ISIS - Is it time to stand and fight this scourge?

[JMP]

When they run out of places to hide the Greens will make a case for us to allow them into Australia as refugees!

 

[HamaTime™]

Send in the bombers.

I may have the controversial opinion, but I'm well in favour of a large powerhouse country like USA getting involved historically in small conflicts (Korea/Vietnam/Iraq/Kuwait/Afghanistan). The problem is, these localised conflicts which have obviously been publicly against western way of life, if not contained will eventually spread to our homelands. So it's a case of fight them now or later.

Get in now, neutralise ISIS and show the world that the majority of humanity (not just the west) will not tolerate such extremism and vile behaviour.

 

[wraith]

Every one likes to bash Obama but he's stuck between a rock and a hard place. Do nothing he deals with the current crap he's recieving. Send troops in and queue the people saying America is going in to take over blah blah.

 

[Immortality]

Of course it's his fight! It's a situation of Obama's making!

Who sent the troops into Afghanistan and Iraq?

I do believe we can thank the Bush administration for those little skirmishes and Obama simply inherited them when elected, kinda got a bum deal really.

Hell, I do believe the Clinton administration served up Bin Laden on a platter to the Bush administration but they didn't act on the intel, instead we got 9-11 (Bush needed a little war to shore up his popularity numbers) and the rest is history.

 

[Calaber]

ISIS seems to be doing a very good job of making enemies of just about every country you can think of. Recently, they got Jordan offside and now it appears that Egypt is royally ticked off after the execution of 21 Egyptian Christians. If they keep this up, you could hope that the rest of the Middle East will decide to take firm action against them and take some of the burden off Western nations, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting.

What is most worrying is the obvious spread of the ISIS disease, as those 21 executions took place in Libya. It's no localised conflict and the idea of just bombing ISIS out of existence overlooks this fact. It would be very convenient if all the scum gathered at one remote spot, far away from innocent civilians, and could be blasted to eternity but they are spreading throughout countries like a plague. Now even Denmark has suffered a terrorist act. Who's next?

Islam is an international religion and, whilst hiding behind their religion and using it as justification for their actions, these mongrels are able to act almost at will wherever they want, all the time claiming that they are satisfying their God. All they are really doing is acting in the most criminal manner possible and using religion for a cover. They are really just pathological thugs who act in large numbers and hide their identities (part from a few idiots on Twitter who are proud of their actions).

The violence and murder in Nigeria is yet another example of the spread of large scale inhumane actions by uneducated thugs under the cover of carrying out Allah's will. These organisations may not be actually linked but they all seem to have decided that this is the year to act in unison.

 

[commodore665]

Send in the bombers.

I may have the controversial opinion, but I'm well in favour of a large powerhouse country like USA getting involved historically in small conflicts (Korea/Vietnam/Iraq/Kuwait/Afghanistan). The problem is, these localised conflicts which have obviously been publicly against western way of life, if not contained will eventually spread to our homelands. So it's a case of fight them now or later.

Get in now, neutralise ISIS and show the world that the majority of humanity (not just the west) will not tolerate such extremism and vile behaviour.

I don't disagree entirely , but I think sending in bombers is maybe not the way to go about it , in Vietnam at least wide scale bombing was an abject failure , the Vietcong had a network of tunnels all over the jungle floor , and basically won by stealth and being sneaky bastards , sending well trained SAS troops from the UK , France , maybe Austrslia and NZ to nuetrslise disarm , and contain ISIS would be a better option than bombing the snot out of the place .

 

[Rajesh Koothrappali]

Who sent the troops into Afghanistan and Iraq?

I do believe we can thank the Bush administration for those little skirmishes and Obama simply inherited them when elected, kinda got a bum deal really.

Sending them IN wasn't the problem. That was ABSOLUTELY the RIGHT thing to do. It was WITHDRAWING before the end game was reached that caused the uprising of ISIL. Obama caused this problem because he is sympathetic to Islam and didn't want the right end game.

 

[HamaTime™]

I don't disagree entirely , but I think sending in bombers is maybe not the way to go about it , in Vietnam at least wide scale bombing was an abject failure , the Vietcong had a network of tunnels all over the jungle floor , and basically won by stealth and being sneaky bastards , sending well trained SAS troops from the UK , France , maybe Austrslia and NZ to nuetrslise disarm , and contain ISIS would be a better option than bombing the snot out of the place .

'Send in the bombers' was a figure of speech.

I see your point with reference to Vietnam war, but I meant it more figuratively, as in 'send a strong military force in all forms in, now'

 

[XUV]

Of course it's his fight! It's a situation of Obama's making!

you mean this guy

Sending them IN wasn't the problem. That was ABSOLUTELY the RIGHT thing to do. It was WITHDRAWING before the end game was reached that caused the uprising of ISIL. Obama caused this problem because he is sympathetic to Islam and didn't want the right end game.

again you mean this guy

 

[Immortality]

End game, I don't think so. It was never going to be a tidy exit. The best option would have been to divide the county up. Iraq has always been a melting pot of different religions that didn't get along so well. The problem is they don't trust each other, it's the reason the Kurdish folk in the northern area haven't been armed properly because the central Iraqi government fears that once they deal to IS they will come south.

Americans were never going to be welcome there long term, how many more dead Americans would be acceptable? At the end of the day, to stop the violence in Iraq you would need to put in a ruler with an Iron fist who would quell any up rising (do we really want another Saddam (Sunni minority)). It was for this reason Iraq was fairly peaceful before the Iraq war, other than the Kurdish folk in the north that is. Either that, or split up the country for each major faction (Shi'ite, Sunni and the Kurds).

ISIS formed in Syria, nothing to do with Iraq, Iraq with it's own internal struggles was just an easy opportunity for them to expand their territory almost unopposed.

At the end of the day, Iraq is an Islamic country (majority), so I take it you're end game would have involved removing the majority of the Iraqi people? That would be called genocide!