Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

The fight against the Islamic State

Myrthe
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 5:01:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The military intervention against the IS should also include attacks at IS fighters from the ground.

We believe that Syria and Iraq need help in order to fight the Islamic State (IS). The air attacks from the military coalition (including US and the Netherlands etc.) are not effective enough. In order to defeat the IS, ground attacks are, just like the air attacks, necessary in our opinion.

We would like to know your opinion!
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 8:38:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 5:01:32 AM, Myrthe wrote:
The military intervention against the IS should also include attacks at IS fighters from the ground.

We believe that Syria and Iraq need help in order to fight the Islamic State (IS). The air attacks from the military coalition (including US and the Netherlands etc.) are not effective enough. In order to defeat the IS, ground attacks are, just like the air attacks, necessary in our opinion.

We would like to know your opinion!

America has a bad reputation for causing instability in the Mid East with boots on the ground.
Myrthe
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 8:52:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 8:38:17 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/24/2014 5:01:32 AM, Myrthe wrote:
The military intervention against the IS should also include attacks at IS fighters from the ground.

We believe that Syria and Iraq need help in order to fight the Islamic State (IS). The air attacks from the military coalition (including US and the Netherlands etc.) are not effective enough. In order to defeat the IS, ground attacks are, just like the air attacks, necessary in our opinion.

We would like to know your opinion!

America has a bad reputation for causing instability in the Mid East with boots on the ground.

What do you think then that should be done to defeat IS?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 8:57:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 8:52:23 AM, Myrthe wrote:
At 11/24/2014 8:38:17 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/24/2014 5:01:32 AM, Myrthe wrote:
The military intervention against the IS should also include attacks at IS fighters from the ground.

We believe that Syria and Iraq need help in order to fight the Islamic State (IS). The air attacks from the military coalition (including US and the Netherlands etc.) are not effective enough. In order to defeat the IS, ground attacks are, just like the air attacks, necessary in our opinion.

We would like to know your opinion!

America has a bad reputation for causing instability in the Mid East with boots on the ground.

What do you think then that should be done to defeat IS?

Arms support is problematic as well as that created Bid Laden.

I'm afraid the Middle East will have to get through and develop on its own pace in its own way. Any intervention seems to slow that process down. I am not an advocate for watching the ME burn, but a genuine sense of peaceful ME unity won't develop with scapegoats like America intervening.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 11:02:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 8:52:23 AM, Myrthe wrote:
At 11/24/2014 8:38:17 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/24/2014 5:01:32 AM, Myrthe wrote:
The military intervention against the IS should also include attacks at IS fighters from the ground.

We believe that Syria and Iraq need help in order to fight the Islamic State (IS). The air attacks from the military coalition (including US and the Netherlands etc.) are not effective enough. In order to defeat the IS, ground attacks are, just like the air attacks, necessary in our opinion.

We would like to know your opinion!

America has a bad reputation for causing instability in the Mid East with boots on the ground.

What do you think then that should be done to defeat IS?

Parliamentary resolution from the governments in power. Our presence MUST be legitimized by those in control, as well as those in the surrounding areas so that our forces, when we are done and further legitimize a power can mitigate our presence to their constituents.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 12:57:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 5:01:32 AM, Myrthe wrote:
The military intervention against the IS should also include attacks at IS fighters from the ground.

We believe that Syria and Iraq need help in order to fight the Islamic State (IS). The air attacks from the military coalition (including US and the Netherlands etc.) are not effective enough. In order to defeat the IS, ground attacks are, just like the air attacks, necessary in our opinion.

We would like to know your opinion!

ISIS is not the real problem here. The problem is, it seems, that the political choices people appear to have in the Middle East are oppressive, corrupt regimes who are obedient to corporations and the West, or religious extremists who are rebelling against Western and corporate interests. I think the only way to help is to support the people of the Middle East, to give them more autonomy and economic opportunity, not support one tyrant against another, or be a tyrant ourselves.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 2:04:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 8:38:17 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/24/2014 5:01:32 AM, Myrthe wrote:
The military intervention against the IS should also include attacks at IS fighters from the ground.

We believe that Syria and Iraq need help in order to fight the Islamic State (IS). The air attacks from the military coalition (including US and the Netherlands etc.) are not effective enough. In order to defeat the IS, ground attacks are, just like the air attacks, necessary in our opinion.

