Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 33
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    40,498
    vCash
    500

    Where do we draw the line on Russia/Ukraine and ISIS?

    Simple question. At what point do we absolutely have to step in and say enough is enough with these conflicts.

    We just seen a passenger plane with nearly 300 civilians get shot down over Ukraine. Whether it was by Ukraine or Russian forces remains to be seen but either way we can't have that kind of stuff going down.

    Then you have ISIS fighting right now in Syria and Iraq. Who knows how far this could go with them picking up military power and gaining access to more weapons.

    I know most everybody is dead set against any further war. But at some point don't we have to say that this is eventually gonna become a problem that we need to stop sooner rather than later?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,317
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by steelcityroller View Post
    Simple question. At what point do we absolutely have to step in and say enough is enough with these conflicts.

    We just seen a passenger plane with nearly 300 civilians get shot down over Ukraine. Whether it was by Ukraine or Russian forces remains to be seen but either way we can't have that kind of stuff going down.

    Then you have ISIS fighting right now in Syria and Iraq. Who knows how far this could go with them picking up military power and gaining access to more weapons.

    I know most everybody is dead set against any further war. But at some point don't we have to say that this is eventually gonna become a problem that we need to stop sooner rather than later?
    Two things.

    1. There is a point that I am incapable of picking where our interest, either national or humanitarian is reached.

    2. Look up the USS Vincennes incident before you make this your place.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    indianpolis - north side
    Posts
    9,477
    vCash
    1500
    I think I agree with CAB here. In Iraq, we have two groups that both hate the US fighting each other, I fail to see the urgent need to interfere.

    The US getting involved, on the ground, in the Ukraine, would only make the situation worse. US troops that close to Russia is only going to get US guys killed to no purpose. The sanctions that the US are using are about as involved as the US should be. The airliner getting shot down is only going to make things worse for Russia. The Russians have an historical talent for clumsy foreign policy and this situation is looking more and more like another example. It seems to be a bad idea to get involved when the Russians screwing up on their own.

    Just an aside, but what is an airline doing sending their planes over an area like Ukraine anyway. Would you ride a Malaysian Airline plane under any circumstances. Free airplane rides for life, I'd still say pass.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    38,148
    vCash
    1750
    Politically? We don't do a damn thing unless they attack one of our properties (and they don't have the balls to do so less they want a whole shitstorm of pain brought upon them).

    Socially? It's going to be hard to stop the kinds of attacks they (presumably) just carried out. I think we sit back and observe. I'm not a huge fan of playing world police (which is probably what we'd have to do to stop any attacks). If things escalate to international mega-crisis, I'll revisit this.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    indianpolis - north side
    Posts
    9,477
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by db75 View Post
    Politically? We don't do a damn thing unless they attack one of our properties (and they don't have the balls to do so less they want a whole shitstorm of pain brought upon them).

    Socially? It's going to be hard to stop the kinds of attacks they (presumably) just carried out. I think we sit back and observe. I'm not a huge fan of playing world police (which is probably what we'd have to do to stop any attacks). If things escalate to international mega-crisis, I'll revisit this.
    Being the world police sounds so easy, since the US is the strongest power, but that is fool's gold. The cost of being the world's police would very quickly bankrupt the US.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    38,148
    vCash
    1750
    Quote Originally Posted by IndyFan View Post
    I think I agree with CAB here. In Iraq, we have two groups that both hate the US fighting each other, I fail to see the urgent need to interfere.

    The US getting involved, on the ground, in the Ukraine, would only make the situation worse. US troops that close to Russia is only going to get US guys killed to no purpose. The sanctions that the US are using are about as involved as the US should be. The airliner getting shot down is only going to make things worse for Russia. The Russians have an historical talent for clumsy foreign policy and this situation is looking more and more like another example. It seems to be a bad idea to get involved when the Russians screwing up on their own.

