"My point, Bo, since you lack reading ability, is that your comment about this being the most multi-laterally supported campaign in the Middle East in recent memory only showed your ignorance of history."

Thanks for clearing that up. My point, dipplayer2004, since apparently everyone on this site lacks reading ability, is that I understand what your point is but since you completely refuse to back it up with any form of evidence at all, you're presenting nothing more than your opinion (which I couldn't care less about) as opposed to facts and arguments.

But I have a paper to write, which would probably be handed back to me with a giant F on it if I simply quoted passages from the readings and didn't provide any context or explanation as to what they mean in terms of my argument.

I linked to my evidence above. But copying and pasting that link might be too much for you.

God, I should have just stayed away from the serious forum topics. I went away for 8 months because I was sick of the drama. I think I'll go back to that.

You ignore the entire basis of my argument again and then you bitch about how I'm turning you away from this forum. Go then. If serious topics aren't for you, go. They're really not for me either but you're bugging me just enough.

I don't care if the number is 30 or 5. You are the only one who is basing the significance of this action on the number of nations involved. I'm not. The fact that Arab nations, friendly or not, are actually taking up arms against a group which plenty of imbecilic westerners have long assumed the Arabs considered one of their own is far more significant than a bunch of white guys in suits flying first class to New York City decided to bomb a country they had very little knowledge of prior to the engagement with them.

If u want to make the point that having more Arab nations involved is good, fine. But that. Is. Not. What. You. Said.

dipplayer2004: Maybe you should stay away. You left the key phrase out of your quote: "There are apparently five Arab nations joining in the strikes, . . .". Hellenic Riot's reply and bo_sox48's next quote both made clear what the statement was about. But who cares about the real conversation in the thread. Obviously all that matters is making Bush look good. After all, UNSC Resolution 1483 of 22 May 2003 clearly legalized the invasion of 20 March 2003. And the figures clearly show that the occupation of Iraq was the fruit of a (95% Anglo-Saxon) international coalition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Number_of_foreign_troops_in_Irak_in_2006.png
Who cares if Kofi Annan considered the invasion both illegal and without broad international backing:

Q: Done without UN approval - or without clearer UN approval?

A: Without UN approval and much broader support from the international community.

Q: I wanted to ask you that - do you think that the resolution that was passed on Iraq before the war did actually give legal authority to do what was done?

A: Well, I'm one of those who believe that there should have been a second resolution because the Security Council indicated that if Iraq did not comply there will be consequences. But then it was up to the Security Council to approve or determine what those consequences should be.

Q: So you don't think there was legal authority for the war?

A: I have stated clearly that it was not in conformity with the Security Council - with the UN Charter.

Q: It was illegal?

A: Yes, if you wish.

Q: It was illegal?

A: Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal.

– http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661640.stm

^

Anyone who thinks the US had UN approval for Iraq 2003 is clearly living in an alternate reality. There was overwhelming opposition to the idea on the UN Security Council, which is why Bush withdrew the final resolution proposed that would approve the invasion. Bush didn't call it a "coalition of the willing" for nothing. Remember Freedom Fries? France is a permanent security council member.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing

Right or wrong, Iraq 2003 was not a UN operation, and no-one involved on either side claims otherwise.

This debate will last forever because the Left will never give up their lazy, dishonest "Bush Lied!" version of history.

This debate will last forever because the right will never present any evidence or argument at all, they'll just bitch all day.

This debate will last forever because the world doesn't have enough bacon.

Think about it, when was the last time there was a war between two countries that both ate bacon?

Israel - Gaza - NO BACON.
Syria/IS - No Bacon
Iraq/IS - No Bacon
Iraq/USA - No Bacon in Iraq
Afghanistan/USA - No Bacon in Afghanistan
Kosovo - No Bacon
Bosnia - No Bacon

Bacon is the true source (with ketchup as a good sauce) of world peace.

dipplayer2004: lol, I never even claimed Bush lied. Even Bush wouldn't agree with you that Iraq 2003 was a UN operation.

