Salty, shut it. Your argument is shit; I'm not even going to bother with you.

Please everyone be polite (you will ignore that for sure...). ;)

Every conversation about Syria suffers from the same thing. People sit around assigning blame instead of trying to talk about possible solutions.

Honestly, what does it matter who's fault it is at this point? The damage is done, now we have to fix it.

You haven't kicked anyone's ass since WW2, even saying that is pushing it. Iraq and Afghanistan was wars built on the foundation of lies, terror and greed.

Because we half-assed everything.

"Honestly, what does it matter who's fault it is at this point? The damage is done, now we have to fix it."
That's why I'm saying we should launch a ruthless and swift total war. Salty is the one just blaming Western bombs for everything.

Iraq and Afghanistan was wars built on the foundation of lies, terror and greed.

Salty is right in this case. The Bush-Neocon push for a Middle East war was entirely self-serving in that it created a larger deficit and debt while creating more Islamic instability and costing thousands of lives. There's a significant argument to be made that ISIS would not exist without the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

People sit around assigning blame instead of trying to talk about possible solutions.

Here's only a few I can offer (obviously none of us are experts at Middle-East policy...and even experts of the Middle East get confused)

1) Give Kurdistan Independence in Syria
2) Remove Turkey from NATO and impose sanctions on them to weaken Erdogan's power
3) Form a coalition of Russia, NATO, and Gulf States to first defeat ISIS through air power and Muslim soldiers only
4) Have Basad step down and given immunity in Russia
5) Have the UN control Free Syria and Iraq as a mandate (like UN controlled Kosovo) until order is restored and a new coalition government composed of moderates (there are very few right now because many are refugees) is formed

Edited 2/4/2016 17:16:28

I like the first three; unfortunately, we need Assad in power to keep order. But we should make him accountable to the UN and dispose of him if he commits severe human rights abuses.

@Jai

1. Definitely agree. The Kurds more than deserve their own nation at this point.
2. Removing Turkey from NATO likely won't happen as they are one of the U.S' only stable allies in the region aside from Israel.
3. Agreed.
4. There's one major problem with this: Russia would never agree to it. They consider the Assad government a major ally and will likely support him as long as feasible. Also, as GeneralPE said, Assad is pretty much the only source of stability in Syria at the moment.
5. This plan would require the UN deploying a large number of troops to keep order and I don't know how much the shell-shocked Western populations would allow it.

However, I am not a foreign policy expert either. Good on you for at-least brainstorming possible answers unlike most on this thread.

Edited 2/5/2016 00:29:17

Platinum isnt gold colored...

Does Platnium just put you to sleep ?

@Jai

1) Indeed. The Kurds have actually managed to stay united as a rebel group. (I mean, they're fractured between the Iraqi Kurds and Syrian Kurds, but we're talking about Syrian Kurds here) So, they should be given official independence. They already operate independently, anyway.
2) Same as Eklipse. Tbh America isn't in the position to be picking and dropping allies at her will.
3) Well, seeing as Qatar are funding IS I don't see them joining that coalition any time soon. But other than the fact that you only want to see Muslim lives lost in the campaign (why not any lives? Muslim lives matter) I agree
4) Yeah, couldn't agree more with Eklipse about this. Assad is the only thing (aside from the Kurds ofc) close to a stable regime in the area, and neither he, or Russia would agree to that.
5) This would in principle work. Hopefully this time nobody is half-arsed about reinstating a government that brings peace and stability to the region, because the West has a bad track record with that.

Well thought out, on the whole however.

Also, Plat, idk why you just go to places to criticise people. How do more than 4 people like you?

http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/elements/pt.htm

all of your questions related directly to platinum.

3) Well, seeing as Qatar are funding IS I don't see them joining that coalition any time soon. But other than the fact that you only want to see Muslim lives lost in the campaign (why not any lives? Muslim lives matter) I agree

No its not that I want muslim lives lost, its just that if Western European nations put foreign troops on the ground that would cause even more backlash and anti-Western propaganda to fund IS recruitment (see the effects of Iraq and Afghanistan war on the proliferation of terrorist groups). Also we must except that this is an ideological battle as well, and that war can only be fought successfully with other muslims on the front lines.

Ok, I'll admit that's pretty sound logic. If ISIS see they don't have Allah on their side (like they claim to); being beaten by a force of Muslims that'll stop any claims of "you hate Muslims!"

Then, of course, how many Muslim nations will actively rally against ISIS, and how good a job will they do? The US has been training Iraqi soldiers, but those soldiers turn tail and run more than what is wanted, sometimes leaving supplies there for the IS to take. Would the Muslim nations join together, Sunni and Shiite alike, to stomp out IS? They haven't, yet. What would it take to make that happen?

Edited 2/4/2016 18:57:57

The US did not train Iraqi forces to deal with ISIS.

The US trained the Free Syrian Army, which was supposed to be this amazingly large group of moderate Syrian Rebels who were somehow supposed to fight a 2 front war with Assad and ISIS and win.

Edited 2/5/2016 00:29:35

This isn't debate. This is arguing. Debating is an activity where you are put on a random side of the argument, whether you agree with it or not, and you have to use your analytical skills, as well as tactics (The comparative tactic, avoiding anecdotal evidence, analogies, valuing impact, harm reduction, minimising burden of proof, the role of the state, how the state treats minorities, morality, effects of the motion, using the mechanism as a weapon, defining the motion, time management, points of clash, role fulfillment, in-shoes analysis, relevance, rebuttal, knifing, choking, the list goes on)

Arguing is where people take their side of the topic, and argue for that side, doing what they can to support it.