Recently, a thread was started here asking how the world can sit back and watch what North Korea is doing, and it more or less got me thinking about this situation with IS. That question should be asked about them. Today, they've executed the captured Jordanian pilot by burning him in a cage. They beheaded the second Japanese prisoner, they've executed British and American journalists, and have went on a killing spree in France, and have inspired multiple, foiled attacks across the world. I've never understood how the world's governments can stand by with no balls. Yet we seem so fixated on Russia and Ukraine. It seems IS is the immediate problem. They're actively killing and executing citizens of different countries, and everyone seems to think they can be reasoned with. 

 

Two things immediately pop into my head: One, was the Western world that corrupted and financially motivated to invade Iraq, a country that really didn't have clear ties to Al-Qaeda, after one attack? Two, is the Western world so incredibly ignorant to think we can deal with IS diplomatically? I applaud the the stance Jordan is taking in response to the execution of their pilot; they're supposed to execute the high ranking IS member they are holding, tonight. Japan is castrated because of the US, due to WWII.

 

How many more citizens have to die, innocently, before maybe direct action is needed? It's clear Syria, Iraq, Egypt, etc. don't have their shit together. This is the one time I truly believe the Western world is justified to invade the ME, and cleanse it. If I understand correctly, the US is sending some from the 82nd airborne is headed to Iraq(?). In my opinion more is needed, but it's a start.

Warning: Graphic

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6e0_1422982365
http://shoebat.com/2015/01/31/watch-video-beheading-kenji-goto-japanese-hostage-learn-japan-no-intentions-saving/

 

 

 

This pisses me off so badly, whilst rubbing my hands. The hands want to take action, but what can I do? We're all depending on the government.

I'm disappointed since the beginning when ISIS showed up. I mean, it was just the -perfect- time for the whole world to unite against a common threat and forget about the smaller fights to stop a world-wide problem, and they didn't take that chance.

 

ISIS could have led to world-wide peace if countries united together to fight them, it would have been the perfect win against them, their creation would have led to what they hate the most. I guess I'll just keep dreaming about how the world should run instead of how it does now.

It is more complicated than the media outlets would have you believe. Not to mention shit like this has been going on for decades and nobody has gave a shit. Plenty of genocide going on in Africa and the US and other western countries, for the most part, do little to nothing about it. I don't believe we should have to be the world police. We spent over 10 years in the middle east trying to fix things and look what we accomplished. Does anyone seriously think that going back again will accomplish something different? The people of that region don't care enough to do anything about these things, that is why insurgents and terrorists operate in those regions because they know the people won't fight back as much. If those people don't care enough to stand up for themselves why should we send our people there to defend them? We can't have soldiers constantly guarding them from everything, at some point they have to grow a pair of balls and do it themselves. If you don't care about your country then why should I?

 

Lets pretend that the US decides to go back into Iraq and annihilate ISIS. Another group will just pop up, there will always be a bunch of pissed off people (of all religions) that hate the U.S. and its allies. Are we going to constantly run all over the world pursuing them? That will be a never ending cycle that will cost us billions and billions of dollars.

Okay I have a very important question, why is japan still stuck on a defense system?! They are their own country, why can't they have a regular military like all other countries? 

It is more complicated than the media outlets would have you believe. Not to mention shit like this has been going on for decades and nobody has gave a shit. Plenty of genocide going on in Africa and the US and other western countries, for the most part, do little to nothing about it. I don't believe we should have to be the world police. We spent over 10 years in the middle east trying to fix things and look what we accomplished. Does anyone seriously think that going back again will accomplish something different? The people of that region don't care enough to do anything about these things, that is why insurgents and terrorists operate in those regions because they know the people won't fight back as much. If those people don't care enough to stand up for themselves why should we send our people there to defend them? We can't have soldiers constantly guarding them from everything, at some point they have to grow a pair of balls and do it themselves. If you don't care about your country then why should I?

