NYTimes ISIS Editorial

I did answer your question. Besides increased military involvement, what alternative would there be?

Would you want to be the one to tell families they were sending their loved ones into war to save a bunch of ancient statues that the country who owns it isn't willing to fight for?

 

THAT, dammit!

 

Yes, the idea of stopping ISIS is all about saving statues.

 

Baron, that's essentially my question for the Times.

Are they advocating for more additional military action?

If the current actions aren't working, and the Times says ISIS must be stopped, you would think they would. But then they don't. So, how do they expect their stated goals to be achieved?

It doesn't make sense.

 

By having increased military action, by other countries this time.

 

An editorial that doesn't have a solution, but merely asserts a vague goal. Well, shit. Stop the presses. Never read one of those before.

 

As you read it, is that what the Times is calling for?

 

The goal isn't vague, and they argue the importance of the goal.

It's like they want to call for more military action, but are unable to.

 

YF, I think the word you are looking for is "chickenshit".

 

They are calling for the governments not to quit in the fight. They're not calling on the US to increase military action since increased military action by our mere presence is what fucked up the region in the first place..

in other words, they want us to do what we've been currently doing, but they don't want us increasing our role. ISIS can be beaten, as the editorial says, but people have to want it bad enough. Right now, Iraq and Syria don't seem to want it bad enough.

 

Yes, the region was perfectly stable with no violence whatsoever until the U.S. arrived.