We're at war with ISIL

[Katsuro]

Also, Saudi Arabia hasn't for all intense and purposes declared war against most of the planet.  That is quite an important difference.

[Old Viking]

Our war status is based on our previous successes in the Middle East.

[MadCatTLX]

Well, I just found this article: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/15/white-house-has-no-international-legal-justification-for-hitting-isis-in-syria.html

The short version is that the US attacking ISIS in Syria would be a violation of international law, and the US is trying to find a way to justify doing it anyway. Of course, Russia is giving the US shit for thinking about violating the sovereignty of another country.

And on top of that, US intelligence apparently knows about jack shit about ISIS. Lovely use of all that funding. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/14/isis-still-baffles-us-intelligence-agencies.html

[Art Vandelay]

Funny how it's oh so imperative that ISIS be stopped, yet we're more than happy to leave the likes of, say, Boko Haram alone. Gee, it can't possibly be because ISIS is a threat to American oil imports while Boko Haram is not, right? Oh no, obviously it's because ISIS are such big meanies that it's simply out duty to continue white knighting our way through the Middle East. Yes, that's totally a believable story.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Would you rather we abandon them?

[Art Vandelay]

Basically yes. These wars are colossally expensive, are a waste of soldier's lives and actually make life demonstrably worse for the people living there.

Also, I'll say it again. If it's really our duty to go and save these people, why are you not calling for an invasion of, say, Nigeria or Somalia or Zimbabwe?

[Ultimate Paragon]

Basically yes. These wars are colossally expensive, are a waste of soldier's lives and actually make life demonstrably worse for the people living there.

Also, I'll say it again. If it's really our duty to go and save these people, why are you not calling for an invasion of, say, Nigeria or Somalia or Zimbabwe?

We're already involved in Somalia, we're giving support to Boko Haram's opponents, and Zimbabwe is showing signs of improvement.

[Art Vandelay]

Basically yes. These wars are colossally expensive, are a waste of soldier's lives and actually make life demonstrably worse for the people living there.

Also, I'll say it again. If it's really our duty to go and save these people, why are you not calling for an invasion of, say, Nigeria or Somalia or Zimbabwe?

We're already involved in Somalia, we're giving support to Boko Haram's opponents, and Zimbabwe is showing signs of improvement.

Let's see. Somalian involvement is the odd naval patrol to protect shipping and the occasional surgical strike to rescue western hostages (note that all this is to protect western interests, not help the Somalian people). There were some special forces sent to try and free those school kids Boko Haram kidnapped a while back, it was big old a failure (surprise fucking surprise) and there's been no military intervention of any kind since then. As for Zimbabwe, it's improving entirely on its own, only after Mugabe ran the whole country into the ground without any outsiders lifting a finger. So no, none of those compare in any way to a full on military occupation.

[MadCatTLX]

America, FUCK YEAH! Comin' again to save the motherfuckin' day, yeah!

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2xPctfuhMA" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2xPctfuhMA</a>

[mythbuster43]

Well, I just found this article: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/15/white-house-has-no-international-legal-justification-for-hitting-isis-in-syria.html

The short version is that the US attacking ISIS in Syria would be a violation of international law, and the US is trying to find a way to justify doing it anyway. Of course, Russia is giving the US shit for thinking about violating the sovereignty of another country.

And on top of that, US intelligence apparently knows about jack shit about ISIS. Lovely use of all that funding. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/14/isis-still-baffles-us-intelligence-agencies.html

So, it's 2003 all over again?

[Lt. Fred]

Because the solution to all our problems is always more war.

When dealing with a group like ISIS, yes it is.  These aren't the kind of people who listen to reason, are interested in negotiating anything with anyone or for whom economic sanctions will have any effect.   Their goal is, basically, to turn as much of the world as they can into an Islamic theocracy with a level of brutality that would make the Taliban blush and they see everyone who isn't them as an enemy who must be destroyed.  People like this do not stop or give up easily.  What do you propose we do with them exactly?

That's all very well, but how do we know that bombing will have a positive effect on the situation?

[Sylvana]

Would you rather we abandon them?

As nasty as ISIL is, this war is obviously just an excuse to increase defense contractors income. ISIL poses no threat to America, and will probably never hold more land than the chunk they have carved out for themselves. There are, as has been noted already, far worse groups and countries to attack, but ISIL is a handy expendable group of brown people so they become the target of the month.

34: War is good for business.
Ferengi rules of acquisition.

[Random Gal]

Would you rather we abandon them?

As nasty as ISIL is, this war is obviously just an excuse to increase defense contractors income. ISIL poses no threat to America, and will probably never hold more land than the chunk they have carved out for themselves. There are, as has been noted already, far worse groups and countries to attack, but ISIL is a handy expendable group of brown people so they become the target of the month.

34: War is good for business.
Ferengi rules of acquisition.

Although the 35th rule is "Peace is good for business." How is that supposed to work?

[Witchyjoshy]

Would you rather we abandon them?

As nasty as ISIL is, this war is obviously just an excuse to increase defense contractors income. ISIL poses no threat to America, and will probably never hold more land than the chunk they have carved out for themselves. There are, as has been noted already, far worse groups and countries to attack, but ISIL is a handy expendable group of brown people so they become the target of the month.

34: War is good for business.
Ferengi rules of acquisition.

Although the 35th rule is "Peace is good for business." How is that supposed to work?

The peacetime after a war where everyone is recuperating is good for business, I guess.

[Sigmaleph]

Would you rather we abandon them?

As nasty as ISIL is, this war is obviously just an excuse to increase defense contractors income. ISIL poses no threat to America, and will probably never hold more land than the chunk they have carved out for themselves. There are, as has been noted already, far worse groups and countries to attack, but ISIL is a handy expendable group of brown people so they become the target of the month.

34: War is good for business.
Ferengi rules of acquisition.

Although the 35th rule is "Peace is good for business." How is that supposed to work?

Seems like they could've just saved themselves a rule and said "Any time is good for business". Or, since "good" is a relative measure, just skipped both rules altogether.

Clearly whoever wrote the rules just needed some padding.