Lets pretend that the US decides to go back into Iraq and annihilate ISIS. Another group will just pop up, there will always be a bunch of pissed off people (of all religions) that hate the U.S. and its allies. Are we going to constantly run all over the world pursuing them? That will be a never ending cycle that will cost us billions and billions of dollars.

I agree. I wish we'd stop throwing our troops at the defense of other nations that take advantage of them. Sometimes I wish we'd just recall all our troops and see what happens.

Again, I think it's interesting that people see more of a chance at restoring peace to the middle east than Africa. We all seem to have abandoned Africa and continue to let genocide occur, France is the only country really doing shit about it.

Again, I think it's interesting that people see more of a chance at restoring peace to the middle east than Africa. We all seem to have abandoned Africa and continue to let genocide occur, France is the only country really doing shit about it.

 

I think Africa is a whole different problem. The most conflicts happening there are resulting of the long decades of settlements Europe countries had on the Africa continent after the World War II. Even though France and some others tried to give countries their independancy peacefully in most case (Marocco, Tunisia, Ivory Coast, etc), some other countries just left their settlements without drawing proper borders (Nigeria, Congo, most of the black Africa area), leading to a lot of territory conflicts, or sometimes they drew borders without taking into account the different tribes that were there way before the settlers, leading to the same problem. Those conflicts never allowed the different countries to find a proper balance and a peaceful agreement, thus leading to a lot of putsches and wars. The French presence in Mali though was directly related to ISIS and their progress in the country. We cannot allow them to actually take the control of an entire country, it could lead to much worse problems.

 

But I agree that Africa should get some attention as well.

Edited February 3, 201511 yr by Hystery

Okay I have a very important question, why is japan still stuck on a defense system?! They are their own country, why can't they have a regular military like all other countries?

Lingering side effects from that time the military led them into a total war in an attempt to conquer their neighbors that ended with nuclear attacks on their cities and occupation by a foreign military, which military also essentially drafted the current Japanese constitution. Germany had similar provisions until they amended their constitution, for similar reasons; their amendments still restrict what their military can do, but seem to generally be more permissive than Japan's.

I think Africa is a whole different problem. The most conflicts happening there are resulting of the long decades of settlements Europe countries had on the Africa continent after the World War II. Even though France and some others tried to give countries their independancy peacefully in most case (Marocco, Tunisia, Ivory Coast, etc), some other countries just left their settlements without drawing proper borders (Nigeria, Congo, most of the black Africa area), leading to a lot of territory conflicts, or sometimes they drew borders without taking into account the different tribes that were there way before the settlers, leading to the same problem. Those conflicts never allowed the different countries to find a proper balance and a peaceful agreement, thus leading to a lot of putsches and wars. The French presence in Mali though was directly related to ISIS and their progress in the country. We cannot allow them to actually take the control of an entire country, it could lead to much worse problems.

But I agree that Africa should get some attention as well.

I agree. And I think the main reason that people now want to do something about ISIS is because it's beginning to directly affect the Western developed world. Americans, Brits, Japanese, Jordanian, etc are being murdered by ISIS. If we look at Africa and compare, I could say that it's much much worse than the Middle East. Most of what's going on in Africa, with the exception of Islamic Terrorism, has no immediate impact on the west. ISIS is starting to affect the west, and because of that everyone now wants to get involved. Very interesting indeed.

I think Africa is a whole different problem. The most conflicts happening there are resulting of the long decades of settlements Europe countries had on the Africa continent after the World War II. Even though France and some others tried to give countries their independancy peacefully in most case (Marocco, Tunisia, Ivory Coast, etc), some other countries just left their settlements without drawing proper borders (Nigeria, Congo, most of the black Africa area), leading to a lot of territory conflicts, or sometimes they drew borders without taking into account the different tribes that were there way before the settlers, leading to the same problem. Those conflicts never allowed the different countries to find a proper balance and a peaceful agreement, thus leading to a lot of putsches and wars. The French presence in Mali though was directly related to ISIS and their progress in the country. We cannot allow them to actually take the control of an entire country, it could lead to much worse problems.

