General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe strong argument against attacking ISIS is not the lives, it's the money.
In various places I've seen people opposing US air strikes on ISIS on the grounds that they may well result in civilian casualties.
That strikes me as a deeply misguided argument - a lot of innocent civilians are going to die either way, and it looks to me highly likely that more will die if the US does not get involved than if it does (although I'm far from an expert analyst; while the amateur "bombs will kill people argument" is clearly silly, a professional "the likely death toll will be higher if the US gets involved, for these reasons" might conceivably not be. But I'd bet the other way, and in any case, it's the former and not the latter that is common on DU).
Another line of argument boils down to presenting it as a choice between "peace" and "war". This one, I think, is even more clearly wholly specious. The choice is *not* between war and peace, it's between war with the US helping out the less-evil side, and war without the US helping out the less-evil side.
The strong, and probably overwhelming, argument against attacking ISIS, in my view, is not the lives, it's the money.
Yes, the US can probably reduce the number of innocent people who get killed in the short term by bombing ISIS, but because a) it's hard to see it resulting in a decent long-term outcome, and b) air strikes are very expensive, the number of dollars spent per life saved will be quite low compared to the number of lives that could probably be saved by spending that money on e.g. mosquito nets, or even possibly by spending it on fighting other terrorist groups elsewhere in regions where there's a greater chance of establishing a functioning state.
You can buy an awful lot of mosquito nets for the cost of a missile.
But the "You support killing innocent people! You support war!"-type arguments (I caricature, but only slightly) arguments that I see flung by opponents of air strikes at supporters of them has less than no merit, I think - *both* sides support courses of action that will result in horrible war and innocent people dying, and if you only factor in likely outcome in Iraq, rather than the potential benefit from that much effort deployed elsewhere, it's certainly not obvious that the US getting involved will not make the likely outcome better.
leftstreet
(36,109 posts)It's not the lives, it's the market shares. Exxon, Gazprom, Sinopac and their politician puppets all probably agree it's about saving money!
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)It's not about saving money, but making it and underwriting economies using a finite resource. Three dollar political jargon doesn't change the reality that blood has been shed over resources throughout history--over water, coal, land, oil, precious metals and ores, and perhaps once again over water. Getting the common man to find common cause and to work together should be the goal.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)leftstreet
(36,109 posts)It's not about squishy unicorn things like human lives, because hey people are going to die anyway...but about the best use of money and resources.
I'm sure these things are tactfully powerpointed in the boardrooms of the gas/oil industries
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Skidmore
(37,364 posts)as there is a resource which the First World needs to sustain its economies. Until people are willing to either live without doodads or to totally convert to other sources of energy, it will continue. Walking away ensures deaths of economies and people; staying ensures deaths of economies and people.
samsingh
(17,599 posts)they are stopped forceably?
All the innocent lives that are being killed by isis is staggering. The financial costs will continue to go up if nothing is done.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I think that ISIS will probably expand somewhat but not much more if the US does not intervene.
Yes, that will result in the deaths of a significant number of innocent people (but a significant number of innocent people will still die even if the US does intervene).
I do not think that the financial cost to the USA of not intervening would be large (although obviously the economic damage to the region will be colossal either way).
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)not us.
samsingh
(17,599 posts)and isis is a huge threat to us as al queda was. I think al queda was similarly ignored in afganistan because it was considered a local problem.
postulater
(5,075 posts)are chipping in for our air strikes.
It's their fucking neighborhood.
cali
(114,904 posts)and you totally ignore both recent history and the inevitable "unforeseeable circumstances"- for instance that a sustained bombing campaign will result in more hate for the U.S. and more recruits for ISIS and related groups and greater instabiiity.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)supporters. It is the reason they so publically executed our citizens and why they appoint us to be THE enemy. Especially they are using this with the young kids they are training as soldiers.
GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)The US getting involved may well make things better.