This is bad news for most countries
Main reason would be the disasters of many regions in ISIS partially dominated countries
&
Innocent civillians caught in war

And the news now states we find ISIS in every corner of the globe Eg:USA,SYRIA,Nepal,Pakistan,Saudi Arabia,Malaysia,Indoonisia,Mongolia,France,Austria,etc

But putting those aside
The world now knows that the badasses have come to rage war and eliminating these brutal bastards called ISIS for good.

Praise their army to survive and kill as many as possible.
Hope most civillians survive these apocalypse and to note we have warlighters from every region of the world that may need our prayers and blessings to be safe
As a united world we should pray for them to prevent them from suffering anymore!

what are your opinions on this
may the russians kill em all

As for those ISIS members may you rot in hell

The Russians dont give a **** about ISIS and even if they started to fight ISIS it would be a disaster as the US in Iraq or France in Lybia/Africa.

More sad news today: The Talibans took control of Kunduz, a very strategic city in the north of Afghanistan.

(You see what was the benefit of the US army going to Afghanistan if the situation is worse after their passage? A military intervention against ISIS would give the same result... Also remember that the Russians once tried to take control of Afghanistan and miserably failed against the Talibans in the 80s.)

Edited 9/28/2015 15:46:07

we should really have a map for this sort of things too lol
i mean look at our world its like a gigantic warlight game with tons of neutrals and army

Angry Koala, what do you suggest we do about ISIS then? Sit on our lazy butts while they continue slaughtering innocent people in Iraq and Syria? People have become so anti-intervention that they're willing to just sit and watch no matter how bad a situation gets. We're at a point where ISIS will probably have to invade Turkey or Israel before the general population of western countries even considers fighting them in full.

Eklipse, military actions proved to not work 90% of times (some success however notably in Mali or in the whole Maghreb but this is very rare if we see what happened elsewhere during the last 20 years and the recent wars that worsened the situation).

This is not the right answer from us "Westerners", we should provide help, finance their education (that is the key point to avoid fanatism, some achievements were made in Afghanistan but the US and its NATO allies did not give enough for it and put too much effort on the military part), infrastructures, in 3 words: improve their lives. War never solved anything.

Okay, so how are we supposed to build schools and what not when ISIS will simply blow up the building and execute the workers? We're dealing with a band of fanatics that will not hesitate to slaughter anyone who doesn't follow their way of thinking.

ISIS isn't some average Joe terrorist group, they're an organized force that controls physical territory. We can't do anything to improve the lives of people within that territory as long as ISIS is in command.

Your plan has merit, but that's the solution to preventing another ISIS. It won't do a darn thing to deal with the one which currently exists.

Final note, war never solved anything, eh? Guess the Allies shouldn't of fought against the Nazis.

Edited 9/28/2015 17:05:08

Eklipse, building schools and investment efforts should have been made before ISIS EVER started to exist, that means at least 3 years ago, since 2003, you had time for that dont you think? Now it is too late, and if we are in that shit, it is because of your military intervention, nothing else. War causes misery, and misery causes hatred and war, it is a vicious circle that is hard to stop.

Eklipse, building schools and investment efforts should have been made before ISIS EVER started to exist, that means at least 3 years ago, since 2003, you had time for that dont you think? Now it is too late, and if we are in that shit, it is because of your military intervention, nothing else. War causes misery, and misery causes hatred and war, it is a vicious circle that is hard to stop.

You're dodging the issue by trying to assign blame. We aren't talking about why ISIS is here, or who's fault it is. We're talking about how to deal with them now in the present day. The fact that it's too late for investment efforts was the exact point I was trying to make to you. There really isn't an alternative to dealing with ISIS aside from fighting them. You can't negotiate, any peaceful process will be destroyed by them.

Again I ask you, if war is never the answer, was it wrong for the Allies to intervene against the Nazis? For a long time they gave Adolf Hitler everything he wanted, turned a blind eye to obvious red flags, because they were obsessed with maintaining the peace. We all know where that mentality led to.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. If we allow ISIS to continue it's horrendous actions and simply sit around because we're afraid to get our hands dirty the situation will get worse and worse and worse. ISIS will not disappear on it's own.

Did I say war was never the right answer? did you read what I posted? I even showed you sucessful wars like the war in Mali, right now Mali is almost totally safe, and this was a success for the African Union coalition and the French army (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Mali_conflict)

About Iraq something went wrong, I am not fully aware of everything, but one thing is sure, the war in Iraq was for wrong reasons: Bush said Sadam hid nuclear weapons, but that was just one reason to declare war to Iraq which was led by a dictator but was nevertheless a stable country fighting islamism. Bush's real reasons were to take control of some oil fields, whereas the war in Mali was for good reasons: stop Al Qaeda and protect the native people against islamic fanatics, that must be the most important factor about whether a war is successful or not.

Edited 9/28/2015 17:42:10

Did I say war was never the right answer? did you read what I posted?

Yes, and apparently I read it better than you yourself did.

War never solved anything.

^Your exact words there. Which is proven false by the Mali example you've given. So which is it? Can war solve problems like ISIS or not?

war as a first answer never solved anything.