 

But I agree that Africa should get some attention as well.

 

Yes and no. There are some unique issues in Africa that don't exactly translate to the issues in the middle east however for the most part they are the same. Who do you think drew the borders in the middle east? The U.S. and Britain. Just like in Africa the borders were not drawn with consideration of different tribes (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria).

Lingering side effects from that time the military led them into a total war in an attempt to conquer their neighbors that ended with nuclear attacks on their cities and occupation by a foreign military, which military also essentially drafted the current Japanese constitution. Germany had similar provisions until they amended their constitution, for similar reasons; their amendments still restrict what their military can do, but seem to generally be more permissive than Japan's.

 

My opinion still stands that japan should have a regular military like all other countries, they paid for the damages and apologize for what they did, plus we happen to be good trading partners with them and they are our allies,  I think they've had enough already.  

My opinion still stands that japan should have a regular military like all other countries, they paid for the damages and apologize for what they did, plus we happen to be good trading partners with them and they are our allies, I think they've had enough already.

While I do agree with what you're saying, Japan actually benefits from the United States having troops there. No for nation is as eager to do anything to provoke Japan because there are US troops there. To get into a war with Japan at this point would mean to provoke the United States which isn't really a great idea. It's not like the United States is policing Japan where actually defending them somewhat.

Sorry for the bad English I'm using my phone

While I do agree with what you're saying, Japan actually benefits from the United States having troops there. No for nation is as eager to do anything to provoke Japan because there are US troops there. To get into a war with Japan at this point would mean to provoke the United States which isn't really a great idea. It's not like the United States is policing Japan where actually defending them somewhat.

Sorry for the bad English I'm using my phone

 

Well of course they benefit from having troops there, I'm just saying that if japan feels as though there is an absolute threat to their country, they should be able to invade or bomb that country or group that is posing a threat to them. 

It is more complicated than the media outlets would have you believe. Not to mention shit like this has been going on for decades and nobody has gave a shit. Plenty of genocide going on in Africa and the US and other western countries, for the most part, do little to nothing about it. I don't believe we should have to be the world police. We spent over 10 years in the middle east trying to fix things and look what we accomplished. Does anyone seriously think that going back again will accomplish something different? The people of that region don't care enough to do anything about these things, that is why insurgents and terrorists operate in those regions because they know the people won't fight back as much. If those people don't care enough to stand up for themselves why should we send our people there to defend them? We can't have soldiers constantly guarding them from everything, at some point they have to grow a pair of balls and do it themselves. If you don't care about your country then why should I?

 

Lets pretend that the US decides to go back into Iraq and annihilate ISIS. Another group will just pop up, there will always be a bunch of pissed off people (of all religions) that hate the U.S. and its allies. Are we going to constantly run all over the world pursuing them? That will be a never ending cycle that will cost us billions and billions of dollars.

 

I don't want us to be world police. Definitely against that, but when the US is having their citizens executed for no reason, then that goes beyond just being world police. Now this is happening all over the world with different countries' citizens, and their influence is sparking domestic terrorism. Normally I wouldn't care if this was just an issue in the Middle East, but it's not. If left unchecked, they'll grow in power and influence. They went from peasant hill dwellers, to fanatics that have control of parts of countries with modern military equipment. 

was the Western world that corrupted and financially motivated to invade Iraq

 

This. 

 

I've been thinking the same recently. I accept that I don't know exactly what's truly going on, or what's being done about it, no civilian does; but it does make you think...

Edited February 3, 201511 yr by Tozza

I don't think it's fair to say the war in Afghanistan was a futile one. The approach taken from ISAF, to win over "hearts and minds" and actually develop the nation has actually benefited Afghanistan. Compare economical data during the reign of the Taliban to 2010 and the values speak for themselves. Afghanistan is developing for the first time since the Soviet invasion. This is the typical "security leads to development" argument, now Afghanistan is much more stable and the Afghan government is slowly but surely making progress, with some assistance from US & EU they're getting back on their feet. Talk of war is very easy, saying "let's move in troops" is exactly what happened in Mogadishu and Iraq, and lets face it they're hardly success stories; curtailing extremism doesn't come about by just dropping Paveways.