We would like to know your opinion!

America has a bad reputation for causing instability in the Mid East with boots on the ground.

You're absolutely right. Why don't more people here realize that the reason America is trying to "combat" ISIS is to preserve ITS state and capitalist interests rather than the Middle Easterners' popular interests?
You can call me Mark if you like.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 2:22:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 12:57:50 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 11/24/2014 5:01:32 AM, Myrthe wrote:
The military intervention against the IS should also include attacks at IS fighters from the ground.

We believe that Syria and Iraq need help in order to fight the Islamic State (IS). The air attacks from the military coalition (including US and the Netherlands etc.) are not effective enough. In order to defeat the IS, ground attacks are, just like the air attacks, necessary in our opinion.

We would like to know your opinion!

ISIS is not the real problem here. The problem is, it seems, that the political choices people appear to have in the Middle East are oppressive, corrupt regimes who are obedient to corporations and the West, or religious extremists who are rebelling against Western and corporate interests. I think the only way to help is to support the people of the Middle East, to give them more autonomy and economic opportunity, not support one tyrant against another, or be a tyrant ourselves.

The problem is American imperialism in the name of stabilizing and maintaining the global economy. The reason for America's extensive involvement in the Middle East DOES largely have to do with oil, BUT we don't really "need" Middle Eastern Oil. Europe, on the other hand, does, and the seizure/nationalization of oil resources in the Middle East would have a profound effect on the European oil markets, most likely drastically raising the price of oil. MDCs are characterized by well-developed middle classes and a petroleum-intensive culture, so, as much as the foreign oil companies would like to increase their profits, because of the existence of so large a body of oil consumers, keeping prices low must be the priority. That's part of the reason why OPEC recently decided not to cut oil production by a significant amount.

The Western interference in the affairs of Middle Eastern has been going on for quite a few decades. The democratically-elected president of Iran, Mossadegh, was labeled a communist and subsequently overthrown with the help of the American Central Intelligence Agency in 1953. The Mujahideen were given the help of the Central Intelligence Agency in order to fight the forces of the Soviet Union from within Afghanistan. The eventual evacuation of Soviet forces from Afghanistan undid extensive Soviet reforms, including those of the infrastructure, civil rights, and government variety. Public education was lost to the CIA-backed revolt. Centralized government was sacrificed as well, and Afghanistan dissolved into a state of tribal and militant-group warfare. The Taliban came into power as a result of this, with some of the weapons they had gained from Uncle Sam as the mujahideen.

However, amid global pressure to cut down on the production of drugs by elements of the Taliban, the Taliban government reported that it had cut drug production by an impressive two-thirds. This was undone when the Taliban government was toppled by the USA, and under the new government that the USA and European powers had installed, drug production rose to an all-time high.

In conclusion, it is good that there should be a semblance of a "world government" that keeps other countries "straight", but the "world government" should not act as the exploitative hand of well-developed countries to destabilize and act as a parasite once the defenses of a country have been weakened. Such is the current state of government intervention conducted by Western powers in the affairs of the Third World. ISIS came to power through weapons and destabilization supplied by the US.
You can call me Mark if you like.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 2:28:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 8:52:23 AM, Myrthe wrote:
At 11/24/2014 8:38:17 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/24/2014 5:01:32 AM, Myrthe wrote:
The military intervention against the IS should also include attacks at IS fighters from the ground.

We believe that Syria and Iraq need help in order to fight the Islamic State (IS). The air attacks from the military coalition (including US and the Netherlands etc.) are not effective enough. In order to defeat the IS, ground attacks are, just like the air attacks, necessary in our opinion.

We would like to know your opinion!

America has a bad reputation for causing instability in the Mid East with boots on the ground.

What do you think then that should be done to defeat IS?

The best thing to do is just leave them alone. If they're really as bad as the media says, then eventually they will be toppled. It's the nature of such things. The U.S. isn't mad at ISIS because "it's a threat to U.S. citizens". It's a threat to U.S. and European interests, as clearly an annexation of the entire Middle East by an economically and politically conservative power would irk those foreigners with capital cravings.
You can call me Mark if you like.