    Just an aside, but what is an airline doing sending their planes over an area like Ukraine anyway. Would you ride a Malaysian Airline plane under any circumstances. Free airplane rides for life, I'd still say pass.
    I suppose it depends on how long you want that life to last.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,739
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by IndyFan View Post
    Being the world police sounds so easy, since the US is the strongest power, but that is fool's gold. The cost of being the world's police would very quickly bankrupt the US.
    I don't advocate for being the world's police, but we had better start charging a fee if that's the direction that we decide to go.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    38,148
    vCash
    1750
    Quote Originally Posted by IndyFan View Post
    Being the world police sounds so easy, since the US is the strongest power, but that is fool's gold. The cost of being the world's police would very quickly bankrupt the US.
    Oh, I totally agree. I'm definitely not advocating getting involved militaristically barring some humanitarian crisis.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    38,148
    vCash
    1750
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    I don't advocate for being the world's police, but we had better start charging a fee if that's the direction that we decide to go.
    Please don't give our money hungry war mongering politicians catch wind of this idea...lol

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,739
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by db75 View Post
    Please don't give our money hungry war mongering politicians catch wind of this idea...lol
    I would rather they charge them a fee than charge us one. Obviously it would be preferable to sit there and do nothing...but when that happens I think we'll all be shocked.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    40,498
    vCash
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by db75 View Post
    Politically? We don't do a damn thing unless they attack one of our properties (and they don't have the balls to do so less they want a whole shitstorm of pain brought upon them).

    Socially? It's going to be hard to stop the kinds of attacks they (presumably) just carried out. I think we sit back and observe. I'm not a huge fan of playing world police (which is probably what we'd have to do to stop any attacks). If things escalate to international mega-crisis, I'll revisit this.
    That was my question. What has to happen for it to reach that point if these type of things keep happening on a regular basis. What is the tipping point?

    Sorry if that was confusing to some poeple and thought that I was implying that we go to war against Russia and jump back into a full-blown war in the Middle East. Nobody is that stupid.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    38,148
    vCash
    1750
    Quote Originally Posted by steelcityroller View Post
    That was my question. What has to happen for it to reach that point if these type of things keep happening on a regular basis. What is the tipping point?

    Sorry if that was confusing to some poeple and thought that I was implying that we go to war against Russia and jump back into a full-blown war in the Middle East. Nobody is that stupid.
    The tipping point for me in pretty much any conflict that we aren't involved in is genocide. At that point, I think it becomes the world's issue to protect those being slaughtered. How we get involved isn't a clear cut answer I don't think.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,693
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    I don't advocate for being the world's police, but we had better start charging a fee if that's the direction that we decide to go.
    We charge lots of fees. They go straight into the untaxed overseas coffers of "our" defense contractors. Then they use them to buy politicians, who support more war. Voila!
    I'm going to list ALEC in credits as associate producer of creating horrifying things for us to talk about -John Oliver

    People who think the least powerful members of society are responsible for most of its problems are deluded, at best.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,693
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by db75 View Post
    The tipping point for me in pretty much any conflict that we aren't involved in is genocide. At that point, I think it becomes the world's issue to protect those being slaughtered. How we get involved isn't a clear cut answer I don't think.
    It's always the same simple set of questions for me. One, can I think of a reasonably likely scenario, or be presented with a reasonably likely scenario, where intervention by the US will make a net positive difference? Two, is that chance worth the price we would ask others to pay (in the case of military intervention, is it worth my own life)?

    At this point, for me, the answers to both those two questions are negative. The vital word in that first question is "net". For example, removing Saddam Hussein from power made an immediate positive difference. But it's very, very hard to argue that it made a net positive difference given all the downsides that have flowed from the invasion and occupation that was required to remove him. I would argue that we could make an immediate, powerful impact on the situation in ISIL, but I have yet to see any plan of action that has a reasonable chance of achieving a net positive difference.
    I'm going to list ALEC in credits as associate producer of creating horrifying things for us to talk about -John Oliver

    People who think the least powerful members of society are responsible for most of its problems are deluded, at best.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Central California
    Posts
    4,250
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Labgrownmangoat View Post
    It's always the same simple set of questions for me. One, can I think of a reasonably likely scenario, or be presented with a reasonably likely scenario, where intervention by the US will make a net positive difference? Two, is that chance worth the price we would ask others to pay (in the case of military intervention, is it worth my own life)?

    At this point, for me, the answers to both those two questions are negative. The vital word in that first question is "net". For example, removing Saddam Hussein from power made an immediate positive difference. But it's very, very hard to argue that it made a net positive difference given all the downsides that have flowed from the invasion and occupation that was required to remove him. I would argue that we could make an immediate, powerful impact on the situation in ISIL, but I have yet to see any plan of action that has a reasonable chance of achieving a net positive difference.
    Given recent actions of our present leadership I would have to ask myself is our government capable of assessing a situation of net positive gain and then would it be capable of achieving that goal?
    "An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject"

    Unknown

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •