While many Middle Easter nations won't help, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, and possibly Saudi Arabia (Iran already on its own) are all potential allies against ISIS.

Perhaps UAE as well. They tend to agree with Saudi Arabia.

Edited 2/5/2016 00:29:57

Platinum, just shut the fuck up. You provide nothing to this debate.

^
+1

Edited 2/5/2016 00:30:38

Can we all agree to ignore Platinum from now on?

I second that. 101st should kick him out.

Edited 2/5/2016 00:30:59

This isn't a debate or an argument. This is a rant about Syria. Unless you want to be featured in one, I suggest you speak your mind on the topic, or be on your way.

I will be on my way, My rant on the off-topic threads are done.. Thank you and goodbye.

Sweet Mother Theresa on the hood of a Mercedes Benz, Syria has gone to shit. Half of its pre-war population is either dead or migrated

This seems dubious, do you have a source?

Russia and the USA have started up their proxy war bullshit again in what many believe to be the worst humanitarian crisis going on right now.

As far as I know, the international co-operation is pretty good, and I think America even agreed to limited-ly work with Iranian military.

So let's start with Assad and his civil war. I don't know much about why it started, but I do know that many countries say that Assad has used chemical weapons on civilians at least once. The best President evah, Mr. Barack Obama, drew a red line at something like this, but pussied out when it happened, stating that, "the world drew the red line." Assad and those supporting him say that the rebels AKA the terrorists, as Assad and co. call them, are the ones to use chemical weapons.

It's important to note that all major unions in this war have done some war crimes. And by "pussy out", do you mean preserve some peace and stop wrecking the site more than it has already been? Anyhow, but he made the poor choice to not "pussy out" and be limited-ly involved.

With ISIS's declaration of war against Russia, Putin has been going ham on everyone. ISIS and terrebel alike.

This is a misconception. Iran has been leading the "going ham" since it joined the war. It has just about 4x times troops than Russia in Syria, and a much bigger proportion of them are footsoldiers, not just bombers.

Speaking of ISIS, they bombed Damascus. Damascus! How many world capitals are they going to attack? It was nowhere near as bad as what happened in Paris, as only 20 were confirmed to be killed, but still, f*ckin Damascus!

You're surprised that a country with a 4 sided civil war has its capital bombed? And what happened in Dimashq doesn't stop in a few days - it's much worse than in Paris.

Europe, as well as the neighboring nations of Syria, have been swamped with refugees.

The EU as a whole is not "swamped". Some of the neighbouring countries (though actually the gulf states refused all immigrants from there, all.) are swamped.

Christ, people, when half a country emigrates, something's going on.

I don't think anyone is denying "something is going on".

And then we have European countries bowing down to these refugees, slowly changing their ways to accommodate to the culture of the sods they're helping out.

That's precisely the opposite of what's happening - in the EU as a whole, the Europeans are definitely xenophobic, and some countries (Hungary and Slovakia I think did this, amongst others) have agreed to accept a small amount of refugees as long as they're Christian. I mean, c'mon, Jordan, an actual parliamentary monarchy, with Sunni as theode faith, isn't throwing out Christians. It's only Germany and I think Holland that are being somewhat friendly to the immigrants - and even then, it's still iffy, with some incidents.

And even if they did agree to accept refugees, first, even if the EU accepted the whole population of Syria and Iraq, Muslim Arabs would still be a minority by far. And folk don't assimilate to minority cultures except in special situations (f.e. Bosnans and Albanians in Ottoman Turkey, converting to Islam, many Albanians were promoted to military and government). In truth, folk just about don't assimilate at all unless forced to which leads me to my second point:

Even if the Muslims were the majority in the EU, which couldn't really happen unless a third of all Muslims went there, the Europeans wouldn't just give up and assimilate - they'd perhaps even more flaunt their culture, since opposites, in human relations, usually drift to be more opposed to each other.

