War Against ISIL

[Big Guy]

Its a good idea because Sunnis and Shia in Iraq and Syria cant get along unless they are forced to by a brutal dictator. Theres more than 20 million Sunnis in the two countries combined that are virtually shut out of the political process, and nothing we do is going to make them happy about it.

It makes good common sense for them to govern themselves, other wise we will have perpetual sectarian violence in these countries.

Its the opposite. The situation there didnt come about because of us sticking our heads up our arses and doing nothing, it came about because we cant keep our hands to ourselves. ISIS is a direct and predictable result of foreigners screwing around in a place they dont understand. And your answer is more of the same...

Why would they get involved in trying to solve a problem they know they cant solve? If either muslim or western countries chase ISIS into the Sunni towns and cities they hold, then they will simplify aggravate the conditions that allow ISIS to exist in the first place.

I agree. The other countries in the area know far more about the situation than we do. The fact that they understand but do not want to get involved should be a message to those who know little. What makes us think that we know more about Muslims than the Muslims do?

[Demosthenes26]

Its a good idea because Sunnis and Shia in Iraq and Syria cant get along unless they are forced to by a brutal dictator. Theres more than 20 million Sunnis in the two countries combined that are virtually shut out of the political process, and nothing we do is going to make them happy about it.

It makes good common sense for them to govern themselves, other wise we will have perpetual sectarian violence in these countries.

1) There has ALWAYS been sectarian violence in this part of the world. The only time there hasn't been violence or war has been when they where under foreign occupation. Ie the turkish empire. Sunni governing sunni and Shia governing Shia does not mean the governance will a good one. You either end up with a secular dictator like with Sisi in Egypt, the hypocrisy that is Saudi Arabian and the other Arabian States, or a theocracy like Iran or recently ISIS. There are principles on which society should be governed, this governments in this part of the world have little to no regard for them.

[dre]

I don't think it's that hard to figure out who they are.

Its scary to see someone post this because this way of thinking can get us into a whole lot of trouble.

ISIL is in control of Sunni towns, neighborhoods, and cities where they have a lot of support. They arent going to march out onto the battlefield and fight us Braveheart style. They will be in these cities where they look like everyone else, and where they have all kinds of supporters and friends. They will fight as insurgents... which is exactly what this same group did in Iraq.

We will end up in close-quarters urban warfare in cities where people dont want us around. We wont be fighting tanks, we will be fighting IEDs, snipers, and suicide bombers. And we wont have any clue who the enemy really is or who provides them aid and comfort.

It would be an act of EPIC stupidity for us to get involved in this.

[-1=e^ipi]

How is creating a sunni state a good one, does this mean that anyone that hyjacks some military equipment can create their own state, does it mean they can force their will upon thousands and if you don't agree with thier mantra kill them....hey it's OK it is not in my back yard....

The Sunni Muslims in Iraq should have the right to self determination similar to how the Quebecois, Scotts and Crimeans should have the right to self determination. If they feel that they are not represented by the government and are oppressed, a creation of a new state is an option that can help ensure peace and reduce radicalism since Sunni Muslims will feel less desire to support radical groups like ISIS.

I'm not saying it should be done. But it should be an option that should be considered. There is no doubt that feelings of alienation by Sunni Muslims have helped contribute to the spread of ISIS in Iraq.

It is also worthwhile to consider if the kurds have their own state.

It has been mentioned that perhaps the other Muslim countries should get more involved, your right....but when was the last time the stuck up their hand to do so....gulf war I, since then nothing....why is that ? I mean look at the gaza strip problem , how many Muslim countries are involved in solving those issues.....they talk a good game but when it comes down to muslim fighting muslim i don't think that will happen....

All the more reason why the West should not intervene significantly and let/force our Sunni 'Allies' like Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and UAE deal with it. This lopsided relationship needs to end. Also, if western countries intervene, it will only help ISIS and other Islamist terrorist groups get more recruits. Sunni countries have to deal with it. Besides, most of the funding for ISIS came from Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar in their proxy war against Iran to overthrow Assad. The contributed to the mess (more so than the West). They should deal with it.

Edited September 17, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[Moonlight Graham]

Let's see if this coalition will have a better result than they did in Libya.

Libya was like a mini-Iraq War. Both involved ousting former Western-backed dictators. Both operations backfired, & both led to Islamist militants rising up within the country and causing havok. All the West/US can do is contain the damage they've helped create, which they're probably once again clueless about doing as has most western foreign policy regarding Iraq & the middle-east since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The West really needs to get the hell out of the middle east.

[Big Guy]

Tuesday, Harper said 69 special forces soldiers have been sent to northern Iraq to advise and assist local forces in the fight against ISIL.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/emergency-debate-on-isil-draws-only-handful-of-mps

“Harper, who was at Question Period, answered that there is “no comparison” between today’s situation in Iraq and when then U.S. president George W Bush launched a military invasion of that country in 2003 to defeat Saddam Hussein.

“President Obama was very opposed to the 2003 war,” said Harper.

“Obviously today he is launching a counter-terrorism operation, not simply because millions of people in that region are in danger, but because there are very real threats that present themselves to all countries, including both the United States and Canada.”

Lord help us.

[-1=e^ipi]

Lord help us.

Which lord?

[Big Guy]

Which lord?

Pick any one. We will need her help.

[-1=e^ipi]

Pick any one. We will need her help.

Any one, from what list?

[Rue]

No one disputes that ground troops will be needed. From where?

Iraq - No - the mercenaries dropped their weapons and disappeared, some joined ISIS.

Iran - maybe - but at what cost?

Turkey - maybe - but reluctant to get involved right now.

Syria - need co-ordination with USA forces - unlikely.

Kurds - probably - but will probably have to promise them a partitioned state.

Israel - wild card - has the ground forces, close, but potential for world war.

Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt et al - unlikely.

Canada - I certainly hope not.

Where else?

This comment again shows you invent as you go along.

Iraq's military is Shiite. By its very nature its at war with ISIS and all Sunnins in Iraq. Malicki even turned it on Shiites. In essence it is a series of units some controlled by Iran some formerly trained by the US and intact and fighting Sunnis as well as Shiites, and some fleeing for other countries or deserting. Iraq was not a mercenary army adn aprts of it still operate.

Iran uses Hezbollah as its proxy army and it has sent some of its troops into the Shiite area of Iraq already.

Turkey trained and is a direct ally of ISIL.

The Kurds have been defending themselves against Shiite and Sunni Iraqis, Shiite Iranians, Sunni Turks, Russians and Hezbollah for many years. They are in no position to do anything but try defend themselves.

Do me a favour do not talk about Israel. You know nothing about the country so give it a rest. Israel has no interest. It would ideally love all these terrorists to just kill each other. It sides with no one. It is not about to side with anyone. They are all sworn to wipe out Israel whether they be Sunni or Shiite. What an idiotic thing to suggest it would get involved and Muslims would fight side by side them killing other Muslims. Its so idiotic as to not be believed.

Anything Israel does is covert and you will be the last to understand it.

Saudi Arabia is lending jets and money and runway facilities. Egypt and Jordan will not get involved but Egypt will on its own prevent ISIS from using Egypt and it will not allow Hamas to use its country to smuggle in weapons to Gaza. Egypt will have nothing to do with Turkey or the US who turned on it and trained ISIS in the first place.

Canada can not and will not send ground troops to fight. It has no ability to do that. It just came back from Afghanistan and has no resources to mount any ground war. Its aging F-18's can't engage in desert strikes.

At best it can send some officers to show people how to use rifles and the people it trains will most likely turn on them once finished with ISIS. No one should be on the ground.

The US created ISIS under Obama with Erdogan. They are another taliban created by the US to fight another enemy but turned on them.

ISIS is an idea not a person. It is a Muslim vision of Sunnis who want a world state. You blow them up they are like cockroaches or rats. One or two escape and they quickly reproduce.

