The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [International]

War sucks.

It especially sucks when one of the combatant sides (or worse, both!) are bloodthirsty bastards.

ISIS is one such group.

Here's the problem from a policy point of view -- irrespective of that fact we're not the world's cop.

Now they have beheaded a US journalist -- but that man knew where he was going and he knew the risk.  He knew that covering these savages, specifically, might lead to him being targeted -- especially when The United States inserted itself into the conflict of its own volition by bombing ISIS positions.

Does this mean we should go kick the hell out of them?

Only if you want to declare war on them and kill them all until they sue for peace with the only rule for engagement being "If it moves shoot it.  If it still moves shoot it some more."

If you're not willing to back and demand that then no, we should not go there.

And yes, I know, it's tempting to seek revenge for this savagery -- and there will almost-certainly be more of it too.

Doesn't matter folks.  You either conduct a war as a war, not a police action, or you don't go.

We have to stop ****ing around, to be blunt.  We've made a hash of basically every foreign place we've gone for the last 50 years because we have forgotten that war is not a nice business and never can be made into one.  You either go into war with the premise that anything that looks like your enemy gets shot and blown up until whatever remains sues for peace or you stay home.

Does beheading a journalist and threatening to do the same to a second one mean that we should cross that line?  No, and especially no when we essentially created and built up ISIS originally -- and we did.  I don't even particularly care if they get all the Iraqi oil assets.

What I care about is that if we're going to go war, we go to war and mean it -- we declare war in Congress and we prosecute it as a war with a "Blow Them All To Hell" set of rules of engagement -- no ifs, ands or buts.

Until and unless we're willing to do that as a nation we have no business getting involved -- even with these atrocities.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Yeah, ok....

(Reuters) - When Islamic State militants stormed into a northern Iraqi village and ordered everyone to convert to Islam or die only one person refused. But that did not satisfy the Sunni insurgents who are even more hardline than al Qaeda.

The militants, who have seized much of northern Iraq since arriving from Syria in June, wasted no time after the village's leader, or sheikh, stood up for his ancient Yazidi faith.

Khalof Khodede, an unemployed father of three who escaped with his life, recalled how 80 men in the village of Kocho were killed and all the women and girls were kidnapped.

Convert or die.

But if one says no, all the men die and the women and girls are kidnapped (and I bet you can guess what happened to them, although it's not said out loud.)

Yeah.

We all share basic human values, eh?

We are dealing with rational people who can be reasoned with and will negotiate in good faith, yes?

Uh huh.

Sure we do, and sure we are.

This basic bit of human insanity isn't exactly new in the world.  It has reared its ugly head several times through history, and always with the same result.  You can't negotiate or work with people who hold these views.  They will kill you if you do not consent to live as they demand which leaves you with only two options.

Both options suck, but IMHO one sucks less.

Nonetheless we have no business interfering over there.  It's not our land, not our people, not our war and we're not the world police department.  What we do have an obligation to, however, is our citizens and our soil.  Therefore it is my position that we must make utterly clear to the people committing these atrocities the following: If you harm one hair on the head of an American citizen, or take one action of this sort on American soil, no matter where in the world it occurs, you will all die.  

Period.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

One question for the warmongers: What are you going to do about it if ISIS blows the dam near Mosul at the first sign of US warplanes -- a dam they allegedly control?

"Oh, they wouldn't do that" might be your response........ but are you willing to bet the entire city on that?

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

There's an interesting op-ed on Fox News...

I ask all Americans to picture the following scenario:

Al Qaeda builds cells in Mexico and takes control of the Coahuila region which borders Texas. The United States closes border crossings to prevent Al Qaeda from its stated goal: smuggling weapons to use to destroy America. Significant international pressure mounts to re-open the border crossings and the United States permits humanitarian aid to pass through while looking out for any terror-related materials. America monitors the Gulf of Mexico to insure that weapons would not arrive in Coahuila via the sea.

Despite these efforts, weapons flow from Guatemala to Mexico, enabling the terrorists to send them to Coahuila with ease. U.S. intelligence is aware of the stockpiles of missiles in Coahuila, but the missiles are stored in very dense residential areas and any attempt to destroy them could lead to significant civilian casualties. The citizens along the southern border of Texas are advised that a threat exists and are given instructions in case of an attack. But all assumptions were that Al Qaeda would not have the nerve to attack.

And then it happens. A missile is shot from Piedras Negras, Mexico, to Eagle Pass, Texas.  The 5-mile distance means that the 30,000 residents of Eagle Pass have only seconds to find shelter. Air raid sirens blare at 8:00 a.m. as the children in the 15 Eagle Pass elementary schools, two junior high schools, and two high schools are riding their bikes and walking into their school buildings.

Sound scary?

Welcome to Israel.

But "Al Qaeda" is "Hamas,”  "Coahuila" is "Gaza," and "Eagle Pass" is the Israeli town of "Sderot."

Given the deep commitment of the American government to the security of its citizens, America would, no doubt, react with force. The residents of Piedras Negras would be warned to evacuate and the U.S.  Air Force would fire at any area possibly housing the missiles and their launchers. And I have no doubt that the U.S.  would go after other potential threats, including  the stockpile of missiles in Ciudad Acuna, which threatens Del Rio, Texas, a mere 6 miles away.  This would be done despite the fact that the terrorists surround their missiles with innocent women and children as human shields. 

Oh really?

We'd bomb Mexico and then invade?

Really?

I think you give us too much credit.

You see, it was about 13 years ago that a bunch of Saudi-linked people came into this country under false pretense.  They then hijacked a number of airliners and used them as bombs, murdering 3,000 Americans, most of them innocent civilians.

To this day the US Government has blacked out and considered classified what is known about where they came from and who funded them.  We know good and damn well exactly what happened and who was behind it, including how that attack was funded and who assisted with the logistics, but the report on that act of terror redacted those portions and to this day, more than 10 years later, we not only haven't taken retributive action for that act of war (not terrorism) against the responsible parties (an act far greater than Hamas has inflicted on Israel!) we haven't even taken economic action against the responsible nation-state either!

So before you tell us that we should hold Israel to the "same" standard you might want to consider exactly how pussified this nation has become, and what this nation's people tolerate -- because under that standard Israel gets no quarter for what they're doing at all.  You see, our standard, as defined by what happened on 9/11 and then what didn't happen to the people to whom that attack was conclusively linked is rather different than the scenario you laid out in your OpEd.

I didn't say I agreed with that inaction and intentional obfuscation by our government, by the way. I was pretty damn sure where the trail led after 9/11 in short order and my view of the best and proper response was and is pretty much the same as yours: "Drop that ****er -- twice." (credit Crimson Tide)

Incidentally that nation (Mexico) you named in your scenario?  It has sent somewhere around 11 million illegal invaders into our nation and we not only refuse to deport them we also haven't acted against that country -- indeed, we have allowed our corporations to offshore operations there and granted them special trade status in exchange for their citizens illegally invading our land!

And no, I don't support that either.

But I'm in the tiny minority in this nation among our people, and the proof thereof is that neither Democrat or Republican administration has been forced to release said documentation or do anything about the source of those attacks 13 years after the fact.  Indeed, we still sell them weapons!

You're barking up the wrong tree dude; what we once had in this country with regard to our view of acts of war against our nation and her people on December 7th, 1941 is no longer here, and those who claim otherwise (such as that Boehner) are lying sacks of crap.  

Trust them at your risk -- I sure as hell don't and I live here, not there!

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Get Adobe Flash player
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.