What should the world do about ISIS?

[Tom Sawyer]

The world shouldn't do anything about ISIS. Sunnis should wipe them out.

Go Sunnis.

Except, from what I hear, the Sunnis quite like ISIS. They're the crazy tip of the spear that runs off the Shiites who haven't been letting the Sunnis participate in the Iraqi government, leaving them free to govern themselves.

The Sunnis should only wipe ISIS out if ISIS starts trying to tell them what to do.

 

[untermensche]

The real question is, what should the world do about violent nations, like the US, that go around creating the chaos and misery that groups like ISIS evolve from?

Ok, here's the situation: WW1 and Versailles just passed, it's done, boohoo. Now Hitler's here. What are you going to do about it?

ISIS is to what you folks are thinking, as Hulk is to last year's Mr Universe. These people are fantastically powerful and effective.

The video I posted is an example (you can inform yourselves with any other report you like) for those of you who think it's just another peasant revolt. Armchair reverie over a cup of Starbucks latte is not going to make the grade.

Again, the group in the world most like Hitler is the US. The constant violence and threats. The unprovoked attacks. The massive killing and misery.

What are we going to do about a real problem in this world? Forget about this little ISIS, they are nothing compared to the real problem.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Good point. One of the reasons Hitler was a threat, a real threat, was because he had the power to back up the threat.

ISIS doesn't measure up.

 

[untermensche]

Good point. One of the reasons Hitler was a threat, a real threat, was because he had the power to back up the threat.

ISIS doesn't measure up.

The post-Hitler problem is nuclear weapons. Of course nobody would want groups like ISIS to get nuclear weapons. And nobody wants another religious dictatorship.

The bottom line, as bad as Hussein was, he was better than a group like ISIS being in control.

All we have done in Iraq is open the door to groups like ISIS to try to take power.

 

[Perspicuo]

Fareed Zacharia GPS: A new map for the Middle East?
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/10/a-new-map-for-the-middle-east/

 

[fromderinside]

The world shouldn't do anything about ISIS. Sunnis should wipe them out.

Go Sunnis.

Except, from what I hear, the Sunnis quite like ISIS. They're the crazy tip of the spear that runs off the Shiites who haven't been letting the Sunnis participate in the Iraqi government, leaving them free to govern themselves.

The Sunnis should only wipe ISIS out if ISIS starts trying to tell them what to do.

Oh. You haven't seen this? "Repent or die: al-Qaeda forces announce rules for Iraqi territory they now control"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world news/middleeast/iraq/10895007/Repent-or-die-al-Qaeda-forces-announce-rules-for-Iraqi-territory-they-now-control.html

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Good point. One of the reasons Hitler was a threat, a real threat, was because he had the power to back up the threat.

ISIS doesn't measure up.

The post-Hitler problem is nuclear weapons. Of course nobody would want groups like ISIS to get nuclear weapons. And nobody wants another religious dictatorship.

The bottom line, as bad as Hussein was, he was better than a group like ISIS being in control.

All we have done in Iraq is open the door to groups like ISIS to try to take power.

The only country within range of ISIS to have nuclear weaponry is Israel. The only country with nuclear weaponry that I think is very bad for them to have it is Pakistan. Again, ISIS doesn't measure up.

ISIS ain't Hitler. Hitler had a first world country, first world technology (by 1930s standards), a first world economy (even after it was destroyed by the Treaty of Versailles), a first world population, etc., etc. ISIS doesn't measure up. Hussein, Iran, ISIS, Qadaffi, none of them are Hitler.

 

[untermensche]

The post-Hitler problem is nuclear weapons. Of course nobody would want groups like ISIS to get nuclear weapons. And nobody wants another religious dictatorship.

The bottom line, as bad as Hussein was, he was better than a group like ISIS being in control.

All we have done in Iraq is open the door to groups like ISIS to try to take power.

The only country within range of ISIS to have nuclear weaponry is Israel. The only country with nuclear weaponry that I think is very bad for them to have it is Pakistan. Again, ISIS doesn't measure up.

ISIS ain't Hitler. Hitler had a first world country, first world technology (by 1930s standards), a first world economy (even after it was destroyed by the Treaty of Versailles), a first world population, etc., etc. ISIS doesn't measure up. Hussein, Iran, ISIS, Qadaffi, none of them are Hitler.

