Total Posts:116|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What to Do about ISIS

YYW
Posts: 36,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 7:24:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
ISIS is a group that has beheaded children for refusing to convert to Islam, which practices a bastardized form of Islam and whose brutality has no precedent in modern history. Even the Nazi's didn't behead people. I don't think that anyone here questions the sheer evil and brutality of the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq. Like Al Franken, John McCain and numerous others on both sides of the political isle, I was troubled by President Obama's acknowledgement that, at the time, we did not have a strategy for combatting ISIS.

ISIS is not only a threat to the United States and Europe, and yet their existence is due to the power vacuum that the Obama Administration left in Iraq. Yes, that vacuum could not have existed but for Operation Iraqi Freedom -but that does not change the reality of what must be done. In that it is actively recruiting Americans and Europeans, ISIS presents a direct threat to US national security.

So far, two Somalis from Minnesota and another graduate of Northeastern University have been radicalized to serve ISIS's goals. ISIS is composed of people who possess the skills and expertise to form a state whose sole purpose is exporting terror. Evidence suggests this is their mission. To prevent that from materializing must be among The United States and Europe's highest priorities.

There have been calls from the right to use the might of America's military to restore peace in Iraq. Even though we have the strength to do it, we will never have the timeframe. This is because the American people will elect a president to end a war before the mission is complete. There is a noted history of this occurring, as well. The American people elected Barack Obama to end the war in Iraq just as it elected Nixon to end Vietnam.

Changing the political landscape of Iraq would take at least a generation, and that is not time that can be reasonably afforded to any American president. This is tragic, because on paper we have the ability -but there will never be the political will to nation build alone, however necessary it may be.

When Saddam ruled in Iraq, the Baathist party was fiercely efficient at eliminating political opposition. There was no alternative source of political leadership other than Saddam Hussein's family, just as there was no alternative source of political leadership in Afghanistan other than the Taliban. This presents an immense challenge, because cultivating the kind of leadership infrastructure that can sustain democratic rule over time is a multi-generational process. Minds simply do not awaken to the virtues of Democracy over night.

This is why the United States must work with Iran, and other regional powers to do three things: systematically destroy ISIS's ability to organize and assemble in Iraq and Syria, neutralize sources of revenue for ISIS from wealthy patrons in the Persian Gulf, and destroy the ISIS's leadership infrastructure. What I am specifically advocating for is rendering Iraq a stable, but failed state. Iran, the Kurds and regional partners who oppose ISIS must strategically unite to that end. It may even be necessary to work with Assad who, I think we can agree, is decidedly the lesser of two evils. At this point, there is little question that arming the Syrian rebels would have been a calamitous mistake.

I deeply oppose working with Iran. I do not trust Tehran, but I see no other way but to work with them because they are there. In that way, we won't have to be to the same extent that we were in 2003. Let me be clear: I want nothing more than to see ISIS militants brought to justice, but doing that leaves our global interests in a precarious, and therefore unacceptable state of overextension. If we invade Iraq, we enable Vladimir Putin to take Ukraine.

At this time, the United States faces an array of challenges that is unlike any we have faced since the beginning of the Second World War. On two distinct fronts, operatives with malevolent objectives threaten the liberty and security of millions of innocent people. ISIS knows that the United States will be weaker if it intervenes in Iraq, which is why they are trying to get us to intervene with a ground occupation. That is just not an option, at this time.
Tsar of DDO
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 7:46:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 7:24:30 PM, YYW wrote:
ISIS is a group that has beheaded children for refusing to convert to Islam, which practices a bastardized form of Islam and whose brutality has no precedent in modern history. Even the Nazi's didn't behead people. I don't think that anyone here questions the sheer evil and brutality of the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq. Like Al Franken, John McCain and numerous others on both sides of the political isle, I was troubled by President Obama's acknowledgement that, at the time, we did not have a strategy for combatting ISIS.

I would like to highlight the name John McCain in this paragraph. This man has irritated me like no other. This is the same guy who was for SUPPORTING ISIS in the first place and then turns around to claim how big of a threat ISIS is even though he helped to create the problem along with quite a few other U.S. Senators Democrat and Republican a like.


ISIS is not only a threat to the United States and Europe, and yet their existence is due to the power vacuum that the Obama Administration left in Iraq. Yes, that vacuum could not have existed but for Operation Iraqi Freedom -but that does not change the reality of what must be done. In that it is actively recruiting Americans and Europeans, ISIS presents a direct threat to US national security.

So, true.

So far, two Somalis from Minnesota and another graduate of Northeastern University have been radicalized to serve ISIS's goals. ISIS is composed of people who possess the skills and expertise to form a state whose sole purpose is exporting terror. Evidence suggests this is their mission. To prevent that from materializing must be among The United States and Europe's highest priorities.

That's right!

There have been calls from the right to use the might of America's military to restore peace in Iraq. Even though we have the strength to do it, we will never have the timeframe. This is because the American people will elect a president to end a war before the mission is complete. There is a noted history of this occurring, as well. The American people elected Barack Obama to end the war in Iraq just as it elected Nixon to end Vietnam.

Haha! Isn't this irony?

Changing the political landscape of Iraq would take at least a generation, and that is not time that can be reasonably afforded to any American president. This is tragic, because on paper we have the ability -but there will never be the political will to nation build alone, however necessary it may be.

When Saddam ruled in Iraq, the Baathist party was fiercely efficient at eliminating political opposition. There was no alternative source of political leadership other than Saddam Hussein's family, just as there was no alternative source of political leadership in Afghanistan other than the Taliban. This presents an immense challenge, because cultivating the kind of leadership infrastructure that can sustain democratic rule over time is a multi-generational process. Minds simply do not awaken to the virtues of Democracy over night.

Damn dude, we have the same thinking process on this stuff it seems.

This is why the United States must work with Iran, and other regional powers to do three things: systematically destroy ISIS's ability to organize and assemble in Iraq and Syria, neutralize sources of revenue for ISIS from wealthy patrons in the Persian Gulf, and destroy the ISIS's leadership infrastructure. What I am specifically advocating for is rendering Iraq a stable, but failed state. Iran, the Kurds and regional partners who oppose ISIS must strategically unite to that end. It may even be necessary to work with Assad who, I think we can agree, is decidedly the lesser of two evils. At this point, there is little question that arming the Syrian rebels would have been a calamitous mistake.

