Make them subcontractors for the CIA, and give them increasingly complicated missions until they fail spectacularly, then cast them by the wayside.
Poll: How should the world deal with ISIS ?
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
A full on international intervention is the only way. Containment wont work since its what has been tried and is not doing anything other than allowing them free land to train and export terror attacks on the west. As I've been saying from day one - it will require an invasion to root out IS and their friends, followed by internationally mandated elections and governance reforms within Syria. Everything else is running to stand still.
Re: Al Qaeda, unfortunately it seems many regional governments and even well-meaning opponents of Assad are willing to give them a pass in Syria due to who they're fighting against.
As for the Turks and ISIS, there is some evidence of arms transfers and a ton of evidence of 'look the other way' at the border. Not to mention them targeting the only worthy opponents of ISIS in Syria, the Kurds.
Exactly. I hate war, but what else is there to deal with ISIS? We either stop them using Syria as a hub for armed training in what is already a completely destabilised country, or we allow them to carry on and plot endless violence both there and across Europe.
Yeah I was meaning in time scale more than anything else. It can't just be another Iraq or Libya(which you could argue was worse as we really just drop a few bombs and feck off). Still can't see any of this happening for a very long time as the public are (rightfully) put off after the complete mess of Iraq.
What shite situation.
Er that's scarily close to the truth it seems.Germany and Italy weren't particularly old since they both became unified states in the second half of the 1800s.
Totally agree.
You can't reason with them. You can't co-exist with them. Kind of leaves no other option, does it?
Amazed so many have voted for full all out war. I hope people realise that many 1000s of Allied soldiers will die in a land war.
@Raoul Any estimate or what's your opinion?
@Raoul Any estimate or what's your opinion?
The other problem with option b is that the West tried this with Iraq but failed miserably as well as incurred a global recession for their troubles.
What certainty is there that they will be able to 100% eliminate ISIS, kill any new post movements AND subsequently rebuild Iraq and Syria. Can the West remain Allied for so long? Its a minimum 10 year job. I just cant see it happening.
At best you end up with a temporary win where ISIS fades, only for it to be reborn as XZY a few years later.
What certainty is there that they will be able to 100% eliminate ISIS, kill any new post movements AND subsequently rebuild Iraq and Syria. Can the West remain Allied for so long? Its a minimum 10 year job. I just cant see it happening.
At best you end up with a temporary win where ISIS fades, only for it to be reborn as XZY a few years later.
Last edited:
That's definitely my main reservation with us having a full scale war against ISIS. Our record in the Middle East is incredibly dodgy, and I struggle to see us managing to do a full rebuild out there, but if we do want to destroy ISIS then what are our other options right now? Our current airstrikes are doing a bit of damage, but not deterring them, and they're still very strong. Just disengaging with them completely won't work, because they'll continue to attack and try to spread anyway.
I'm sure loads of people would die in a ground invasion, but certainly far less than have already died in the Syrian civil war. Unfortunately, the option of "containing ISIS" won't work because the current status quo allows them free access to plenty of land where they can plot further attacks on the west. They have to be simultaneously extracted from Iraq and Syria, and then Syria needs a roadmap towards elections and governance reforms.
A mixture of #4 and #6 for me and this has been my opinion for for a few years now. It might be too late though.
The difference is that these countries had civil societies that were strong and intact. Basic stuff, like respect for the rule of law, government structures, trade and commerce were already in place. That's very different from what are essentially failed states rife with poverty.
That is the big problem with exporting democracy. You can't start off with a democracy and everything else will fall into place. The foundations need to be laid first, then democracy has a chance of working out. Without those foundations it inevitably ends in chaos.
Frankly speaking that's abit insulting.
As a Muslim, I don think the Taliban, Al Queda or ISIS are any more my problem than anyone else's. I did nothing to help create them; I don't recognise, understand or empathise with any of their philosophy or actions, I despise them as much as the next man.
It's certainly not "Islam's" responsibility to defeat them. Why should Muslims from Sub continent India, Asia and Africa get involved in a war that is not aimed at them? ISIS's beef is not with moderate Islam, its with the west.
Last edited:
I'm still disappointed with the poll in that there is no mention of the UN or international agreement, so I've voted for containment as the least bad option for now.
Oil and Israel - just give them up and all will be fine!
It's been going on non stop for 1300 years so you'll need to be innovative.
What strategy do you propose.
Get Jezza Corbyn to convert them to some good old new soft but hard leftism.
A major free-for-all war, thirty years of absolute slaughter and destruction. Worked for Christianity, they decided to just get along afterwards.
The upcoming super war with ISIS has just become the no 1 issue for the upcoming US elections.
