How rah, rah YAY War! will US Media Outlets be?

[Jaxom 1974]

Jaxom,

Maybe. What wider affects will a generalized war between ISIS and existing States in the Middle East have?

That is the $64,000 question isn't it?

[Jon Sprunk]

Jon,

Okay, I'm curious how do you stop ISIS without using force? Remember they're killing everyone who will not acquiese to their rule.

ISIS relies on funding and recruits. When they dry up, what happens?

Look, we know we can't change the hearts and minds of people against their will. And, short of permanent occupation, our military cannot ensure good behavior. So what is the alternative? How about picking our battles more wisely?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Jon,

ISIS is selling oil. They seem to be well funded. How do you propose to dry up those funds?

[Jon Sprunk]

I pay taxes so people smarter and more informed than me can figure that out. We seemed to have figured out how to hurt others financially when we want to (AQ, Russia, pre-war Iraq, Iran), so I doubt it's impossible.

In the meantime, the people living in that region are the ones who are going to solve this problem, or not. Whatever the US decides to do, we've already proven again and again that we are powerless to stop this kind of activity once we pull out troops, and not many of us are eager for eternal war.

[Shryke]

They're ever so slightly less mutually antagonistic to one another than a few years back, and they have grudging acknowledgements of areas of common interest (like hating Al-Qaeda and ISIS), but the nuclear issue is still between them and Israel and the Saudis are probably ringing up every other week to scream about how Iran is evil incarnate and should never be trusted. At best, Iran is temporarily suspending its hatred of the USA if the US will go bomb ISIS so Iran doesn't have to intervene itself.

Iran is not temporarily suspending it's hatred of the US. There's like 3 or 4 different things wrong with that characterization.

Iran is not really interested in antagonizing the US. Bush is the one that started the latest round of hostilities and Obama has been trying to smooth it over recently. The sanctions and leadership changes have brought them to the table and negotiations on the nuclear issue are reported to be going well. And part of this recent cooperation has been military cooperation against ISIS.

The Saudis and Israel are, of course, unhappy that the US is not stupidly and needlessly antagonizing Iran, but that hasn't stopped major diplomatic gains from occurring.

This is far more then "ever so slightly less mutually antagonistic".

[Shryke]

ISIS relies on funding and recruits. When they dry up, what happens?

Look, we know we can't change the hearts and minds of people against their will. And, short of permanent occupation, our military cannot ensure good behavior. So what is the alternative? How about picking our battles more wisely?

That's what's going on here. That's why it's a bombing campaign and not an invasion.

I pay taxes so people smarter and more informed than me can figure that out. We seemed to have figured out how to hurt others financially when we want to (AQ, Russia, pre-war Iraq, Iran), so I doubt it's impossible.

Except none of those have actually worked except for Iraq and Iran because those were actually countries and thus easier to cut off.

Plus, you know, the dirty secret that US allies in Saudi Arabia and the like are the major bankrollers of most of these groups. Smarter and more informed people generally seem to think little can be done because of issues like that.

[A Man Reads]

Well each outlet will cater to its audience. I suspect that:

-CNN will be deliberate and official sounding. Its usual moderate left of centre stance.

-Fox News will dwell on President Obama's actions so far and criticise his handling of everything.

-MSNBC will largely be against it. They will likely focus on the potential dangers.

-The networks will largely try to maintain an image of neutrality. Similar to CNN's stance. But I expect them to largely support President Obama for the short term.

Watching the Republicans should be interesting. The GOP heavily backed the surge in Afghanistan early in Obama's presidency. But five years into his presidency, and there is far less desire for interventionism among congressional Republicans. That's the front to watch.

Democrats will back airstrikes and similar actions. Only ground troops could seriously jeopardize Democratic support for President Obama's actions. While the professional protest left will be against it, they won't swing opinion in the party.

[DreamSongs]

Here we go...

[DreamSongs]

I give it a 6/10. His teleprompter use was less obvious than usual.

[Tears of Lys]

I guess Obama had to get on the air and say what most of us knew anyway - that is that he didn't really need Congressional approval for the bombing. And I say that because there are still some out there who need things explained to them.

Hell, even the main Republican leadership agrees with him. When THAT happens, it's either a cold day in hell or you're possibly on the right track.

