Brad, you're being unreasonable. It isn't necessary to have a fully formed answer to the ISIS problem to offer a critique of somebody else's. Besides which, nobody demanded a solution from you. What actually happened was that you specifically resurrected a moribund thread in order to offer it up for comment. Having done that your proposal therefore became fair game for criticism.

Having known you for a few years now I've noticed that you have a profound dislike of grey areas and you prefer to follow your arguments through to their logical conclusion even if that takes you into areas that you're not really comfortable with than to accept that there are imperfections that can never really be reconciled. In many ways this is admirable but it does run the risk of leading you down all kinds of intellectual dead ends. In this case you've started with the premise that "something must be done" and as is your wont you've then concluded that if something must be done then inevitably what must be done is whatever happens to be required because anything less would be hypocrisy. You're right of course, but the rest of us are willing to put up with a little hypocrisy if the alternative is mass slaughter. Moral judgements inevitably involve a degree of hypocrisy.

Fair enough. Don't expect answers or opinions from me either.

Have a nice day.

The passive-aggressive thing doesn't really suit you.

Your question was unreasonable because you're asking me to answer a question that I don't have an answer to. I already explained that.

Sassenach wrote:The passive-aggressive thing doesn't really suit you.

Your question was unreasonable because you're asking me to answer a question that I don't have an answer to. I already explained that.

I just got back from the store, and had been thinking about this black/white world I supposedly live in. I did not say that I wanted a cut and dried opinion of what had to be done. I asked what the least that should be done, and the most that should be done in people's minds. That is a HUGE area of middle ground. I wanted to know what needed to be done in light of the escalation by ISIS.

Tell you something else. I know that you and others are not able to affect the decision making anymore than I am. I just asked for some opinions. People chose to not give them.

Needless to say, I learned a great deal about what different people think. Thank you all for the lesson.

I actually think you're a very interesting man who isn't willing to settle for simply holding an opinion without attempting to follow through with its logical implications. In many ways this is a very good thing, it's certainly very rare.

The issue I have is that in the real world there are all kinds of grey areas that can't be easily squared away. As an ex-forces man you'll no doubt be familiar with the truism about no plan surviving contact with the enemy. The same holds true in politics. Recognition of this fact used to be the defining characteristic of a conservative.

Sassenach wrote:I actually think you're a very interesting man who isn't willing to settle for simply holding an opinion without attempting to follow through with its logical implications. In many ways this is a very good thing, it's certainly very rare.

The issue I have is that in the real world there are all kinds of grey areas that can't be easily squared away. As an ex-forces man you'll no doubt be familiar with the truism about no plan surviving contact with the enemy. The same holds true in politics. Recognition of this fact used to be the defining characteristic of a conservative.

Great example...

Did the Duke of Wellington have a minimum and maximum acceptable loss plans when deciding to engage Napoleon in Spain? He surely must have thought that I could have stayed in England, or I can attack frontally and loose all my forces, or a myriad of options in between. All I was asking for what limits were, and they certainly can change.

I know my limits have changed recently. See... I am not only black and white. I am not immutable,

bbauska wrote:Owen,
Have you commented on vaccines w/o being an immunologist?
Have you commented on US politics w/o being a US citizen?
Have you commented on Israeli/Palestinian relations w/o being either one?

You are more than capable to discuss your opinion on topics which you have little experience on.

Shall I continue with more examples? You are using your "response" to not comment, but are more than willing to criticize others. I would have hoped that the desire for fair discourse would be more to your liking.

And I have commented on this. Just not in the way you want. And also, while I was criticising your 'idea', you have chosen to criticise me, which is different (and also, you've done it in a highly hypocritical way).

So, no, I am not playing your game. Suck it up.

bbauska wrote:Did the Duke of Wellington have a minimum and maximum acceptable loss plans when deciding to engage Napoleon in Spain? He surely must have thought that I could have stayed in England, or I can attack frontally and loose all my forces, or a myriad of options in between. All I was asking for what limits were, and they certainly can change.

At that time, Wellesley/Welington was a military leader not a political one. He may well have had decisions to make in the campaign in terms of what was acceptable or not, in strategic and tactical terms. But this is not the same as making a political decision, to invade.

