The Syrian government can be reasoned with. Thats the thing. We can convince them to fight ISIS, while we take off sanctions of them. Remember, the West are the ones who tried to get Al-Assad out of power.
@tajshar2k They are the regional powers of the Middle East, hence have the greatest incentive and interest to fight ISIS, Western powers lack sufficient incentive aside from witnessing the occasional beheadings.
The U.S. can't just stand aside and watch ISIS exterminated groups of people like they almost did the Kurds, Syrian and the U.S. aren't on good terms, and Turkey won't do anything. The only solution is for the U.S. to get personally involved.
@Utherpenguin, I rather have these terrorists wiped out than to stand by and let them develop, all the while continuing to rape, behead, and murder innocent people, women and children as we speak. The United States must take action if no one else is willing.
@TeenagerX Much of the circumstances that allowed ISIS to develop came as the aftermath to the Iraq War. The US cannot always respond to violence with more violence, otherwise you just make the problem worse. If you have a hammer, doesn't mean every problem should look like a nail.
@UtherPenguin I agree, but clearly Syria can't handle ISIS. As I've repeatedly stated, Turkey refuses to take aggressive action. Who else is going to combat ISIS? Iran? Saudi Arabia? At least one of these countries support the terrorist group.
@Stargate Most European nations would rather not get their hands dirty, It has always been the U.S. going into and evicting these muslim extremists. They have 0 incentive to get involved, UK and France.
@Utherpenguin Also, ISIS isn't even a threat to Iran, Iran Quds would destroy ISIS, as in 1 sided blowout, if they ever tried anything. The only reason why ISIS still exists is because no one is stopping them. ISIS is smart enough to avoid big fish like Saudi Arabia and Iran, choosing to prey on more vulnerable nations like Syria and Iraq.
U.S. Must do something.
@TeenagerX If ISIS considers Iran to be a big fish, that just acts as a better reason for Iran to get involved. If Iran could crush ISIS, then it's way more cost effective to have Iran and Saudi fight a war that's in their best interests.
@Utherpenguin Turkey hasn't been doing anything productive either. They literally waited last moment to fight ISIS, because they hoped ISIS would finish the Kurds off. So, I don't trust Turkey. Also Saudi Arabia is also pretty useless.
My point is, we can't depend on Saudi Arabia and Turkey. They are incompetent in fighting ISIS. If I were to see who is worse between Al-Assad and ISIS I would pick ISIS. Make some sort of deal with Al-Assad, and keep ISIS weak.
@tajshar2k Saudi, Turkey and Iran would probably make much better allies than UK and Germany. Since those countries are directly impacted by the conflict, UK and Germany are only capable of drone strikes and are unwilling to join a costly war.
@tajshar2k Syria is unwilling and incapable of joining a war against ISIS, Assad can't juggle between fighting the rebels and fighting ISIS. Same can be said with Iraq. And the Kurds are unwilling to fight outside their own territory.
UtherPenguin, Never said to get those European countries involved. They have no reason to. I'm saying help the Syrian government. ISIS has been killing thousands of government soldiers, and would definitely act. Saudi Arabia on the other hand, doesn't care. And Turkey think the Kurds are a bigger threat.
@tajshar2k European countries make up a bulk of the coalition, that's why I brought them up. Syria cannot deal with a war against ISIS due to far too much in fighting. Assad has committed so many human rights violations that the US funding them would have caused immediate condemnation by the UN and any potential allies.
Stargate, thats exactly how this whole problem started. Al-Assad was Pro Russian therefore the U.S doesn't like him anymore. They try to get him out of power, by funding the Syrian rebels. Most of them become ISIS. So, getting a new leader isn't easy.
@UtherPenguin If thats the case, the U.S would have gone to war with literally every country in the middle-east. All are barbaric devils who are the worst human rights offenders. Right now, with the options we have, the U.S has to make some compensation with Syria, and help them fight ISIS. Obviously, depending on the Saudi's and the Turk's is doing nothing to stop the ISIS advance across the Levant.