Yes, minus nuclear weapons, no nation is very powerful when all things are considered.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The only country within range of ISIS to have nuclear weaponry is Israel. The only country with nuclear weaponry that I think is very bad for them to have it is Pakistan. Again, ISIS doesn't measure up.

ISIS ain't Hitler. Hitler had a first world country, first world technology (by 1930s standards), a first world economy (even after it was destroyed by the Treaty of Versailles), a first world population, etc., etc. ISIS doesn't measure up. Hussein, Iran, ISIS, Qadaffi, none of them are Hitler.

Yes, minus nuclear weapons, no nation is very powerful when all things are considered.

Wrong. Minus nuclear weaponry, there are still many powerful countries, including the USA and most (but not all) of the rest of NATO, Russia, China, a few others. China has the ability to man a huge army to the point where fighting a land war in Asia is hopeless. The USA, minus nuclear weaponry, still has the most advanced of most all other weaponry. I worked on the F-22 program - there's nothing out there that can match it. We'd need to give the enemy some F-22s just to give our pilots something to do if we went to war with them. Plus the USA still has sufficient wealth (barely) to fund all the logistics needed for a war.

There's more, much much more, to being a powerful country than nukes. ISIS doesn't measure up.

 

[untermensche]

Yes, minus nuclear weapons, no nation is very powerful when all things are considered.

Wrong. Minus nuclear weaponry, there are still many powerful countries, including the USA and most (but not all) of the rest of NATO, Russia, China, a few others. China has the ability to man a huge army to the point where fighting a land war in Asia is hopeless. The USA, minus nuclear weaponry, still has the most advanced of most all other weaponry. I worked on the F-22 program - there's nothing out there that can match it. We'd need to give the enemy some F-22s just to give our pilots something to do if we went to war with them. Plus the USA still has sufficient wealth (barely) to fund all the logistics needed for a war.

There's more, much much more, to being a powerful country than nukes. ISIS doesn't measure up.

What nukes give you is a defense against things like the US invasion of Iraq. That's really their only use for nations.

 

[tupac chopra]

The real question is, what should the world do about violent nations, like the US, that go around creating the chaos and misery that groups like ISIS evolve from?

Well the Russian idea is one way.
Putin's aide proposes anti-dollar alliance to force US to end Ukraine's civil war

Glazyev's set of countermeasures specifically targets the core strength of the US war machine, i.e. the Fed's printing press. Putin's advisor proposes the creation of a "broad anti-dollar alliance" of countries willing and able to drop the dollar from their international trade. Members of the alliance would also refrain from keeping the currency reserves in dollar-denominated instruments. Glazyev advocates treating positions in dollar-denominated instruments like holdings of junk securities and believes that regulators should require full collateralization of such holdings. An anti-dollar coalition would be the first step for the creation of an anti-war coalition that can help stop the US' aggression

If the US dollar ceases to be the worlds reserve currency, it's going to be painful for American voters but it will stop the US war machine that creates things like ISIS too.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, minus nuclear weapons, no nation is very powerful when all things are considered.

In a conventional battle we are second to none. We only lose when the other side is willing to cause more civilian deaths than we are.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

We need to put the Prez into a flight suit and stand him in front of a big sign that says "Mission Accomplished." Then yuck it up about how great America and its freedoms are, and talk some shock and awe. That ought to do it.

 

[tupac chopra]

Yes, minus nuclear weapons, no nation is very powerful when all things are considered.

In a conventional battle we are second to none. We only lose when the other side is willing to cause more civilian deaths than we are.

When was the last time the US army won a war?

 

[bilby]

In a conventional battle we are second to none. We only lose when the other side is willing to cause more civilian deaths than we are.

When was the last time the US army won a war?

Good question; obviously it rather depends on your definition of 'win' and on your definition of 'war', but my gut response was WWII - but then I thought a bit, and realised that the Soviets won in the European Theatre, with the US and UK as support; and in the Pacific Theatre the win was by the US Navy and Marines, not the Army.

