363 réponses à ce sujet

[Commander Rpg]

Resources my ass. You saying there's not a humanitarian reason to destroy Isis?This is the lamest libtard cry baby response I've seen for at least a week. Been staying away from CNN,

Since the advent of the Cold War, the United States, in the person of their governers (presidents and staffs) had fostered certain personalities in the Middle-East, Saddam Hussein for instance. These people were assisted secretly by the US government, to do "peacekeeping" and to fight the communist invaders in those regions; USSR was huge and expanding.

Those nice guys (said hired mercenaries), after the Cold War was mostly ending, remained in their positions and with all the benefits they were granted, so they assumed command in those countries and started going into dictatorship and war-crimes, religiously or not.

 

Next, U.S. (e.g. Bush jr.) decided to bomb Iraq because "there were weapons of mass destruction", but it was really a war to expand influence on the region and to gain oil. Those "weapons of mass destruction" were never found.

 

ISIS is a product partly made by the US, in the meaning that they have let all the megalomaniacs of any species run to fight the communists (or any enemy in those regions) back, and now that there have been scandals like the Iraq bombing - which is not the only nor the last - and the horrible and humiliating treatments given to prisoners (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo), it is less certain if "randomly bombing"™ will help in any way.

 

And although ISIS represents indeed a danger for the lives of the people, it isn't certain in any way that they are being fought solely in the name of humanity and peacekeeping, especially if that claim comes from the same states' federation we're speaking of.

[Fast Jimmy]

If left alone, they'll try to gain control of the entire Mid East. That means plenty of children to indoctrinate and train to be ISIS fighters. Then once they have enough territory and military, they'll declare war on us. That's a prediction of mine.

We might as well deal with them before all this can happen, while we still can.

bahahahahaaaahahaahahahaaaaaaaa

[Fast Jimmy]

Come now, Europe this, West that...

The wars that European states has waged against themselves certainly dwarf most things in pure scale. But "cruel and bloodthirsty"?
You want to make the West responsible for Nazism, Lenin-Stalinism? I beg your pardon, but I see it much differently, the West defeated these ideologies. Volunteered and shouldered the burden to do so.

You're missing the point - the West's grudge match over ideologies boiled over to the rest of the world, creating mass death, war, poverty and instability. I don't see how you can see them washing their hands of that by taking out dictators in their backyard that started the conflicts in the first place.

As for British imperial ambitions, I reject to make "West" responsible for that, just as much as I reject Soviet/Russian, French, German and Swedish trade with Saddam (pre-Kuwait) (Soviet/Russia, France sold the weapons, Germany built the bunkers and structures, Sweden sold the trucks) being called "Western support for Saddam", as certain left-wing journalists always do, in their hope that people will interpret/read it as "US support", which remarkably many of them do. Besides that, I don't think that the British empire distinguished itself as particularly "cruel and bloodthirsty". Not in the picture of things.

...I'm sorry? Is Britain not part of Europe? Is Germany not part of the West? Is France now suddenly part of Africa, Asia or the Middle East? Western civilization's brash rush to war for the better part of a century is what has led to the rest of the world being war torn and in conflict. The League of Nations and, after that, United Nations bred the conflict-driven world stage we see today by carving up the world based on resources and trade agreements instead of cultural and historical identities.

The Ottoman Empire, finally, had been corrupt and mismanaged for centuries before it was dismantled. And I still don't see the dismantling, of this extremely un-democratic, privilegecracy, as "cruel and bloodthirsty". And what if it hadn't been dismantled?

If it hadn't been dismantled, I suspect the Middle East would be an industrialized, wealthy and moderate region of the world.

Let's not forget - the entire reason the Ottoman Empire entered in with Germany during World War 1. They realized that while their empire was stable and prosperous, they had been greatly outpaced by their European counterparts. In the late 1800's, they spent huge amounts of money to try and modernize their military and infrastructure to better consolidate their empire and prevent the corruption that was dominating its history. Yet no European country would help, viewing the Middle East as backwards... no one, that is, except Germany.