They are fueled by Western hatred. The reality is they will continue to mutate just like cock-roaches do when you spray them with pesticides. They mutate and form new coalitions as the old are wiped out.

No coalition will do a thing. Its a script. It is a pathetic half assed script written to salvage what is left of Obama's failed policies in the Middle East.

Nothing will happen. There will be some air missions but not much else. A bombing here. A bombing there for the nightly news top placate people looking for revenge.

Britain is not in the position to do a damn thing. Its barely able to keep Scotland in its country and if Scotland leaves its no longer a world power.

France can send some jets but its just show.

Air strikes will not rid the area of ISIS, Hezbollag, Al Nusra, Hamas, etc. Their organizations will get bigger, then smaller, then bigger and smaller and simply adjust and mutate to the attacks coming there way. There will always be Arab Muslim extremists both Sunni and Shiite.

The only way to deal with them is to contain them and let them fight it out with each other. They deserve each other.

The idea is to contain them and keep them localized and then let them spend their energy and attention on each other and not give them a common enemy or focus their attention away from each other.

[-1=e^ipi]

The only way to deal with them is to contain them and let them fight it out with each other. They deserve each other.

Yes. I agree. A containment strategy is best.

[Hudson Jones]

"Containment".

The never-ending war and its cheerleaders.

The sensitive Rude, Rue. Mention Israel and the snap snap circle begins: "Don't you talk about ISRAEL!"

The military industrial complex is the winner here. They want these open-ended wars. They have a hand in the policies in the U.S. and they have a hand in the policies in Israel the same way: Pummel Gaza every 2 years! Test out those new weapons! Sell them! Make money!

Peaceful times? Sales plummet

Since 2000, when the second intifada broke out, Israel has had some form of military operation lasting a few weeks every few years: Defensive Shield (in the West Bank) in 2002; the Second Lebanon War in 2006; Cast Lead in 2008-09; and Pillar of Defense in 2012. In almost every case, new military technology or weapons were used – which had a positive effect on overseas sales.

The numbers show that, after the initial period of criticism against Israel after the various operations quiet down, sales pick up. And there has been continuous growth in defense exports in recent years. In 2002, such exports were worth $2 billion, grew to $3.4 billion in 2006, and were $6 billion in 2012. In 2013, the three largest defense contractors all showed increases in sales: Elbit had annual revenues of $3 billion; IAI $2.65 billion; and Rafael $2 billion. At 15%, Rafael’s sales showed the highest growth rate.

[Army Guy]

Its a good idea because Sunnis and Shia in Iraq and Syria cant get along unless they are forced to by a brutal dictator. Theres more than 20 million Sunnis in the two countries combined that are virtually shut out of the political process, and nothing we do is going to make them happy about it.

It makes good common sense for them to govern themselves, other wise we will have perpetual sectarian violence in these countries.

It may of been a good idea ,up until they decided to use military force, and cleanse those that did not agree with there regime or ideas .....Their actions todate puts them in with the other terrorist regimes around the globe....that in its self should be a reason to act....

you say we will have perpetual violence, the middle east will continue to be that way until these fringe fruit cakes are despensed with....Why is it so hard to convince your self that this type of violence and ethinic cleansing is not good for anyone.........the powerful middle eastern countries want nothing to do with solving the issue via military force because of religion, they will not fight muslim on muslim their people will not stand for it....how many muslim countries were involved in rescueing Kuwait not many.....Russia , china they have interests in the region but have other fish to fry. that leaves the west....even the west does not want to be dragged into another middle eastern war...they are grown tired of it and grown weaken by debt incurred....

These types of conflicts have a good possiablity of spilling over into other regions....or countries, igniting the already tender box we call the middle east.....is that good for sunni's and shites, is that good for anyone...i think not.

