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.)


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.  


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)

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.


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.