We just have to be very careful in the steps we take with this process.

I deeply oppose working with Iran. I do not trust Tehran, but I see no other way but to work with them because they are there. In that way, we won't have to be to the same extent that we were in 2003. Let me be clear: I want nothing more than to see ISIS militants brought to justice, but doing that leaves our global interests in a precarious, and therefore unacceptable state of overextension. If we invade Iraq, we enable Vladimir Putin to take Ukraine.

At this time, the United States faces an array of challenges that is unlike any we have faced since the beginning of the Second World War. On two distinct fronts, operatives with malevolent objectives threaten the liberty and security of millions of innocent people. ISIS knows that the United States will be weaker if it intervenes in Iraq, which is why they are trying to get us to intervene with a ground occupation. That is just not an option, at this time.

This is why I believe we have a World War awaiting us on the horizon if we don't do something about these issues and nip them in the butt.
YYW
Posts: 36,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 8:02:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 7:46:42 PM, Haroush wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:24:30 PM, YYW wrote:
I would like to highlight the name John McCain in this paragraph. This man has irritated me like no other. This is the same guy who was for SUPPORTING ISIS in the first place and then turns around to claim how big of a threat ISIS is even though he helped to create the problem along with quite a few other U.S. Senators Democrat and Republican a like.

There is an argument to be made that if the United States had have stepped in when it had the opportunity, we wouldn't be here by now. Hillary Clinton's made a similar argument. Personally, I'm not sure. I don't think that without a full-scale ground invasion we could have held ISIS off, though.

Haha! Isn't this irony?

What it is, to me, is frustrating. The American people are schizophrenic about war: they want the United States to lead global affairs, until the US actually does that, and then they want to pull back. The polls were overwhelmingly in Bush's favor when he invaded Iraq. His approval ratings were greater than 90%, which everyone tends to forget now.

There were huge managerial problems with administrating the occupation, though, and most of that falls on private military contractors. I think the single most poignant lesson from Iraq is that we should only employ PMC's when the US doesn't want to get its hands dirty. There was once a time that arms dealers like Viktor Bout could supply rebels who fought causes we had an interest in could be 'permitted' to facilitate their acquisition of arms, but now there are no more Soviet guns to sell. It's all got to be done "officially" which complicates things.

But even still, trusting anyone other than the militaries of the United States and Europe to administer the occupation in Iraq was stupid. The US military may not be very efficient at, for instance, serving thirty thousand meals an hour at lunchtime to hungry soldiers -but at least it's the military that's doing it. The amount of waste and corruption that's taken place within the military in Iraq, too, was startling -but the solution to that is to enforce rules, not to privatize.

We just have to be very careful in the steps we take with this process.

Yeah, which is why I'm getting really nervous that some world leader is going to do something incredibly stupid.

This is why I believe we have a World War awaiting us on the horizon if we don't do something about these issues and nip them in the butt.

I hope not, but I do think that that's something we've got to take into consideration when making decisions. Vladimir Putin and ISIS are both playing chicken -they're doing horrible things and seeing whether they can get the United States and the west to yield. When Putin took Crimea and the world did nothing about it, he learned that the west would rather avoid a war than defend Ukraine's sovereignty.

If Ukraine's military wasn't in such a state of abject destitution, that might not have happened -but we're past the point where conversations of what could have been are useful. Going forward, NATO must remain committed to holding the line without provoking Russia to do something so audaciously stupid that NATO has to go to war and the United States must work with the gulf states to (1) freeze the assets of wealthy gulf state citizens who are financing ISIS, (2) destroy ISIS's ability to function from the air -and perhaps with long-range cruise missiles if necessary, (3) collaborate with Iran and Syria to rid the world of ISIS's existence.
Tsar of DDO
Gump
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 12:07:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
To Long Didn't Read. Dude have you ever heard of summarizing your posts? I guess noobs have to learn somewhere.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 2:25:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 7:24:30 PM, YYW wrote:
ISIS is a group that has beheaded children for refusing to convert to Islam, which practices a bastardized form of Islam and whose brutality has no precedent in modern history. Even the Nazi's didn't behead people.

Historically inaccurate. In fact the Third Reich revived the use of the guillotine, decapitating approximately 16, 000 victims. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

I don't think that anyone here questions the sheer evil and brutality of the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq...

But we should indeed question the way that it and "terrorism" in general are used by the media and government to program us to be more willing and compliant accomplices in the erosion of our own civil liberties, and the imperialistic overseas agenda of our economic elites.

ISIS is not only a threat to the United States and Europe,

Yes, before we know it there will be an ISIS army fighting in Kansas and Idaho to forcibly bring Middle America into the caliphate. LOL!

and yet their existence is due to the power vacuum that the Obama Administration left in Iraq. Yes, that vacuum could not have existed but for Operation Iraqi Freedom

Here we agree.

-but that does not change the reality of what must be done. In that it is actively recruiting Americans and Europeans, ISIS presents a direct threat to US national security.

What with over sixteen thousand homicides and thousands of other violent crimes being perpetrated annually in this country by apolitical, common criminals, focusing our sense of insecurity on the threat presented to "national security" by the likes of ISIS somehow seems, well, silly. Yes, let's not forget that the old joke that "you're more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist" is actually and factually true.

So far, two Somalis from Minnesota and another graduate of Northeastern University have been radicalized to serve ISIS's goals.

This number pales by comparison to the hundreds of American street gang members that have been recruited by Mexican narco-terrorist cartels, who are already bringing their style of violence to the American South West, and yet our consciousness is supposed to be preoccupied with the subversive infiltration of ISIS into our society. Could this perhaps indicate that ISIS is just the bogeyman du jour?

ISIS is composed of people who possess the skills and expertise to form a state whose sole purpose is exporting terror. Evidence suggests this is their mission. To prevent that from materializing must be among The United States and Europe's highest priorities.

Ah yes, the myth of the "terrorist" foe who is a worthy adversary of a superpower such as the U.S.

There have been calls from the right to use the might of America's military to restore peace in Iraq.

Sure, the American military always does such lovely things for the nation of Iraq (oh yes, that's right. there is no more nation of Iraq, thanks to the U.S. and its military).

Even though we have the strength to do it, we will never have the timeframe. This is because the American people will elect a president to end a war before the mission is complete.

"Mission"? Note how we're well programmed to use legitimizing language such as "mission", which suggest that we invade and occupy other countries to achieve missions worthy of being achieved. In fact, our ruling elite's actual motives were realeconomik in nature; and the only mission was imperialism, neocon style.

There is a noted history of this occurring, as well. The American people elected Barack Obama to end the war in Iraq just as it elected Nixon to end Vietnam.

Well, immoral imperialistic aggressions should be ended posthaste, not drawn out to achieve some phony-baloney, smoke-screen "mission".

Changing the political landscape of Iraq would take at least a generation, and that is not time that can be reasonably afforded to any American president. This is tragic,

What's tragic and criminal is what the U.S. has already done for Iraq.

because on paper we have the ability -but there will never be the political will to nation build alone, however necessary it may be.

"Nation build"! Do you realize that you're using a euphemism for turning a country into a compliant client. And do please note that Iraq would not need to be rebuilt if it hadn't been destructed and despoiled by this country. In short, the U.S. practiced the shock doctrine, not just the shock and awe military doctrine, in Iraq in a big way, and now we're witnessing the consequences.

When Saddam ruled in Iraq, the Baathist party was fiercely efficient at eliminating political opposition. There was no alternative source of political leadership other than Saddam Hussein's family, just as there was no alternative source of political leadership in Afghanistan other than the Taliban. This presents an immense challenge, because cultivating the kind of leadership infrastructure that can sustain democratic rule over time is a multi-generational process. Minds simply do not awaken to the virtues of Democracy over night.

As is the economic and political establishment of the U.S. is genuinely interested in Iraq evolving into a democracy.

This is why the United States must work with Iran, and other regional powers to do three things: systematically destroy ISIS's ability to organize and assemble in Iraq and Syria, neutralize sources of revenue for ISIS from wealthy patrons in the Persian Gulf, and destroy the ISIS's leadership infrastructure...

The United States has done quite enough damage in the region. I quote from an article about the position of Pope Francis on the current crisis in the former Iraq: "But, he said, in history, such 'excuses' to stop an unjust aggression have been used by world powers to justify a 'war of conquest in which an entire people have been taken over. One nation alone cannot judge how you stop this, how you stop an unjust aggressor,' he said, apparently referring to the United States. 'After World War II, the idea of the United Nations came about: It's there that you must discuss 'Is there an unjust aggression? It seems so. How should we stop it?' Just this. Nothing more.'" I concur. http://www.masslive.com...

What I am specifically advocating for is rendering Iraq a stable, but failed state.

How benevolent.

I deeply oppose working with Iran. I do not trust Tehran,

And do you trust Washington to do the right thing for the right reason?!

but I see no other way but to work with them because they are there. In that way, we won't have to be to the same extent that we were in 2003.

Hmm, so continue our imperialistic meddling, but have someone else do the heavy lifting and dirty work this time around. Brilliant. NOT!

Let me be clear: I want nothing more than to see ISIS militants brought to justice,

What about bringing Dubya to justice for mass murder and other crimes against the Iraqi people. Or are we just going to focus on the villainous other? But then of course that's precisely what the ideological trope of "terrorism" is designed to do, misdirect our critical attention away from the greater evil of our own elites and fix it on those opposed to our realeconomik interests.

At this time, the United States faces an array of challenges that is unlike any we have faced since the beginning of the Second World War...

Lol! The United States in the role of the good guy riding to the rescue. This country has never really played this particular role convincingly, but I suppose that hope springs eternal.

See my post on "terrorism", http://www.debate.org...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 2:29:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Typo correction. "As is the economic and political establishment of the U.S. is genuinely interested in Iraq evolving into a democracy." should of course read "As if the economic and political establishment of the U.S. is genuinely interested in Iraq evolving into a democracy.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 4:56:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
YYW, as usual, will burn countries for attention. Reminds me of Hitler's brutalising the Jews, to be honest; that almost existential poeticness--though of course barbaric, monstrous, childishly selfish, etc.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 5:59:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 12:07:21 AM, Gump wrote:
To Long Didn't Read. Dude have you ever heard of summarizing your posts? I guess noobs have to learn somewhere.

This isn't Facebook.
YYW
Posts: 36,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 7:30:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 12:07:21 AM, Gump wrote:
To Long Didn't Read. Dude have you ever heard of summarizing your posts? I guess noobs have to learn somewhere.

I enjoy when people make comments like that. It's as if you're broadcasting to the world that you're lazy and inept.
Tsar of DDO
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 9:10:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 7:24:30 PM, YYW wrote:
ISIS is a group that has beheaded children for refusing to convert to Islam, which practices a bastardized form of Islam and whose brutality has no precedent in modern history. Even the Nazi's didn't behead people. I don't think that anyone here questions the sheer evil and brutality of the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq. Like Al Franken, John McCain and numerous others on both sides of the political isle, I was troubled by President Obama's acknowledgement that, at the time, we did not have a strategy for combatting ISIS.

ISIS is not only a threat to the United States and Europe, and yet their existence is due to the power vacuum that the Obama Administration left in Iraq. Yes, that vacuum could not have existed but for Operation Iraqi Freedom -but that does not change the reality of what must be done. In that it is actively recruiting Americans and Europeans, ISIS presents a direct threat to US national security.

So far, two Somalis from Minnesota and another graduate of Northeastern University have been radicalized to serve ISIS's goals. ISIS is composed of people who possess the skills and expertise to form a state whose sole purpose is exporting terror. Evidence suggests this is their mission. To prevent that from materializing must be among The United States and Europe's highest priorities.

There have been calls from the right to use the might of America's military to restore peace in Iraq. Even though we have the strength to do it, we will never have the timeframe. This is because the American people will elect a president to end a war before the mission is complete. There is a noted history of this occurring, as well. The American people elected Barack Obama to end the war in Iraq just as it elected Nixon to end Vietnam.

Changing the political landscape of Iraq would take at least a generation, and that is not time that can be reasonably afforded to any American president. This is tragic, because on paper we have the ability -but there will never be the political will to nation build alone, however necessary it may be.

When Saddam ruled in Iraq, the Baathist party was fiercely efficient at eliminating political opposition. There was no alternative source of political leadership other than Saddam Hussein's family, just as there was no alternative source of political leadership in Afghanistan other than the Taliban. This presents an immense challenge, because cultivating the kind of leadership infrastructure that can sustain democratic rule over time is a multi-generational process. Minds simply do not awaken to the virtues of Democracy over night.

