So, you've got a coalition.

[manticle]

Every one has the capabilities to go to war neglecting protocol and rules of engagement, as IS has shown we just need a leader strong enough to neglect those things and lead the alliance on an equal footing.

Why would a secular western liberal democracy want to behave anything like a a tyrannical, barborous, theocratic organisation like IS? Isn't there supposed to be something that elevates us above that?

 

[philmud]

A pragmatic consideration of being part of the "coalition" is the cost. Was being reported yesterday as $500 million per year of engagement. Personally, if we were only able to spend that on one
humanitarian crisis in an effort to protect Australian lives, I'd rather it was spent fighting Ebola. I suspect that's far more likely to kill significant numbers of Aussies than IS militants.

 

[elcarter]

Few beers with mates and we came to the conclusion conspiracy theory the US is behind the ebola.

Why fight when you can wait...

Don't worry about all the innocent people in between. Wonder how much the cure will be for those who can afford it?

 

[Eagleburger]

I heard some fruit say the cure for ebola was a zombie virus.

I am all for religious war, but not on my dime.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

Why would a secular western liberal democracy want to behave anything like a a tyrannical, barborous, theocratic organisation like IS? Isn't there supposed to be something that elevates us above that?

Because it is the only language they understand, and the only way they will be defeated, I would say by all the looting and raping that is going on a lot of them (IS) are only there for what they can get out of it, I can see that if faced with a formidable foe who is willing to put them all to the sword the ones who are there for what they can get out of it when faced with an equal fire power to what they have instead of a few Kurds who have assault rifles, they will turn tail and run, all bullies are cowards.

 

[pk.sax]

Reminds me of that villain from Batman, the shadows league guy.

 

[Black Devil Dog]

A pragmatic consideration of being part of the "coalition" is the cost. Was being reported yesterday as $500 million per year of engagement. Personally, if we were only able to spend that on one
humanitarian crisis in an effort to protect Australian lives, I'd rather it was spent fighting Ebola. I suspect that's far more likely to kill significant numbers of Aussies than IS militants.

Not very pragmatic at all.

There are people who are a just a bit inspired by those barbaric bastards and believe in their warped view of their religion.

Just because Australians might not be killed by them over there, doesn't mean some hate filled ISIS sympathiser doesn't try to unleash his/her evil here.

Another thing is, why would we only get involved to prevent Australian deaths, what about the innocent men, women, children, elderly who are fleeing or getting butchered en-masse. Would you seriously ignore them to fight Ebola?

Reality check.

 

[manticle]

Because it is the only language they understand, and the only way they will be defeated, I would say by all the looting and raping that is going on a lot of them (IS) are only there for what they can get out of it, I can see that if faced with a formidable foe who is willing to put them all to the sword the ones who are there for what they can get out of it when faced with an equal fire power to what they have instead of a few Kurds who have assault rifles, they will turn tail and run, all bullies are cowards.

So you win but put aside the principles that set you apart from the vanquished?

 

[philmud]

Not very pragmatic at all.

There are people who are a just a bit inspired by those barbaric bastards and believe in their warped view of their religion.

Just because Australians might not be killed by them over there, doesn't mean some hate filled ISIS sympathiser doesn't try to unleash his/her evil here.

Another thing is, why would we only get involved to prevent Australian deaths, what about the innocent men, women, children, elderly who are fleeing or getting butchered en-masse. Would you seriously ignore them to fight Ebola?

Reality check.

What about the people dying from Ebola in Africa. Would you ignore them to fight IS? My point is that our politicians tell us that we're going to war a) for humanitarian reasons, and b) to combat the threat of "home grown" terror attacks. Well I think that's a load of horse shit, otherwise we'd be assisting the people in West Africa because a) it has potential to be a far greater humanitarian crisis and b) because it's also a far more serious domestic threat too.
We're off to fight IS because it's politically prudent for the current Government that we do so. Don't get me wrong, I think we should be there, but if you think Abbott, or Shorten give a flying **** about brown people on the other side of the world it might be time to stop drinking kool aid.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

Exactly, principles and conscience are not deserving on those barbaric bastards, If you have a better solution I would love to hear it.

 

[manticle]

I'm not arguing against military intervention from our side WEAL- just at the suggestion we behave like those we call evil.

The whole point of principles is that they are applied in any and all situations. Otherwise they become redundant ideas.

 

[Airgead]

I say we nuke the site from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

I think PI that the governments are trying to deal with both, but in both cases they have been left to long before any action has been taken.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Don't start the rehydration argument again - all we need is another war.

At least they will sort the middle east out in the next few hundred years..

The yeast re-hydration argument will still be going when the sun consumes the earth then shrinks into a quasar

 

[wide eyed and legless]

Unfortunately manticle it is the only way they will be stopped, we cant ask them around a negotiating table and tell them to retreat from the towns and cities they have taken, they have plundered, raped, murdered publicly beheaded, and crucified anyone who does not agree with their beliefs, only last week a female human rights lawyer was tortured for 5 days before being publicly beheaded for denouncing them on Facebook.

 

[manticle]

I'm not suggesting we sit round and have a cup of tea - just also not in favour of us committing war crimes.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

There will be no other way, I was hoping for the Turks to go in and do it for us but they have shown that they are going to be hard to trust. I have tried to think how IS can be stopped and that is all I can think of, they don't deserve any better.

 

[Online Brewing Supplies]

Exactly, principles and conscience are not deserving on those barbaric bastards, If you have a better solution I would love to hear it.

Spray their payer mats with Ebola, fixed .
Use one problem to fix another.

 

[manticle]

You do know what constitutes war crime don't you WEAL? If you know what the definition is and still hold to that argument, then we are fundamentally opposed and I'm not sure I can add much else. If you don't, look it up. Not acceptable and not the way to win war (great way to make the populace hate you though). Fight terror with terror?

Um.....yeah.

 

[Black Devil Dog]

What about the people dying from Ebola in Africa. Would you ignore them to fight IS? No, I never said we should. My point is that our politicians tell us that we're going to war a) for humanitarian reasons, and B) to combat the threat of "home grown" terror attacks. Well I think that's a load of horse shit, otherwise we'd be assisting the people in West Africa because a) it has potential to be a far greater humanitarian crisis There's no "potential" humanitarian crisis in the Middle East, it's full blown humanitarian crisisand B) because it's also a far more serious domestic threat too. Really?
We're off to fight IS because it's politically prudent for the current Government that we do so. Yeah coz conservative governments only fight wars for domestic political purposes, not to help people being butchered. Don't get me wrong, I think we should be there, but if you think Abbott, or Shorten give a flying **** about brown people on the other side of the world it might be time to stop drinking kool aid. So, because I think our government should help people who are fleeing or being slaughtered, that makes me a kool aid drinker.

Pass the kool aid.