NobleSavage
Veteran Member
Bernie says Saudi Arabia should deal with them. Do the Saudis even have that capacity? There has to be something wrong with that plan.
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.
Europe is much better at appeasement than actually dealing with hard problems. The Arab nations take Sunni/Shia sides.
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?
ISIS is entirely Sunni.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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bernie says Saudi Arabia should deal with them. Do the Saudis even have that capacity? There has to be something wrong with that plan.
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.
Bernie says Saudi Arabia should deal with them. Do the Saudis even have that capacity? There has to be something wrong with that plan.
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?
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.