This is why the United States must work with Iran, and other regional powers to do three things: systematically destroy ISIS's ability to organize and assemble in Iraq and Syria, neutralize sources of revenue for ISIS from wealthy patrons in the Persian Gulf, and destroy the ISIS's leadership infrastructure. What I am specifically advocating for is rendering Iraq a stable, but failed state. Iran, the Kurds and regional partners who oppose ISIS must strategically unite to that end. It may even be necessary to work with Assad who, I think we can agree, is decidedly the lesser of two evils. At this point, there is little question that arming the Syrian rebels would have been a calamitous mistake.

I deeply oppose working with Iran. I do not trust Tehran, but I see no other way but to work with them because they are there. In that way, we won't have to be to the same extent that we were in 2003. Let me be clear: I want nothing more than to see ISIS militants brought to justice, but doing that leaves our global interests in a precarious, and therefore unacceptable state of overextension. If we invade Iraq, we enable Vladimir Putin to take Ukraine.

At this time, the United States faces an array of challenges that is unlike any we have faced since the beginning of the Second World War. On two distinct fronts, operatives with malevolent objectives threaten the liberty and security of millions of innocent people. ISIS knows that the United States will be weaker if it intervenes in Iraq, which is why they are trying to get us to intervene with a ground occupation. That is just not an option, at this time.

I was just about to make this forum post. I'm really glad you already have! Looking forward to reading some of the give and take here.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 9:38:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 7:24:30 PM, YYW wrote:
ISIS is a group that has beheaded children for refusing to convert to Islam, which practices a bastardized form of Islam and whose brutality has no precedent in modern history.

Actually, they practice Wahabism, which is over 300 years old. It was created by a Najad man named Al Wahhab. So there is a great deal of precedence.

Even the Nazi's didn't behead people.

They just experimented on them and gassed them. I am rather sick of hearing this comparison, as if a group must be equal or greater than Nazi's in order to be evil.

I don't think that anyone here questions the sheer evil and brutality of the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq.
Should we also not question the sheer "evil" and brutality of airstrikes which slaughter civilians? Because both the US and Israel have been doing that for over a decade.

Like Al Franken, John McCain and numerous others on both sides of the political isle, I was troubled by President Obama's acknowledgement that, at the time, we did not have a strategy for combatting ISIS.

We do have a strategy. Airstrikes, and allowing the middle-east to sort itself out. That is a strategy, even if it's one you don't agree with.

ISIS is not only a threat to the United States and Europe

It is also a threat tooooo? finish the thought.

and yet their existence is due to the power vacuum that the Obama Administration left in Iraq.

Yes, Obama in his time machine went back and tricked Bush into declaring two ground wars in the territories surrounding Iran, sure.

When you put short-sighted partisan blame on ONE administration, for the screwups of two administrations, you are being intellectually dishonest.

The fact of the matter is ISIS has been in the region for 300 years, and has been battling in Syria for several of the past 10 years. Obama WANTED to go into Syria and we all screamed NOOOOOO.

So now you're armchair blaming him? That's silly. Let's actually discuss this honestly, not like partisans.

Yes, that vacuum could not have existed but for Operation Iraqi Freedom -but that does not change the reality of what must be done.

I love how you didn't mention the name of the administration which waged that war. It was Bush, in case you forgot. Let's be honest.

But what MUST be done? That's what we should be focusing on.

In that it is actively recruiting Americans and Europeans, ISIS presents a direct threat to US national security.

I think it is more reasonable to assume that American Islamic individuals and European Islamic individuals see their cultures have been exploited and are more than willing to join a group fighting those they perceive to have harmed the world.

So how can we curb that trend? What is our recourse?

So far, two Somalis from Minnesota and another graduate of Northeastern University have been radicalized to serve ISIS's goals.

This is factually dishonest. The Somalis left Minnesota before ISIS was even in Iraq. They left to fight against Assad in Syria, for freedom for the Syrian people. They have not been reported in Iraq, though you have made that assumption.

http://www.foxnews.com...

ISIS is composed of people who possess the skills and expertise to form a state whose sole purpose is exporting terror.

So does Saudi Arabia. Why aren't you preaching for armed conflict against the Saudis?

Evidence suggests this is their mission. To prevent that from materializing must be among The United States and Europe's highest priorities.

So...engaging in another armed conflict on Muslim soil, to try and prevent Muslims from an armed conflict. Again, you're not really offering any new solutions.

There have been calls from the right to use the might of America's military to restore peace in Iraq.

Of course the warhawks have been saying that foolishness. It only cost us 4 trillion, and they have their fortunes, and their children don't serve, so why not?

Even though we have the strength to do it, we will never have the timeframe.

We don't have the strength to do it. Russia couldn't do it, we can't do it. Britain couldn't do it. One cannot pacify a region using indiscriminate violence.

This is because the American people will elect a president to end a war before the mission is complete.

Bush said it was accomplished. Are you saying Bush lied? (duh)

There is a noted history of this occurring, as well. The American people elected Barack Obama to end the war in Iraq just as it elected Nixon to end Vietnam.

That is not why they elected Nixon.

Changing the political landscape of Iraq would take at least a generation, and that is not time that can be reasonably afforded to any American president.

You misspelled economy. Our coffers cannot be spent on nation building in the middle east.

This is tragic, because on paper we have the ability -but there will never be the political will to nation build alone, however necessary it may be.

What paper? We don't have the capability to nation build in a sea of Islamic belief.

When Saddam ruled in Iraq, the Baathist party was fiercely efficient at eliminating political opposition.

Through genocide. Are you condoning genocide? I thought taking out ISIS was a moral imperative because of their violence. I thought Saddam "needed" to be taken out.

There are so many inconsistencies in your position.

cultivating the kind of leadership infrastructure that can sustain democratic rule over time is a multi-generational process. Minds simply do not awaken to the virtues of Democracy over night.

Especially when religion is involved. It makes it impossible.

This is why the United States must work with Iran,
NO.

and other regional powers to do three things: systematically destroy ISIS's ability to organize and assemble in Iraq and Syria, neutralize sources of revenue for ISIS from wealthy patrons in the Persian Gulf, and destroy the ISIS's leadership infrastructure.

This is short sighted. ISIS is valuable if used properly. American involvement is their greatest recruiting tool. The best we can do is let Iran and Syria spend their coffers isolating and removing ISIS, then establish an independent Kurdish state as a buffer between Iran and the western middle east.