You can't blame this on the west, this is about a group of people with twisted values and a twisted take on ISlam and want to force others to live in their dream....they have taken advantage of the instablity in the area....and are now creating their own turf....no different than russia or any other country that decides to invade another.....you say we the foregners don't understand and yet i think they do, if nothing is done this will spread into other regions that are semi stable, if nothing is done then thousands of inocents will die....

your last comment says alot the problem can not be solved, don't aggravate the problems leave them alone...the problem will solve itself some how.....and f888k those that will be effected in this conflict, those that want nothing to do with these fruit cakes....and we also blow off how this will effect our nation....sounds like sticking your head up your arse to me....

[Army Guy]

I agree. The other countries in the area know far more about the situation than we do. The fact that they understand but do not want to get involved should be a message to those who know little. What makes us think that we know more about Muslims than the Muslims do?

No body said we know more about the region than the muslims, but there is alot we already know such as the blow back in the region if we don't do something.....we know the last thing the world needs is for another radical group with control of people that don't want to be controled by said group....we also don't want to send the message that taking territory by force is ok, borders are imposed for a reason....i mean if that was the case we could dispense with politicians altogether, just set up mighty armies to take what we wanted when we wanted it....that sounds fun does it not....

The west is caught in the middle....they know something has to be down, we know that other middle eastern countries are either supporting these wing nuts, or do not want to get involved due to religion....what others discount in all of this is what effect will doing nothing have on our nation....will effect oil supply or prices....last time i was at the pumps i felt the middle eastern conflict right in my wallet....what othr effects will it have , and can we live with them.....then of course what about the humanitary crises this will create what do we do with that....it's all good for someone to preach about human rights, and then turn the other cheek when some one walks all over them.....

[Army Guy]

The Sunni Muslims in Iraq should have the right to self determination similar to how the Quebecois, Scotts and Crimeans should have the right to self determination. If they feel that they are not represented by the government and are oppressed, a creation of a new state is an option that can help ensure peace and reduce radicalism since Sunni Muslims will feel less desire to support radical groups like ISIS.

I'm not saying it should be done. But it should be an option that should be considered. There is no doubt that feelings of alienation by Sunni Muslims have helped contribute to the spread of ISIS in Iraq.

It is also worthwhile to consider if the kurds have their own state.

All the more reason why the West should not intervene significantly and let/force our Sunni 'Allies' like Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and UAE deal with it. This lopsided relationship needs to end. Also, if western countries intervene, it will only help ISIS and other Islamist terrorist groups get more recruits. Sunni countries have to deal with it. Besides, most of the funding for ISIS came from Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar in their proxy war against Iran to overthrow Assad. The contributed to the mess (more so than the West). They should deal with it.

I'm not again'st anyones rights to self determination, just not at gun piont, nor do i agree with the cleansing that is going on....since when did we lowwer our standards of whats right and wrong. And no ones knows if this will bring peace to that area, perhaps they will not be happy with just the area they craved out, after all they did meantion world domination....i know unlikely but it does send the message this is not about creating a homeland....and they won't be stopped....so when do we take action when they kill thouseands, millions, when is it time for the west to say "hey" we have had enough...?

We already know that other muslim countries will not get involved other than funding or words........so lets take that option off the table....

[Big Guy]

...

We already know that other muslim countries will not get involved other than funding or words........so lets take that option off the table....

I have read all of your well written and well researched replies. You have obviously given this situation a lot of thought and have some interesting perspectives to share. Thank you for your input.

I understand your views of why we should get involved as to the potential dangers of not doing so - but - Why do you feel that this involvement will be any more successful then previous involvements. We will be fighting seasoned fighters on their own turf with support from their own people in the area. Our previous military excursions into similar conditions in Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya were a disaster or at least unsuccessful if you want to be generous.

What makes you feel that this military expedition would be any more successful or unsuccessful than the others?

[Rue]

I asked Hudson that Big Guy not talk about the Israeli military because to even suggest it would get into an overt alliance with other Muslim nations in a coalition to fight ISIS is assinine. If Israel was stupid enough to do that overtly it would provide a pretext from which Hezbollah and Iran would then attack Israel.Not only that but if Shiites or any Muslims who are Sunni and against ISIS saw Israel attacking ISIS they would probably turn on Israel.

