Can the rest of the world deal with ISIS if the US stays out?

[NobleSavage]

Bernie says Saudi Arabia should deal with them. Do the Saudis even have that capacity? There has to be something wrong with that plan.

 

[dystopian]

The rest of the world has already been dealing with them without the US; whose actions caused or at the very least allowed it to rise in the first place. The majority of the effort against them is being undertaken by governments in the region, not the US; which has mostly been sitting on the sidelines, occasionally throwing a bomb from the sky while hoping it doesn't hit yet another civilian. Airstrikes alone don't win this sort of war.

 

[NobleSavage]

The rest of the world has already been dealing with them without the US; whose actions caused or at the very least allowed it to rise in the first place. The majority of the effort against them is being undertaken by governments in the region, not the US; which has mostly been sitting on the sidelines, occasionally throwing a bomb from the sky while hoping it doesn't hit yet another civilian. Airstrikes alone don't win this sort of war.

And if the rest of the world leave is unchecked how is that going to work out?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Europe is much better at appeasement than actually dealing with hard problems. The Arab nations take Sunni/Shia sides.

 

[NobleSavage]

Europe is much better at appeasement than actually dealing with hard problems. The Arab nations take Sunni/Shia sides.

You want to expand on that a little? ISIS is mostly Sunni right? Saudi Arabia is mostly Sunni? So that would make Bernies's plan is stupid.

 

[bilby]

The rest of the world has already been dealing with them without the US; whose actions caused or at the very least allowed it to rise in the first place. The majority of the effort against them is being undertaken by governments in the region, not the US; which has mostly been sitting on the sidelines, occasionally throwing a bomb from the sky while hoping it doesn't hit yet another civilian. Airstrikes alone don't win this sort of war.

And if the rest of the world leave is unchecked how is that going to work out?

Probably better than when they were 'checked' by the Assad regime, at least in terms of total civilian deaths.



ISIS doesn't seem to be any more dangerous to the world than any other band of Middle Eastern brigands; and seem to be slightly less unpleasant (not a difficult achievement) than some of the 'friendly' regimes they have supplanted.

Discussions of what to do about ISIS always seem to start from the assumption that something MUST be done, and urgently.

I have yet to see any good support for this assumption, that would not equally have implied that urgent action was needed against many other organisations (including sovereign governments) in the Middle East, against whom no action was taken for decades (and in many cases, against whom no action has yet been contemplated), with few ill-effects outside the Middle East itself.

Why any non-Middle Eastern nation needs to give a flying fuck about ISIS is really not clear at all.

 

[J842P]

Europe is much better at appeasement than actually dealing with hard problems. The Arab nations take Sunni/Shia sides.

You want to expand on that a little? ISIS is mostly Sunni right? Saudi Arabia is mostly Sunni? So that would make Bernies's plan is stupid.

ISIS is entirely Sunni.

 

[dystopian]

The rest of the world has already been dealing with them without the US; whose actions caused or at the very least allowed it to rise in the first place. The majority of the effort against them is being undertaken by governments in the region, not the US; which has mostly been sitting on the sidelines, occasionally throwing a bomb from the sky while hoping it doesn't hit yet another civilian. Airstrikes alone don't win this sort of war.

And if the rest of the world leave is unchecked how is that going to work out?

So you've gone from "Can the rest of the world deal with ISIS if the US doesn't" to "Okay smartiepants, what if NOBODY does anything huh! Then what!?"

Did this thread have an actual point?

 

[bilby]

And if the rest of the world leave is unchecked how is that going to work out?

So you've gone from "Can the rest of the world deal with ISIS if the US doesn't" to "Okay smartiepants, what if NOBODY does anything huh! Then what!?"

Did this thread have an actual point?

Actually, I would like to know the answer to that question.

What are the dire consequences if the rest of the world leaves the Syrians and Iraqis to sort their shit out by themselves? Why does anyone who doesn't live there need to get involved at all?

 

[NobleSavage]

So you've gone from "Can the rest of the world deal with ISIS if the US doesn't" to "Okay smartiepants, what if NOBODY does anything huh! Then what!?"

Did this thread have an actual point?

Actually, I would like to know the answer to that question.

What are the dire consequences if the rest of the world leaves the Syrians and Iraqis to sort their shit out by themselves? Why does anyone who doesn't live there need to get involved at all?

It was an honest question, I don't know. I'd prefer to let them fight it out and stay out of the situation, but we have Obama is saying we must "degrade" and "destroy" them. The news media is painting ISIS to be the biggest threat EVER. After they sort out their shit are they gonna be happy and content or will they be unified, stronger, and more determined to provoke the west into something we can't ignore?

 

[dystopian]

It was an honest question, I don't know.