What I am specifically advocating for is rendering Iraq a stable, but failed state.

No, Iraq should be broken into independent states.

Iran, the Kurds and regional partners who oppose ISIS must strategically unite to that end.

The Kurds do not want a unified Iraq.

It may even be necessary to work with Assad who, I think we can agree, is decidedly the lesser of two evils.

He is not. He is a twisted despot and a pawn of the Russians. He is a tremendous threat.

At this point, there is little question that arming the Syrian rebels would have been a calamitous mistake.

Not at all. There are STILL Syrian rebels fighting ISIS as well as Assad.

http://www.washingtonpost.com...
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 9:47:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I deeply oppose working with Iran. I do not trust Tehran, but I see no other way but to work with them because they are there.

They recently balked on their timeline for reporting their nuclear studies. They are not trustworthy at all. They are a potential Islamic radical state WITH NUCLEAR BOMBS. They are the biggest threat we face right now.

ISIS is nothing but a hedge guerrilla group. They are brutal, and they are violent, but they are not crafty, like a global power such as Iran.

ISIS is interested in taking and holding territory. They have NO infrustructure, save for what they have stolen. They have no political leadership, just military leadership. They have no farms or production facilities. They are armed with salvaged weaponry.

They are dying in droves and will continue to do so.

In that way, we won't have to be to the same extent that we were in 2003.
We already have boots on the ground, and we are already using our air power. What you want is a policing action, which cost thousands of American lives, the last time it was attempted.

So when are you going to volunteer to serve?

Let me be clear: I want nothing more than to see ISIS militants brought to justice, but doing that leaves our global interests in a precarious, and therefore unacceptable state of overextension. If we invade Iraq, we enable Vladimir Putin to take Ukraine.

Someone should have mentioned this to Bush. That ship has sailed. Putin already justified his invasion of Georgia in 2008, and Bush did NOTHING. like the feckless President he was. The media gave it NO attention, because Fox dictates the news cycle, and Fox is a shill for the GOP.

At this time, the United States faces an array of challenges that is unlike any we have faced since the beginning of the Second World War.

Again, likening today to pre-WWII is disingenuous. The world did not have nuclear arms at the beginning of that war, we cannot view the world from the pre-WWII perspective.

On two distinct fronts, operatives with malevolent objectives threaten the liberty

HOW!? How do they in any way threaten our freedom? Through the fear of violence? I think we can all see how easily our own citizens can commit violence against us. Our police gun down unarmed men and the protesters who stand in defense of the dead.

We aren't free, entirely because of the fear produced by wringing our hands over a bunch of violent zealots fighting in the sand, literally thousands of miles away.

and security of millions of innocent people.

Stop fearmongering, please.

ISIS knows that the United States will be weaker if it intervenes in Iraq, which is why they are trying to get us to intervene with a ground occupation. That is just not an option, at this time.

But you literally just spent the last six paragraphs justifying a ground conflict.

So please, what do you purpose?
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 9:49:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 9:37:49 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:10:21 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:

And this guy. Obviously, lol.

Enjoy being reported.

Why are you wasting space? You're clearly not capable or interested in an intellectual conversation. If you attempt it, I'll be happy to shame you again.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 10:54:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 7:24:30 PM, YYW wrote:

It's an ideological problem not a military one. Unfortunately there appears to be a distinct lack of humanistic Islamic reformers and the West happens to support the most powerful example of the ultraconservative Islam we complain about so often - Saudi Arabia. In fact I'm pretty sure the British helped the extreme Wahhabis in order to undermine the Turks, Turkey being that place everyone seems to be going on holiday to this year, and I mean nice white people in shorts and bikinis. Let us not also forget who helped the Taliban become powerful... To be fair, I think Saudi Arabia is getting better, but it's still pretty stone age. Being no expert on the dissemination of moderating ideals I have no idea what specific actions to take.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 10:56:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 10:54:02 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:24:30 PM, YYW wrote:

It's an ideological problem not a military one. Unfortunately there appears to be a distinct lack of humanistic Islamic reformers and the West happens to support the most powerful example of the ultraconservative Islam we complain about so often - Saudi Arabia. In fact I'm pretty sure the British helped the extreme Wahhabis in order to undermine the Turks, Turkey being that place everyone seems to be going on holiday to this year, and I mean nice white people in shorts and bikinis. Let us not also forget who helped the Taliban become powerful... To be fair, I think Saudi Arabia is getting better, but it's still pretty stone age. Being no expert on the dissemination of moderating ideals I have no idea what specific actions to take.

This is a very astute summary. And it's extremely humble of you to sate you don't know what actions to take.

Would that we were all so humble. It's certainly something to strive for.
YYW
Posts: 36,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 11:06:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 10:54:02 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:24:30 PM, YYW wrote:

It's an ideological problem not a military one.

It's both.

Unfortunately there appears to be a distinct lack of humanistic Islamic reformers and the West happens to support the most powerful example of the ultraconservative Islam we complain about so often - Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis oppose ISIS, and they are willing to fight to break it.

As ISIS continues to grow, many commentators have been pointing to Saudi Arabia as the source of the group, and most assume that the United States is the only force that can stop it. Both of these assertions are incorrect. Saudi Arabia is not the source of ISIS, it"s the group"s primary target.

ISIS" core objective is to restore the caliphate (an Islamic empire led by a supreme leader), and because Saudi Arabia is the epicenter of Islam and the custodian of the Two Holy Mosques in Mecca and Medina, ISIS" road to the caliphate lies through the kingdom and its monarchy. Indeed, ISIS has even launched a campaign against Saudi Arabia, called qadimun, or "we are coming" to take over the country. Saudi Arabia has put the group on its list of terrorist sponsors, declared that funding ISIS is a crime with severe penalties, and arrested ISIS supporters and operatives over the past several months.

Saudi Arabia is the only authority in the region with the power and legitimacy to bring ISIS down. Having effectively eradicated Al Qaeda in the kingdom, the Saudi government, with its experience fighting terrorism, is uniquely positioned to deal with ISIS, which is, after all, an Al Qaeda-aligned organization. The kingdom has built up an impressive counterterrorism program and its counterterrorism strategies are considered some of the most sophisticated and effective in the world.

