Islamic State

[Greatnate]

I would honestly have a lot more sympathy for a Baathist group than ISIS. The USA has made fundamental Islam their very explicit enemy and as much I respect the rights of third world countries to self determine, theocracy is an unacceptable solution to the puzzle. If a government of the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi'ites could agree that the US should butt out, then that would be an obvious solution.

 

From a realist point of view, no western nation will tolerate on the ground loses to ISIS, so we are restricted to an air campaign. This will be less effective, but at least we will protect those precious citizen lives. This will mostly likely not result in the anti-fundamentalist results that we hope for, but we are pretty clearly unwilling to commit more resources than an air campaign.

 

Edited to fix the spelling of Shi'ites.

Edited October 18, 2014 by Greatnate

[WISD0MTREE]

From a realist point of view, no western nation will tolerate on the ground loses to ISIS, so we are restricted to an air campaign. This will be less effective, but at least we will protect those precious citizen lives. This will mostly likely not result in the anti-fundamentalist results that we hope for, but we are pretty clearly unwilling to commit more resources than an air campaign.

But we can't do airstrikes on their capital because of civilians. At some point we will have to go in on foot, unless you want to kill a ton of innocents. 

[Greatnate]

But we can't do airstrikes on their capital because of civilians. At some point we will have to go in on foot, unless you want to kill a ton of innocents. 

 

We still won't send ground troops. If anything we'll send Kurds, maybe the Iraqi Army if they can pull it together. Whatever regional ground forces that can be trained and sent in will be, but there is no political will for another American ground campaign.

[Alex]

I think Dietrich is correct in saying that Syria is our best option here. They're fighting against ISIS already, and have a (somewhat) stable government and a well trained army. 

 

If we can fund them, provide them with the resources they need we might not only win over a new ally in the region, but we may also be able to stop ISIS from advancing any further in Syria, but perhaps push them out of Syria altogether.

[Ayayay]

I think Dietrich is correct in saying that Syria is our best option here. They're fighting against ISIS already, and have a (somewhat) stable government and a well trained army. 

 

If we can fund them, provide them with the resources they need we might not only win over a new ally in the region, but we may also be able to stop ISIS from advancing any further in Syria, but perhaps push them out of Syria altogether.

Assad is a dictator who provides Russia with a naval base (That monster!) so we are funding the rebel coalition instead.

 

Also, he funneled weapons to Hezbollah who used said weapons to defeat the Israel Army in 2006, therefor he must die which has absolutely nothing to do with our decision to support the rebels.

[Jaime Lannister]

U.S. will always choose lesser evil, Assad is a monster but not a monster threatening us, ISIS now...

[SoS]

U.S. will always choose lesser evil, Assad is a monster but not a monster threatening us, ISIS now...

Which side will secure oil leases for "our companies"? That's what matters in the long term. Lopping off heads is surprisingly quickly forgotten. If it weren't for capitalism, we wouldn't bother with that shithole. So what's the real problem here? A-rabs or the corporations whose interests put us in stupid situations? We should just go in there, take all the oil fields, and make it all an American possession. We can drive the survivors into Turkey.

[naTia]

We can drive the survivors into Turkey.

Good luck with that.

[elsuper]

Which side will secure oil leases for "our companies"? That's what matters in the long term. Lopping off heads is surprisingly quickly forgotten. If it weren't for capitalism, we wouldn't bother with that !@#$hole. So what's the real problem here? A-rabs or the corporations whose interests put us in stupid situations? We should just go in there, take all the oil fields, and make it all an American possession. We can drive the survivors into Turkey.

 

I agree there's a behind-the-scenes involving oil interests, but I disagree that capitalism is the cause, I see it as merely the mechanism in our case. If the US disappeared tomorrow, you can bet that state-owned oil interests from Russia and China would move to fill in the gap.

[ColoringNick]

In all honesty the ISIS short term goal is in America and Saudia Arabia's interests.

 

Why?

Because they're currently focus on taking out the Syrian government, and really badly want to attack Iran.

[Aisha Greyjoy]

Blood, death and misery is all religious fundamentalists have to offer the world.  The sooner we eradicate them all, the better.

[Solomon]

On the one hand, killing religious fundamentalists will only create martyrs. On the other, if someone else doesn't do it, history tells us they'll create their own anyway. It can and will be frustratingly slow but I still think patience and education are the only long term solutions for dealing with it.

[SoS]

I agree there's a behind-the-scenes involving oil interests, but I disagree that capitalism is the cause, I see it as merely the mechanism in our case. If the US disappeared tomorrow, you can bet that state-owned oil interests from Russia and China would move to fill in the gap.

The point is, we want domestic companies to have access to their lease process. That was the point of the Iraq war. Bushes' administration flatly refused to negotiate a withdrawal date until Iraq gave us access to oil leases.

[Ayayay]

In all honesty the ISIS short term goal is in America and Saudia Arabia's interests.

 

Why?

Because they're currently focus on taking out the Syrian government, and really badly want to attack Iran.

No, ISIS want's to destroy Saudi Arabia because they hate Wahhabis. In fact, ISIS would probably attack Saudi Arabia first if they thought Iran would ignore them.

[Jaime Lannister]

Which side will secure oil leases for "our companies"? That's what matters in the long term. Lopping off heads is surprisingly quickly forgotten. If it weren't for capitalism, we wouldn't bother with that !@#$hole. So what's the real problem here? A-rabs or the corporations whose interests put us in stupid situations? We should just go in there, take all the oil fields, and make it all an American possession. We can drive the survivors into Turkey.