ALTHOUGH! although... sometimes I wish we weren't so predictable. ISIS, or ISIL, or ISI or whatever the fuck they are, know that all they need to do to get the US's knickers in a twist is to release a video showing some innocent getting his head sawed off. So what do they do? They saw some guys' heads off. We respond, predictably, by bombing. However, if they think Obama's like Bush and plans on sending a major force over, they're wrong.

[DanteGabriel]

Jesus Creeping Shit, there are still people out there who harp on the use of a fucking teleprompter? Don't you have fresher Fox Outrage Suppositories to shove up your assholes?

[Tears of Lys]

Jesus Creeping Shit, there are still people out there who harp on the use of a fucking teleprompter? Don't you have fresher Fox Outrage Suppositories to shove up your assholes?

Don't pay any attention. :)

[The Fallen]

What happens if we ignore ISIS?

Iran becomes more of a major player in the Middle East than it already is. Especially in Iraq.

Iran is already assisting al Assad in fighting ISIS and the other rebel groups. If the U.S. stays out of it and ISIS starts targeting the Shiite region of Iraq then Iran will get involved. I've read that the Shiite militias in Iraq are beholden to Iran, as well as Shiite Iraqi politicians. So basically, the Shiite areas of Iraq become a puppet state of Iran.

[Shryke]

I guess Obama had to get on the air and say what most of us knew anyway - that is that he didn't really need Congressional approval for the bombing. And I say that because there are still some out there who need things explained to them.

Hell, even the main Republican leadership agrees with him. When THAT happens, it's either a cold day in hell or you're possibly on the right track.

ALTHOUGH! although... sometimes I wish we weren't so predictable. ISIS, or ISIL, or ISI or whatever the fuck they are, know that all they need to do to get the US's knickers in a twist is to release a video showing some innocent getting his head sawed off. So what do they do? They saw some guys' heads off. We respond, predictably, by bombing. However, if they think Obama's like Bush and plans on sending a major force over, they're wrong.

Jesus Christ people, the US was bombing ISIS before the Foley execution video.

[Howdyphillip]

Syria makes 28 out of 196 countries the US has bombed since WWII.

That is only about 1/8th of the world

[TrueMetis]

Syria makes 28 out of 196 countries the US has bombed since WWII.

That is only about 1/8th of the world

A U.N. survey revealed that 103 out of 196 indicated that they would prefer this to a British flag.

The US are a bunch of fucking slackers, come on guys get the lead out.

[Tears of Lys]

Jesus Christ people, the US was bombing ISIS before the Foley execution video.

Yeah, you're right. I was referring to the stepped up bombing, etc.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Should the use of military force be taken off the table if there is no direct threat of comperable military action against the territory of the US directly? Or should we make it US policy to not use our military against a party, organization, or State that has not attacked the US directly?

I'm curious to see what people think.

On second thought a new thread will prevent derail:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/117246-the-use-of-force-by-the-us-military-or-any-military-where-is-it-appropriate/?p=6237993

[Free Northman Reborn]

I think we don't have to go so far as trying to apply a once size fits all rulebook to the decision making process.

I think the case can quite strongly be made that Islamic extremism is a threat that deserves a different, more forceful approach than other strategic issues, seeing as it is such a universal problem. It is a threat in Russia, China, India, the Middle East, Europe, Africa and the United States, if I compile a quick, non-exhaustive list.

It is something that requires action that some other cult-like fanatical movement might not require in isolation, in a similar situation.

The attempts by many to try and equate it to other, less pervasive or widespread threats in isolated pockets around the world are misguided.

If a non-Islamic group rises up in Nigeria and starts abducting school girls it is not as serious an issue as when Boko Haram does so. Because Islamic extremism is gaining momentum all around the world. These are not isolated threats. They are part of an overarching ideology that has a footprint in almost every corner of the world.

That is why the response needs to be developed in recognition of the wider strategic threat that Isis forms a part of.

[whatsinthepaste?]

Talking about ISIS without the sectarian context it operates in is foolish. Fighting ISIS puts us on the same side as Iran and Syria's Assad. Tread cautiously, or the weapons we provide to fighters on the ground will in future be pointed right back at us, as has happened so many times in the past.

So much this.

Tfw US sold guns etc. To Osama and Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets.

No way they'll use those guns against us. Impossibru