Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Do you support Western intervention against ISIS?

POST REPLY

Do you support Western intervention against ISIS?

Yes
16
41%
No
18
46%
Other/Don't know
5
13%
 
Total votes : 39
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 50
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Feb 2014, 05:02
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 15 Aug 2014, 06:35
I understand the imperialism is the problem, but how, and who can stop them? The Iraqi Army has failed, The Syrian Army has failed, the Kurds are ill equipped. I see no other solution to the problem. IS must be stopped! It is obvious that we don't have time to find a list of solutions, and/or fund, and train Kurds. Their (IS) advancements have been swift, and bloody. The global community must act swiftly as well, and destroy the monster, the U.S. has created
While the state exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no state. - V. I. Lenin
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 15 Aug 2014, 06:46
US imperialism will only make this worse.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 50
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Feb 2014, 05:02
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 15 Aug 2014, 07:08
What is the West to do? Not pay attention, or try to correct their mistakes(I know they never do)? They are the only solution! What are we supposed to do? Leave IS to run wild enforcing Sharia, and allow them to invade Turkey, and neighbouring states.
While the state exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no state. - V. I. Lenin
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 15 Aug 2014, 08:07
Yes. Our continued involvement is only hurting people more and imposing sharia of the worst sort even faster. You're saying essentially the since we started this fire with gasoline now we are obliged to drown it in even more gasoline.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 50
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Feb 2014, 05:02
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 15 Aug 2014, 08:20
I'm saying the West is the only force with the necessary funding, training, and numbers, to handle IS.
While the state exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no state. - V. I. Lenin
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 15 Aug 2014, 08:24
Yeah but only if you completely ignore the politics of the situation, the history of the region for the past 20 years, and the fact that America can't just bomb this problem away.
Image
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 15 Aug 2014, 09:01
Red Specter wrote:
What is the West to do? Not pay attention, or try to correct their mistakes(I know they never do)? They are the only solution! What are we supposed to do? Leave IS to run wild enforcing Sharia, and allow them to invade Turkey, and neighbouring states.


Well, "we" as in you, me, and us (or even the majority of people in the western world) are not supposed to do anything. The US will do what it wants, whether that is to bomb the IS or let them have their way, regardless of what we say or do. For the moment, it appears that the most immediate threat is over anyway.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 15 Aug 2014, 11:53
The simple solution is to arm Assad and other seculars in the region. But american imperialism cannot forget their hate for the nationalistic republics in middle east:

"Who they think they are ? The owners of the petroleum that lies in their subsoil ? We all know that that petroleum is property of Texaco, Shell etc."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 15 Aug 2014, 12:43
Red Specter wrote:
What is the West to do? Not pay attention, or try to correct their mistakes(I know they never do)? They are the only solution! What are we supposed to do? Leave IS to run wild enforcing Sharia, and allow them to invade Turkey, and neighbouring states.

The only solution, in the long run, is to halt the policies that allow ISIS to propagandize in the first place. One of those is the (correct) impression in the Middle East that the US is an imperialist power, and the idea that Islamists are the only people with enough guns and organization to challenge it. To intervene militarily would just be reinforcing that impression, driving more Iraqis into the arms of mass-murdering fundamentalist nutjobs.

By all means, send funding and arms to progressive forces challenging ISIS. Sponsor them covertly, build up their strength. I can't think of many better causes right now, and yeah ISIS badly need to be stopped. But seriously, to anyone arguing for intervention, have you forgotten the last 10 years? Breaking up iron-fisted Islamist rule in Afghanistan has only led to a more powerful Taliban and Al Qaeda, stopping a formerly-genocidal tinpot dictator in Iraq led to the creation of ISIS in the first place. What makes you think Iraq War #3 would be any different?
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 15 Aug 2014, 18:45
red rebel wrote:
The goal is not to defeat IS, which is a handy tool in destabilizing Syria, tying up Iran and weakening Palestine.


Why would America support the existence of ISIS in Syria? The US hates the sharia nutters even more than it hates Assad. The US supports the secular democratic rebels, not ISIS. Plus destabilisation is bad for business. I also don't see how ISIS is 'tying up' Iran. It seems that Iran is actually expanding its influence in the region. You might as well argue that ISIS is 'tying up' US imperialism. Finally, I don't see how ISIS really has much impact on Palestine.

red rebel wrote:
Western intervention is not good for the Iraqi people (or people in general).


Tell that to the Yazidis on Mt Sinjar. I suppose you support them being killed?

dagoth ur wrote:
US imperialism will only make this worse.


