Harvard students are asked "What is more dangerous to world peace? America or ISIS?"



Beware where you send your kids... This is the kind of indoctrination our kids are getting from higher education. :facepalm:

Scary to think that these will one day be our country's future would-be "leaders".

It's easy to be idealistic when you've never even paid your own cell phone bill.

Their observations seem to be very valid to me.  Though, the question probably should have been: "Who has more ability to project their power around the globe?" and one might think: "The world's only superpower or a bunch of terrorists with ak74s and some IEDs?"  Those students were looking at it comparatively. 

Hmm, interesting..

Compare a U.S. with the ability to project power around the globe vs an ISIS with the same capabilities.

Compare a U.S. with nuclear weapons vs an ISIS with the same access.

Which of the two way of life and government structure is a bigger threat to world peace?

We created the iPhone, internet, reality TV shows, rap music, apple pie...

Hmm, interesting..

Compare a U.S. with the ability to project power around the globe vs an ISIS with the same capabilities.

That's purely hypothetical and it is interesting.

But on a practical note in their current state:

As a more liberal member of this forum, I agree with a lot of what they say.

The US created ISIS.

We destabilized Iraq for no particular ( or at least divulged  ) reason.
Then the moderate Syrian rebels rose up to topple their dictator thinking we would support them and we never showed to the party.
(Because Russia said we weren't allowed to crash it ) 

What did we think would happen when we destabilized the region ?

But on another note, I support our troops and the men and women on the ground and in the air and at sea who are ordered there 100%

It's just whoever decides our foreign policy are idiots. ( that goes back through both republican and democratic presidencies )
Or there are clandestine forces at work we're not aware of. ( yeah I wear a tinfoil hat )

Before Obama took office, I would have thought these students were mind-numbed robots of the Leftist University system.

It's obvious Obama carefully and deliberately aids our enemies and the enemies of long-time allies, while failing to aid Americans and American allies when we should.

I would alter the question slightly:

"Who is more dangerous to world peace? President Obama or ISIS?"

Now the students' answers make more sense!

I wonder if the Nobel Peace Prize Committee is going to ask for their prize (and cash) back?

Hi aieahound and lunakai.  I appreciate a good discussion... thanks for the interesting posts.

I am not privy to clandestine operations and intelligence so my opinions are likely as misinformed as anyone else's.

The Obama administration appeared to have clandestinely supplied weapons to the Syrian rebels (ala Fast and the Furious with the Mexican drug cartels).  I have no idea what they were trying to do there but to destabilize the area or oppose the current regime.  From the outside though, it looks like the Obama administration has greatly bungled (O'bungholed) its middle east foreign policies and have gotten a mess of the area. 

Regarding the claim that the US created ISIS, was the rise of ISIS really a brainchild of the US or just a natural conclusion of the general chaos in the area?  As far as I know, the muslims have been fighting each other and the non-muslims for centuries. 

Regarding the claim that the US created ISIS, was the rise of ISIS really a brainchild of the US or just a natural conclusion of the general chaos in the area?  As far as I know, the muslims have been fighting each other and the non-muslims for centuries. 

Good point Jl.

I stand corrected.

The US didn't create ISIS. We created the perfect petri dish for them to develop in.
A natural conclusion of the general chaos.

Mauidog, I would refrain from applying your political ideology when attempting to describe our foreign policy. Liberals and conservatives both agree that killing terrorists and stopping ISIS and their followers is an important goal. In terms of pure strategy, we have run more successful ops under the Obama administration than any other administration. This is not praise for the administration, I'm just stating the facts that we can gather from open sources.  Our strategy is extremely aggressive and has exponentially become more active dating back to the Clinton administration. In terms of killing terrorists, we are really good at that and our Spec Ops professionals are the ultimate badasses; they do their job no matter what administration is in power, or what our personal opinions of the current administration happens to be from day to day. Those gentlemen deserve praise for fighting on America's behalf without recognition or reward.

Mauidog, I would refrain from applying your political ideology when attempting to describe our foreign policy. Liberals and conservatives both agree that killing terrorists and stopping ISIS and their followers is an important goal. In terms of pure strategy, we have run more successful ops under the Obama administration than any other administration. This is not praise for the administration, I'm just stating the facts that we can gather from open sources.  Our strategy is extremely aggressive and has exponentially become more active dating back to the Clinton administration. In terms of killing terrorists, we are really good at that and our Spec Ops professionals are the ultimate badasses; they do their job no matter what administration is in power, or what our personal opinions of the current administration happens to be from day to day. Those gentlemen deserve praise for fighting on America's behalf without recognition or reward.