He's far too closed-minded to care what you actually said. All he cares about is what he thinks you said.

dipplayer2004: Do you know who Kofi Annan is?

"Think about it, when was the last time there was a war between two countries that both ate bacon?"

Well, you know, WWII, France and England and the USA and USSR vs. Italy and Japan and Germa--

*GASP*

...Oh my God...Hitler WAS a vegetarian...

BY GEORGE, I THINK THE MAN'S ONTO SOMETHING!

OPERATION BACON AIRDROP, LET'S GO!

Does anyone find Obama's decision to hit the Khorosan group on the same day he hit ISIS interesting. Given the infighting between the Al Qaeda and ISIS, and the known effect that air strikes and US involvement has on bolstering groups it attacks, could this be an attempt by the US to keep recruiting on both sides of the baddies equal and therefor maintain a sort of balance of power?

Crackpot theory, but interesting to think about.

So when the US fought both Japan and Germany in WWII, it was trying to keep them "balanced"?

were Germany and Japan fighting one another

analogy fail...

Ha, you got me.

But no, I don't think this is like Iran and Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. For one thing, it's far easier to seriously degrade both groups' fighting ability; these aren't nations, they're militias. Also, there are powers the US prefers to fill the vacuum should both be successfully dealt with (moderate rebels, Kurds).

Since when has it been easier to degrade the fighting ability of a non-conventional force than a conventional force?

because I thought Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc all proved the exact opposite point.

Those are all nations, you're proving my point. This is not about conventional vs non-conventional.

ISIS: 15,000 to 30,000 militia
Iraq: Nation of 30,000,000
Iran: Nation of 70,000,000

Why so argumentative anyways? Are you saying you really believe the "Crackpot theory"?

zurn - Santa's point is that the Taliban, Viet Cong, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, etc all operated (for the most part) on unconventional war....or war in terrain so unforgiving that conventional warfare was impossible.

Where Santa fails in his comparison is that ISIS is operating many conventional weapons that it seized from Iraqi army depots, whereas all the others on the list never deployed them. Therefore, conventional warfare may be able to degrade ISIS, to a degree.

zurn1: 'Militias', as you call them, are much harder to take out than states. Think about the Viet Cong or the Taliban, not South Vietnam or Afghanistan.

SantaClausowitz: You think the people ordering the strikes actually admit to themselves that they're fostering 'terrorism'? You can turn anything into a conspiracy theory, but never underestimate the power monumental stupidity and warped views of the world.

". . . whereas all the others on the list never deployed them. Therefore, conventional warfare may be able to degrade ISIS, to a degree."

The Taliban and Viet Cong also had conventional weapons.

The Viet Cong were supported by North Vietnam, a nation, and many South Vietnamese; the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. ISIS is a terrorist organization turned militia, with no national base (...yet?). Sure, stamping them out entirely is very hard, but degrading their capability? Not nearly as hard as fighting one backed by an entire country.

This is besides the point anyways. The US wants both AQ and ISIS crushed. It is not beyond their capability to deal a serious blow to both, simultaneously. They don't need to play "balance of power" games with these two; that's a game you play with the other, more impressive players in the region.

Can't believe I wasted this much time debating a conspiracy theory... yeesh

No militia or terrorist organization is backed by an entire country. It is clear that the IS has support in certain sectors.

Al Qaeda, by the way hasn't been an organization for years.

IS is not supported by any country, JECE. They're entirely self-sufficient from oil revenues. Literally every country is out to kill them (except Turkey who values the lives of their hostages and hates the Kurds too much).

Also, I was referring to the Taliban that the US fought from 2003-present. The "real" war in Afghanistan. As far as I recall, they didn't have artillery, armored vehicles, aircraft, or any other conventional weapons. As for the Viet Cong, I believe you may be confusing them with the North Vietnamese Army - a conventional force with artillery, planes (which were very successful), anti-aircraft guns, tanks, etc. The Viet Cong didn't have that, and even if I did, I qualified my statement by saying "in terrain so unforgiving where conventional warfare was impossible"