@Tajshar2k No! The U.S. should not help Syria, the country that gassed its own citizens, including children back in 2013. Did you all forget that? Listen, Turkey and Saudi Arabia don't want to get involved, Iran supports ISIS, Iraq is too weak, and Syria's government is evil. Although I don't support the Syrian rebels I can see where there coming from, The Syrian government is corrupt and kills its own people. Not to mention the all of those Syrian refugees fleeing the war torn nation to try and find some comfort in Germany.
Europe doesn't want to do anything either. The only option, the only solution, is for the United States of America to directly intervene and stop ISIS before they reach considerable military strength.
@tajshar2k " thats the case, the U.S would have gone to war with literally every country in the middle-east. All are barbaric devils who are the worst human rights offenders" This is BS beyond comprehension. You have made such a huge generalization/stereotype to make your argument that I can't even reply to this properly.
@tajshar2k Have you really done meticulous research on Turkey, Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, Jordan, Egypt, Sudan, Libya,Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates to say that all Middle Eastern countries are barbaric? That's not only BS, that's racist.
@tajshar2k "UtherPenguin, Are you going to pretend countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Iran are all nice guys who never have violated human rights?" And are you really going to pretend that all Middle Eastern countries are barbaric?
And don't you dare pull out the race card. I have never been racist to anybody in my life, and intend to keep it that way. Pointing out countries in the middle east have committed crimes, is apparently racist now.
Ok, let me get back on topic. It's either we go to war, or we make a deal with Al-Assad to help him fight ISIS. Its literally the only to viable things to do. Doing nothing used to be my position, but thats me assuming ISIS will remain a domestic threat.
@tajshar2k In order for ISIS to be a major threat to countries abroad, they would have to first consolidated their territories in Syria and Iraq, as well as driving out the Syrians and the Iraqis. This is very unlikely however, even if the US doesn't do anything. They simply do not yet have the capacity to actually overthrow governments. This means they'll likely remain a domestic threat.
@Utherpenguin Not as an army, but what ISIS has been successful at doing, is getting muslims to join their cause globally. If they can get other's to do their work for them abroad, then its already a big threat.
@tajshar2k I'm not necessarily against war, what I'm against is the US taking the initiative in said war. As the potential that regional powers have to combat ISIS is being mostly ignored, even if said countries are unwilling to fight.
UtherPenguin, I don't want the U.S to enter any land force. My point is regional powers such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey aren't willing to do anything useful. Syria on the other hand, might help us, because in my opinion ISIS is far worse than Al-Asad.
@tajshar2k Even if the Syrians are willing they aren't capable. The Syrians are doing even worse off than Iraq, since the Syrians were devastated by civil war before ISIS even happeds. Syria is simply too unstable to land an attack against ISIS.
@taJshar2k Think, of all the forces in the region, Syria is the most divided, the most unstable and has been locked in conflict for the longest. Even the Kurds would make a better ally, and they don't even have a country.
If you mean the do nothing option UtherPenguin. I was the proud first voter. I would offer safe haven. I would support dealing openly and honestly with whatever stable governments of the middle-east emerge, but I will never support one more US dollar, life, or second of care for the insane folly that is US intervention in that hell. Find someone else to "help".
@TBR I'm talking about the guy that voted this option: https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/378800000822867536/3f5a00acf72df93528b6bb7cd0a4fd0c.jpeg I mean honestly, we all know doge secretly supports ISIS, so why support doge?
TBR, please open your eyes. You see guys who hate America to the core, behead American Journalists, say they will destroy America, and you are 100% sure they will never do anything to the U.S. Ok then.
This paranoid "strike-or-die" fantasy is quite vexing. If other nations want to front the bill for their own involvement, so be it. We have already had extensive involvement in the region and squandered too many lives and dollars.