After a few decades of Germany's help, they had begun to modernize their empire, bringing new weapons, tactics and roads to improve structure and communication. So, when the Great War broke out, naturally they wanted to support their long-standing ally. They backed the wrong horse, of course, and then the League of Nations took one of the world's longest lasting, ethnically/religiously and racially diverse empires in history and smashed it up, giving no heed to who they lumped together or put in charge.

And, just like Germany, they slapped terrible reparation payments on them that crippled their economy and sent them back a hundred years in development. Just like Germany, they turned to dictators and fundamentalists to give them stability and hope in a time of crushing poverty. So when Germany, again, rose up, they struck back at the rest of the West who had undid hundreds of years of peace and prosperity in the region. And, again, they backed the wrong horse and were further fractured and pushed to even more desperate financial straits.

The Middle East WANTED to become like the West. They WANTED to become advanced and sophisticated and prosperous. And European racism blocked them and then European war devastated them. If the West had just been greedy and taken the money for technology, the Otomon Empire might have survived and progressed the way the Japanese empire did to a normal, urbanized society. Instead, they were crushed and abused, time and again, by Westerners who just see an expendable people who happen to sit on fields of valuable resources.

[bEVEsthda]

You're missing the point - the West's grudge match over ideologies boiled over to the rest of the world, creating mass death, war, poverty and instability. I don't see how you can see them washing their hands of that by taking out dictators in their backyard that started the conflicts in the first place.

 

What "grudge match over ideologies"?

WWI? It wasn't about ideologies.

WWII? Don't even go there  , for your own sake, if you think that's what it was about.

Stalin and Soviet block? I'm not sure it could be handled better, and with less damage. I'm quite happy with the immediate outcome.

And I'm not going to agreeing to laying blame on the West for every little sacrifice that happened, nor for Putin and everything that happens in & to Russia for four hundred years into the future. Just saying, in advance.

[thE-Ro]

If left alone, they'll try to gain control of the entire Mid East. That means plenty of children to indoctrinate and train to be ISIS fighters. Then once they have enough territory and military, they'll declare war on us. That's a prediction of mine.

 

We might as well deal with them before all this can happen, while we still can. 

If you think Isis has the capability or even the smallest chance of taking over the middle east you are a moron. Of course, I can tell from your other posts in here you have zero idea what your talking about but the breadth of your ignorance is simply astounding. 

 

Also the idea that "isis is becoming stronger" is not based on reality, but complete and utter fiction. It never ceases to amaze me how people who have no knowledge will speak on subjects like this. Hilarity. 

[bEVEsthda]

...I'm sorry? Is Britain not part of Europe? Is Germany not part of the West? Is France now suddenly part of Africa, Asia or the Middle East?

 

Britain of the 1500, 1600 and 1700 is not a typical part of modern European or Western culture, no. The Britain which dismantled its colonial empire, mainly peacefully, is. Spain, Portugal and Britain may be part of Europe, but they, just like China, The Ottoman Empire, Russia/Soviet, Japan, the Moors, Mohammed and Islam, Djingis Khan, Persia, the Aztecs, etc, all have to take responsibility for their own empire building and crimes. It cannot be blamed on Western culture. It's not an European or Western invention. Quite the contrary.

 

As for the other: A few countries' normal, sanctioned trade with a dictator, though greedy, is not a Western conspiracy. Particularly not when it was controversial in the West, and mainly headed by Soviet arms export and Soviet advicers.

[Jehuty]

bahahahahaaaahahaahahahaaaaaaaa

Notice I said they would try. Doesn't mean they'll succeed. 

[Jehuty]

If you think Isis has the capability or even the smallest chance of taking over the middle east you are a moron. Of course, I can tell from your other posts in here you have zero idea what your talking about but the breadth of your ignorance is simply astounding. 

