second Iraq war or Afghanistan. This is a serious and credible threat to the entire world.

I don't know if there is a desirable response to ISIS. But questioning a rush to war makes sense to me. I think if the countries in the region will work with the united states and cooperate in a unified strike/move against them...it is good.

[ulf]

The UN is a relatively useless body (lol columbia is a John Bircher), so I can't get too hung up on their opinion on the matter.

Exactly. UN approval to destroy ISIS? Seriously? Should I get permission before starting chemo too? They are a cancer and should be wiped off the face of the earth no matter where they hide. They are a danger to everyone including Syria and UN nations.

We are entering a country without approval from that government. We aren't getting approval from that government about where we bomb. How does that not alarm anyone else? I don't like the Assad regime, but this seems like an issue to not involve them. And if we don't involve them, there should at least be approval from a governing body (the UN).

I thought I read they agreed to let us get involved there.

They agreed to let airstrikes happen if they could approve them. They are worried the US will start hitting their strongholds along with ISIS.

Yes but isn't that what is happening?

[slappybrown]

This isn't the second Iraq war or Afghanistan. This is a serious and credible threat to the entire world.

http://news.yahoo.com/20-000-31-500-fig ... 59844.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria now have about 20,000 to 31,500 fighters on the ground, the Central Intelligence Agency said, much higher than a previous estimate of 10,000.

I don't see it. 30K fighters is a serious and credible threat to the "entire world"?

Every time this happens, the threat is described as a "global threat." Its the same play over and over and over. The Second Iraq War and Afghanistan were similarly described as necessary due to "global threats."

I don't know what our best plan is, frankly, but I do not think they are a "global threat." That is a poor justification IMO.

[Troy Loney]

Yeah, if your response to ISIS resembles Lindsey Graham's response. It's wrong.

[obhave]

They agreed to let airstrikes happen if they could approve them. They are worried the US will start hitting their strongholds along with ISIS.

Yes but isn't that what is happening?

Assad did not approve these strikes, so no that is not happening

[columbia]

They agreed to let airstrikes happen if they could approve them. They are worried the US will start hitting their strongholds along with ISIS.

Yes but isn't that what is happening?

Assad did not approve these strikes, so no that is not happening

What?

Pentagon: U.S., partners begin airstrikes in Syria against Islamic State militants
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/09/pe ... 07397.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Beveridge]

I wonder how the last 25 years play out if first Bush lets the Middle East play out on it's own instead of digging the hole that the only option now is to keep digging.

I don't know if things would be better or worse overall.

[ulf]

They agreed to let airstrikes happen if they could approve them. They are worried the US will start hitting their strongholds along with ISIS.

Yes but isn't that what is happening?

Assad did not approve these strikes, so no that is not happening

What?

Pentagon: U.S., partners begin airstrikes in Syria against Islamic State militants
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/09/pe ... 07397.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Right

[slappybrown]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... sey-graham" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Troy Loney]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... sey-graham

First rate fear mongering.

[eddysnake]

warheads on foreheads.

[obhave]

They agreed to let airstrikes happen if they could approve them. They are worried the US will start hitting their strongholds along with ISIS.

Yes but isn't that what is happening?

Assad did not approve these strikes, so no that is not happening

What?

Pentagon: U.S., partners begin airstrikes in Syria against Islamic State militants
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/09/pe ... 07397.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Am I missing where it says Assad approved it before the strike happened? Warning him that a strike was happening is not asking for approval or coordinating. He US also made it clear they did not coordinate with Assad.

[columbia]

Why would the US coordinate anything with Assad?
im not sure what you're point is, to be honest.

[obhave]

Why would the US coordinate anything with Assad?
im not sure what you're point is, to be honest.

My point is, you either must coordinate with a leader of a country try before bombing it. Or, if you don't believe them to be legitimate, you must get approval from the UN. Anything else seems like a breach of international law to me.

[columbia]

Neither ISIS nor Assad are concerned about international law and there is little chance of the security council say yes.

[DelPen]

Neither ISIS nor Assad are concerned about international law and there is little chance of the security council say yes.

Well either international law matters if we expect them to adhere to it or it doesn't if we are going to ignore it too and if the UN won't act either it doesn't matter much.

[tifosi77]

I realize they won't work with Assad, but at least get approval from the UN.

1) Russia

2) China

That rules out the UN angle.

[tifosi77]

I don't see it. 30K fighters is a serious and credible threat to the "entire world"?

They have military training and hardware (in part thanks to us, in part because large chunks of their numbers are ousted Iraqi military from the Hussein days), they are much more disciplined and effective as a fighting force, they are actually capable of engaging in unit tactics that were miles beyond anything al Qaeda could accomplish on the battlefield. Also contrasting with al Qaeda, they have actually conquered territory; al Qaeda found refuge in the world largely because of their ability to curry support from the locals. ISIL is taking land by force.... remember, they are a radical Sunni collection of knuckleheads, many of whom are ex-Baath Party Iraqi military, and as such they only represent about 25-30% of the Iraqi population as a whole (which is predominantly Shia), and much less than that in the north where they are rooted.

ISIL has taken over military installations and airfields.

As regards numbers, they are already at the same level of manpower that al Qaeda had at its peak in the mid 00s, and they are growing further. And remember, per man they are a much more lethal force than al Qaeda ever was. So in terms of battlefield capability, that would be like 50,000-60,000 al Qaeda fighters.

The territorial aspiration cannot be understated. Al Qaeda did not want to conquer land and convert the locals (or kill them if they refused). Their overriding objective was to get Western armies out of the Islamic 'holy land', namely Saudi Arabia, and to kill those anywhere in the world who would deign to stop them. ISIL actually wants everything from Iran to Morocco and Spain under their thumb. They already control an area the size of California which spans Iraq and Syria, the control the only border crossing between Iraq and Jordan, they have had incursions into Lebanon and are threatening Turkey.

So it begs the question: If not now, at what point would you say they constitute a legitimate global threat?

[slappybrown]

I read a good piece recently about their "control" of those areas not constituting "control" in the sense of a nation-state. Because those territorial aspirations require that type of control, the aspirations will remain only that. Let me see if I can find it.

[tifosi77]

Pentagon: U.S., partners begin airstrikes in Syria against Islamic State militants
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/09/pe ... 07397.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Am I missing where it says Assad approved it before the strike happened? Warning him that a strike was happening is not asking for approval or coordinating. He US also made it clear they did not coordinate with Assad.

Airstrikes by U.S. and Allies Hit ISIS Targets in Syria

The strikes in Syria occurred without the approval of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, whose government, unlike Iraq, did not ask the United States for help against the Sunni militant group. Mr. Obama has repeatedly called on Mr. Assad to step down because of chemical weapons attacks and violence against his own people, and defense officials said Mr. Assad had not been told in advance of the strikes.