Now, back to those assholes in ISIS. No, I don't give a rats ass about them. They are not any more a threat than any of the other groups we have managed to piss-off over the last 70 years. Lop a head off? Think that has never been done before? Hell, WE do that every day, just with cooler tech. Leave the hell that is the ME alone to rot or figure it out for themselves. We are out!
You can see they are radicalizing muslims across the globe, how about before they expand their influence, we help wipe them out? I'm not supporting sending ground troops.Atleast help the Kurds who are fighting ISIS for us.
@PericIes - I know you were. That is a discussion to itself, but I am over the top with speaking in terms like "We can't allow". These aren't out countries. Time for us to learn that, and get the hell out of their business. That is what they want, ask for, and a big part of the reason we are a target. Leave them alone.
@The_American_Sniper - Can you show me where this has worked? Can you show me where we are not the cause of this radicalization? Can you point to just one instance where success has come from intervention?
I have no issue with you using WWII, however we were speaking of the ME. So, let me be clear. Where has our intervention in the ME produced any results? We could bicker about exactly how BAD WWII messed up the ME, but that is a side discussion.
I am willing to make that choice, call me a war hawk. But we need to be willing and ready to fight for what is right, and what needs to be done. We can not sit back and allow them to do whatever they want. You might hate this fact, but peace is kept by showing you are willing to use your power, and have the power and will to stop them.
Look there is no way to know what would the world be like if we didn't do anything in Iraq. But remember our unwillingness to enter WW1, and WW2. Many lives where lost due to us not willing to make that sacrifice.
Nazi's were actually a threat to the world. Why? Because they wanted to take over the world. Here is what we are doing in the middle east. We are becoming friends with a guy, making him powerful, we overlook all the atrocities that he commits because he's our friend, and when he doesn't something he doesn't like, we point out all the crap he did before, and use that to go war. Its like pouring water on the ground on purpose, and wiping it.
I actually think the U.S purposely goes into the Middle-East to screw shit up. Why? Well, letting the rules in the middle-east become powerful could possibly hurt our oil business, which will hurt the West. Its an interesting theory, but it makes sense.
The whole "we must stop brutal tyrants" is complete BS. If it's the case, why haven't we done anything to Saudi Arabia? Its literally the worst country regarding Human Rights. Apart from gassing it's own citizens, I can say the Saudi regime is worse than any Baathist out there.
So we should just quit and head home. We should disable the 800+ foreign military bases, we should stop sending so many troops abord. We shouldn't stop these bad dictators from killing there own people, we should just give up and call it quits.
No, after WW2 we made a comitment. We would never aging not be in a alliance, that we would never aging back down from helping those in need, that we would spread freedom to all parts of the world, that we wouldn't back down from a fight.
After WW2 and until Obama came into office we thought a strong foreign policy equals a strong domestic policy. We need to look at history, and learn from the mistakes of being unwilling to fight for what is right.
We're not consistent because we vote in different presidents and Congresses who decide our actions. We're consistent in certain areas like Afghanistan, but with Obama in office there's no way we'd still be sticking around Iraq.
NATO, plus they want it there. I will tell you something, we never leave a military base usually once we make it. Even if the reason it was made is no longer here. But they want it there so we keep it.
@tajshar2k - I can't believe that you think the only reason the US has been involved in the Middle East is because of oil. Do you recognize the many justifications that exist for going into there? There's not only dictators but an engine of terrorism that will only get stronger if the world powers decide to go on vacation.
My point is we are see as the world police. We are seen as if you do something bad, we are the final say if you get punished usually. Because no one else is willing to do it. Sometimes there are things worth fighting for, in this case a safer better world. An world where everyone is free, where slavery is gone, a world where wars are no longer necessary. A world that is untied under one banner, that banner being a symbol of hope freedom and the lives that where sacrificed to make this world.
@Varrack I never said oil was the only reason. Where did I say that? I agree Radical Islam must be fought against, but making a dictator our friend, then when he doesn't like us anymore, isn't a good reason to go to war with him.