 

ISIS are a bunch of loose cannons who have no problem executing reporters or anyone who opposes them.  If they were content with merely killing other brown people then mayhaps we'd talk big but deal privately.  Not going to happen now, you can see that when we are getting help from Iran and Assad who we were almost bombing half a year ago to deal with these people.  If Iran is an ally you know ISIS will never be a "friendly" nation like the Saudis.

[Greatnate]

In all honesty the ISIS short term goal is in America and Saudia Arabia's interests.

 

Why?

Because they're currently focus on taking out the Syrian government, and really badly want to attack Iran.

 

The formation of the nucleus of an Islamic state is so far against the interests of the United States that it isn't even funny. The US wants a peaceful and divided middle east, if ISIS had it's way the middle east would be united and belligerent, what would the possible benefit be?

[naTia]

Blood, death and misery is all religious fundamentalists have to offer the world.  The sooner we eradicate them all, the better.

As much as this seems to be half facetious, I believe a lot of people would miss a very large point.

 

This statement suggests that the expressions of one's opinions via religion is somehow punishable by death. This, just as getting rid of pro-democracy supporters in the USSR, is censorship. Is it not considered by many to be considered a basic human right? Censorship is censorship no matter who it targets. Just as American and French Revolutionaries did in the past, ISIS demonstrates its own agenda by use of force. Many would consider American and French Revolutionaries to be pro-public. They were also against people who supported the other side. American revolutionaries used to pour hot tar and feathers on supporters of England within the Americas. As gruesome and out for blood ISIS and other extremists may seem, eradicating the beliefs of many people is hurting us more than helping.

Edited October 22, 2014 by The Captain Nao

[Greatnate]

As much as this seems to be half facetious, I believe a lot of people would miss a very large point.

 

This statement suggests that the expressions of one's opinions via religion is somehow punishable by death. This, just as getting rid of pro-democracy supporters in the USSR, is censorship. Is it not considered by many to be considered a basic human right? Censorship is censorship no matter who it targets. Just as American and French Revolutionaries did in the past, ISIS demonstrates its own agenda by use of force. Many would consider American and French Revolutionaries to be pro-public. They were also against people who supported the other side. American revolutionaries used to pour hot tar and feathers on supporters of England within the Americas. As gruesome and out for blood ISIS and other extremists may seem, eradicating the beliefs of many people is hurting us more than helping.

 

 

It really doesn't. There is a stark difference between living by your religious code and expecting all of your fellow citizen to follow the same code. The problem with ISIS is trying to establish a religiously fundamental state. If the American revolution was about the Puritans establishing a Puritan state, you can bet that the country would be drastically different. In the US, censorship is not censorship if it targets hate speech, if a group of religious fundamentalists were preaching that everyone of their religion had to follow their rules and everyone outside of their religion had to leave the area or be murdered, that would very much be hate speech. Hate speech, fundamentalism, and religious extremism are all things that run counter to western democracy, Allowing an extremist minority to dominate a moderate majority is always damaging, whether in the middle east or in the USA.

[Big Boss]

Logically speaking, the only way we're going to see a defeat of ISIS is through a prolonged US troop presence, and culture shock to the region, similar to what happened in east germany after the cold war. We're not going to kill an idea by just killing people. we need a gradual induction to the region, more and more infrastructure, and rebuilding of laws and highways. 

Besides that, It's a lot more likely we're going to see a kurdish state emerge from this, after all is said and done. 

[SoS]

Persistence has it's limit. We have had enough of Iraq to last us forever.

 

If Assad and Isis are both our enemies, why not let them kill each other freely? The risk is that Isis is mainly killing Assad's enemies ATM. Idk. Idc.

 

Just ban travel to the region and let them sort out their business for once.

[Big Boss]

Persistence has it's limit. We have had enough of Iraq to last us forever.

 

If Assad and Isis are both our enemies, why not let them kill each other freely? The risk is that Isis is mainly killing Assad's enemies ATM. Idk. Idc.

 

Just ban travel to the region and let them sort out their business for once.

Highly doubtful that would work, let alone be ethical. 

[SoS]

It's more ethical to insert ourselves against whatever side?

[naTia]

In the US, censorship is not censorship if it targets hate speech

This statement seems to contradict itself. Censorship is censorship no matter what is said, who says it, why it is censored, and who does the censoring. There is a reason the WBC isn't shut down completely. A lot of people would consider their message to not only be a form of extremism, but also hate speech. We cannot pick and choose who we censor and simply say it is less immoral because so-and-so said such-and-such.

[Greatnate]

This statement seems to contradict itself. Censorship is censorship no matter what is said, who says it, why it is censored, and who does the censoring. There is a reason the WBC isn't shut down completely. A lot of people would consider their message to not only be a form of extremism, but also hate speech. We cannot pick and choose who we censor and simply say it is less immoral because so-and-so said such-and-such.

 

WBC isn't shut down because their message is not an incitement to violence. ISIS's message is a call to violence. I probably should have added a harmful in front of the second censorship, but most people would agree that very limited censorship is a net benefit to society (i.e. shouting fire in a theater or calling for a lynch mob). We absolutely can censor based on net harm to society, the whole rational behind American freedom is freedom unless it infringes on another's rights.

[Memph]

Logically speaking, the only way we're going to see a defeat of ISIS is through a prolonged US troop presence, and culture shock to the region, similar to what happened in east germany after the cold war. We're not going to kill an idea by just killing people. we need a gradual induction to the region, more and more infrastructure, and rebuilding of laws and highways. 

 

Besides that, It's a lot more likely we're going to see a kurdish state emerge from this, after all is said and done. 

I'm not sure East Germany is a very good example. I don't think the East Germans ever really considered the West their enemy, they just didn't speak up against Communism out of fear. Nor did they have any real issues with other groups within Germany like the various groups within Iraq have with each other.