And again as for ISIS, the thing is it could end like Afghanistan: ISIS is expelled and weakened, but it can grow again once the foreign military expedition leave, this is what is going on in Afghanistan, as I said earlier, right now, today, a strategic city was taken by the Talibans. What do you think may happen once the NATO coalition leave Afghanistan Eklipse?
So to conclude: Fight ISIS yes, if you provide the efforts necessary to avoid that ISIS grow again like the Talibans nowadays.

I pretty much already said that earlier. Fight ISIS, destroy them, and then rebuild infrastructure and what not to prevent another ISIS from forming.

Eklipse, you also said that ISIS would invade Israel and Turkey which is totally unlikely: they have no chance to match powerful armies.
Also explain me why the US army in Iraq let ISIS to grow in this country and infect neighboring territories, whereas they could have stopped it way earlier?

Eklipse, you also said that ISIS would invade Israel and Turkey which is totally unlikely: they have no chance to match powerful armies.

Wrong. I did not say that.

We're at a point where ISIS will probably have to invade Turkey or Israel before the general population of western countries even considers fighting them in full.

I did not say that ISIS would invade Turkey or Israel, I was saying such an occurrence would probably be the only thing which would shake the isolationism out of people. (However, you'd have to be a fool to think ISIS won't try to invade other countries eventually should they be given the chance and ability)

Also your statement that ISIS has no chance to match powerful armies conflicts with your earlier claim that Russia attacking ISIS would be a disaster.

Also explain me why the US army in Iraq let ISIS to grow in this country and infect neighboring territories, whereas they could have stopped it way earlier?

This seems irrelevant to the conversation and more like you trying to start further argument with me for some reason, but I'll give you some possible explanations.

1.) Anytime the U.S tries to do anything in the Middle East the rest of the world craps on us, regardless of what our intentions were.

2.) The American public is extremely war weary and any post-Iraq military operation would be met with great skepticism.

3.) Since the end of the Iraq War U.S military presence in the region has been greatly reduced, as the government wanted the Iraqi government to take over it's own affairs and become self-sufficient. Once ISIS started rising this fact combined with the 2 above reasons kept the U.S army from acting.

Post Note, we've established that we're actually on the same page when it comes to the Anti-ISIS strategy. Defeat them, and then rebuild the country. So why are you still bickering with me? Why does every single discussion of world affairs have to turn into the "Blame the U.S for something" game?

will probably invade Israel and Turkey

Oh sorry so you did not say that ISIS was planning to attack Israel and Turkey, yes sure. Are you conscient you contradict yourself?

However, you'd have to be a fool to think ISIS won't try to invade other countries eventually should they be given the chance and ability

They already had a chance, do you read news? Sinai is now an official battlefield of ISIS. And Israel is the main target. But they are not worried at all since they have a seasoned army that fought much more battles than ISIS ever did.

also your statement that ISIS has no chance to match powerful armies conflicts with your earlier claim that Russia attacking ISIS would be a disaster.

I also think you do not get the basics of war. A defending army has a clear advantage whereas a foreign military expedition has clearly less chance of success, many examples:
- Russia invading Afghanistan: failure
- US invading Iraq or Vietnam: failure
- Israel defending its territory against a coalition of arab nations: success

This seems irrelevant to the conversation and more like you trying to start further argument with me for some reason, but I'll give you some possible explanations.

This is not irrelevant at all since ISIS is the product of the American invasion of Iraq.

1.) Anytime the U.S tries to do anything in the Middle East the rest of the world craps on us, regardless of what our intentions were.

The US were particularly bad in the Middle East (see, Iraq, Afghanistan, Koweit, Saudi Arabia, Iran and nowadays Syria and Israel), so the world craps on you for good reasons.

2.) The American public is extremely war weary and any post-Iraq military operation would be met with great skepticism.

That was not the case in 2003, people were following Bush, the proof is he was reelected one year later. But then, the Americans realised how that war caused catastrophic results, so they are right to be skeptics.

3.) Since the end of the Iraq War U.S military presence in the region has been greatly reduced, as the government wanted the Iraqi government to take over it's own affairs and become self-sufficient. Once ISIS started rising this fact combined with the 2 above reasons kept the U.S army from acting.

the US for this time would have shown that their action were rightful: fight a terrorist organization that would destabilize an entire region. Instead you prefered to act like cowards and let the Iraki army that proved to not be ready to handle it without backup.

Post Note, we've established that we're actually on the same page when it comes to the Anti-ISIS strategy. Defeat them, and then rebuild the country. So why are you still bickering with me? Why does every single discussion of world affairs have to turn into the "Blame the U.S for something" game?