French Burger King takes bacon out of the menu (although this is more business related than anything)

I greatly doubt that restaurants will take food out of their menu unless they are legally required to, or it's not profitable enough. Probably business-related.

people and government antagonizing the women sexually assaulted in Cologne

This was such a small happening, I recall reading a short news article the day after about it, but pretty much forgot. Noone else talked about it afterwards. I don't believe it's being "antagonised".

Brits trying to ban Donald Trump but not the bozos marching around for Sharia Law and the death of those who insult Islam.

The Donald Trump ban petition was mostly a joke. But name me anyone influential or powerful (or has a chance to be) that "marches about for Sharia Law and the death of those who insult Islam."

Let's just put the poor fools out of their misery. It's not like the UN would stop us from doing it.

I thought this whole writing was supposed to be for less involvement in Mashriq? This is too vaguely written; what are you suggesting America do that the UN could potentially be unhappy about?

Do you think this war is just going to end ? It isn't the death tolls will continue to rise.

+

It will if we do 2 things. The first is realize that dictators are the only way to prevent terrorism in the Middle East, and support Assad unequivocally provided he refrains from severe abuses after the war. The second is to completely and utterly destroy them with an uninhibited total war. Credible military figures agree we could defeat IS in under a year.

The first is true, in a general sense, but it's not like the terrorism is coming from the decentralisation and freedoms of the countries - it's coming from countries that have interest that the site be unstable. Most Americans say that that Saddam Hussein was a violent dictator. So he was replaced by another in 2003. And Bashar Assad, he is thought of the same way. So how did the war in Syria begin in the first place? And second, the American military did that in Iraq and Afghanistan. They accomplished their main objects - killing Hussein and greatly lowering the Taliban's power - and yet, there's been non stop war in those countries since 2003/2001.

The Paris attacks were perpetrated by our enemies, on our allies. We have no connection like that with Syrians.

I actually think that the Nigerians are the most ignored. Name me one of the Nigerian villages that West Province killed every single villager in. But anyhow, it's not "your" foes, nor "your" allies, it's all the American government's foes and friends. Tu parles français? Do you have any personal ties to France? If not, why do you put so much importance on France then?

I won't apologize for the fact that I care more for our allies and Americans and Westerners that I can relate to than a foreign, unnamed civilian ignoring our culture to impose their own wherever they go.

You quite should apologise. We're all humans. I get that some don't speak English, and there's some tongue ties there, but that cuts out most of Europe. And "ignoring our culture to impose their own whenever they go", it's called keeping tradition. And I don't/didn't see any of that coming from the dead killed by "your" foes.

We kicked Iraq's and Afghanistan's asses both times; we just fucked up by nation-building.

Nation-building...first, I think you mean government-building, second, why does nation-building make Americans, Arabs, and Iranians keep dying?

You know, if our leaders wouldn't half-ass wars, then the USA would have a much better track record.

What wars are you talking about?

You act like 99% of wars aren't built on that.

So why do you propose more war?

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

Arguments "assigning blame" might convince someone, what will solutions do? Who will listen?

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

1) It already has independence.
2) Don't see why the hate Turkey. Erdoğan's no longer prime minister. And Turkey's barely involved in the war anyway. And how would this end the conflict?
3) Islam is not one stick. It is a tree filled with branches. Just about all Islamic theologists say that the Mashriq is misinterpreting stuff, and in reverse. If you don't help the khalifa, you're not a true Sunni Muslim in the Mashriq's eyes. So this would have the same effect as anything else. And this isn't even talking about the subbranches of Sunni or the different sects (Shia).
4) Bashar Assad, you mean? First, how do you propose that be done, second, how will this help end the war?
5) Maybe.

Edited 2/5/2016 00:57:52

^
+1 for that big reply.

1) It already has independence.

Syrian Kurds don't have formal recognized independence last time I checked. No place on the map is named Kurdistan.

Formal independence does not matter much.