More importantly, the Saudi leadership has a unique form of religious credibility and legitimacy, which will make it far more effective than other governments at delegitimizing ISIS" monstrous terrorist ideology. The message sent to the Muslim and Arab worlds as Saudi Arabia takes on ISIS is radically different from " and much preferable to " the message sent if the United States does so, especially given America"s recent disastrous record in the Middle East.

http://www.nytimes.com...

I would really suggest you read that article, and generally familiarize yourself with the salient differences between Saudi Arabia, and ISIS. I'm not saying that the Saudis are perfect, but they're better than ISIS and working with them, like working with Iran, is necessary to destroy ISIS.
Tsar of DDO
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 11:16:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 11:06:48 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
lmao

I thought you were watching a movie? Or was that just a lie you used to excuse your cowardice.

Challenge me to a debate.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 11:18:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 11:06:10 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/8/2014 10:54:02 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:24:30 PM, YYW wrote:

It's an ideological problem not a military one.

It's both.

Unfortunately there appears to be a distinct lack of humanistic Islamic reformers and the West happens to support the most powerful example of the ultraconservative Islam we complain about so often - Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis oppose ISIS, and they are willing to fight to break it.

As ISIS continues to grow, many commentators have been pointing to Saudi Arabia as the source of the group, and most assume that the United States is the only force that can stop it. Both of these assertions are incorrect. Saudi Arabia is not the source of ISIS, it"s the group"s primary target.

ISIS" core objective is to restore the caliphate (an Islamic empire led by a supreme leader), and because Saudi Arabia is the epicenter of Islam and the custodian of the Two Holy Mosques in Mecca and Medina, ISIS" road to the caliphate lies through the kingdom and its monarchy. Indeed, ISIS has even launched a campaign against Saudi Arabia, called qadimun, or "we are coming" to take over the country. Saudi Arabia has put the group on its list of terrorist sponsors, declared that funding ISIS is a crime with severe penalties, and arrested ISIS supporters and operatives over the past several months.

Saudi Arabia is the only authority in the region with the power and legitimacy to bring ISIS down. Having effectively eradicated Al Qaeda in the kingdom, the Saudi government, with its experience fighting terrorism, is uniquely positioned to deal with ISIS, which is, after all, an Al Qaeda-aligned organization. The kingdom has built up an impressive counterterrorism program and its counterterrorism strategies are considered some of the most sophisticated and effective in the world.

More importantly, the Saudi leadership has a unique form of religious credibility and legitimacy, which will make it far more effective than other governments at delegitimizing ISIS" monstrous terrorist ideology. The message sent to the Muslim and Arab worlds as Saudi Arabia takes on ISIS is radically different from " and much preferable to " the message sent if the United States does so, especially given America"s recent disastrous record in the Middle East.

http://www.nytimes.com...

I would really suggest you read that article, and generally familiarize yourself with the salient differences between Saudi Arabia, and ISIS. I'm not saying that the Saudis are perfect, but they're better than ISIS and working with them, like working with Iran, is necessary to destroy ISIS.

YYW - the Saudi's created the Wahabist radicalism that ISIS now utilizes. The Saudi's are not interested in working with anyone, but rather getting the west to do their dirty work, as they always have.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 11:19:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 11:16:51 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 9/8/2014 11:06:48 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
lmao

I thought you were watching a movie? Or was that just a lie you used to excuse your cowardice.

Too funny dude. Let's not project now.
YYW
Posts: 36,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 11:20:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 9:47:39 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
I deeply oppose working with Iran. I do not trust Tehran, but I see no other way but to work with them because they are there.

They recently balked on their timeline for reporting their nuclear studies. They are not trustworthy at all. They are a potential Islamic radical state WITH NUCLEAR BOMBS. They are the biggest threat we face right now.

This really represents a myopic and misguided understanding of how Tehran operates, most likely because you're only paying attention to their hostile, chest-beating rhetoric and not paying attention to what Iran actually does. Iran's rhetoric, through its various leaders, is surely bombastic. It is also the case that what Iran considers to be its defense interests comes directly at the expense of US national security, and regional peace/stability. Moreover, Iran has done some really horrible things -like sending rockets to Hamas. That does not mean, however, that Iran cannot be trusted to act in its own best interest.

What you and some of the other posters here are not grasping is that it's in Iran's best interest to quash ISIS -just as it is in the United States' best interest to quash ISIS. Overlapping enemies doth not trustworthy allies make, but we can assume that to the extent that Iran's interests overlap with ours, they will act to our mutual advantage. There is a history of this as well. After 9/11, Iran cooperated with the US operations in Afghanistan, and against Al Qaeda, generally. Their nuclear issue is, certainly, an issue, but to say that Iran is the biggest threat we face is to ignore reality. Three months ago that might have been true, but the status quo has changed.

ISIS is nothing but a hedge guerrilla group. They are brutal, and they are violent, but they are not crafty, like a global power such as Iran.

I don't think you actually have any idea what ISIS is. They're an incredibly well funded operation, composed of militants from around the world, who have been trained in some cases by the United States after Operation Iraqi Freedom -and many are former members of Saddam's army. ISIS has biological and chemical weapons experts from around the world, they have members who were educated in the west and they are incredibly well organized. ISIS is not a 'state' yet, but they will be if no one stops them, which is why stopping them is absolutely necessary.

The later part of your post reflects, really, the extent to which you don't pay attention to the news more than your understanding of the situation on the ground. ISIS's goal is to establish a caliphate that will function as a terror-state. This is explained in detail in the article I linked another user who was similarly misinformed to above.

Again, likening today to pre-WWII is disingenuous. The world did not have nuclear arms at the beginning of that war, we cannot view the world from the pre-WWII perspective.

I think that, in general terms, you don't know a whole lot about history or current events. Evidence for this is amply demonstrated in your responses throughout this thread. The similarities I mentioned are, without question, the case. That is not to say that a global war will necessarily follow, but it is absolutely to indicate that global war is a risk -and one which we will be wise to avoid.

Your unwillingness to pay attention to the relevant factors at hand suggests a troubling level of willful ignorance, such that because the idea of global war is so horrific, you'd rather dismiss the comparison rather than meaningfully engage with it. While an understandable reaction, visceral irrationality isn't productive here. At the end of my post, you asked me what I proposed, and I've made that clear in the OP. In the event you missed that, reread the OP.
Tsar of DDO
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 11:22:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 11:19:17 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/8/2014 11:16:51 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 9/8/2014 11:06:48 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
lmao

I thought you were watching a movie? Or was that just a lie you used to excuse your cowardice.

