That was my first gut response to the video of the Jordanian pilot: we've got a bunch of CBU that will be OBE in a couple years, so let's dump it all on Raqqah. Then I actually thought about it, there has got to be plenty of people in that city that aren't assholes, they're just doing what they have to do to get by. Aside from the fact that our population would never support total war on that level short of an existential threat (even then I doubt it), do we really want to go down that path just because we're seriously pissed off? Is that kind of response exactly what Daesh wants? Would we be playing into their recruiting and media campaign plan? Believe me, these assholes are extremely media savvy. This atrocity may have been their hail Mary, I don't know but I don't think carpet bombing a city actually gets us anything strategically. The message that sends to the world is that we're all the same.
Iraq and ISIS Discussion
- Thread starter Kraut783
- Start date
No doubt, but before we can declare war on a nation, we have to acknowledge that said nation exists. So our declaration actually give some semblance of legitimacy to Daesh. It begs the question of what constitutes a nation-state in the modern world?
Given Jordan's extremely tenuous relationship with Syria going back to the 1970's, if the Jordanian king actually acted on this rhetoric, if might literally change the region as we know it. It would be game on.
Answer: International and overwhelming legal recognition by a majority of states within the UN. Example: We don't recognize the state of Palestine, but other Arab countries do. The UN has them in a special observer status so they can have a rep at the UN but no voting or veto rights.
Kraut783
SOF Support
Yes, their stuff is surprising well done.
I don't think the UN is the answer, I think the answer is an over whelming response from GCC type states. But I think your point is not off point, just that a declaration of war is probably not a good thing a far as playing into Daesh political messaging. If we declare "war" in any respect, we're giving them equal play on the international political stage. We need bi-partisan support of what really needs to happen, but the message needs to be that we're smashing an unjust, immoral, and ultimately illegal organization that claims power based on violence not the voice of the people.
Brill
SOF Support
If this is what it takes to get you back on a team, I'm all for it...and willing to go with!
If Jordan chose to redraw some lines on a map or conduct regime change in Syria, I wouldn't flinch. I think once the world moved beyond the short to mid-term butthurt over such a thing it would actually benefit the ME and send powerful messages to the West, the ME, Islam, Israel...anyone who is anyone in that region.
Thank you brother. Lucky Thirteen and Bad Boys for Life!
Brill
SOF Support
I'd like to see Jordan push from the south, Israel push from west, Lebanon cover Homs, and Turkey take Allepo while Qurdistan "do what it do" in NE Syria.
IS would be fucked three ways to Sunday...while Tehran (aka Moscow South) would be scrambling "good??? Bad???" "I don't know Ayatollah, our enemies are fighting our enemies!"
Vehemently disagree. "Civilized" is not the answer here. When did warfare become about being more civilized than the other guy? Jordan didn't stoop to burning prisoners alive, they hung condemned terrorists. Those terrorists got EXACTLY what they deserved. We are not even close to "becoming what we hate". Violence in response to the savagery of ISIS is hardly a step in the wrong direction.
What do you propose Jordan should have done?
My apologies, I meant the answer to your question when I wrote "answer" I don't believe recognition by the UN is the answer either, especially since Daesh area covers parts of two sovereign nations.
I'm fine with giving them equally play because it would solve a host of problems, especially IRT prisoners, detainees, etc. If we had declared war through Congress against Iraq and Afghanistan, we would not be dealing with the mess we call Guantanamo Bay prison. We would not be messing around with handing over detainees to our coalition partners, knowing full well they might be back in the fight within 48 hours. Yes, we know ISIS, al-Qaeda, the Taliban and others will not follow the Geneva Convention; however legally declaring war gives us carte blanche to operate widely within those rules. For example, there would be no argument about the Guantanamo Bay prisoners who have been kept there over a decade without criminal charges. They would be POWs, and thus we could hold them for the duration of the conflict without question.
JBS is right; however you are right CDG. Those prisoners Jordan executed were tried, convicted, and set for execution anyway.
But going back to JBS's comment, this is why I advocate a declaration of war. We know the rules in some cases are outdated and not applicable to current times, but they only way to ensure they get accurately adjusted is to follow them and ensure our moral standing (I know, its debatable but it doesn't hurt us nonetheless) by declaring war and operating effectively within the conventions of customary law. Yes, we still may have had the Abu Ghraib scandal and other shenanigans but as I said, I believe we made it harder on ourselves by not declaring war. Witness the ever-changing SOFA agreements, the ever changing rules on detainee holding, questioning, and transfer, and the yearly fights about defense authorizations and budgets. Most of that would have been wiped out had a declaration of war been in place. It also ensures Congress puts their money where their mouth is and doesn't just end support for a war by cutting off the funding á la Vietnam
I think the political aspect is beyond you and me, this part is seriously on point.
Sir,
I agree that we should declare war. If we do not, however, I believe we should back the plays of countries like Jordan that are willing to take action against ISIS. I fail to see how it is at all helpful to condemn Jordan for executing who they did, when they did.
The bold face stuff:
This is why they are winning.
We are so timid that collateral damage causes us to commit to inaction.
I'd drop leaflets giving them 24 hours to un-ass the town, then drop a MOAB on the town square (or main mosque).
ISIL tells everyone we are afraid of them and that is why they are safer with ISIL then with us; we oblige by avoiding any collateral damage that might kill "innocents". Wiping their "capitol" off the map sends a powerful message. Fuck their IO campaign decrying civilian loss of life, they routinely set bombs off killing civilians.
Sometimes going medieval is the only way to send a message.
Plenty of people is not necessarily a majority of people. There are enough folks that tacitly support what IS is doing through their inaction and silence that I wouldn't have the first problem laying waste without warning. As for the ones who don't support IS but are too scared to say anything, fuck cowards, they can dodge a bomb, too. I have more respect for this one Iraqi father avenging his son than I do half a dozen men who speak in hushed whispers not to hide an insurrection, but in hopes that they will be allowed to live unnoticed. For a religion that reveres martyrs as much as Islam does, there sure as hell aren't many out there willing to go out and take one for their team, whether or not they take a few of the IS guys with them in the process.
Saw a report that said the King of Jordan flew (led) airstrikes against ISIL today.
If true, wow!
If true, wow!
http://controversialtimes.com/news/...s-first-blood-leads-bombing-run-against-isis/
Let's hope it is true!
Similar threads
