Islamic State

[pErvinalia]

Um, there won't be any infrastructure building for a long time if you irradiate the place.

[laklak]

It will be the new chain gang. Alabama and Mississippi will ship convicts over to work the oil fields, if they survive a year they're free.

[Warren Dew]

Here in New Zealand, the decision has just been made to send a contingent of our rather limited armed forces to Iraq to assist in the fight against IS. My question to everyone is this. Is it justified to go to war against this entity?

Even though I am more pacifist than hawk, I am inclined to feel that, in this case, war is justified.

My father fought in WWII. In fact, he was among the first NZ volunteers, and spent four years on the battle field. He felt very strongly that opposing the evil of Hitler was the right thing to do. I cannot disagree with him.

Today, we face a group and a leader who is just as evil as Hitler. Sadly, like Hitler, in the early stages of his reign, he is also very successful, and his domain is growing.

Americans have the slogan about freedom and the blood of martyrs. This is not quite the same thing, but I see no way of stopping Islamic State from committing a whole lot more terrible deeds without opposing them militarily. Not that the military is the only possible action. There are many other things to be done, but soldiers and the air force will in the end be what makes the difference.

Do you agree?

Sending people to die in an unwinnable war is hardly ever justified.

Also, Iran is a bigger threat than the Islamic State. They've both sworn to destroy us, but Iran is close to having nuclear weapons.

[Blind groper]

To Warren

The difference between Iran and IS is that Iran is mostly rational. They are open to negotiation, wich makes war with them unjustifiable. However, Islamic State is not rational, and is not open to negotiation.

[Seth]

To Warren

The difference between Iran and IS is that Iran is mostly rational. They are open to negotiation, wich makes war with them unjustifiable. However, Islamic State is not rational, and is not open to negotiation.

Iran is not "mostly rational" at all. It's run by radical Islamist mullahs who are simply cannier than the IS goons. Iran doesn't "negotiate" because negotiation requires adherence to agreements, which is something Iran has never done. It says it will, and then it goes right ahead and does what it was doing before because they know Obama won't bomb the shit out of their capital.

Remember, Muslims are explicitly permitted to lie to infidels in furtherance of Islamic control of the world.

[mistermack]

I wonder how long it will be before someone sets up a ''libertarian state''.

We've had a ''jewish state'' and ''communist state'', and even a vatican state, and now an ''islamic state''.
Surely it's only a matter of time before we get a lib state. Being as it's the only way to freedom, you'd think they'd have done it already.

[JimC]

I wonder how long it will be before someone sets up a ''libertarian state''.

We've had a ''jewish state'' and ''communist state'', and even a vatican state, and now an ''islamic state''.
Surely it's only a matter of time before we get a lib state. Being as it's the only way to freedom, you'd think they'd have done it already.

And then someone will apply the Waco solution...

[Seth]

I wonder how long it will be before someone sets up a ''libertarian state''.

We did that in 1776.

Surely it's only a matter of time before we get a lib state. Being as it's the only way to freedom, you'd think they'd have done it already.

"They" did.

[Tyrannical]

The best way to deal with ISIS is not to send Western "Crusaders" to fight them, but to draft and mobilize the Muslim populations living in Western countries to fight instead.

[mistermack]

I wonder how long it will be before someone sets up a ''libertarian state''.

We did that in 1776.

Surely it's only a matter of time before we get a lib state. Being as it's the only way to freedom, you'd think they'd have done it already.

"They" did.

Built on the back of black slaves and murdered injuns and phenomenal immigration rates.

Aaaaaaaaah, the good old days.

[Hermit]

Yes, four million slaves probably did not regard the US of A as particularly libertarian. Nor did women who were not given the vote until 1920 - almost a century and a half later. "Socialist" New Zealand gave women the right to vote in 1893.

[pErvinalia]

Women are Marxists!

[Seth]

I wonder how long it will be before someone sets up a ''libertarian state''.

We did that in 1776.

Surely it's only a matter of time before we get a lib state. Being as it's the only way to freedom, you'd think they'd have done it already.

"They" did.

Built on the back of black slaves and murdered injuns and phenomenal immigration rates.

Aaaaaaaaah, the good old days.

Wayback Machine fallacy and circumstantial ad hominem. You know nothing of American history.

[Blind groper]

Not a fallacy Seth.

You were the one to mention 1776 and suggest it as some kind of political utopia. Others replied to that, and pointed out, correctly, that it was no utopia. Just as evil and oppressive as any time since.

[Seth]

Not a fallacy Seth.

You were the one to mention 1776 and suggest it as some kind of political utopia. Others replied to that, and pointed out, correctly, that it was no utopia. Just as evil and oppressive as any time since.

I didn't say it was a utopia, I said it was Libertarian in character, which it was, and should still be today, which is far better than it being a Marxist "socialist utopia."