It really doesn't seem like it was. Rather, it seemed like a thinly veiled excuse to do some national chest-thumping to me. Certainly you tend to frame these sort of OPs in language toward that end; which tends to make me dismissive of any questions (honest or otherwise) that said OPs contain.

 

[NobleSavage]

It was an honest question, I don't know.

It really doesn't seem like it was. Rather, it seemed like a thinly veiled excuse to do some national chest-thumping to me. Certainly you tend to frame these sort of OPs in language toward that end; which tends to make me dismissive of any questions (honest or otherwise) that said OPs contain.

Whatever. I've fairly consistently been anti military adventurism on this board, within reason. I was totally against going into Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place. I voted for Obama because he said he would pull our troops out. Instead of analyzing my motives why don't you tell me how ISIS will play out if the US and Europe sit on the sideline.

 

[dystopian]

It really doesn't seem like it was. Rather, it seemed like a thinly veiled excuse to do some national chest-thumping to me. Certainly you tend to frame these sort of OPs in language toward that end; which tends to make me dismissive of any questions (honest or otherwise) that said OPs contain.

Whatever. I've fairly consistently been anti military adventurism on this board, within reason. I was totally against going into Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place.

Not every kind of chest-thumping involves being pro-war.

Instead of analyzing my motives why don't you tell me how ISIS will play out if the US and Europe sit on the sideline.

I already did.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Bernie says Saudi Arabia should deal with them. Do the Saudis even have that capacity? There has to be something wrong with that plan.

ISIS is the product of the US and European policy on regime change. Once leaders were deposed in Iraq and Libya, various fanatics and militias filled the void. Though Syria is stated to be one of the worst countries in the Middle East for human rights violations, Nonetheless it was a secular state with rights for women and tolerance of Christianity.

Christians and others have been killed or fled.

Saudi has barely a few hundred of the world’s most modern aircraft and is one of the largest air forces in the world. I read this a couple of years ago. Wiki has a large spread on this. Saudi is not lifting a finger. Both Saudi and ISIS are Sunni but unless ISIS is on its borders I doubt if much will be done. Even then its leaders would probably not move fast enough until it is too late.

The estimates for aircraft estimate between 700 and over 800

 

[NobleSavage]

The rest of the world has already been dealing with them without the US; whose actions caused or at the very least allowed it to rise in the first place. The majority of the effort against them is being undertaken by governments in the region, not the US; which has mostly been sitting on the sidelines, occasionally throwing a bomb from the sky while hoping it doesn't hit yet another civilian. Airstrikes alone don't win this sort of war.

I usually get my news from liberal sources. Back in February, NPR reported, "As of this week, the U.S. mounted 946 strikes in Syria, while Jordan, Bahrain, Saudi and UAE completed 79 total".

http://www.npr.org/2015/02/06/38434...ers-u-s-has-done-most-airstrikes-against-isis

Since then I assume the US has only escalated the bombing. I agree, bombing alone will not do much, as you need boots on the ground. I don't want US troops over there and I'm not crazy about the drones and bombing. None the less, how will Jordan, Bahrain, UAE, and the Saudis feel if we just leave the mess to them? Especially, considering we mostly caused it by destabilizing the region.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Bernie says Saudi Arabia should deal with them. Do the Saudis even have that capacity? There has to be something wrong with that plan.

You mean we're not following a "you break it, you bought it" philosophy in dealing with Iraq?

 

[NobleSavage]

Bernie says Saudi Arabia should deal with them. Do the Saudis even have that capacity? There has to be something wrong with that plan.

You mean we're not following a "you break it, you bought it" philosophy in dealing with Iraq?

I really have no idea what the US or the World should do. Bilby, who's opinion I respect seems to think this is much ado about nothing. I'd like other opinions as well. Maybe we should give another country $1 trillion to handle it for us. We would probably end up saving money.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

:mod:

 

[TSwizzle]

ISIS doesn't seem to be any more dangerous to the world than any other band of Middle Eastern brigands; and seem to be slightly less unpleasant (not a difficult achievement) than some of the 'friendly' regimes they have supplanted.

Discussions of what to do about ISIS always seem to start from the assumption that something MUST be done, and urgently.

I have yet to see any good support for this assumption, that would not equally have implied that urgent action was needed against many other organisations (including sovereign governments) in the Middle East, against whom no action was taken for decades (and in many cases, against whom no action has yet been contemplated), with few ill-effects outside the Middle East itself.

Why any non-Middle Eastern nation needs to give a flying fuck about ISIS is really not clear at all.

I somewhat agree with the position in bold but I think the broader Middle East problem is just the stability of the various countries and the massive upheaval it causes. There appears to be a humanitarian crisis unfolding as refugees from all over the middle east try to reach Europe. That will end in tears.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Just pull out of there and let them deal with their own lands. Yes, we in the west caused a lot of their problems, but we can't fix them. We need to step aside and let them develop without our constant interference and attacks.