Pitfalls of yet another U.S. war on Muslims

[Med911]

Re: Pitfalls of yet another U.S. war on Muslims

@picoico

So it is said…

Yes, and it’s not cynicism it’s simple causality. There is none between the degree of brutality and the anticipated response.

Acting for reasons other than morality may not be a bad thing, as I’ve suggested to Queer.

Your forcing the point in suggesting that the carpet bombing of a city full of civilians is somehow not on par with what ISIS is doing. Or that what Assad is doing, in terms of people evicted from their homes and/or killed, is not on par with ISIS is doing. Or what boko is doing, albeit on a smaller scale. If one wants to push the morality angle, it seems they must trivialize the suffering of others in other conflicts to excuse inaction in those. No thanks. I’d prefer to look for other reasons as to why there is action/inaction. You are correct in that ISIS expansionism is the root behind the alarm. Incorrect to suggest that the brutal nature of their actions is a motivator to stop them on the world stage. Much too many counterexamples to lend credence to that view.

Who said Assad is a saint? What you perceive as inaction is being prudent and circumspect in my opinion. Being dragged into another conflict in the Middle East is the last thing anyone needs. That being said, the US and others havent been standing on the sidelines, they have supplied arms to Syrian rebels. But either way, the US is damned if they do or dont.
(U.S. has secretly provided arms training to Syria rebels since 2012)

You cannot respond to every conflict in the same manner. The issue with Assad is a complex one, and while we would all love for him to be sidelined (Assuming that doesnt mean reprisals against the Shia in Syria by rebels), the complexities of the situation mean that you cannot fight Assad in an all out war. So long as there is an opposition in place, there are rebels to keep the pressure on however, the Syrian conflict will not see significant intervention.

ISIS on the other hand, you have a situation which is quickly spiraling out of control and no one can stop it. In such a case, it is incumbent on those who can stop them to do so. Weighed against the consequences of inaction, intervention is the only option. To not do so would mean allowing such atrocities to occur unhindered.

When you are the only one with the power to stop something like ISIS, when no one else can, and when it threatens to destroy everything and everyone, and you allow it to fester, that then is immoral.

Ultimately, if the present strategy doesnt work, they may well have to go in with troops. But lets hope it doesnt come to that.