Now let's cut to the chase shall we Hudson Jones or whoever it is at the disinformation desk today. A conventional armed force can not defeat terrorists or for that matter guerilla operations. You can not take a large slow moving armed force that needs logistic support and defeat small quick moving units of terrorists. At best your conventional force gets hunkered down in zones of control and outside those narrow areas of control its chaos..

The world has learned that to deal with terrorists you use small, specialized commando units backed by precision pin point limited air strikes.

Now you want to pull that stunt and try suggest I am insensitive against Muslims and only care about Israel? Lol. right. Not that you noticed but get something clear, I hate everyone. Boo.

The very reason I am against a ground force and large mobile ground operations is precisely because all it does is kill innocent civilians and turns them to ISIS not against it.

That is why I stated the only strategy that works is small commando units doing specific containment strategies supported by pin point air attacks on ISIL . Once ISIL moves into residential areas, they will use civilians as shields and air attacks will only kill civilians.

Hamas, ISIS, Al Quaeda, can only exist if it has civilians to hide behind. Terrorists like any vermin can not survive out in the open.

So you Hudson take your attempt to suggest I am insensitive to Muslims and you are their champion and dispose of that inference.

The reality is Israel has always been a pitiful excuse for why Arab governments are corrupt, fail, terrorize their own people and and I say it as clear as can be, the worst enemy of a Mulim in the Middle East is another Muslim not Israel, not the US not Europe.

You refer to Zionism as a cancer to be wiped out but never will you use that analogy about Muslim fundamentalism and terrorism.Not you.

The best the outside world can do is contain ISIS to their area of the world, contain them and then its up to Muslims not the world to settle their own civil wars. That has nothing to do with insensitivity-its called practical limitations.

You are something. You are the first to say the US should not interfere in Muslim affairs then are the first to whine because I argue the West ultimately can not interfere and the Muslim world must come to grips with its own problems. Which one is it Hudson Jones? Is it insensitive to say Muslims must resolve their own issues? Hmm? Or are you now suddenly a champion of US intervention on the ground. Give it a rest with your selective contradictions.

This latest coalition is a face saving pr exercise for Obama to try salvage some Democrat seats in the Senate and Congress. The polls say over 60% of Americans think he is too soft on ISIS. That will translate in a loss of Senate and Congressional seats in the fall. Obama's failures in the Middle East and with Russia are going to cause a voter back-lash.

This attempt now to make it look like he is tough came off like a wet noodle a week just a week after after he slumped at the podium with no back bone whining that the world is unfair expecting the US to be its leader and that he had no plan for ISIS.

Egypt, Israel and Jordan are going to watch from the sidelines. All three are targets of both sides of the Muslim civil war.

We have to wait for a new President who can mend the fences with Egypt and Israel and deal decisively with Putin before any of this will actually be properly dealt with.

What the coalition can do is cut off access to the oil fields ISIL has to rise revenues for their operations.

.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Rue

[Big Guy]

...

The West really needs to get the hell out of the middle east.

I agree but the question is how. The war drums are beating, some nations are banging on their shields and the smart ones are sitting back and waiting.

Looks like Israel is preparing for ISIL threat;

http://www.newsweek.com/tel-aviv-isis-merely-latest-threat-jewish-state-271008

Israel remains the wild card in this battle. At the moment the “wait and see” position does not bode well for US intervention. Israel has the ground troops well trained by the “Gaza” expedition but appears to be reluctant to fight beside its greatest benefactor and supporter – USA.

I find it interesting that Canada feels that it has to get involved in the ISIL saga because it is a threat to our national interests but Israel does not want to get involved. - especially with Tel Aviv about 900 km from Baghdad and Ottawa about 9,000 km from Baghdad.

But each has their own agenda.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronald-tiersky/isis-what-does-it-mean-fo_b_5489756.html

It appears to be a good strategy – allow the USA and NATO to go in, let ISIL and NATO bash each other around and wait to see who is winning – and then join in if the USA is getting the upper hand. It is the same strategy that Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar et al appear to be using. Nice to see Israel and these Arab countries agreeing on something.