I'm not sure where you pulled that comment out of, but it certainly doesn't accurately characterize my words.

We support Hamas with millions in aid while admonishing Israel for defending themselves.

We helped get rid of Hosni Mubarak and supported the Muslim Brotherhood's rise to power in Egypt.

We outsourced the consulate's security to the Muslim Brotherhood while Al Queada was active in Benghazi, resulting in the deaths of 4 Americans, including the Ambassador there.
(Then the facts were covered up for political gain, blaming the attacks on a video)
(Then we paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce and broadcast an apology video in Pakistan denouncing the video we blamed)

We were on the brink of invading the Ukraine when we thought the rebels there were using chemical agents until Putin diffused the situation.

We released 5 top terrorist leaders for a soldier with questionable loyalties.

We left the border with Mexico open for hundreds of thousands of illegals to flood into the US.

We pulled our troops out of Iraq creating a void for the terrorists to fill.

We created a timetable for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, basically telling the Taliban the date upon which they can declare victory if they just keep their heads down until then,

And nothing we have done has deterred Iran's quest of a nuclear arsenal.

My politics are not an issue.  This administration is the issue.  Regardless of the successes and sacrifices we have made (yes, I said "WE") fighting terrorism, it matters not when there are tactical wins and strategic losses.

It's like putting in 2 years of labor and $250K renovating your house only to have it burned to the ground.  Doesn't exactly make that effort seem worth it all, does it?

Thank you for the clarification mauidog.  You make some valid points. I would urge forum members reading this topic to research mauidog's claims and decide for themselves.  This is a good topic not just for Harvard students but us Hawaiians as well as many of us are on the front lines of our foreign policy strategy.

This is what happens when a career politician gets to the Presidency. Lack of leadership and the whole world sees it and takes advantage of it. Are we still a "World Power"? Only because generations before us built our country to what it is - we are just on the glide path now...down.

This question is both simple and complex.

ISIS is a direct threat to the peace it its region, of course. And it is an important region to the world ~economy~ so that carries a lot more weight than, say, militants in Somalia. On that scale the US has far more effect on world peace than ISIS does.

Part of that effect is positive. But make zero mistake about it: we created the conditions that cause the terrorists to dislike us and our policies enough to become terrorists. We rain FAR more terror down on others than is rained down on us. We just do it to brown people far away so it doesn't feel like it to us. And our opinion is really the only one that matters, right?

Our dogged pursuit of military solutions to ~economic~ issues is largely what has fueled the enormous upsurge in fundamentalist hatred towards us Another large part comes from our dogged pursuit of US (or multinational corporate) economic gain at the expense of local sovereignty, culture and resources. For defenders of "freedom" we certainly do tend to demand that people in areas important to us follow OUR model of freedom. Which isn't really self determination from their perspective, is it? Can you really blame them for getting mad about that? Especially when out own country is "enjoying" an upsurge in religious fundamentalism. We seem to think it is both our right and our responsibility to tell others what the right thing to do is. And we're occasionally willing to enforce our "advice" with CIA pot stirring and drone strikes. Again, from their perspective.

So the US has had a MUCH larger negative effect on world peace than John and Sally Public are generally aware of. Its just that most of it happens to brown people far away so it doesn't count. But ISIS hurts our pride because it makes it too clear that Mission: Not Accomplished. And nothing rattles world peace quite like an America with a wounded pride. So, yeah, its all ISIS's fault after all isn't it.

This question is both simple and complex.

ISIS is a direct threat to the peace it its region, of course. And it is an important region to the world ~economy~ so that carries a lot more weight than, say, militants in Somalia. On that scale the US has far more effect on world peace than ISIS does.

Part of that effect is positive. But make zero mistake about it: we created the conditions that cause the terrorists to dislike us and our policies enough to become terrorists. We rain FAR more terror down on others than is rained down on us. We just do it to brown people far away so it doesn't feel like it to us. And our opinion is really the only one that matters, right?

Our dogged pursuit of military solutions to ~economic~ issues is largely what has fueled the enormous upsurge in fundamentalist hatred towards us Another large part comes from our dogged pursuit of US (or multinational corporate) economic gain at the expense of local sovereignty, culture and resources. For defenders of "freedom" we certainly do tend to demand that people in areas important to us follow OUR model of freedom. Which isn't really self determination from their perspective, is it? Can you really blame them for getting mad about that? Especially when out own country is "enjoying" an upsurge in religious fundamentalism. We seem to think it is both our right and our responsibility to tell others what the right thing to do is. And we're occasionally willing to enforce our "advice" with CIA pot stirring and drone strikes. Again, from their perspective.