This war will take up most of the 1st term for any new president. That person will need to be a hard ass, have serious international and military experience and be prepared to attend 1000s of funerals of US soldiers.
We are heading into war time again
This war will take up most of the 1st term for any new president. That person will need to be a hard ass, have serious international and military experience and be prepared to attend 1000s of funerals of US soldiers.
We are heading into war time again
Still holding by my hopes for the U.S. to get less involved not more involved in military actions around the world. Sick of seeing the deaths and destruction, sick of my taxes being wasted, just plain sick of war. If other countries in the world want to get involved and send their young men and women off to kill and be killed fighting ISIS that is their business.
Perhaps another poll asking those of military age or approaching it, would they volunteer to go fight ISIS?
Perhaps another poll asking those of military age or approaching it, would they volunteer to go fight ISIS?
Heading into?The upcoming super war with ISIS has just become the no 1 issue for the upcoming US elections.
This war will take up most of the 1st term for any new president. That person will need to be a hard ass, have serious international and military experience and be prepared to attend 1000s of funerals of US soldiers.
We are heading into war time again
And the countries that get Saudi oil left with a huge problem
If we take the full scale military route we better have a plan of how to rebuild thereafter. Key alliances need to be maintained for the long term and invest in the areas so the population can have a future. I'd only support a war if we are committed to rebuilding the area for the local people in the long term and work towards forging a relationship that isn't built on hostility and hatred.
What happens if an ISIS attack kills 200 people in Atlanta/Chicago/Seattle next month? Does that change your mind?
I mean a full on world war. I can sense it. Its just a few months away.
The ideological battle has been going on for 15 years and simply gotten more extreme and severe. No compromise has been made by either side and the entire system is close to breaking point.
My main fear is that any new world war will certainly involve nuclear weapons. And countries/regions not involved right now will soon have to choose sides.
From a military standpoint of view ISIS can be wiped out in 1 week, I firmly believe that. The latest estimates are that they have 30.000 fighters. Take into note that those fighters aren't even as well trained as Western soldiers + they are severely outnumbered + they don't even have an air force and you just know they would get slaughered. All this under the assumption that local civilians in IS-areas do not join IS to support them, because we are supposed to believe that muslims hate IS right?
This is not true, the caliphate is much more focused on the 'apostates' around them than they are on the West at the moment. The long term goal is to goad 'the armies of Rome' (ie the west) into a ground war in Iraq/Syria, preferably around Dabiq.
There are other assumptions to be made here. For example that those local civilians will not be attacked or treated like collateral by those "Western soldiers", intentionally or not. I don't think it's possible, to be honest.
I don't think any organisation will go down that route, they know if that can of worms were to be opened then every country in the West and East would unite to take them out. By taking them out, I mean eradication. It would be suicide.
The fear I have is that they've been organising a much more intricate infrastructure across Europe and this is the first wave of attacks. But we all said this after 9/11 and 7/7, so perhaps it's just that initial reaction of impending doom that you get after an attack of this nature when in reality all it does is spur the intelligence agencies across Europe into overdrive.
How would elections help exactly?
They would be essential to giving citizens a sense of ownership over their own governance. Without a democratic mandate, any reforms in governance would be pointless and unsustainable.
And what happens if all the parties are organized along sectarian and/or ethnic lines, people vote en bloc for 'their' party, and the winner decides that getting the most votes means their sect/tribe gets to lord it over everyone else?
That would be brilliant if it happens. Annihilate them, and with it, the legend that Muslims will get united under a caliph and then destroy Jews and Christians.
Which begs the question: before the caliphate will destroy Christians, aren't them supposed to have an alliance with them to defeat Jews?
Defeating the IS on the battlefield is trivial for any major power. The problem is holding the territory afterwards, it would be constant guerilla warfare, same as Afghanistan or indeed Iraq.
You can't force democracy on people. It has to evolve and be a natural movement from the will of the people. I can see only chaos in the aftermath unfortunately, but we can try and minimise this by having a long term commitment to the region.
I just read that IS occupy a territory in which approximately 10 million people are living. How the hell did they manage that with just 20.000 - 30.000 fighters?
Cant see any options working really. War on terror has been ongoing for 14 years and it's even worse then before. The only option that will definitely work would involve levels of evil that make Hitler look like Jesus.
I did not want troops there. I have changed my mind.
Its not being forced on anyone, but in the security vacuum of a 5 year long civil war, there has to be a functional government if Syria is going to escape the endless cycles of violence. The international community has to create a system that allows Syrian citizens a sense of ownership over their own affairs. That won't happen under authoritarian dictatorship.