Stop being paranoid, we are not conspirating against the US, the thing is the US these recent years strategically made really bad choices, and those bad choices influenced greatly the situation in the Middle East. Hence the US credibility has taken one heck. It's been 25 years the US are making things worse in the Middle East, Kuwait wasn’t a democracy before Saddam Hussein’s army marched in, in 1990, and Kuwait isn’t really a democracy today. No doubt it’s a nicer place to live than Iraq, either during the Saddam era or during the subsequent American protectorate. ISIS is merely the most recent in a parade of horrible groups, Shiite and Sunni, religious and secular, murderous and even more murderous, to which we have been introduced through the years. They sometimes are US's friends, though secretly helping the other side, or they are sworn enemies of the imperialist aggressor, but still secretly taking bribes from the C.I.A. They are often splinters from some larger tree, either “brand extension” by the original group or its sworn enemy due to ideological or religious differences that are impossible to fathom.

Edited 9/28/2015 20:01:55

To be fair, the US isn't the only country that wanted and still wants a destabilized Middle East.

the thing is the US these recent years strategically made really bad choices, and those bad choices influenced greatly the situation in the Middle East.

It's not bad choices for American foreign policy.

Kuwait wasn’t a democracy before Saddam Hussein’s army marched in, in 1990, and Kuwait isn’t really a democracy today.

America is not democracy, and America has no interest in building democracy.

Scuse me nigga, America has the best funded and most advanced military on Earth....AND THEY ARE LEADING THAT COALITION!

Also, America is a Republic with a few Democratic Ideas. Indirect Democracy? Democratic-Republic?

Edited 9/29/2015 02:51:19

Oh sorry so you did not say that ISIS was planning to attack Israel and Turkey, yes sure. Are you conscient you contradict yourself?

I did not contradict myself. I pointed out an event that would likely lead to the general public finally pulling their heads out of their rears and seeing the real threat, I didn't say it was surely going to happen.

I also think you do not get the basics of war. A defending army has a clear advantage whereas a foreign military expedition has clearly less chance of success, many examples:

There are also many examples of a smaller defensive force being defeated by a larger, better trained, and better equipped army.
-U.S Civil War, North invades the South. Northern victory. (Not the best example as it took four years, but the North was victorious nonetheless)
-World War 2, Nazi Germany successfully invades several smaller nations in very short time.

Being on the defensive does not guarantee a victory. The reason that the U.S had such a hard time in Iraq and Afghanistan is because instead of fighting a conventional army, American forces were up against terrorist bands who used guerrilla warfare and rarely presented a fair target to shoot at.

ISIS is not like those cases however. ISIS is an organized military force, and can be engaged like one. Sure they can easily shift their tactics and go into guerrilla warfare, but it'll make it much harder for them to hold down cohesive territory as they currently do.

This is not irrelevant at all since ISIS is the product of the American invasion of Iraq.

ISIS is a the product of Islamic extremism. Even if events in Iraq had unfolded differently ISIS or a group like it would still exist.

The US were particularly bad in the Middle East (see, Iraq, Afghanistan, Koweit, Saudi Arabia, Iran and nowadays Syria and Israel), so the world craps on you for good reasons.

The wars in Iraq (The 2nd one) and Afghanistan were total mess that should of been avoided. However, there was nothing wrong about liberating Kuwait from Saddam Hussein (U.S withdrew not long after in this case. I still hold that the 1st battle against Iraq was justified, the second was not). As for the other countries, what are you referring to? Two of the listed countries are U.S allies, and the other two have never been invaded by the U.S.

the US for this time would have shown that their action were rightful: fight a terrorist organization that would destabilize an entire region. Instead you prefered to act like cowards and let the Iraki army that proved to not be ready to handle it without backup.

Tch. People like you spend years bashing on the U.S for intervening in Middle Eastern affairs, and once you finally get your wish and the U.S backs out you start complaining about why America isn't doing something about the latest problem. You can't have your cake and eat it too. European countries just love to tell the U.S how bad it was in the Middle East, well maybe it's time to step out altogether and see how Europe handles the situation on it's own.

Stop being paranoid, we are not conspirating against the US,

I didn't say anything about conspiracy. I was expressing frustration about how every discussion around this topic always comes back to "It's all America's fault, blame the United States for everything!"

The blame game is really unproductive and isn't going to solve anything. Did the U.S do a lot of stupid stuff in the middle east? Yes. Should a lot of it been avoided? Yes. However, this constant tirade about how horrible the U.S.A was/is goes nowhere.

U.S gets involved in the Middle East: "Oh my God! You need to stay out of other countries' business! Look at all the damage you caused, stay out of it next time!"

U.S does not get involved in the Middle East: "Oh my God! Look at all the horrible stuff happening, why don't you do something about that?! You're so cowardly!"

You really can't please anyone.

Scuse me nigga, America has the best funded and most advanced military on Earth....AND THEY ARE LEADING THAT COALITION!

Have you heard of the new killdeath5001? You shouldn't, because it's a top secret project I'm working on for the Italian military and actually this whole sentence is counterintelligence.

Also, republic is a government that uses democracy - democracy is the idea, republic is the one who uses the idea. There is very little difference in the meanings of the words "republican" and "democratic".

A true republic is just not as powerful as an autocracy - in a true republic, folk do what they want, in an autocratic nominal republic, folk do what's in the government's interests. I'll give you a +1 if you spot a country today that has true democracy and support your grounding why (and yes, there most likely are a few).