Turkey meanwhile has refused to assist any NATO military endeavours but is busy protecting its own borders. No help coming from that side;

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/01/turkish-jets-strike-isil-convoy-syria-2014129174915634511.html

Slowly a scorecard is being developed to see which nations intend to do what.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/11078263/Coalition-against-Isil-country-by-country.html

Just like in Afghanistan, each nation has its own agenda, its own capabilities and its own restrictions. We can only hope that the results will be better here than against the Taliban.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Big Guy

[Rue]

Israel is no wild card.. Big Guy's continual references to Israel are bilge. Israel, Egypt and Jordan are direct targets of both sides of the war between Sunni and Shiite. They are not wild cards. They are sitting this one out. They are not about to assist either side. They will do what is necessary to defend against either side if it threatens them. That is not a wild card. it is a fact. Its a certainty.

This coalition is about saving Obama's face. Israel and Egypt can't stand him. They have no interest in covering his butt. he made his mess.

As for Jordan it will not attack ISIS. Its people support ISIS. The King would not self destruct by doing that,

[dre]

You can't blame this on the west, this is about a group of people with twisted values and a twisted take on ISlam and want to force others to live in their dream

Yes you can. The rise of this group is a direct result of western bungling. We removed a regime that had been very successfully keeping the local extremists in check for decades, and inadvertantly changed the balance of power in Iraq from the Baath party to an Iranian-backed shia proxy.

And now the same retards that supported the origional invasion want to go back and do a half assed job fixing this problem while setting the stage for the next one (again).

But the reality is that ISIS is the manifestation of Sunni nationalism, and the refusal on the part of sunnis to be ruled by twelvers. And these ISIL folks you think we can casually roll in and defeat? These are the exact same people that the coalition of the stupid spent more than a decade fighting in Iraq, and eventually gave up and started paying them money to temporarily end the insurgency.

The reality is that to really defeat this group you would have to chase them into Sunni towns and cities where they have a lot of popular support, and where you cant tell them apart from anyone else. And then even IF we are able to marginalize them (and thats a big IF because lets face it... our politicians and troops COMPLETELY SUCK at getting anything done over there) then we will be stuck in the losers game of trying to keep the peace over there and force millions of sunnis to accept a shia central Iraq government that they hate and dont want. That alone could eat up a decade and trillion or two dollars.

Iraq was the lesson... and this is the final exam to see if we learned anything. Will the west be stupid enough to make the same mistake again? Will we allow ourselves to get bogged down in a hopeless and permanent mission to force sunnis and shia to live in peace together? Judging by some of the comments on here we just might be that stupid.

if nothing is done then thousands of inocents will die....

And if we try to dislodge ISIL from the sunni population centers it occupied then hundreds of thousands of people will probably die. If you think we are going to save lives with an invasion of the ISIL caliphate then you just havent been paying attention.

These types of conflicts have a good possiablity of spilling over into other regions

Thats too bad, but its not a reason for us to do something stupid that will make things worse. Let them figure it out for themselves. The Iran backed Shia government we set up during Operation: OOPS! Didnt think THAT one through! Is more than capable of defending itself, especially with help from Iran. The kurds as well are capable.

Edited September 17, 2014 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

LOL! Now it's a lot of "we" and "us" and hand wringing over what might happen in Iraq. My how times have changed.

[Army Guy]

I understand your views of why we should get involved as to the potential dangers of not doing so - but - Why do you feel that this involvement will be any more successful then previous involvements. We will be fighting seasoned fighters on their own turf with support from their own people in the area. Our previous military excursions into similar conditions in Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya were a disaster or at least unsuccessful if you want to be generous.

What makes you feel that this military expedition would be any more successful or unsuccessful than the others?