 

Also the idea that "isis is becoming stronger" is not based on reality, but complete and utter fiction. It never ceases to amaze me how people who have no knowledge will speak on subjects like this. Hilarity. 

I'm a moron? Lol. 

 

I know what I'm talking about. I know that they are an enemy that needs to be crushed, destroyed, and removed from existence. Do you not agree with me on this? 

 

I also know that when you leave certain groups alone, they tend to become a problem. Think of it like this. Cockroaches. When you see one, isn't a problem right? But if you were to leave that one alive, it would spawn more and soon, an infestation would commence. ISIS of course cannot spread that fast. Will they take over the Middle East? They can try. Even other extremist groups don't like them. 

 

According to the guardian, the article was in May so it's a few months outdated, ISIS controls 50 percent of Syria. 

http://www.theguardi...a-islamic-state

Another source is needed, of course. 

http://www.businessi...erritory-2015-5

 

Plus when your soldiers are running in fear, then the terrorism must be working. So yes, they are becoming a problem. Slowly but surely. They also control a good chunk of Iran last I remember, but that info may be outdated currently since it was before May. So, the cockroaches are spreading. I believe it's time to crush them. 

 

It also amazes me when people call others morons and such but have nothing to contribute. I haven't seen you take part other than making a silly remark. 

 

Think of ISIS as you would cockroaches. They spread unless dealt with. If you are going to attempt to disprove me, then back it up. I'll listen to your piece.

[Draining Dragon]

Okay, where are people getting this absurd notion that ISIS poses no threat to anyone and will just magically evaporate if left to its own devices? Chamberlain? Is that you? I suppose taking over multiple cities, throwing gays off buildings, launching terrorist attacks, beheading children, and murdering Christians is just a whole lot of silliness, amirite? Yes, clearly they're just the JV team.

[thE-Ro]

I'm a moron? Lol. 

 

I know what I'm talking about. I know that they are an enemy that needs to be crushed, destroyed, and removed from existence. Do you not agree with me on this? 

 

I also know that when you leave certain groups alone, they tend to become a problem. Think of it like this. Cockroaches. When you see one, isn't a problem right? But if you were to leave that one alive, it would spawn more and soon, an infestation would commence. ISIS of course cannot spread that fast. Will they take over the Middle East? They can try. Even other extremist groups don't like them. 

 

According to the guardian, the article was in May so it's a few months outdated, ISIS controls 50 percent of Syria. 

http://www.theguardi...a-islamic-state

Another source is needed, of course. 

http://www.businessi...erritory-2015-5

 

Plus when your soldiers are running in fear, then the terrorism must be working. So yes, they are becoming a problem. Slowly but surely. They also control a good chunk of Iran last I remember, but that info may be outdated currently since it was before May. So, the cockroaches are spreading. I believe it's time to crush them. 

 

It also amazes me when people call others morons and such but have nothing to contribute. I haven't seen you take part other than making a silly remark. 

 

Think of ISIS as you would cockroaches. They spread unless dealt with. If you are going to attempt to disprove me, then back it up. I'll listen to your piece.

You dont know what you are talking about. And your referring to them as "cockroaches" in a pathetic attempt to sound edgy pretty much proves it, You sound like a dopey teen or some sort of horribly written bond villain. 

 

You have done nothing to address my point. ISIS controls territory in Iraq and Syria, yes, but that does not change the fact that they are becoming weaker and weaker every day, and no longer able to expand. It also does not change the fact that they pose zero threat to any middle eastern country that is not Iraq or Syria. Countries like the UAE, Turkey, Jordan, etc. Have large well funded militaries. The second any of these countries face an existential threat from isis is the second they unleash their militaries on the occupied areas of Iraq and Syria and that would be the end of this. 

 

Educate yourself before you go full clown. 