What about arming the Iraqi and Kurdish armies (as everyone here is proposing)?

dagoth ur wrote:
Yes. Our continued involvement is only hurting people more and imposing sharia of the worst sort even faster. You're saying essentially the since we started this fire with gasoline now we are obliged to drown it in even more gasoline.


You think arming the Kurds is worse for the Iraqi people than allowing ISIS to run riot?

dagoth ur wrote:
How dare those uppity bastards try to solve their own problems?! The audacity of these lesser-thans! Don't they know that the only salvation from the dark abyss of SHARIA is red white and blue bombs and predator drones? Once more the White Man's Burden rears its head among the child peoples of the Middle East. It's not easy being White.


They are trying to solve their problems. Their solution is to ask the US and Europe for assistance because they lack the equipment to defeat ISIS. No one is asking for troops on the ground and America doesn't seem anxious to put any there.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 15 Aug 2014, 20:20
gRed Britain wrote:
Why would America support the existence of ISIS in Syria? The US hates the sharia nutters even more than it hates Assad. The US supports the secular democratic rebels, not ISIS. Plus destabilisation is bad for business. I also don't see how ISIS is 'tying up' Iran. It seems that Iran is actually expanding its influence in the region. You might as well argue that ISIS is 'tying up' US imperialism. Finally, I don't see how ISIS really has much impact on Palestine.


What secular democratic rebels? Anything like that has evaporated about two years ago, and even then, it was basically just a shell for defected officers and such. I'm sure the USA "supports" all sorts of barely existing opposition groups, but it's entirely irrelevant. The IS has the best PR and the ability to feed on sectarian hatreds and carve out its own territory. Supplies and funds from the US may not be intended for the IS, but when members of other groups defect to the IS en masse (or even to Al-Nusra or whatever), because they are the most effective opponents of Assad, then what can the US do to prevent it? Nothing.

The objective of the US is still regime change in Syria, even if the new regime isn't necessarily their preferred group. Never mind countries like France, Britain, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states, who are even less discriminating. Remember Libya? They went through with regime change there, even though the proliferation of armed Islamist rebels in the region led to an Islamist insurgency in Mali. "One problem at a time."

Leftists who say that everything we've heard out of Kerry's mouth so far is wrong, and that "The US actually wants Assad to win", "It's actually in the interests of Israel if Assad wins", etc. are full of it in my opinion. As if the US can't walk and chew gum. Stop the IS in Iraqi Kurdistan, but let them behead whoever they want in Ar-Raqqah. In Iraq, US personnel are under threat, so the IS have to be stopped. First the decades-old political structure of Syria needs to be knocked down, and the decision of what to build up in its place can always be taken later. Just look at Iraq, where the US got rid of Saddam, whom they had helped install previously. Whatever comes in place of Assad can always be bombed or invaded later on, and probably with greater ease.
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 15 Aug 2014, 20:31
Quote:
What secular democratic rebels? Anything like that has evaporated about two years ago, and even then, it was basically just a shell for defected officers and such. I'm sure the USA "supports" all sorts of barely existing opposition groups, but it's entirely irrelevant. The IS has the best PR and the ability to feed on sectarian hatreds and carve out its own territory. Supplies and funds from the US may not be intended for the IS, but when members of other groups defect to the IS en masse (or even to Al-Nusra or whatever), because they are the most effective opponents of Assad, then what can the US do to prevent it? Nothing.


I know the secular rebels have pretty much gone, but that doesn't mean that the US wants ISIS to win in Syria. Some people have pointed out that Assad has deliberately not gone after ISIS in Syria because he wants people to see what would replace him if he were to step down.

Quote:
The objective of the US is still regime change in Syria, even if the new regime isn't necessarily their preferred group.


Bullshit. Why the hell would the US want a regime replaced with an even worse regime? Assad may be a brutal dictator but he's no fundamentalist maniac who wants to execute non-believers and take Syria back to the 7th century.

Quote:
Never mind countries like France, Britain, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states, who are even less discriminating. Remember Libya? They went through with regime change there, even though the proliferation of armed Islamist rebels in the region led to an Islamist insurgency in Mali. "One problem at a time."


