I think nearly everyone can agree ISIS is an unmitigated evil. My greatest concern is for the people living in territory ISIS controls, for people living in terror, for those killed and their surviving family members.
ISIS is the direct result of war crimes committed by the United States, in a war of choice based on lies. Human beings are suffering the unintended (or perhaps intended?) consequences of the violence we elected to inflict. We are responsible for this, but I have almost no confidence that any action we are likely to take will have any effect other than perpetuating the cycle of violence.
We are responsible for this. Is doing nothing the most responsible thing we can do?
In a better world, if such atrocities can occur in a better world, there would be a genuine United Nations with the capability, the will, and the mandate to intervene to take decisive action in humanitarian disasters. Although fundamentally different on many levels, I cite the example of the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. Does the world have a moral imperative to take action to stop such an atrocity, and can any action lacking military force be effective in that kind of situation?
I'm talking about one million, two million soldiers representing the overwhelming will of the united nations of Earth with all the necessary resources to defeat the forces of terror, supply all the humanitarian aid that is needed, and work with the people who live there to establish a stable government and an economy that will benefit the indigenous population rather than multinational corporations seeking to take rather than provide.
Sadly and most unfortunately, the better world I described with truly united nations acting together to advance a better future for our common humanity does not exist.
No easy answers, and the atrocities go on. When the most likely effect of any military action is to perpetuate the cycle of violence, the more responsible course is to cease engaging in violence.
= new reply since forum marked as read