If we send over troops, we must be willing to accept that it's going to be a long term project, that it's not going to be resolved in 2 to 3 years. With insurgency, its a very difficult fight, the enemy hide amongst civilians and lay down ambushes, its not a direct war because you don't know who you're fighting, plus killing people doesn't stop others from joining that cause.

The cause is poverty, both within their economy and educationally, they have poor education which is why it's very easy to make them turn to extremism. Both Syria and Libya suffered civil war due to the poverty of the people, who finally had enough, they counted on our (NATO) support to help them break free of their oppressor and I'd say we let them down. Why, as developed nations, are we justifying the slaughter of the innocent? ISIS' genocidal behavior will continue, they've slaughtered Kurds as well as many other ethnic groups. We see that on TV and go "well thats pretty bad, someone should do something about it" but are ourselves unwilling to get our nations to help?

When David Cameron (PM for the UK) held a parliamentary vote to see whether the British should help Syria, they said no, allowing the slaughter to continue, tanks vs civilians. That was a low blow for humanity, we all have problems, the EU is just now recovering from the crisis, but just think of those who live in fear every day, a girl who fears execution because she is a girl, a man who has to hide his culture because ISIS have labeled him as a sinner, a Catholic who has to convert to Islam under the threat of death, they have it worse.

 

I'd say continue the airstrikes, continue the attacks, but develop political international strategies to fix the faults, to bring an end to this war on terror which has been going on for far too long.

"the Western world is justified to invade the ME, and cleanse it." That made me cringe. 

 

Have we not learned from the past decade? The Middle East is a region fixed in their ways, and more or less completely resistant to change. You cannot cleanse the religious, conservative epicenter of humanity. The history, culture, traditions, will not be overturned in that area for generations to come. Additionally, it is not in our best interests, nor is it a realistic goal. I'm not going to elaborate on that, I think we all know that's true.  

 

The absolute worst thing America could do would be to put boots on the ground and start a ground war. The Military simply doesn't have the will of the American people behind them. We learned the will of the people needs to be there in both World War II, the Vietnam War, and the most recent War on Terror. I support targeted attacks and coordination with local military and paramilitary forces. The peak of the American empire has long since faded away, and now as we compete with more realistic threats, like the rise of superpowers such as Russia and China, we must leave more or less, minor on the scale events to regions that can take care of it. 

 

One further note about starting a ground war, it is a war that is completely unwinnable. There is no defined enemy in uniform, there is no command forces to overtake. People in these areas of the world will constantly step up to defend their land from Western ideas readily. Again, we learned this in Vietnam, and we learned again when history repeated itself in Iraq & Afghanistan. 

 

To put things in perspective, ISIL is not really a threat compared to many other things going on in the world right now. I hate to sound sadistic, but the death of a few people by a group of religious extremists whose goal is to get us to retaliate is not America's top priority. There is so much more at stake with Ukraine, Russia, ect.

 

Finally, one has to realize that fighting asymmetric warfare takes time. ISIL won't be destroyed with one, swift stroke by the United States. It will take constant action, both diplomatic and military to bring this to a close. 

"the Western world is justified to invade the ME, and cleanse it." That made me cringe. 

 

Have we not learned from the past decade? The Middle East is a region fixed in their ways, and more or less completely resistant to change. You cannot cleanse the religious, conservative epicenter of humanity. The history, culture, traditions, will not be overturned in that area for generations to come. Additionally, it is not in our best interests, nor is it a realistic goal. I'm not going to elaborate on that, I think we all know that's true.  