Maybe not to you and me, but it sure as hell matters to the actual people. Political legitimacy is not a self-fulfilling prophecy, it requires (sadly) a global consensus. They can't control their own political or historical destiny with the assurance of other countries that they are an independent country that conduct their own affairs.

Also, all things considered, I think Syria was considerable better under Bashar Assad.

Same thing with Egypt and Libya.

They exist regardless of what people say. Donbas exists regardless of what Obushma says.

Thank god you're back!

Sweet Mother Theresa on the hood of a Mercedes Benz, Syria has gone to shit. Half of its pre-war population is either dead or migrated

This seems dubious, do you have a source?

Sorry, Mother Theresa has never posed on a car.
But yes, half of Syria has either been killed, or migrated. This migration includes interregional and international migration both. If this still doesn't sound right, I'll post a few links later.

As far as I know, the international co-operation is pretty good, and I think America even agreed to limited-ly work with Iranian military.

Against ISIS. We're still aiding the terrebels with supplies. We should have done a lot more once Assad allegedly waged chemical warfare according to what our President once said, but it is far too late now to even think about dethroning Assad, partly because Russia is backing Assad, mostly because we don't need another Iraq, especially when ISIS is right there when the government is abolished.

This is a misconception. Iran has been leading the "going ham" since it joined the war. It has just about 4x times troops than Russia in Syria, and a much bigger proportion of them are footsoldiers, not just bombers.

Hmm, you mean since 2013, correct? I was comparing Russia strictly to the US.

You're surprised that a country with a 4 sided civil war has its capital bombed? And what happened in Dimashq doesn't stop in a few days - it's much worse than in Paris.

I'm not surprised. I'm also not surprised that it only got about two minutes of attention from US media. I'm disappointed, though.

I don't think anyone is denying "something is going on".

They're not doing much about it, either. Taking in refugees is one thing. Doing something so the refugees don't have to stay through the foreseeable future, that's something else.

That's precisely the opposite of what's happening - in the EU as a whole, the Europeans are definitely xenophobic, and some countries (Hungary and Slovakia I think did this, amongst others) have agreed to accept a small amount of refugees as long as they're Christian. It's only Germany and I think Holland that are being somewhat friendly to the immigrants - and even then, it's still iffy, with some incidents.

Countries and their people are different entities.

I greatly doubt that restaurants will take food out of their menu unless they are legally required to, or it's not profitable enough. Probably business-related.

French Burger King takes bacon out of the menu (although this is more business related than anything)

This was such a small happening, I recall reading a short news article the day after about it, but pretty much forgot. Noone else talked about it afterwards. I don't believe it's being "antagonised".

It wasn't small in Germany and its city of Cologne. The city is re-enforcing security significantly for it's annual festival that will go on now until Ash Wednesday.

I thought this whole writing was supposed to be for less involvement in Mashriq? This is too vaguely written; what are you suggesting America do that the UN could potentially be unhappy about?

That was just a jab at the UN.

I'm just concerned about how little the media cared about Cologne...
That was probably the point where everyone can draw a line.
But of course, we have to bury it under sob stories of little Syrian orphans.

I'm all for allowing people to live in my country. But when they do behavior that is downright criminal in the country they consider their new home, that's where the line must be drawn. I understand the need to bring your culture with you, but it goes too far when it interferes with the lives of those who aren't part of your culture.
And with every event like this happening, I see myself seeing eye-to-eye with Donald Trump, who I'd now vote for over Bernie, making him my 3rd choice.
Attacks are going off everywhere from Jakarta to San Bernandino. And although the refugees aren't the ones doing it, with so many traveling in such large numbers over the open-border EU, a few ISIS members can slip in, buy some materials from a hardware store, and kill 20 people.

There needs to be a much better way to manage this influx. One that can ensure these people will not die in Syria, but will also be able to root out those that want to bring the chaos of Syria to their destination.