Too funny dude. Let's not project now.

So, in other words, yes, you were lying and you're still not brave enough to challenge me to a debate. Until you're brave enough to challenge me, you're not worth my time.
YYW
Posts: 36,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 11:23:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 11:18:06 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 9/8/2014 11:06:10 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/8/2014 10:54:02 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:24:30 PM, YYW wrote:

It's an ideological problem not a military one.

It's both.

Unfortunately there appears to be a distinct lack of humanistic Islamic reformers and the West happens to support the most powerful example of the ultraconservative Islam we complain about so often - Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis oppose ISIS, and they are willing to fight to break it.

As ISIS continues to grow, many commentators have been pointing to Saudi Arabia as the source of the group, and most assume that the United States is the only force that can stop it. Both of these assertions are incorrect. Saudi Arabia is not the source of ISIS, it"s the group"s primary target.

ISIS" core objective is to restore the caliphate (an Islamic empire led by a supreme leader), and because Saudi Arabia is the epicenter of Islam and the custodian of the Two Holy Mosques in Mecca and Medina, ISIS" road to the caliphate lies through the kingdom and its monarchy. Indeed, ISIS has even launched a campaign against Saudi Arabia, called qadimun, or "we are coming" to take over the country. Saudi Arabia has put the group on its list of terrorist sponsors, declared that funding ISIS is a crime with severe penalties, and arrested ISIS supporters and operatives over the past several months.

Saudi Arabia is the only authority in the region with the power and legitimacy to bring ISIS down. Having effectively eradicated Al Qaeda in the kingdom, the Saudi government, with its experience fighting terrorism, is uniquely positioned to deal with ISIS, which is, after all, an Al Qaeda-aligned organization. The kingdom has built up an impressive counterterrorism program and its counterterrorism strategies are considered some of the most sophisticated and effective in the world.

More importantly, the Saudi leadership has a unique form of religious credibility and legitimacy, which will make it far more effective than other governments at delegitimizing ISIS" monstrous terrorist ideology. The message sent to the Muslim and Arab worlds as Saudi Arabia takes on ISIS is radically different from " and much preferable to " the message sent if the United States does so, especially given America"s recent disastrous record in the Middle East.

http://www.nytimes.com...

I would really suggest you read that article, and generally familiarize yourself with the salient differences between Saudi Arabia, and ISIS. I'm not saying that the Saudis are perfect, but they're better than ISIS and working with them, like working with Iran, is necessary to destroy ISIS.

YYW - the Saudi's created the Wahabist radicalism that ISIS now utilizes. The Saudi's are not interested in working with anyone, but rather getting the west to do their dirty work, as they always have.

I'm going to refer you to an article in the New York Times, because it's very clear to me that you lack the foundational understanding to have a productive dialogue otherwise.

ISIS emerged not from Saudi Arabia but from postwar Iraq and the remnants of Saddam Hussein"s senior officer corps and their local support networks in Iraq and Syria. This has enabled ISIS to capture large swathes of land in these two countries and seize valuable economic, financial and energy assets, thus becoming financially self-sufficient. Now they are after Saudi Arabia"s riches.

Why, then, do so many people believe Saudi Arabia is behind ISIS?

At the root of the claim that Saudi Arabia created ISIS is the belief that both entities practice a version of Islam called Salafism (erroneously known in the West as Wahhabism). While it is true that the kingdom espouses Salafism, ISIS" claim that it is Salafi has no basis. Salafism is based on the word salaf, or "the ancestors," referring to the way Islam was practiced by Prophet Muhammad"s early followers in the religion"s first three generations.

The Salafists believe that Islam should be practiced according to the dictates of these ancestors. Different interpretations of these dictates have occurred over time, leading to four schools of jurisprudence in Sunni Islam. The founders of these schools were Abu Hanifah, Malik, Al Shafi"i, and Ibn Hanbal.

ISIS follows an ideology that is a continuation of a crude sect known as the Kharijites, or the ones that "deviated" from the Muslim community during the reign of the fourth Caliph Ali (whom they assassinated). The Kharijites believed that whoever disagreed with them should be murdered as infidels (takfir), rationalized mass killings against civilians, including women and children (isti"rad), and practiced an extreme form of inquisition to test their opponent"s faith (imtihan).

These concepts make ISIS" ideology the absolute opposite of Saudi Salafism. The version of Salafism applied in the kingdom"s courts and religious institutions was formulated by one of the four leading Muslim jurists, the ninth-century scholar Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Hanbali law stands firmly against sedition, shedding of blood, and forcible conversion.

One of Ibn Hanbal"s best known sayings typifies current Saudi theology: "Glory to God; shedding blood! Shedding blood! I do not consent nor do I command it; to observe patience in our situation is better than sedition that causes the shedding of blood."

When ISIS first appeared in Syria in 2011, Saudi Arabia tried to galvanize support for the moderate Syrian opposition against the murderous regime of Bashar al-Assad. But the world failed to listen.

Now, as King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia recently pointed out, ISIS is not only a threat to the Middle East, but to Europe and America. We call on the international community to form a solid coalition with Saudi Arabia to roll back ISIS" military advances while at the same time supporting the kingdom"s ever increasing campaign to delegitimize ISIS in the eyes of the wider Sunni world, in order to ultimately destroy it.
Tsar of DDO
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 11:28:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 11:22:46 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 9/8/2014 11:19:17 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 9/8/2014 11:16:51 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 9/8/2014 11:06:48 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
lmao

I thought you were watching a movie? Or was that just a lie you used to excuse your cowardice.

Too funny dude. Let's not project now.

So, in other words, yes, you were lying and you're still not brave enough to challenge me to a debate. Until you're brave enough to challenge me, you're not worth my time.

Are you even reading yourself right now? Keep hanging on to your d-d-debating though.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 11:50:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 11:20:35 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:47:39 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
They recently balked on their timeline for reporting their nuclear studies. They are not trustworthy at all. They are a potential Islamic radical state WITH NUCLEAR BOMBS. They are the biggest threat we face right now.

This really represents a myopic and misguided understanding of how Tehran operates, most likely because you're only paying attention to their hostile, chest-beating rhetoric and not paying attention to what Iran actually does.

