The IS Must Be Obliterated

I have an idea China wants to be a superpower like the USA, then why don't we ask them at the highest levels to send into the region against ISIS a combined American-Chinese force with anyone else who wishes to commit forces with or without UN approval. Why should we do this alone China has a huge number of troops we can supply logistics for everyone and commit a force. Then drag the leaders to the Hague for trials for war crimes and crimes against humanity or better hand them to the Chinese to extract information from and take care of.

 

China is heavily invested in Africa.. not in the Middle East.

 

Lots of groups have equal partners that are effective and beneficial for the group members. There's no reason why the US and EU can't share the responsibilities of protecting the trade routes and stopping rogue nations and/or groups from disrupting trade or trade partners.

 

Im a far left Socialist, and I would agree we need to destroy IS entirely. I think this is one thing that the right wing and left wing can agree on, we hate Islam.

 

Well I'm glad we finally agree. But the Left, at least on these boards were always sticking up for Islam. I hope that's finally changed.

 

Yeah, it pisses me off to no end when Jon Stewart defends Islam SIMPLY because Fox News is attacking them. I love Jon Stewart, but when it comes to Islam he is pretty far off. Lately though it seems he is not so sympathetic towards them, as with many other liberals. I think especially after this beheading more and more liberals will begin to realize its not just Christianity we have to watch out for, its also Islam.

If you see what Sam Harris, a hardcore liberal, has to say about Islam im sure you would entirely agree, he is a very smart man and makes the most intellectual cases against Islam ive ever seen. Watch it for yourself, its amazing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCOQukCn0kg
"Sam Harris tears down Muslim apologetics.....again."

 

I know people are sick of war, but we can't stop now. These animals have to be destroyed. If they take over Iraq, this whole world is in trouble. These people are fanatics. They'll just keep going. But we need to get other countries involved.

 

It amuses me how once again people have decided that it must be the west who should patch up the problems in this part of the world.
Europeans didn't have some foreign power interfering all the way through their history trying to fix their problems, we built ourselves up and fought our own battles.
Is it a good idea to have the entire world reliant on nations built by Whites to fix everything for them? Foreign aid is the prime example of such a thing- billions in western currency put into the economies of the third-world, and achieving nothing. What do the liberals do- decide to send more. They get richer at our expense- to give to them, they take from us. It won't end and at the end of the day nothing will improve there.
In addition, attacking the Islamic State will just give them more reason to hate the west, and more will join them for it.

I don't really care about the Kurds. Independence for them is such an unrealistic goal- Turkey and Syria certainly will not stand for it even if Iraq could somehow be convinced. They have always been troublemakers- Saddam dealt with them in a very direct manner, as you would all know.
The Islamic State should be left as is. This is the Arab's war and their responsibility. Strike them when they enter Europe. They will not strike into Asia and Asia will not strike them unless provoked- the exact strategy we should be employing. We have a reputation for being warmongers when this talk of acting in this part of the world, actually becomes action.

Another minor point- is it morally just to risk the lives of more of our men for a war that doesn't concern us, in a part of the world that doesn't concern us?
As for that reporter, he was already captured in Libya and decided to return, getting captured in Syria. You don't just walk into war-zones especially as an American- hated by more or less everyone in the third-world- and expect not to die. I will never understand people like him.

 

<<<MODERATOR EDIT: QUOTE AND REPLY >>>

Of course they can, and the probably would if the EU would become equal in military strength, but what I'm saying is that the US would lose influence in the EU and in the world. Maybe you don't mind that though.

No, you and other extremists on both the left and right might hate islam, but don't involve moderates into this.

 

No, I don't mind it. It's important to me that the US remain secure, but stronger EU and Asian economic and military partners are not only mutually beneficial to security but have the bonus of preventing us from straying off the path as we did in 2003 with Iraq.

 

Marine General Allen says that ISIS should be wiped out.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/21/general-john-allen-obama-isis-james-foley-killing

Wiping out the Viet Cong sounded easy at first, but it cost billions of dollars, 55,000 American boys lives, and thousands more maimed.

And it didn't work.

But, at least the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex made a lot of money.

 

Well, we gotta have someplace to test our new fancy weapons don't we? I for one would love to see Swedish weaponry deal some damage for world peace.

 

I think that we should intervene for humanitarian reasons.
IS is practicing barbarity that is no longer tolerable in the world today. Not just a beheading.
They need to be beaten down quickly and decisively, the way Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was reduced to the images of the highway of death.
Forget all the other players and their politics- the shias or the kurds or the sunnis or the syrians. Do it for the people who are being hurt by IS and for the crimes against humanity that they are committing, which offends us all.
When we are done, we leave and they can all go back to their regular squabbling.

The problem is that some can argue that powerful countries like the US, Russia or Israel, whose actions can result in similar brutality toward innocent people, are not held to similar standards. Don't confuse the sensationalism of a beheading with the reality of brutality and oppression, whether practiced by a suicide bomber or an attack helicopter.

IS is acting like a rabid dog with delusions of grandeur, and I suspect that it won't last long. It has limited popular support and if we can cut off its funding from the outside, it will shrivel.
On a side note, we should immediate equip every single piece of valuable US armament with a secret destruct system. If the item gets left behind by fleeing soldiers and captured by the other side, we could simply make them all blow up by remote control.

 

Not a conspiracy theorist here, so I don't buy the "military-industrial complex" BS. Vietnam, like Korea, was a part of the Cold War. Vietnam wouldn't have lasted so long if it wasn't backed up by the USSR and the PRC. If the NVA and VC weren't backed up by the USSR and the PRC, we would have moved on Hanoi in 1965 and the war would have been over by 1966.

Our troops need financial support for "beans, bullets and Band-Aids". The same goes for any military force including terrorists. Hamas gets its funding from Iran. ISIS is getting its funding by taking control of facilities like oil wells, but mainly through ransom. This is the problem of paying terrorists money for hostages. The Somali pirates fund themselves the same way.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ir...als-how-will-isis-keep-funding-terror-n187296

 

Great post........... Your message is clear and moral. Thanks.

 

And if I had wings I could fly like a bird. Things develop as they develop, and apparently in Vietnam they developed more like General Giap wanted them to develop than how General Westmoreland or Marine General Allen would have had them develop.

 

The Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex is not a conspiracy, it is a confluence of interests. It was 5-star General Eisenhower who first warned us about it in his farewell address, and who could have been more in a position to know?

 

It's a conspiracy theory to assert we only go to war so industry can make money off the blood of American soldiers.

Eisenhower did say that 54 years ago when, as stated in the speech, "We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations." That's no longer true. The Defense budget, including vets, is only 22% of the Federal Budget. Ergo, the influence of industry on national defense isn't what it was in Eisenhower's era.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending


- - - Updated - - -

If pigs could fly, I'd make a fortune selling helmets. So what?