If violence begets violence, as we've seen in the past, what do you think the so

1. 69

   JMcFarlandposted 9 years ago

   If violence begets violence, as we've seen in the past, what do you think the solution is for ISIS?
   
   For weeks now, ISIS (or IS) or Islamic State has been capturing, torturing and killing people of all ages and all faiths that they encounter.  Now they have reportedly beheaded an American journalist that was captured last year.  I'm not sure that going in there with bombs and prompting another gulf war (or worse) is the answer, but something needs to be done.  What is your solution for the ISIS crisis?

   replyreport
2. 59

   teamrnposted 9 years ago

   The world is looking to us to do something and be it right or wrong, for a humanitarian reason, we need to intervene, if for no other reason than to assist in stabilizing the region which is ON FIRE. I agree, no one died, went to heaven and made us the world's police; and I think we need to pick our battles and pick them carefully. But, I really feel that this is one of them. Maybe the world shouldn't be looking to the US of A for a sign to act, but with a head on a stick and all of those women and children tortured or murdered, we act first, and ask questions-later. ISIS is there in the absence of a commitment by Al-Malaki and now, in his absence, it's anybody''s guess who/what will fill that vacuum.
   
   That said, we need to use that little document, the CONSTITUTION, and we  (as citizens of this country) must not let our president make a decision on his own and attempt to circumvent Congress, The Senate and House are there for a reason and we must demand that the power that the POTUS has be executed accordingly.
   
   How many years has it been since the Japanese surrendered and we still keep a peacekeeping force there? A good 60; they're not combat troops, but the decision made to completely leave, only opened the door for ISIS and made the deaths of each American in Iraq; a death in vain. We owe it to our fighting men and women to honor those who fell before them, if NOTHING more.
   
   We shouldn't go in with 'guns a blazing' but with a committed strategy and what success will mean (at least a reasonable map for it, as much as can be ascertained now.) We ought to attempt to enlist an ally and not be ashamed to shame them in to action. The French provide an example.
   
   We saved their butts in WWII and we ought to use that as leverage and not let them 'get away with the WE DON'T FIGHT' mentality. I could invoke a ton of things, but they need to be told that inaction will mean consequences and the consequences need to be spelled out.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      cjhunsingerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      teamrn--Bravo!-----Many are saying that Obama does not really understand the ISIS threat. The man is not a moron. What are the questions that would be asked, if we knew that he did understand the threat?

      replyreport
   2. 59

      teamrnposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      He knows too well the consequences and he's not a moron;  he just CHOOSES not to do anything. leading some to interpret that as ignorance. Au contraire, he has HIS agenda, is an inexperienced puppet.

      replyreport
3. 78

   junksellerposted 9 years ago

   ISIS is our previous violence begotten. It isn't an aberration or accident. It is the direct result of crude and poorly targeted violence, which created a monster, which was/is in turn fueled by a society whose political, cultural, and economic needs are not being served.
   
   The solution is to kill the monster and serve the people, but killing the monster by us alone, will not work. Limited assistance lent to a legitimate group (such as the Kurds) actually makes sense. Unfortunately, there aren't many legitimate groups in the region, with Syria and Iraq, at the moment being failed states.
   
   Iraq might be able to turn things around. After the recent political shift, a number of Sunni tribes pledged to fight back against ISIS. Of course, with Iraq under Sunni leadership, the Shia of the country may feel left out. The eventual solution might be two states, but that seems somewhat unfortunate to me. Once upon a time, they got along just fine.
   
   With an effective Iraq resistance, along with the Kurds, and perhaps the Saudis, Iran, and Turkey the US could provide limited assistance to beat back ISIS, but only back to Syria, and I don't have a clue what to do with Syria.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      teamrnposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      It may have been the result of our foreign policy, but we can't allow the barbarism that ISIS espouses to thrive. It is a threat to US National Security and we have no choice but to use the tools that we have at our disposal to stop it.

      replyreport
   2. 78

      junksellerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      You are more likely to die from a beesting, a dogbite, or a leprechaun riding a unicorn, than ISIS. They are only a national security issue to the bomb and bullet makers.

      replyreport
   3. 59

      teamrnposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Not National security when they're in your backyard, when between ISIS and Ebola the stock market has fallen so far that your parents can't live off their IRA and are bankrupt, and you can't go to supermarket without fear of being beheadded?

      replyreport
4. 61

   cjhunsingerposted 9 years ago

   In keeping within the spirit of your naive position, I think it best to do exactly what Nevell Chamberlain did, acquiesce to the demands of Hitler. Nothing bad can happen if one just holds hands and sings around the camp fire.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      teamrnposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Nothing bad? Nothing good, too. The sword cuts both ways! Proof that nothing 'bad' can happen is one beheadded American journalist. That is proof that 'Kumbaya' around camp fire doesn't work. 'Nature abhors a vacuum' so ISIS filled the void. Evil.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      cjhunsingerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      teamrn-- If you were responding to me, my remark was facetious.

      replyreport
   3. 59

      teamrnposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      wasn't able to tell; some believe that "Kumbaya" is our best policy

      replyreport
5. 55

   peter565posted 9 years ago

   The issue of ISIS is rooted into middle eastern culture. It has much similarity to pre modern Europe.  To understand ISIS, we must first understand our own western past.  Pre 17th century Europe believe those whom are of same race and religion are our people the rest are our enemy and as a result...no need for me to say (In 16th century, British's Queen Helen killed 1/4 of Britain's population because she is Predestine, so she want ethnic cleanse Catholic British. When Queen Elizebeth the 1st, whom is Catholic, first came into power, a great deal of her advisers also try persuade her to conduct ethnic cleansing to none Catholic in Britain, but as a wise Queen, she refuse and managed to unit people of different faith.)  . Pre 20th century Europe believe those whom are of same race to be our people the result...no need for me to say.
   
   Middle Eastern culture believe those whom are of the same religion is our people, rather then your countrymen as a result...e.g. 1950, India split into Muslim dominate Pakistan & Indo dominate India. 1990s, Lebanon civil war Muslim vs Christian vs Jews (in 1990s, Bosnia whom despite been a European country also believe in "same religion is own people" result in Catholic vs Christian vs Muslim civil war.) 21st century, ISIS come into existence hating people whom are not Sunni Muslim and want to kill and conquer a great part of the world to create a Sunni Muslim Empire.  But ISIS is more dangerous of all, because they want to expend and create a Sunni Muslim Empire and want to conduct ethnic cleansing against none Sunni Muslims.  To deal with ISIS, we need to both conduct military action against them, to wipe them off the face of the earth and in the same time, use propaganda to modernize the way people in the middle east think, so they start identify their fellow countrymen, good people and good nations, as their own people, rather then those whom are of the same religion, just like the rest of the modern world. During the Mongolia Empire era, the Mongols tried to modernize the way middle eastern people think, but failed, because Asia's ideology in such field is modernized as far as history record, so they don't know how to deal with this situation. The west whom in recorded history know about their past, with similar ideology to middle east, should draw upon those experience and help modernize the way middle eastern people think, by looking at how western ideology was able to quickly modernized starting from the 17th century and completely modernized by early 20th century

   replyreport