If ISIS took Iraq, should we recognize them as a state?

Posted by: ChosenWolff

  • Yes

  • No

50% 6 votes
50% 6 votes
  • I think we should open dialogue, and before people jump on me, this is exactly the mistake we made with the taliban. They rules for a decade, and there was nothing anyone was going to do to stop them. Instead of opening working relations, we let them harass and kill their people for several years. A ISIS Iraq is still Iraq, whether or not its a republic. Not recognizing an extreme state is only enabling them to be extreme. Just because we recognize a state, doesn't mean we need to like them.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Oromagi says2014-06-27T03:55:24.1138040-05:00
No, but I don't think that's a likely outcome. ISIS is basically a big gang of young men with some real fighting experience and few other options. This is not an organization that wants to or even knows how to install a government, administer justice, provide food, water, sanitation, etc. Bin Laden specifically cautioned Al Queda against forming this kind of lawless army, because he was certain it would quickly destroy the appeals of Sunni radicalism and I suspect he was right. I've heard that Bin Laden used to say, "Never conquer more than you can feed." ISIS has the capacity to destabilize the current govt. And the very real potential to expand the Syrian Civil War into a more general Middle Eastern conflict. But every army that works this way quickly becomes despised by all and self-destructs. Whether or not the Iraqi government survives, whether or not Iraq partitions along religious fault lines, I think we can be confident that ISIS as an organization won't be running anything for long.
SweetTea says2014-06-27T04:32:20.7989413-05:00
Hezbollah members are serving in elected office, in Lebanon. Members of the IRA are also political. Yassar Arafat became a diplomat & respected leader. In my lifetime, all were considered terrorists for many years. Their organizations did horrible things. Yet, they managed to gain popularity & political strength/footing. Why should ISIS be any different?
Rightwing15 says2014-06-29T22:54:04.9374492-05:00
I love the pic for the topic, the man is dry firing and the one running has his finger on the trigger. Those are both big no no's for a gun owner and especially one who is military trained.
Haroush says2014-06-29T22:56:04.6830492-05:00
Is anyone thinking about our ally Israel in all of this mess?? They being forgotten about.
Haroush says2014-06-30T20:52:32.5833828-05:00
*They are
Haroush says2014-06-30T20:52:37.9966175-05:00
*They are
ChosenWolff says2014-06-30T22:06:34.3302560-05:00
Being the keeper of the Jews is getting pretty old. Israel is militarily and economically accountable at this point. So are all our allies. I would rather we stay out of their affairs for awhile, especially Israel. We're not getting much justice from the Arab or Eastern European nations for our protection of them. Not to mention we are allied with a nation which is legally hosting nukes.
Haroush says2014-06-30T23:40:48.0771939-05:00
We are allied with plenty of nations hosting nukes... Just like us. Apparently you haven't heard about the latest weapons on the market. Laser weapons. Meaning laser weapons that can destroy missals. Furthermore, some of our greatest allies are India, Pakistan, UAE, Israel, and others. Furthermore, apparently you haven't seen what I.S.I.S plans on doing. Just look at this... http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-isis-islamic-state-map-of-world.html
ChosenWolff says2014-06-30T23:43:27.0255939-05:00
Missile defense isn't effective or reliable enough. I think we should have a policy of not supporting states which illegally host nukes. Given that these nations all are terrorist havens, its just generally a bad idea.
Haroush says2014-06-30T23:47:38.3757225-05:00
Well, if we are talking about nations who are illegally hosting nuclear weapons, then yes they shouldn't be supported at all and that would help somewhat, but that still wouldn't fix the problem.
ChosenWolff says2014-06-30T23:49:28.1984311-05:00
You just conceded that we shouldn't be helping these nations.
Haroush says2014-07-01T11:59:34.2000387-05:00
What nations do you claim are hosting nuclear weapons Illegally? And also, if the U.S. is hosting Nukes illegally than none of what you said even matters then.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-01T12:34:17.7140225-05:00
Israel, Pakistan, and India are three nations we support that are hosting nukes illegally (with our taxpayer dollars). Israel signed nuclear proliferation, therefore, is hosting 200 illegal nukes. India and Pakistan did not, yet it was a UN mandate, therefore, are hosting nukes illegally. You stated we shouldn't support states which illegally host nukes. These nations illegally host nukes, therefore, you conceded we shouldn't support them. If they were to give up their nukes, that would be a different story.
Haroush says2014-07-01T12:59:29.8953308-05:00
Well, why is it that the U.S. can hold more nuclear weapons than anyone else, but yet others aren't allowed to hold as many? That's not right. Furthermore, if we are going to ban nukes all together which it seems is attempting to be done.. You can't just ban a little here and a little there.. You have to get ALL the world leaders together at a round table, have them ALL send every single nuke to an undisclosed location, and have them all sit there together and watch them be sent off into space to be exploded. That is the only way a total nuke ban would work. Therefore, I am against these countries being held liable for owning illegal nuclear weapons. This is my opinion on this matter.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-01T13:03:07.3295246-05:00
Hypocrisy. You stated that we shouldn't support states that host nuclear weapons illegally, yet when I tell you Israel and our so called allies are doing it, you double back. The difference between France and Israel hosting nukes, is that France has OSCE monitors, UN inspectors, ect. Constantly regulating arms. The UN has stated its goal is to achieve nuclear proliferation, although that requires restricting MAD to only 5 nations, who are now slowly lowering arsenals. States who host nuclear arsenals outside international law shouldn't be supported.
Haroush says2014-07-01T14:19:38.4479916-05:00
Hypocrisy? Hypocrisy starts with the U.S. supposedly being the world leader and not taking the lead on issues such as this then expected others to follow suit with an idea that isn't fair.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-01T14:20:45.7628895-05:00
Exactly the problem. We should be leaders in nuclear non-proliferation. That starts by not funding nations who use that money to build nukes, which is in their defense budget. What we're paying for.
Haroush says2014-07-01T14:26:41.5835117-05:00
I respectively disagree. I believe it starts by asking All the world leaders to the round table and do what I said in the above comments. Though even if you did this, or did what you said, what makes you think everyone is going to not corrupt the system. People are corrupt and once the genie left the bottle, there is no way of putting the genie back in the bottle.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-01T19:50:28.3600971-05:00
All of the world leaders are working for nuclear non-proliferation. Except Israel, Pakistan, and India. You blatantly went back on what you said the moment I mentioned Israel. Double standards.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.