I don't think it was NATO's intention that Libya end up as it is today. Anyway this is a different situation in Iraq. In Libya they helped overthrow a nasty but secular dictator who allowed the Libyan economy and society to develop. Once he was removed Libya was overrun by Islamist militias. In Iraq the Islamists are already taking power. If NATO don't arm the Iraqi government and the Kurds (i.e. the existing regimes), then Iraq is going to turn into another Libya.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 15 Aug 2014, 21:40
Well, what are you suggesting? That the US now wants to keep Assad in power? They're not bombing him, which is an improvement over Iraq and Libya, but it's hardly a ringing endorsement. Nobody is saying that there's a big stockpile of US supplies in crates labelled "IS, Ar-Raqqah, Syria", but it is clear that US proxies in the region have been less cautious and have been supporting all sorts of Islamists, who have been increasingly absorbed by the IS. Indirectly, the policy of supporting the uprising against Assad has helped Islamist groups.

The current situation in Libya may not have been NATO's intention, but the risk was always going to be there when they decided to act as the air force for a diverse rebel movement with a heavy Islamist undercurrent. The Libyan intervention can charitably be described as a mission with a strong "mission creep": on paper it was a no-fly zone to stop Gadhafi "killing his own people" and committing genocide in Benghazi (we will never know whether he would have actually done this), but in reality, the bombings went on until the very end to ensure a rebel victory, after which actual ethnic cleaning took place. A job well done.

Now admittedly, in the case of Syria, Obama is a bit more judicious. The UK, France, the Gulf states, the Saudis, and Turkey are more strongly opposed to Assad, and have less qualms about who they fund. Not to mention Egypt under Morsi, who actually supported a call for "holy war" against Syria. But the US is hardly innocent in the matter, as they want Assad gone by (almost) any means as well, and their clients in the region are a lot more up-front about how to accomplish this.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 16 Aug 2014, 00:33
Dagoth Ur wrote:
How dare those uppity bastards try to solve their own problems?! The audacity of these lesser-thans! Don't they know that the only salvation from the dark abyss of SHARIA is red white and blue bombs and predator drones? Once more the White Man's Burden rears its head among the child peoples of the Middle East. It's not easy being White.


The problem was not created by the muslins alone. This comes from a long history of european imperialism. They wont solve this great danger all by themselves. This deserves a longer treatment.

The problem at hand is the following :

1 - Countries aligned with USA in the area suffer from muslim ressentment from the perceived (and actual) imperialism of USA.
2 - Non-aligned countries usually gravitates towards a policy that is nationalistic, becouse of point 1.
3 - Non-aligned countries are a hindrance for international capital that needs to explore mineral wealth in those countries in order to reproduce.
4 - If you remove a nationalist ditactorship like Saddam Hussein from power, you create a power vacuum. Muslim countries, usually, have very underdeveloped civil societies. Basically, everything that is not state power is religious power.
5 - In the event the nationalistic secular power structure is removed from power, the only other binding element of society that can fill the power vacuum is a religious institution.
6 - One of the key policies of USA after the fall of URSS was to keep all non-aligned countries as weak as possible. Saddam Hussein was not exactly a pawn for USA. He wanted his own agenda to be followed. While not being a saint (actually he was more like a demon), his policies where secular. His power base came from the army, not the religious institutions. He was a nationalist. Baath has socialist origins. Its a kind of arabic socialism. Iraq before the sanctions was a lot more developed than many third world countries in the world. (Just like Iran is not the hell hollywood tries to make it look like).

So USA deals with a contradiction. If they keep the military - secular - nationalist governments in place, they are a hindrance for international capital exploitation. (For example, countries like Iraq, Lybia etc, were the political powe behind OPEP). But if they remove the nationalist governments from power, they risk seeing a religious group seize power instead. This is risky, because not all religious governments that can be formed are pro-USA minions like Saudi Arabia.

Why cant we leave muslims to solve their problems ? Because they did not started it. Everything started with British imperialism. Baath, Nasser etc. All those nationalistic movements in middle-east have their legitimizing origins in british imperialism. They are a reaction.

What can be done ? Help nationalist governments to stabilize the region. Work with them - based on sanctions - to dismantle nuclear weapons factories and other WMD factories. Refrain Israel's imperialism in the region. Remember that Israel is the only country in the region that actually posses WMD. Israel is the root cause for middle-east contries pretentions towards nuclear weapons. Work with international institutions that still have credibility with local population, like Red Crescent, ONU etc, for the reconstruction and cultural development of the area. You cannot solve middle-east without forcing their culture to face the very same transformations that our own culture had to endure. They are culturally still in the middle ages. The more the imperialism agression lasts, the more they retreat into medieval mentality.