So the US has had a MUCH larger negative effect on world peace than John and Sally Public are generally aware of. Its just that most of it happens to brown people far away so it doesn't count. But ISIS hurts our pride because it makes it too clear that Mission: Not Accomplished. And nothing rattles world peace quite like an America with a wounded pride. So, yeah, its all ISIS's fault after all isn't it.

There is a bit more depth to ISIS than what you stated. ISIS's goal is to establish a Muslim state under Sharia law. There are religious and ethnic persecutions going on because of them. We try to help the unfortunate people like the Yazidis. ISIS knows they can't sustain a toe to toe fight with a conventional force - so they use the media to their advantage.
The irony with interviewing Harvard students is that they wouldn't exist in other countries that respect freedom. The Harvard institution wouldn't exist. They think that ISIS is a lesser threat and we are the aggressor? No, the Harvard students are wrong. They exist because of the US government - because of the USA. Harvard would be burned down in an ISIS controlled territory and females like those in the video wouldn't have a voice. Ironic isn't it?

So the US has had a MUCH larger negative effect on world peace than John and Sally Public are generally aware of. Its just that most of it happens to brown people far away so it doesn't count. But ISIS hurts our pride because it makes it too clear that Mission: Not Accomplished. And nothing rattles world peace quite like an America with a wounded pride. So, yeah, its all ISIS's fault after all isn't it.

I have to disagree with this. Maybe until recently, the U.S. has had a MUCH more positive effect on world peace. Think of the advancements, freedoms, prosperity and relative peace the world has enjoyed because of the U.S in the last century.

Have you had a chance to watch the movie "America" by Dinesh D'Souza? It's a shame that not more theaters showed it. Well, there's also the book "America: Imagine a World Without Her". 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00G1SM2QU/?tag=2ahawaii-20

I remember growing up that a lot of nations wished they were like America. America is not a source of threat but is a source of pride, of what is the model for the best form of government in the world.  People have forgotten and need to be reminded from time to time.

I would guess that future generations of historians would look at this century as "Pax America" ala "Pax Romana". Hopefully, Americans learn from ancient history and the country doesn't decline like Rome but with the current momentum of events, the future doesn't seem so bright.

By the way, good to see you online, clshade.

There is a bit more depth to ISIS than what you stated. ISIS's goal is to establish a Muslim state under Sharia law. There are religious and ethnic persecutions going on because of them. We try to help the unfortunate people like the Yazidis. ISIS knows they can't sustain a toe to toe fight with a conventional force - so they use the media to their advantage.
The irony with interviewing Harvard students is that they wouldn't exist in other countries that respect freedom. The Harvard institution wouldn't exist. They think that ISIS is a lesser threat and we are the aggressor? No, the Harvard students are wrong. They exist because of the US government - because of the USA. Harvard would be burned down in an ISIS controlled territory and females like those in the video wouldn't have a voice. Ironic isn't it?

Well said, ren.

Just a point I think many people fail to ponder...

"Peace" is when people are getting along, trading, treating each other with respect, etc.

"Stability" is the absence of hostilities.  There may be international commerce and general tolerance of each other, but it doesn't take much to start a fight.

You can have stability in a region but it doesn't necessarily mean the nations are peaceful.  Ideologies, religions, wealth, perceived arrogance ... any number of grievance may exist, but each side benefits by avoiding violence.

What's happened in the past few years has been the destabilization of the Middle East.   Opportunities to grab power, land, and resources have been created,  People are seizing on these opportunities now, because this may be the only opportunity in these peoples' lifetimes to gain power.

I think the US leaving Iraq when we did, and setting a timeline for leaving Afghanistan, helped destabilize the Iraq and Syrian region.

Our decision to "leave their own security to the Iraqi government" before they were prepared was a mistake.  That's my opinion, both before we did it and now in the wake of the results.

The aggressor chooses when and where to go to war.  The victor decides when/if they will leave.  We chose poorly.

Thanks, Jl808. Good to be back.

