ISIS in Iraq megathread

No, like Germany, France and Japan.

The countries you mention don't believe in liberal democracy on the whole, unfortunately. Best we can do with them at the moment is contain them and accept freedom-loving refugees from them.

Germany, France and Japan are pretty different to Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq.

So what is to happen to the country which has been bombed and is now full of radicalised, anti-Western, freedom-hating extremists?

Give them McDonald's, Starbucks and iPhones and wait?

Most of Europe. Japan. Korea. A few other places.

You don't understand. I want to stop tyrants from telling other people how they are supposed to behave. I.e. I want the world to be full of societies where people are not told how they are supposed to behave. It is perverse and actually quite hilarious of you to twist the argument around and say that enforcing liberty is equivalent to reducing it. Freedom is slavery in your mind, perhaps. Maybe you should read 1984.

I agree the Kurds should have autonomy.

All have been tyrannies. The first three are no longer tyrannies. If the people in the last three countries stop believing in ridiculous ideas, they will improve.

Anti-Western ideas exist and have existed since the West existed. The answer is to fight the people who fight for those ideas, and promote freedom and democracy. The only argument is over how best to do this. Sometimes military engagement is necessary, other times it is harmful. Above all, people need to abandon their crazy ideas like Communism, Fascism and Islamism, if the world is to be at peace and if people are to prosper.

What's your stance on hate speech? Do you think it shouldn't be allowed?

We've had this conversation before.

The day you start "stopping tyrants from telling other people how they are supposed to behave" is the day you become a hypocrite.

All had educated populations, universities, et cetera. Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq aren't quite the same - Islam is rooted in society because it is more than a mere ideology like Communism or Fascism.

Good luck turning Afghanistan into a democracy.

Bush and Blair had the same thought - it's called spreading democracy through the barrel of a gun, and they've done a sublime job in Afghanistan and Iraq!

What on Earth has this got to do with anything, may I ask?

For the record, I think almost all, if not all speech should be allowed. Possibly with rare exceptions. Inciting violence for example.

What an utterly absurd and contemptible statement to make.

This is no different from saying that anybody who catches a rapist and prevents him from raping more people is being a hypocrite.

Wahabis and shias will soon kill each other off

xx

What you sayn about shias fam?

Yet many liberal democracies have enacted legislation prohibiting this which puts it at odds with your interpretation of a liberal democracy. Can we cross these countries off your list of "liberal democracies"?

In your opinion...

Sonny, you have it wrong:

If a man says that people shouldn't rape, and then he goes and rape, he is a hypocrite.

If a man says people should rape, and then he doesn't go and rape, he is a hypocrite.

Maybe you should take a moment to digest what I have written before penning absolute crap, eh?

however hard you try to turn afghanistan into a democracy, i will never happen. even if you forcefully impose it, it will just collapse sooner or later. the majority of the afghan people yearn for an islamic state. not the one that the taliban imposed (which they even admitted that they made certain mistakes), but a proper one with peace, education and justice

Almost 300 ISIS Terrorists have been killed by Iraqi Authorities in the past 24 hours.

I do not believe Al Qaeda had anything to do with flying planes into tall buildings.The West far from 'helped' Sunni Muslims get the Soviets out of Afghanistan, the West used the Muslims as pawns to get rid of the Soviets.'You have got to be out of your mind to think ISIS et al are friendly to the west and will bring justice to criminals who commit war crimes and international terrorism.' I don't really get what that means to imply. You mean to say that you are 100% sure of ISIL's intentions, and that what you think they will do is what they will do?'People have the right to self determination. If they want a unified Islamic state that is fine, but it would be naïve to think that the outcome and consequences would be peaceful for Britain regardless of whether we intervened.' I agree. This is a war and there are 2 sides to it. You choose your side, I choose mine. That doesn't mean your side is any more correct than mine, nor the other way round. It simply means that this is a good old-fashioned, human war.

Not true. Afghanistan was much freer than it is now in the 70s. Nothing happened to all the people which is not reversible. You are contemptuous and condescending of Afghans if you think this. I don't mind if people carry on believing in Islam - it is the political ideology which needs to be removed, not the harmless religious traditions and beliefs.

Your argument is a fallacy. You are saying that because somebody did a poor job of something, therefore their (stated) mission was impossible from the get-go. This is obviously wrong; how can you not see that?

Actually, something important occurred: the US government radicalised the population, telling them to embrace Islam to the fullest because the Soviet-backed government was implementing Communism.

The problem with Islam, like any religion in a backward country, is that it goes hand-in-hand with politics. To remove it would require an educated population, institutions which uphold democracy, et cetera - but we're a long way from that.

Iraq isn't the only example. Take a look at Afghanistan and Libya. Egypt and Syria serve as other examples of failed revolutions.

The campaign in Iraq was, and still is, plagued with so many stupid decisions; decisions which have left hundreds of thousands of people dead, and millions of people displaced; decisions which continue to divide the country and cause chaos eleven years after the intervention.

So, Captain Interventionism, when will Iraq become this flourishing, beacon of democracy that the world was promised? Will it take more time? Another eleven years? More? What about Afghanistan? What is to happen to the country when ISAF pack their bags and return home? Are we to expect the Afghan National Army to contain the Taliban? And when will the brigades in Libya put down their arms and join in their wonderful democracy? After all, Gaddafi was the issue here, right? But he's been gone for almost three years and still the country is run by armed groups, who are quite happy to kidnap the President simply because they can.

"You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs" - in this case, you haven't made an omelette, you've just broken some eggs, and seek to continue doing so because eventually you'll get at least one of these interventions right, right? One of these interventions will succeed, whereby the country you've decimated will become free and happy?

Wishful thinking, and everyone knows it. But still Blair, the Middle East Peace Envoy, continues to spew this mantra, and people like you continue to believe that you can give people democracy by bombing them.