If you want to solve middle east problems you dont need to look any further than europe itself. You should look at things like baroque art and mind set. Mercantilist developments (economic renaissance) in Europe lead to a cultural rennaissance. Later, renaissance lead to the pre-illuminist thinkers like newton, galileu and others. This lead to a sentiment of split during Baroque. People where divided between love for god and religion and the power that science gave to men. Behind that power was the riches of the great navigations and (later) the industrial revolution. This is the root cause of why Europe left the medieval culture towards the modern era culture.

In other words, if the muslims are not led to a cultural renaissence by the material development of their national burgeoise, if international capital cannot relate to those countries burgeoise class in a spirit of cooperation instead of replacement and pure exploitation, they wont evolve from the middle ages culture towards a more modern outlook. As soon as people are split between faith in their religion and material advancement, they usually choose material development. And soon culture follows by creating all sorts of justification for the change. Just like Europe overcame baroque as soon as capitalism was well stabilished. History usually solves itself, if you remove retrograde elements.

But USA cannot do that, because :

1 - Industrial-military complex needs wars to justify their existence and the level of spending. A country that spends in its military more than all other countries in the world combined, while having the largest budgetary deficit in the world, is hostage of the military-indutrial complex. Period.
2 - Israel influence in USA government is immense. Any move towards concession to muslim countries is a perceived danger for Israel.
3 - There are other reasons that i cannot think about now.
Last edited by AldoBrasil on 16 Aug 2014, 00:40, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 16 Aug 2014, 00:38
Dagoth is a Muslim (if a really weird Taoist-influenced one), she was being sarcastic.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 16 Aug 2014, 00:41
I know he was being ironic.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 50
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Feb 2014, 05:02
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 16 Aug 2014, 00:49
Dagoth Ur wrote:
Yeah but only if you completely ignore the politics of the situation, the history of the region for the past 20 years, and the fact that America can't just bomb this problem away.

I think I've made myself more than clear, the world has no time to assess the politics. IS must be stopped! The Kurds have tried, the Syrians have tried, but it's hard to fight American weaponry, with rusty AKMs. And when they're captured they get their heads chopped off. IS's movements have be quick, there is no time to for entensive thought.
While the state exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no state. - V. I. Lenin
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 16 Aug 2014, 00:54
I think Kurds are a good solution for the problem. But they need military help. But this will find resistence from Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. They would be a very good solution against IS. But they should not become a puppet for Israel and USA. And there lies another problem. How to achieve a trully independent Kurdistan ?
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 21 Aug 2014, 13:21
To illustrate my point about "secular democratic rebels" in Syria: http://www.ibtimes.com/james-foley-alle ... is-1664272

Basically, the "brigade" responsible for James Foley's beheading was with the "moderate" US-backed FSA in 2012, but switched sides to ISIS later. And yet, some journalists, like BBC reporter Kim Ghattas, are still peddling this theory that everything is one big conspiracy by Assad personally, who can apparently control everyone's minds and make them do things. Assad apparently "feels cornered" and "is handing over westerners to ISIS to be killed": https://twitter.com/BBCKimGhattas/statu ... 9198266369

I guess it is tempting to blame Assad when the government and media have all been barking up the wrong tree with this idea that Foley was in the hands of Assad. In case I miss a deadline this term, I think I'll just tell the teacher that Assad manipulated me into watching series and playing DOS games all day. That should get me an extension. Where I live at the moment, summer has ended early, and it's been raining all week. I'm starting to suspect Assad is behind that too.

What they're trying to conceal is that US proxies have been funding and arming all these moderate groups (and "not-so moderate, but at least not ISIS" Islamist and Al-Qaeda groups), but the situation in Syria is dynamic enough that any of them might defect to ISIS. But of course the left is full of people who think that they can discern actors' "real" intentions through all the smoke and mirrors: the US (and Israel) "really" support Assad, while Assad "actually" feeds ISIS, the group that, according to this theory, is being the most vigourously opposed by Assad's benefactors in the US. Also, Assad bombing ISIS positions in Raqqa is actually a ploy to crush a moderate opposition... which disclaims any connections with ISIS! I think this theory needs a bit more work.
Soviet cogitations: 724
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 23 Aug 2014, 17:40
The irony is that the same sort of people who accused anti-imperialists of adhering to simplistic "anti-Americanism" turned around and went "LOOK, GADDAFI WAS ON RELATIVELY GOOD TERMS WITH THE WEST FOR A WHILE! THIS PROVES HE IS REACTIONARY AND MUST DIE!" And they're now starting to do the same thing with Assad.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.