Involvement will stop the military threat, destroy ISIL in it's tracks or diminsh it to the piont that it's no longer a threat.....Seasons fighters in their on turf are not an issue, hard for them to stop western military strenght...And what ever is claiming they have the support of the people, but it is at gun piont, that kind of support is easily lost...

you quote alot of missions or conflicts you and others claim as losses or messes. and while some are true, Vietnam, somalia they were losses, because the citizens of the west got tied of waiting for a victory....and they left..as for the rest Iraq last time i heard sadam was dead, yes it left a power vacuum, which the people of Iraq were suppose to fix, and only the people can fix that....same as Afghanistan, the taliban have been kicked out of the country, again only the people of Afghan can fix how they are to be governed, but i can bet you a month wages that not to many Afghans want the taliban back if given a choice.....Libya....well once again Kadafi is long gone so is his regime.....

Freedom is a powerful thing it may be temporily granted with military action, but it is the people who decide how they want to be governed....and keep that type of government....yes the military force can provide the security element to make it a smoother process, but it is the people that decide if they want peace, and how they are to be governed....

So you can blame the US or NATO if you like however it all comes down to the people and what they want....in places like Iraq and Afghanistan they are not sure or so used to being beaten down they don't know how to govern themselfs....but when you look at syria, they know what they don't want and that is Asad and his bullies......

So are these types of military interventions worth it..I'd yes , are they effective in most cases, does they're need to be other componets or depts involved in bring some sort of gornment to bear thats our down fall....

[Army Guy]

Yes you can. The rise of this group is a direct result of western bungling. We removed a regime that had been very successfully keeping the local extremists in check for decades, and inadvertantly changed the balance of power in Iraq from the Baath party to an Iranian-backed shia proxy.

And now the same retards that supported the origional invasion want to go back and do a half assed job fixing this problem while setting the stage for the next one (again).

Bullshit, give us all a source that without out can doubt pin piont the west engagement in the middle east to the raise of this terrorist group.....I forgot your a canadian that makes it a past time to blame the US for everything ongoing in the world....and these terrorist pukes shoulder none of the blame.....it's always the US fault....

What your saying is we need the sadams in the world to hold these peckerwoods at bay....and yet how many inocent people died in Iraq as Sadams family marched them into the desert to be shot in the back of the head, or how many died in gas attacks.....that bastard got what he deserved....And i' sure millions of Iraqis would agree.....

What i gleen from your post is we need dictators around the globe to keep muslims and other nationalities in check....you also agree it's all right to use military force to take what you want , when it suits you....to cleanse large swaths of land of anyone who does not share your dreams and goals....what you agree with is might is right .....

loike i said before when is it you draw the line, at our boaders, your front lawn.....when is it we as a nation take any action....do we wait until the whole region is one festering boil that draws in a major conflict....only because your afraid of making things worse.....i get it we annouce a travel advisory, we pay stupid prices for oil, we take in thousands of those brave enough to escape....and we watch as thousands die.....that sounds like the answer you want...

we raise our middle finger to ISIL....and say kill as many as you want...who cares....

[-1=e^ipi]

Their actions todate puts them in with the other terrorist regimes around the globe....that in its self should be a reason to act....

That isn't sufficient reason to act. You also have to determine if your planned course of action is the best option.

you say we will have perpetual violence, the middle east will continue to be that way until these fringe fruit cakes are despensed with...

No, that will not stop the perpetual violence. You have to deal with the problem of where these 'fringe fruit cakes', as you call them, are coming from. Perhaps it has something to do with decades of funding of terrorism and wahabbism by the gulf states.

Why is it so hard to convince your self that this type of violence and ethinic cleansing is not good for anyone...

It is not good for anyone, except maybe the Sunni Radicals themselves. But that doesn't mean that your suggestion course of action is the best.

the powerful middle eastern countries want nothing to do with solving the issue via military force because of religion, they will not fight muslim on muslim their people will not stand for it....

Of course they don't want to get involved and want Western countries to do their bidding for them. However, if the west doesn't invade Sunni lands, arms the Kurds, and stops funding the 'rebels' in Syria, then ISIS will have only one direction to spread: south. The gulf states will have to deal with ISIS eventually, or they will get overthrown. This is especially true since large segments of the population of Saudi Arabia are just as radical as ISIS and have been funding ISIS.

Let our gulf state "allies" deal with it. If they deal with it then it is much harder for ISIS to gain recruits since they cannot label their opponents as 'crusaders' or 'kuffar'.

how many muslim countries were involved in rescueing Kuwait not many....

That was 20 years ago. Things have changed. Saudi Arabia has a trillion dollar economy and is one of the most militarily powerful countries in the world (they have the 4th highest spending, after USA, China and Russia).

You can't blame this on the west, this is about a group of people with twisted values and a twisted take on ISlam and want to force others to live in their dream....

And where did these 'twisted people' come from? No where? Did radical Islam just pop out of nowhere? Does it has something to do with the West sending the gulf states trillions in oil money over the past few decades, and the fact that those gulf states have spread Wahabbism across the globe and made Islam overall more radical than it was say 50 years ago?

Is it just a coincidence that 15 out of 19 911 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and 2 were from the UAE. Is it just a coincidence that Osama Bin Laden was Saudi Arabian and was a strict adherent to Wahhabism?

will effect oil supply or prices....

It's too bad that there is no western country that has large amounts of oil reserves and wants to export it to other western countries to help reduce the reliance on middle eastern oil. Oh wait... that's Canada.

Fortunately, the Saudi-King-Bowing Obama thinks Saudi Oil is far superior to Canadian Oil because 'the earth would boil over' (according to Obama's super informed understanding of climate science).

I'm not again'st anyones rights to self determination, just not at gun piont

There is no such thing as self determination at gun point. ISIS doesn't represent self-determination of Sunni Muslims.

since when did we lowwer our standards of whats right and wrong.

When the west decided to fund these Islamists in Syria to wage a proxy war against Russia in the first place.

Oh wait, maybe before then. Perhaps when Obama and other western leaders decided to unconditionally support Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood instead of Secular groups during the Arab Spring in an effort to fill various governments with pro-Western Islamists.

Or, maybe it was way before that. The west did fund Alqueda to fight a proxy war against the Russians back in the 80s. Maybe the west never had high moral standards to begin with. Perhaps we should raise our standards. Maybe we could start by not funding Islamist radicals that want to take over the world.

after all they did meantion world domination....i know unlikely but it does send the message this is not about creating a homeland....

Of course they want world domination. They believe it is prophesized in the Quran that they are destined to take over the world and establish Islam and Sharia everywhere.

and they won't be stopped....so when do we take action when they kill thouseands, millions, when is it time for the west to say "hey" we have had enough...?

Please define what you mean by 'stopped' and why you think that is the case. Because I have numerous responses I could give to this, but it depends on what you mean.

We already know that other muslim countries will not get involved other than funding or words...

Yes they will. Because their choices will be: A. Deal with ISIS. B. Don't deal with ISIS and let ISIS overthrow you.

Edited September 17, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

But the reality is that ISIS is the manifestation of Sunni nationalism

For the last time. ISIS are anti-nationalists. Mislabeling them as nationalists does not help.

Will we allow ourselves to get bogged down in a hopeless and permanent mission to force sunnis and shia to live in peace together? Judging by some of the comments on here we just might be that stupid

Probably.

Involvement will stop the military threat, destroy ISIL in it's tracks or diminsh it to the piont that it's no longer a threat..

No it won't. ISIS isn't a threat that can be defeated by military force. Furthermore, the West isn't as all-powerful as the western media would have us believe.

And what ever is claiming they have the support of the people, but it is at gun piont, that kind of support is easily lost...

No, it's support through years of Wahabbi brainwashing. You can thank our gulf state 'allies' for that.

in places like Iraq and Afghanistan they are not sure or so used to being beaten down they don't know how to govern themselfs..

Or maybe it has something to do with Wahabbism... Maybe having most western politicians thinking "they are just like us" is flawed and results in poor decisions.

but when you look at syria, they know what they don't want and that is Asad and his bullies....

Is that why the 'rebels' don't want to run against Assad and have an election? Assad may not be the most popular guy, but to say he doesn't have significant support from Syrians is untrue.