 

 

Okay, where are people getting this absurd notion that ISIS poses no threat to anyone and will just magically evaporate if left to its own devices? Chamberlain? Is that you? I suppose taking over multiple cities, throwing gays off buildings, launching terrorist attacks, beheading children, and murdering Christians is just a whole lot of silliness, amirite? Yes, clearly they're just the JV team.

This is a strawman. And not even a good one. No one said ISIS posed no threat to anyone. And no one said isis would disappear on its own. You completely ignored my arguments to respond with a laundry list of things isis has done. You have not refuted the point that they are weakening and you have not refuted the point that they lack the capability to challenge the major powers in the Middle east. They have yet to face a real army, the closest they have gotten are the exhausted remnants of assads regime and the Kurds(whom are pretty much beating them at this point) 

[Jehuty]

You dont know what you are talking about. And your referring to them as "cockroaches" in a pathetic attempt to sound edgy pretty much proves it, You sound like a dopey teen or some sort of horribly written bond villain. 

 

You have done nothing to address my point. ISIS controls territory in Iraq and Syria, yes, but that does not change the fact that they are becoming weaker and weaker every day, and no longer able to expand. It also does not change the fact that they pose zero threat to any middle eastern country that is not Iraq or Syria. Countries like the UAE, Turkey, Jordan, etc. Have large well funded militaries. The second any of these countries face an existential threat from isis is the second they unleash their militaries on the occupied areas of Iraq and Syria and that would be the end of this. 

 

Educate yourself before you go full clown. 

You are silly. They are cockroaches. What else should I call them? 

 

I also recall saying they could and likely would try. Doesn't mean they'll succeed. 

 

But, I have to agree with you on one thing. When they do face a real military, their days will be numbered. But how easy or hard it'll be depends on how long everyone waits. And this "ISIS is weakening" prove it. Give me a reliable source. Can you? Give me two, while you're at it. 

[bEVEsthda]

So, when the Great War broke out, naturally they wanted to support their long-standing ally. They backed the wrong horse, of course... 

 

But of course they didn't make their own bed? No?

 

They were not allied with Germany. On the contrary they sought alliance agreements with Britain, just as they also made Germany agree to a number Ottoman territorial gains, should they side with Germany. 

But they stayed neutral, unsure which way the war would turn.

 

To be fair, it seems they eventually sided and entered the war, which they had every opportunity to stay out of and no direct interest in, by a slight coup, by a few anti-Russian politicians. But then they committed themselves to it, trying to re-conquer territories which they had conquered before, dreaming of past glory. And hoping that the early German successes in France would continue, also hoping to get rid of the very large dept they had to primarily to France but also some to Britain.

They were greedy and assumed it was a good opportunity to make gains, like the expansive empire builders, though obsolete, that they were and had always been. All the trouble in these parts of the world, plus Balkan, can just as well be blamed on the Ottoman Empire itself, as the dismantling of it.

 

The peace loving and abused by the West - Ottoman Empire:

 

 

It might be a good idea to remind of that state politics is a developing craft. The amazing generosity which Germany and Japan were treated with by the West, was not a normality, but a new experiment, because the last punishment & compensation scheme didn't work. And because the German and Japanese civilians' situation was far more grave this time, due to the massive destruction.

 

But I don't really buy into your perception that the later events, specifically WWII, was a direct consequence of the aftermath of WWI. It's a popular concept, but that relies on the presumption that WWII was entirely created and started by Nazi Germany (also a popular concept), and that nothing would have happened if they hadn't. That's pretty far from the real situation. At least four powers were in full swing to create empires by conquering warfare, enslavement/extermination, and resource theft. Soviet, Japan, Italy and Germany. Germany was the only one that had suffered the WWI peace treaty.

[thE-Ro]

You are silly. They are cockroaches. What else should I call them? 

 

I also recall saying they could and likely would try. Doesn't mean they'll succeed. 

 

But, I have to agree with you on one thing. When they do face a real military, their days will be numbered. But how easy or hard it'll be depends on how long everyone waits. And this "ISIS is weakening" prove it. Give me a reliable source. Can you? Give me two, while you're at it. 

:Facepalm: If calling them cockroaches makes you feel better fair enough. Just a heads up it makes you sound silly, and no better then them.

 

People try all sorts of things, yes, who cares if they have no capability to do so? Military planning is based on enemy capability, not what they "would like to try." 

 

As for sources, here 

 

http://english.alara...-s-Kobane-.html

 

http://www.nytimes.c...-town.html?_r=0

 

http://www.vox.com/2...SIS-losing-Iraq

 

http://www.cnn.com/2...territory-iraq/

 

There are plenty more. Anyway, coalition air strikes have prevented them from using the conventional tactics that made them so effective at seizing territory in the first place. They are being pushed back, the idea that they can hold ground and continue to expand whilst governing the land they take is fantasy. 

[Jehuty]

Throwing in insults makes me a child killing extremist? Funny. We are loads different. I'm just a simple keyboard warrior. Not some extremist like ISIS. The only thing I can possibly hurt is emotion and feeling. I don't kill entire families because they believe something different. I'll call ISIS cockroaches because they are just that. It fits them perfectly if you think about it. 

 

But moving on, I will take a look at those sources. Thank you for providing them.

[Fast Jimmy]

What "grudge match over ideologies"?
WWI? It wasn't about ideologies.
WWII? Don't even go there , for your own sake, if you think that's what it was about.
Stalin and Soviet block? I'm not sure it could be handled better, and with less damage. I'm quite happy with the immediate outcome.
And I'm not going to agreeing to laying blame on the West for every little sacrifice that happened, nor for Putin and everything that happens in & to Russia for four hundred years into the future. Just saying, in advance.

WW1 was most certainly based in ideologies... ideologies of global empires, of an arms race of military alliances against other European countries, of hyper-nationalism. These may not have been the ideologies that defined the sides of the war, but they were most definitely the cause of them.

And for WW2, you can't say the West took care of Nazism on its own in one post and then say WW2 had nothing to do with Nazism in another. You're moving the goal posts of the conversation.

Also, I'm not sure people in Asia or the Middle East would be particularly happy with how the chips fell in the fallout of the Cold War. Besides, it's not a matter of how well things were handled... the West made the third world its warfare playground to avoid actually fighting in their own countries. That's incredibly selfish and lacking in any sort of value for human life. Their conflicts, politics and policies called death, destruction and poverty in parts of the world that would have otherwise not had any part of such things.

I don't know where you are even getting Putin from, but the West has ownership for their actions, specifically in staging wars in other parts of the world that have negative effects into today. The West isn't being blamed for everything, but it is undeniable that there have been countries crushed under the boot of these actions that would otherwise have been intact.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Okay, where are people getting this absurd notion that ISIS poses no threat to anyone and will just magically evaporate if left to its own devices? Chamberlain? Is that you? I suppose taking over multiple cities, throwing gays off buildings, launching terrorist attacks, beheading children, and murdering Christians is just a whole lot of silliness, amirite? Yes, clearly they're just the JV team.

 
They're murdering more than just Christians and gays, even other Muslims who don't adhere to their sect are killed as are the Yazidis who currently seem to be at the forefront of ISIL and their wrath. Wikipedia describes ISIL's crimes against this group as "genocidal persecution" and from what I've read and heard, this is an accurate term to use.

 

When Al Qaeda turns around and distances themselves from ISIL and condemns them for "slaughtering minorities and enslaving women and children", you know you're dealing with a bigger problem. This is not to mention all the attacks in Europe by ISIL members. The simple fact is that they are a threat and leaving them to their devices simply won't do. Yes the West didn't help by their involvement but we can't change the past now, we can only try to make the future better.

[Fast Jimmy]

But of course they didn't make their own bed? No?

They were not allied with Germany. On the contrary they sought alliance agreements with Britain, just as they also made Germany agree to a number Ottoman territorial gains, should they side with Germany.
But they stayed neutral, unsure which way the war would turn.

To be fair, it seems they eventually sided and entered the war, which they had every opportunity to stay out of and no direct interest in, by a slight coup, by a few anti-Russian politicians. But then they committed themselves to it, trying to re-conquer territories which they had conquered before, dreaming of past glory. And hoping that the early German successes in France would continue, also hoping to get rid of the very large dept they had to primarily to France but also some to Britain.
They were greedy and assumed it was a good opportunity to make gains, like the expansive empire builders, though obsolete, that they were and had always been. All the trouble in these parts of the world, plus Balkan, can just as well be blamed on the Ottoman Empire itself, as the dismantling of it.

The peace loving and abused by the West - Ottoman Empire:

I never said peace loving. They were expanding and updating their military, chasing Europe's coattail a (ostensibly to pursue the same results). It doesn't change the answer to your original question - if the West hadn't erupted into a war that stretch across a quarter of the globe (twice), the Ottoman Emprie would likely be intact (or some version of it) instead of the decimated and chaotic Middle East of today.

It might be a good idea to remind of that state politics is a developing craft. The amazing generosity which Germany and Japan were treated with by the West, was not a normality, but a new experiment, because the last punishment & compensation scheme didn't work. And because the German and Japanese civilians' situation was far more grave this time, due to the massive destruction.

So, because Europe had never done the smart thing and did the dumb thing instead, it's okay? It's barbarism to crush your enemies beyond the chance of recovering, an economic salting of the fields. Just because no one had thought to treat an entire region with either compassion or common sense doesn't absolve any sort of responsibility or culpability.

But I don't really buy into your perception that the later events, specifically WWII, was a direct consequence of the aftermath of WWI. It's a popular concept, but that relies on the presumption that WWII was entirely created and started by Nazi Germany (also a popular concept), and that nothing would have happened if they hadn't. That's pretty far from the real situation. At least four powers were in full swing to create empires by conquering warfare, enslavement/extermination, and resource theft. Soviet, Japan, Italy and Germany. Germany was the only one that had suffered the WWI peace treaty.

China had been warring with Japan and other countries for thousands of years without the West worrying or getting involved. Japan was rising, but it would have been just another war, the one in which the West was not involving and one where the peoples of Asia would have been100% culpable for what happened

Russia was looking to grow and expand and may have taken the place of Germany for a different version of WW2, no argument there. But they would have likely joined their nearby neighbors China rather than Japan, resulting less of a behemoth than the Axis.

And Italy, even under its bold facist rule, would have never been so ballsy as to invade its neighbors in Greece or the Balkans without nearby Germany rallying under the economic and military bosom of the Third Reich.

The Nazis rise to power was directly tied to the dire economic circumstance imposed by the League of Nations. And Germany was the catalyst that led to a second truly global world war, without which none of the other parties would have joined to form the force that the Axis posed to the world and which boiled over into the rest of the planet, including North Africa and the Middle East.

[slimgrin]

Okay, where are people getting this absurd notion that ISIS poses no threat to anyone and will just magically evaporate if left to its own devices? Chamberlain? Is that you? I suppose taking over multiple cities, throwing gays off buildings, launching terrorist attacks, beheading children, and murdering Christians is just a whole lot of silliness, amirite? Yes, clearly they're just the JV team.

 

America and the EU need to take them more seriously. The short term solution is violence, plain and simple. Eradicate them. It's clear as to how extreme they are, there's no other way. The long term solution is democracy, sure, but that is years down the road. And Europe needs to face the facts: It's becoming a breeding ground for extremists. Second generation immigrants, raised in the lap of luxury in countries like the UK and Netherlands, are helping Isis. 

[Fast Jimmy]

They're murdering more than just Christians and gays, even other Muslims who don't adhere to their sect are killed as are the Yazidis who currently seem to be at the forefront of ISIL and their wrath. Wikipedia describes ISIL's crimes against this group as "genocidal persecution" and from what I've read and heard, this is an accurate term to use.

When Al Qaeda turns around and distances themselves from ISIL and condemns them for "slaughtering minorities and enslaving women and children", you know you're dealing with a bigger problem. This is not to mention all the attacks in Europe by ISIL members. The simple fact is that they are a threat and leaving them to their devices simply won't do. Yes the West didn't help by their involvement but we can't change the past now, we can only try to make the future better.

Do you want me to try to list the number of groups who are murdering and killing people in the streets across the globe? South America, Asia, the Phillipines, Africa, Eastern Europe... what makes ISIS special? Oh, that's right... it's in a country with oil reserves.

[Jehuty]

Do you want me to try to list the number of groups who are murdering and killing people in the streets across the globe? South America, Asia, the Phillipines, Africa, Eastern Europe... what makes ISIS special? Oh, that's right... it's in a country with oil reserves.

Besides thinking they can destroy America, that's a big reason. When our marines touched down, their orders were to secure the oil fields. 

 

But regardless we should still destroy ISIS. 

[Fast Jimmy]

America and the EU need to take them more seriously. The short term solution is violence, plain and simple. Eradicate them. It's clear, as to how extreme they are, there's no other way. The long term solution is democracy, sure, but that is years down the road. And Europe needs to face the facts: It's becoming a breeding ground for extremists. Second generation immigrants, raised in the lap of luxury in countries like the UK and Netherlands, are helping Isis.

It cracks me up how typically the people who suggest sending military forces costing trillions of dollars to wipe out a bunch of warlords then go on to complain about raising taxes to get out of national debt or say the spending on non-Social Security programs is what is bankrupting the country.

[slimgrin]

It cracks me up how typically the people who suggest sending military forces costing trillions of dollars to wipe out a bunch of warlords then go on to complain about raising taxes to get out of national debt or say the spending on non-Social Security programs is what is bankrupting the country.

 

I agree but when you have a threat as uncompromising as Isis, with every intention of declaring war on western culture, you don't have a choice in the matter. Their intent is to spread the conflict to foreign shores. They aren't just being violent in their own region for personal gain. Besides, killing them saves lives in the middle east as they're butchering anyone who won't join.

[Jehuty]

I agree but when you have a threat as uncompromising as Isis, with every intention of declaring war on western culture, you don't have a choice in the matter. Their intent is to spread the conflict to foreign shores. They aren't just being violent in their own region for personal gain. Besides, killing them saves lives in the middle east as they're butchering anyone who won't join.

The morons think they can destroy us. I say let's destroy them first. Display our military strength and maybe other extremist groups will think twice. 

 

We look very weak right now. We need to change that. We have the most advanced military so it shouldn't be much of a problem wiping ISIS out of this plain of existence. 

[thE-Ro]

It cracks me up how typically the people who suggest sending military forces costing trillions of dollars to wipe out a bunch of warlords then go on to complain about raising taxes to get out of national debt or say the spending on non-Social Security programs is what is bankrupting the country.

You know I have to agree. My wanting to avoid boots on the ground is a bit more personal, but you make a good point. Its easy for a bunch of fox news spawned civilian foreign policy experts to advocate all sorts of silliness but at the end of the day its a great thing that we have educated and well trained professionals working on these issues. If you have no skin in the game "RAH RAH DEPLOY TROOPS HRUUUR" is an easy thing to say. 
 

Bombing them is enough. Arming our allies in the region to help is enough. Isis can be beaten by their fellow muslims. Its only a matter of time, and American troops are not needed. 

 

And it always cracks me up, people talk about how awful isis is but no one talks about the absolute WORST conflict happening right now. The bloodiest conflict no one is talking about.  Then again, who cares about these people, they have nothing we need.