But even so, I doubt that his "maximum" was to raze cities to the ground if they included French troops. Interestingly, the Spanish allies were using a 'new' type of warfare, the "guerilla" - now so common in the warfare of the modern day.

noted

Honestly , I don't know why you are getting mad (at us ) here, Brad. I understand the visceral anger at what ISIS does , but at the end of the day they have only killed several westerners . Al Qaeda did far worse to us in 9-11. And the US targeted Al Qaeda members and I have no qualms about that. But your first suggestion out of the gate was to approach cities where ISIS is located, demand they give them up, and if they don't everyone in the city is killed. Rinse and repeat. I think our responses to that proposal have been measured, not because you run the site , but because you have earned respect over the years. Then when your approach was not approved, you essentially asked us to come up with our own solution, I guess ( maybe not) in an attempt to demonstrate that no less radical solution is going to work.

Yes you saw a problem. Yes you came up with a solution that might solve the problem. No, that is not a good idea because of the many innocent lives put at risk. I don't think we have to come with a good solution to ISIS to point out that your solution is--with all due respect and I say this regretfully-- crazy talk.

We all have egos with regard to our ideas. We all have good and bad ideas here. I think it would be a good idea to move on from discussion of this one.

freeman3 wrote:Honestly , I don't know why you are getting mad (at us ) here, Brad. I understand the visceral anger at what ISIS does , but at the end of the day they have only killed several westerners . Al Qaeda did far worse to us in 9-11. And the US targeted Al Qaeda members and I have no qualms about that. But your first suggestion out of the gate was to approach cities where ISIS is located, demand they give them up, and if they don't everyone in the city is killed. Rinse and repeat. I think our responses to that proposal have been measured, not because you run the site , but because you have earned respect over the years. Then when your approach was not approved, you essentially asked us to come up with our own solution, I guess ( maybe not) in an attempt to demonstrate that no less radical solution is going to work.

Yes you saw a problem. Yes you came up with a solution that might solve the problem. No, that is not a good idea because of the many innocent lives put at risk. I don't think we have to come with a good solution to ISIS to point out that your solution is--with all due respect and I say this regretfully-- crazy talk.

We all have egos with regard to our ideas. We all have good and bad ideas here. I think it would be a good idea to move on from discussion of this one.

Freeman, I do not think you understand. I am not mad at anyone here for the position on ISIS. I am frustrated that there are people here who will not give their opinion, but feel completely free to criticize others. I find that sad and cowardly, not to mention one-sided. I want to learn about others. especially those who do not agree with me. This is how we learn more about one another. I do not wish this to be an echo chamber. For it to not be an echo chamber, there would have to be other opinions on an opposite view.

There are those who think I am a blood-thirsty warmongering fool. They might be right. But that is only looking at the extreme view of what I would be willing to do to. Take a look at the minimum and see if that is acceptable to the more "moderate" views here. I am fine with continued drone strikes, and complete economic isolation if ISIS does not continue to escalate, but if there is escalation, then there needs to be a larger response to that.

Well, I am not shy about voicing my opinions, anyway...Other than saying ISIS is evil you really have not provided reasons why such a draconian solution is necessary. In general I might agree with you that it is annoying for people to shoot down ideas with regard to a solution to a problem but will proffer none of their own. But I also think that when extreme views are espoused that people have a responsibility to criticize them. It takes a certain amount of dissociation from the people (Who are Muslim) of that area--women, children , the elderly included--to make such a proposal. If you propounded a more reasonable proposal then yes you might expect people to respond with their own ideas and not just criticize. But when ideas are clearly beyond civilized notions of treating people, then no one needs to come up with their own ideas.

Thank you for your thoughts

A few things are clear:

1. Containment will not work. It's not working now. ISIS is spreading.

2. You can contain a nation with expansionist ideas. You cannot contain an ideology.

3. Containment will only lead to more beheadings and other atrocities, which, perversely, makes the ideology more attractive to some.

4. The Cold War is a bad analogy. MAD was a viable strategy for two opponents who wished to live. However, and this is where the "criminal" analogy the President likes falls apart as well, when one side views dying as an achievement, MAD is not viable. ISIS believes every death, theirs or one of their opponents, is a step in the right direction. They believe they are preparing the world for its end.

So, I guess you are advocating putting troops on the ground to push ISIS out of areas they control? How many troops? What do we do after ISIS is largely stamped out (what is our exit plan)? I am not saying I disagree with you about having to put in ground troops soon , but what are the details?