A plan to defeat ISIS

Alex Salmond MP of the Scottish Nationalists has just made the sensible comment that we should support the Peshmerga Kurds with heavy weapons, and kit and equipment but we don't in case it offends the Turks. The Turks are not reliable allies. Turkey is out of control, a bit like the CIA.
 
Last edited:
Why is it so neccessary for some people to defeat ISIS? If you leave these people alone, then they will probably leave you alone. Otherwise, for countries who persist in attacking ISIS when they've "got no dog in the fight", then let it be said that I have little sympathy for them when the Blowback hits: they were playing with fire and they should have known better.
 
CORed said:
It would solve the problem of ISIS being a particularly nasty (even for that region) batch of violent thugs. Of course, it is all too likely that they will be replaced by another nasty batch of violent thugs.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Getting rid of Saddam didn't make it better - it made things worse: Al Qaeda in Iraq. The, Al Qaeda in Iraq was disposed of and then comes along ISIS.

So, you can do all the killing you want, but unless you solve the problem at the root, then all that warfare won't mean a thing.
 
Jules Galen said:
Why is it so neccessary for some people to defeat ISIS?
Click to expand...

For some, it's necessary to defeat ISIS so they don't overrun Syria or more pieces of Iraq.

For others more removed from the middle-east, it's about not respecting wars of aggression and territorial gains made through conquest, undoing said conquests, and preventing similar conflicts from happening again.

More cynically, it's about propping up allies and securing national interests.
 
Last edited:
Blaster said:
For some, it's necessary to defeat ISIS so they don't overrun Syria or more pieces of Iraq.
Click to expand...

I agree. I mean, if I lived in Lebanon or Syria or Iraq then I would want to fight ISIS.

Blaster said:
For others more removed from the middle-east, it's about not respecting wars of aggression and territorial gains made through conquest, undoing said conquests, and preventing similar conflicts from happening again.
Click to expand...

Yeah....right! So, that's why the USA jumped in and attacked Russia when they invaded the Ukraine? Is that why NATO went to war with China when they took Tibet?
 
Jules Galen said:
Yeah....right! So, that's why the USA jumped in and attacked Russia when they invaded the Ukraine? Is that why NATO went to war with China when they took Tibet?
Click to expand...

We are speaking as individuals on this board, not as nation states. If you wish to highlight hypocrisy, you're welcome to do so, but that doesn't invalidate any cause the world may have on intervening in the middle-east to put ISIS down.
 
Blaster said:
We are speaking as individuals on this board, not as nation states. If you wish to highlight hypocrisy, you're welcome to do so, but that doesn't invalidate any cause the world may have on intervening in the middle-east to put ISIS down.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. There's no real philosophical difference between ISIS and states like Saudi and Qatar. The only reason we leave the likes of Saudi and Qatar alone is because they've got oil, and for this reason not a peep is being raised over the atrocities those basterds are committing on the Yemeni this very moment.

So the formula is this: if ya' got money and power and are on our side - then kill as many peasants as you want. Otherwise, we'll call you a terrorist and send drones to your country.
 
Jules Galen said:
Yes it does. There's no real philosophical difference between ISIS and states like Saudi and Qatar. The only reason we leave the likes of Saudi and Qatar alone is because they've got oil, and for this reason not a peep is being raised over the atrocities those basterds are committing on the Yemeni this very moment.

So the formula is this: if ya' got money and power and are on our side - then kill as many peasants as you want. Otherwise, we'll call you a terrorist and send drones to your country.
Click to expand...
That's true. The only justification we have for using force on ISIS is to deal with an armed gang suspected of complicity with terrorist murders in Paris. That is why the response, if force is decided upon, must be measured and must wholly comply with whatever the provisions in international law may be, that cover such contingencies.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar have not perpetrated similar outrages, unless SA was complicit in 9-11, for which the evidence is not very good. But I'll leave that to the threads where these things are normally discussed.
 
Last edited:
Jules Galen said:
Why is it so neccessary for some people to defeat ISIS?
Click to expand...


I'm not sure that the civilians of Paris, France had much to do with attacking ISIS. Same goes for the civilian Russian passenger plane.

The flood of refugees out of Syria is a direct consequence of ISIS attempts to purge anyone they dislike from the country - by murder or any other means.

ISIS is not a legitimate nation, nor is it conducting itself as a legitimate political movement. I think the world has a humanitarian duty to confront them.
 
Craig B said:
Saudi Arabia and Qatar have not perpetrated similar outrages, unless SA was complicit in 9-11, for which the evidence is not very good. But I'll leave that to the threads where these things are normally discussed.
Click to expand...

Yes they have! They just haven't committed them against us.

As long as Saudi and Qatar are killing Yemeni Peasants - then everything is A-ok with the USA.
 
Loss Leader said:
I'm not sure that the civilians of Paris, France had much to do with attacking ISIS. Same goes for the civilian Russian passenger plane.
Click to expand...

What about the civilians of Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Berlin, Dresden, Hanoi, Laos, Cambodia, etc...?

War sucks...and if the government under which you lives engages in it, then don't be surprised is there are consequences.
 
Jules Galen said:
Yes they have! They just haven't committed them against us.

As long as Saudi and Qatar are killing Yemeni Peasants - then everything is A-ok with the USA.
Click to expand...
Then the USA should protest vehemently. But not bomb Saudi Arabia or Qatar. Reducing dependence on fossil fuels would help too. But can you see why a bombing campaign conducted by a coalition is not necessarily an appropriate response to this?
The Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen began in 2015 to influence the outcome of the Yemeni Civil War. Saudi Arabia, spearheading a coalition of nine Arab states, began carrying out airstrikes in neighbouring Yemen​
If bombing a country where there is a civil war, thereby killing civilians, is equivalent to the terrorist murders in Paris, it's no wonder that ISIS are obviously encouraging European countries to do that very thing, so that France should lose the moral authority it gained by being the target of such a monstrous act as the Paris murders.
 
Jules Galen said:
What about the civilians of Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Berlin, Dresden, Hanoi, Laos, Cambodia, etc...?

War sucks...and if the government under which you lives engages in it, then don't be surprised is there are consequences.
Click to expand...

And if the government under which I live didn't engage in war, you wouldn't have a country. Or exist.
 
cullennz said:
Debateable
Click to expand...

Not much. The advance of Empire of the Rising Sun was headed in your direction. It was stopped and turned back at Guadalcanal, and eventually driven off it's stepping stone at Truk.

NZ would have been a juicy morsel.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom