It is a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. Syria is the biggest joke of them all though. Don't want to help Assad but don't want to help groups fighting Assad because that means helping ISIS either directly or indirectly. The only apparent certainty is that Islamic extremism has only gotten major footholds in places with severely weakened regimes which western governments have exacerbated. So the choice is either prop up shitty regimes (which we clearly have no issue with doing if the sycophantic drivel in the wake of the Saudi king's death is anything to go by) or help create more of these kinds of problems when we stick our ignorant noses into other middle east countries.
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
The problem is other Mid East countries should be the ones solving this problem.
Instead, they are covertly supporting the Islamic State, pretending to be allies of the US.
Yet we still support those regimes. Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia etc. Yet we actively oppose regimes fighting against ISIS such as Syria and Iran.
Clearly we have no clue what we're doing in the middle east. It's actually eembarrassing.
Originally posted by Lestov16
TBF, it's practically impossible to threaten or engage a country when said country has the full backing and support of nuclear-armed Russia.
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Hmm, so Obama asking Congress to declare war isn't a real war?
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Russia would never go to war over Syria. Syria isn't a neighbor of Russia and it doesn't represent a huge economic interest. Putin all but admitted he wouldn't stand up for Al-Assad if America decided to attack. I'll try to find the quote when I have more time, but basically he said "Of course we can't stop [America] if they [decide to intervene without UN approval], but we will not give them UN cover for any actions."You're talking "real war" as per the political definition, I'm talking operationally. I don't consider a bombing campaign a true war even if there's a declaration of war. Why not? Because there's little impact on the nation carrying out the bombing campaign. We spend some money, but we lose very little (read: so far none) personnel or materiel.
This going to be much more then an air campaign, that much is certain.
Originally posted by jaden101
Yes. But against the Assad regime.The west decided in Libya and Syria to arm and aid 'rebels' against standing secular regimes. As well as in Iraq. These removals and weakening of those regimes have directly led to Islamic extremists to gain power and land they never would have had a hope of gaining if it weren't for western intervention.
The vote in the UK parliament in august last year was for military action not against ISIS but against the Assad regime for the alleged use of chemical weapons as well as to provide lethal assistance to groups fighting Assad
We'd already had the complete **** up of trying to arm 'moderates'. That ended up with John Mccain having a photo taken with members of ISIS.
When did McCain take a photo with ISIS?
There are many groups who while not being nearly as "Pro-Western" or "Moderate" as McCain and his ilk would like to admit, are not ISIS and are fighting against ISIS. Take the Saudi-backed Islamic Front.
Btw, I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment, just checking your facts.
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
This going to be much more then an air campaign, that much is certain.
Edit: Oh snap, just saw the headline about the war authorization request. Hmm...this bears study.
Been seeing more and more stories, but apparently Westerners (mostly USA and UK) are joining up with the various anti-ISIS countries/groups to combat ISIS.
Here's two links
The Kurds are arguably more deserving of their own country than the Jews were when Israel was created.
My hope is that the end result of the ISIS Crisis is the creation of an independent Kurdish state from Iraqi Kurdistan and the Syrian Kurdish cantons, with a right of return-type law enacted that would (assuming cooperation) allow to vent some pressure out of countries like Turkey and Iran who have large, ill-content Kurdish minorities.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/12/isis-iraq-al-baghdadi_n_6674538.html
My old home base in Iraq falling to ISIS.
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/12/isis-iraq-al-baghdadi_n_6674538.htmlMy old home base in Iraq falling to ISIS.
Originally posted by Lestov16
What will happen if US Forces are forced to engage them? Will that set a precedent or deterrent for ground troops?
There is already 2000-3000 ground troops over there. Time will tell if Obama sends more. Rules of engagement at most caution are do not fire till fired upon, however I hope US can engage before that still. When I was over there we had to do force escalation before we could fire.
This gentleman put it well:
"We have to remember, ISIS is aligning itself to make massive gains if western nations decide to intervene. They and their supporters want boots on the ground.
We may talk big about bombing them to kingdom come, annihilating their villages, and eradicating both soldiers and their families to thoroughly "cleanse" the world of their bloodline. But this kind of response will, like the brooms in Fantasia, make them stronger in numbers and justify their existence as soldiers fighting the invading western "empires".
The solution has to come from local nations that are occupied by or adjacent to ISIS controlled regions. Without their desire to see ISIS wiped from existence, foreign intervention will only be a temporary solution, and when the western forces leave, an even bloodier fanatical group will take ISIS' place.
This is exactly what happened in Iraq, exactly what caused ISIS to pop into existence in the first place. Western powers attempted to "stabilize" Iraq by removing a leader they thought was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, and after they ended combat operations and executed Saddam Hussein, Iraq became a veritable Petri dish of Islamic fundamentalism. Operation Enduring Freedom didn't have local Iraqi support, nor did it have support from Iraq's neighboring nations, thus the "evil" we were fighting to extinguish ended up getting replaced by something worse.
It got replaced by ISIS.
ISIS wants another invasion like that of Iraq in 2003. And they're probably going to get it with the length of barbarism they're achieving like today's sick display. But the end result is likely going to be an even worse region than it was before, because we do not have the local support needed to keep the region stable after any foreign military intervention.
And the biggest problem, even worse than the cowards and psychopaths living out their sick power fantasies under the false pretenses of Islamic righteousness, are the foreign interests supporting ISIS.
In particular, the Saudi Royal Family. You want to hit Isis where it hurts the most? Remove those rich Saudi bastards from their donations listing. Diplomatic persuasion is preferred...but not required...
You know what I mean."sic
Though I do not condone killing the Saudi Royal family. I figured I would not cut out his words because those are his words.