The comparison to Rome is an apt one. Rome had a huge positive effect if you measure it in economic growth and facilitation of trade. It had an enormous negative effect if you measure it in terms of cultural diversity and sovereignty (i.e. freedom). The net effect on the daily life of the common person was largely positive, though. Taxes were high but for the first time... um... ever... most of them knew what to expect and the rule of law was mostly fair.

Similarly the overall effect of the US would be positive - thought I was clear about that. And I haven't even mentioned the humanitarian mission the Navy, in particular, has - a good one to point out to people that complain about our high military budget.

To clarify: the US's foreign actions and those of interests widely regarded as those of the US (but actually are the interests of multinational corporations and their attendant banks) does, indeed, have a negative impact in the world. A much larger one most Americans are willing to admit.

One doesn't have to look very far in Hawaii to see evidence of this. One does actually have to look, though, and most don't. Its the same when we ignore that the CIA had a significant, direct influence in creating the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's regime. We created both the Irag and Afghanistan wars - without our influence propping up those regimes during the Cold War they would not have gathered the strength to become the problems we later had to solve. This is neither right or wrong, but it IS fact.

The US only wages freedom where it suits OUR economic interests. This is apparent to the brown people who find themselves on the ugly side of that stick and not readily apparent to the taxpayers who are funding it. This is our negative impact in the world and while it is unavoidable (ya can't please everyone) it would behoove us to at least be aware of it, honest about it and do what we can to mitigate it. 

These are economic and historical facts and the basis for the why some Americans question our foreign and military policies even though we say were out there defending "freedom" in the world. We're not. We're out there defending the freedom of our economic interests - which is important and valid, just not the moral high ground many people think it is. Those pesky brown folks who want to do things differently in their own lands and take up arms to defend their right to do so are increasingly called terrorists and thus military intervention is justified.

In today's climate the American revolutionaries would have been called terrorists and destroyed in their homes by drone strikes moments after the Declaration of Independence reached the King's desk. The irony of this is not at all lost on most non-Americans, even our close friends and allies. Why is it so lost on Americans?

And I have to apologize, again: I'm an anthropologist and historian. I don't see things through the current Left/Right lenses and often get misinterpreted as disagreeing with one political position or another. I get it from both sides all the time. :shrug: Eventually I'll give up on trying to put the situation into its larger context as most people really aren't interested no matter how relevant it may be.

Like in this case. I think its important to understand our Cold War policy's role in creating the destabilized Middle East we know and love today. Its not right or wrong, its just TRUE, Both our allies and our enemies abroad are aware of this. Why aren't we?

Another example (though I seem to wander afield somewhat - bear with me). WWII was directly definitely caused by Hitler.... but the conditions that made fertile ground for the Nazi rise to power were the vicious terms against Germany forged at the end of WWI. That's why the political and national lines were redrawn the way they were after WWII, why Israel exists and why we HELPED Japan and Germany after they surrendered: to avoid creating the social and economic conditions that would lead to yet another war. It was a great idea, it worked and world economic growth roared into overdrive. As it grew so did world demand for oil.... leading to the world we have today where the Middle East is so important to everyone's economic interests. Ours especially because due to our superior economic stability as the only un-bombed major economy after WWII.... we managed to enforce that oil be traded in US dollars. Also a good, stabilizing idea in a devastated world.

And THAT is why western-friendly regimes in the MIddle East are so important to our "security," why we ignore the similar humanitarian issues in Saudi Arabia that we see in ISIS. Its not because terrorists might swarm the streets of America and kill us all. Its because an anti-western, Islamist state might start trading oil in something other than dollars.

That. Can't. Happen.

Not just because the dollar might tumble and the American economy take a huge hit, but because energy prices (i.e production and transportation of...uh... everything) would then probably rocket and fluctuate too wildly to have ANY kind of stable world economy. That could lead to the conditions for WWIII, the first in which many of the players have nukes.

That is why we have the largest military by a factor of 10 and why that is completely justified as a Romanesque insurance that world trade, not just American trade, flows smoothly. These are the factors that our decision making elite are looking at, the long term truths that mold different party leader's foreign policy into clones and extensions of one another because our internal right/left dichotomy is largely irrelevant to it. And for good reason.

It does have downsides, though, and I maintain that it would be better for us to account for them than to ignore them.

And I haven't yet figured out why these factors ~aren't~ part of our discussions. The only thing I can think of is Jack Nicholson's "You can't handle the truth!" But I think, perhaps naively, that we can. It certainly seems to me that democracy works better when the people know all the factors involved in what they are making decisions about. I don't know how a democracy can function well without it, actually.