 

The absolute worst thing America could do would be to put boots on the ground and start a ground war. The Military simply doesn't have the will of the American people behind them. We learned the will of the people needs to be there in both World War II, the Vietnam War, and the most recent War on Terror. I support targeted attacks and coordination with local military and paramilitary forces. The peak of the American empire has long since faded away, and now as we compete with more realistic threats, like the rise of superpowers such as Russia and China, we must leave more or less, minor on the scale events to regions that can take care of it. 

 

One further note about starting a ground war, it is a war that is completely unwinnable. There is no defined enemy in uniform, there is no command forces to overtake. People in these areas of the world will constantly step up to defend their land from Western ideas readily. Again, we learned this in Vietnam, and we learned again when history repeated itself in Iraq & Afghanistan. 

 

To put things in perspective, ISIL is not really a threat compared to many other things going on in the world right now. I hate to sound sadistic, but the death of a few people by a group of religious extremists whose goal is to get us to retaliate is not America's top priority. There is so much more at stake with Ukraine, Russia, ect.

 

Finally, one has to realize that fighting asymmetric warfare takes time. ISIL won't be destroyed with one, swift stroke by the United States. It will take constant action, both diplomatic and military to bring this to a close. 

In fact, I think another ground war would actually piss off the American people.

"the Western world is justified to invade the ME, and cleanse it." That made me cringe. 

 

Have we not learned from the past decade? The Middle East is a region fixed in their ways, and more or less completely resistant to change. You cannot cleanse the religious, conservative epicenter of humanity. The history, culture, traditions, will not be overturned in that area for generations to come. Additionally, it is not in our best interests, nor is it a realistic goal. I'm not going to elaborate on that, I think we all know that's true.  

 

The absolute worst thing America could do would be to put boots on the ground and start a ground war. The Military simply doesn't have the will of the American people behind them. We learned the will of the people needs to be there in both World War II, the Vietnam War, and the most recent War on Terror. I support targeted attacks and coordination with local military and paramilitary forces. The peak of the American empire has long since faded away, and now as we compete with more realistic threats, like the rise of superpowers such as Russia and China, we must leave more or less, minor on the scale events to regions that can take care of it. 

 

One further note about starting a ground war, it is a war that is completely unwinnable. There is no defined enemy in uniform, there is no command forces to overtake. People in these areas of the world will constantly step up to defend their land from Western ideas readily. Again, we learned this in Vietnam, and we learned again when history repeated itself in Iraq & Afghanistan. 

 

To put things in perspective, ISIL is not really a threat compared to many other things going on in the world right now. I hate to sound sadistic, but the death of a few people by a group of religious extremists whose goal is to get us to retaliate is not America's top priority. There is so much more at stake with Ukraine, Russia, ect.

 

Finally, one has to realize that fighting asymmetric warfare takes time. ISIL won't be destroyed with one, swift stroke by the United States. It will take constant action, both diplomatic and military to bring this to a close. 

 

I agree with that, it is not a war to be fought on the ground, it would only backlash onto us. However constant military support from forces such as France, US & UK will support their own development. There is no way that we can try to make them Western, but we can bring an end to the unrest in the region. Support their Government and allow their own armed forces to fight back will be the best way forwards, if things are too difficult for them then they can have our support. But they should be able to count on us for support, letting them continue to spread extremism is not in our best interest. People who have been brainwashed into being martyrs and carrying out acts for their God will only see the West as a threat and will continue to attempt attacks. 

What I don't justify is the attitude of sit back and let it happen, "its not our problem", well it soon will be. Certainly for Europe, they can access pretty much from anywhere, even England (being an island) isn't untouchable, they can come from Turkey or Africa or Russia if they want. It's only a matter of time. 

i just find it ironic that there are billions of people on earth but IS is still killing people. people can gather by the millions to see the pope but can't amass long enough to over run cities taken by terrorists. yes they will lose a few during the takeover, but i can assure you six million people running toward a city would scare the shit out of those terrorists. i think its high time they started taking actions to cover their own asses instead of laying down weapons and running away..which is the dumbest thing i've ever heard of ever.