I am paying attention to the UN reports on their Nuclear tests, and the fact that they refuse to comply with what they agreed upon.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

Iran's rhetoric, through its various leaders, is surely bombastic. It is also the case that what Iran considers to be its defense interests comes directly at the expense of US national security, and regional peace/stability.

All of this is true, it does not change the fact that Iran is attempting to become a nuclear power. It actually illustrates my concern. This statement directly supports my concerns.

Moreover, Iran has done some really horrible things -like sending rockets to Hamas. That does not mean, however, that Iran cannot be trusted to act in its own best interest.

It does, however, call into question what the US's best interests are, concerning a partnership with Iran. It is worth considering that a proxy war against Iran, by ISIS, would be beneficial, as it would drain Iranian coffers and could distract them from other tasks.

What you and some of the other posters here are not grasping is that it's in Iran's best interest to quash ISIS -just as it is in the United States' best interest to quash ISIS.

Is it? You haven't made a case that it is in our best interest to quash ISIS. I have made the beginnings of a case that ISIS could be useful in damaging other regional regimes. As with your assumption regarding the arming of Syrian rebels, which was incorrect, this is also not a comprehensive analysis.

Overlapping enemies doth not trustworthy allies make, but we can assume that to the extent that Iran's interests overlap with ours, they will act to our mutual advantage.

And where ISIS's interest overlap with ours, they will do the same. The question remains, what should our interests BE in the middle-east? It stands to reason that a viable threat against the Saudis and against Iran, could be used as a wedge to usher in some needed change, or to act as a buffer zone between the eastern powers and Israel.

There is a history of this as well. After 9/11, Iran cooperated with the US operations in Afghanistan, and against Al Qaeda, generally.

Cooperated is not the correct word. They tacitly allowed it, with great umbrage.
Do you not remember the relationship between Bush and Ahmadinejad? It was terrible.

Iran directly supported and trained terrorists who killed Americans in both Iraq and Afghanistan, following the fall of Saddam. They just wanted Saddam dead, and as many Americans as possible, too.

http://iranprimer.usip.org...

"But efforts to cooperate on Iraq after Saddam Hussein"s overthrow foundered. Iran increasingly provided training, weapons and support to terrorists and insurgents, first in Iraq and later in Afghanistan."

Their nuclear issue is, certainly, an issue, but to say that Iran is the biggest threat we face is to ignore reality.

In the region. The biggest threat we face is Russia, globally.

Three months ago that might have been true, but the status quo has changed.

No, it really hasn't. ISIS is not that powerful. It will be an afterthought in six years. Iran will be back to the menacing face of the middle east. The best we can hope for is conflict between the Saudis and Iran. And only if it happens prior to their nuclear armament.

ISIS is nothing but a hedge guerrilla group. They are brutal, and they are violent, but they are not crafty, like a global power such as Iran.

I don't think you actually have any idea what ISIS is. They're an incredibly well funded operation, composed of militants from around the world, who have been trained in some cases by the United States after Operation Iraqi Freedom -and many are former members of Saddam's army.

This is all true. It doesn't change the fact that they have no infrastructure, no rigid command structure, and no cohesive plan. They are surrounded by hostile forces, and they are besieged by the US Air Force. They have no recourse but to attack, and die.

The vast majority of their funding comes from selling oil stolen from their seized refineries. Those are easily crippled hard-targets. ISIS lives on borrowed time.

ISIS has biological and chemical weapons experts from around the world,
As does Iran. As does Syria.

they have members who were educated in the west and they are incredibly well organized.

Like a mafia, but not like a country. We are more threatened by the Cartels in Mexico.

"ISIS raises much of its money just as a well-organized criminal gang would do. It smuggles, it extorts, it skims, it fences, it kidnaps and it shakes down."

This is not sustainable. ISIS cannot engage in a long-term conflict.

ISIS is not a 'state' yet, but they will be if no one stops them, which is why stopping them is absolutely necessary.

They claim to be a state. They are "well organized" according to you. They seem to be a state to me. Regardless, it doesn't matter if they are or are not a state. That's just semantics.

The later part of your post reflects, really, the extent to which you don't pay attention to the news more than your understanding of the situation on the ground.

You make too many assumptions, and your tone is too condescending for someone who has so many errors and assumptions. Take it down a notch.

ISIS's goal is to establish a caliphate that will function as a terror-state.

No, that is not their goal. Their goal is a caliphate. You define it as a terror state. They do not. Don't mix your rhetoric.

This is explained in detail in the article I linked another user who was similarly misinformed to above.

I read your article, written by a Saudi professor. It's not comprehensive, and ignores the Wahabist roots of ISIS.

Again, likening today to pre-WWII is disingenuous. The world did not have nuclear arms at the beginning of that war, we cannot view the world from the pre-WWII perspective.

I think that, in general terms, you don't know a whole lot about history or current events.

Again, condescension is not conducive to discourse. Check your rhetoric.

Evidence for this is amply demonstrated in your responses throughout this thread.
Again, you're not encouraging discussion, you just sound arrogant.

The similarities I mentioned are, without question, the case.

Instead of reflecting on my point, you reject it out of hand.

That is not to say that a global war will necessarily follow, but it is absolutely to indicate that global war is a risk -and one which we will be wise to avoid.

ISIS will not be the cause of global war.

Your unwillingness to pay attention to the relevant factors at hand suggests a troubling level of willful ignorance, such that because the idea of global war is so horrific, you'd rather dismiss the comparison rather than meaningfully engage with it.

Again, I'm talking about nuclear arms. You're being condescending and you clearly don't understand the point. Because the idea of nuclear war is so horrific, you'd rather conflate the point.

While an understandable reaction, visceral irrationality isn't productive here.
Neither is your arrogance, neither is your condescension.

At the end of my post, you asked me what I proposed, an
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 11:51:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At the end of my post, you asked me what I proposed, and I've made that clear in the OP. In the event you missed that, reread the OP.

At the end of your post, you claimed war was not possible, after you advocated for war.

I asked you what your strategy is. Don't refer back to a non-position.
YYW
Posts: 36,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 12:04:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 11:50:05 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:

I don't think there is any potential to have a productive discussion here... sadly.
Tsar of DDO
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 12:23:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 12:04:37 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/8/2014 11:50:05 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:

I don't think there is any potential to have a productive discussion here... sadly.

Yes, when you are extremely rude to individuals trying to offer their perspective in a respectful way, it tends to disrupt discourse.

Consider that next time you post a forum.