I understand if you feel cheated by Iraq and Afghanistan and still remember vitname and all the people we have killed in the name of freedom. But you enjoy these freedoms that you and me have. So is it so wrong to try to create a better place for all of humanity. Look at our flag and remember the lives lost fighting for our freedom, and the ability to say proudly I am an american.
I'm even Pro military intervention, but especially regarding Iraq, I don't believe the Bush administration went in solely to topple Baathist Iraq. Or that was the #1 reason to invade Iraq. I can of course take the government's word for it, but I don't think our government is the most honest.
@stargate - If your plan for peace were obtainable the US would put the blood and treasure into it. It is a losing bet, and we have more than enough data to make that call at this point. We are not the right tool for this job. We should provide the humanitarian roll, and not the military roll.
Okay here are some reasons human right violation ISIS, and the syrain government. ISIS destroying ancient ruins, ISIS allowing slavery to thrive under there rule, ISIS killing andone not Islamic, need I go on I have a lot more reasons.
No, I do not want WW3. If we attack Iran Russia and China will attack. Then due to defense treatys all NATO nations will be forced into the war. Then many other nations. I agree with a lot of things you guys say I am opened minded. It is just I can justify my reasons, I also think it needs to be done so I will continue to say what needs to be said untilthe end of time.
Here is why we need to attack Iran: If we look at most nuclear powers, like Russia. Every time it came down to eliminating the enemy or surviving, they would choose there own survive. But you have to look at Iran's morals, they call the US the devil, and in order to kill us they have helped (with financial aid) the terrorists who blew up the twin towers on 9-11, they walk onto a bus with a back pack full of bombs and blow themselves up with out second thought. If they were to get a nuke, they would not care what the west would do back, they would use it on the US or Israel. The Iran Nuclear deal is not stopping Iran from getting a bomb, it is just taking time, time that we don't have. The UN, as much as i don't like them, said back in 2013, Iran could have a bomb by that fall, fall of 2013, it is now 2015, almost 2016 and we still have not stopped Iran from enriching Uranium. We have not even tried to stop them in the shadows. Israel has killed 6 of Iran's top nuclear scientists, they put a virus on there main frame and stopped them from enriching for months, they also blew a power plant that they were using to build a secret underground facility that when it is done, Iran will be "immune" all there enriching will go deep underground, and at that point we would have to send in ground troops to stop them. The Iran deal is not what we need, we need to find a different way to stop them, and if the time comes war, because if we don't they will.
BIGC actually has a point. If we leave Israel and the Middle East to itself, national freelancing will happen. The lack of the involvement of the U.S. will cause nations to believe that they can handle things themselves, and will go invade as they wish, which will simply cause more war. There's historical examples for this.
Being a foothold in the middle east for one, supplying us with info. They have helped us it is just we help them a lot more. They are good people, there army is great. The reason they didn't help us in the war was due to them having other promblems.
I don't support doing nothing in the middle-east. We should avoid war when possible. I don't believe we need to go to war with Iran. We just established a deal. Also, what next? What will we do after we topple the Iranian government?
I do not want war with Iran, if we attack them Russia and China will attack us. Trus ww3 will start, let me just tell you something. Look at WW1 and WW2, look at the technology levels, look at the tactics used, look at how many people died, look at how far apart they where. We simply can not invade Iran without billions of people dieing as a result. For once I can not justify the use pf military force.
The question is, then, what do you do about a widespread religion that preaches the death of those who don't convert? I think genocide, in this case, is justified, because their religious doctrine is genocidal in nature, and must be removed from this Earth.
Um.... But killing them all would make us no better then them. I understand why going to war in the middle east is necessary so I support it. But we can not do a mass genocide of all people fellowing Islam in the middle east.
Third world countries are inherently unstable due to both internal strife and external pressure. Inevitably, They are going to be occupied by 1st world countries which provide stability and initial funding in exchange for military bases and future economic benefits. The only question is, Will it be the US or China?