I think the last time the US Army can unequivocally be said to have won a war would be the American Civil war, when they were fighting other Americans; So you have to go back probably to the Mexican War of 1848 to find a war the US Army won against a foreign enemy.

 

[Smoker]

In a conventional battle we are second to none. We only lose when the other side is willing to cause more civilian deaths than we are.

When was the last time the US army won a war?

I would say that World War 2 was the last time the U.S. decisively won a war, Of course, we didn't do it by ourselves. There were a lot of other countries that fought just as hard as the Americans did against fascism.

 

[Jayjay]

Yes, minus nuclear weapons, no nation is very powerful when all things are considered.

Wrong. Minus nuclear weaponry, there are still many powerful countries, including the USA and most (but not all) of the rest of NATO, Russia, China, a few others. China has the ability to man a huge army to the point where fighting a land war in Asia is hopeless. The USA, minus nuclear weaponry, still has the most advanced of most all other weaponry. I worked on the F-22 program - there's nothing out there that can match it. We'd need to give the enemy some F-22s just to give our pilots something to do if we went to war with them. Plus the USA still has sufficient wealth (barely) to fund all the logistics needed for a war.

There's more, much much more, to being a powerful country than nukes. ISIS doesn't measure up.

ISIS doesn't have to measure up to the US, or even China and Russia. All it has to do is measure up to its own neighbourhood, which is Syria, Jordan, rest of Iraq.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes, minus nuclear weapons, no nation is very powerful when all things are considered.

Wrong. Minus nuclear weaponry, there are still many powerful countries, including the USA and most (but not all) of the rest of NATO, Russia, China, a few others. China has the ability to man a huge army to the point where fighting a land war in Asia is hopeless. The USA, minus nuclear weaponry, still has the most advanced of most all other weaponry. I worked on the F-22 program - there's nothing out there that can match it. We'd need to give the enemy some F-22s just to give our pilots something to do if we went to war with them. Plus the USA still has sufficient wealth (barely) to fund all the logistics needed for a war.

There's more, much much more, to being a powerful country than nukes. ISIS doesn't measure up.

All the power in the world means shit if you don't have the hearts and minds of the people. Which is why ISIS is having an easy time in the areas they are taking. I doubt Baghdad would be as simple.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Wrong. Minus nuclear weaponry, there are still many powerful countries, including the USA and most (but not all) of the rest of NATO, Russia, China, a few others. China has the ability to man a huge army to the point where fighting a land war in Asia is hopeless. The USA, minus nuclear weaponry, still has the most advanced of most all other weaponry. I worked on the F-22 program - there's nothing out there that can match it. We'd need to give the enemy some F-22s just to give our pilots something to do if we went to war with them. Plus the USA still has sufficient wealth (barely) to fund all the logistics needed for a war.

There's more, much much more, to being a powerful country than nukes. ISIS doesn't measure up.

ISIS doesn't have to measure up to the US, or even China and Russia. All it has to do is measure up to its own neighbourhood, which is Syria, Jordan, rest of Iraq.

That really undermines the argument that "we" have to do something "or else Hitler."

As I've successfully pointed out, there's more to "or else Hitler" than simply being a bad guy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

ISIS doesn't have to measure up to the US, or even China and Russia. All it has to do is measure up to its own neighbourhood, which is Syria, Jordan, rest of Iraq.

That really undermines the argument that "we" have to do something "or else Hitler."

As I've successfully pointed out, there's more to "or else Hitler" than simply being a bad guy.

Agreed. It'll take a while for ISIS to rack up the death toll that the American Occupation led to for Iraqi civilians.

The ultimate question about intervention is the oil. That is all that matters to the East and West. Even if we cared about a moral angle, simply getting involved doesn't do anything. If we remove people from power, you have to fill those voids immediately, and in the Middle East, fostering a Democracy is extremely difficult as giving all people a say rubs extremists the wrong way. This is a factional war between Sunni and Shia, which is being led by Saudi Arabia and Iran. We've been involved in this crap in the late 80's, then W's Admin, and now look to be dragging into this. HW Bush stopped in the late 80s because there was no solution to the Hussein problem. W's Admin ignored that. And now we are stuck with a volatile situation with no decent solution. The US invading Iraq made so much of this possible.