Why don't we interfere with ISIS by fighting them?
Scroll to see replies
We are not the world police.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by RFowler
The USA is involved in a bombing campaign against them which has caused them to lose ground on quite a few fronts. So no, they're not.
I think you're falling for propaganda here.
Defeating a rag tag army with an aerial campaign should not be taking this long but the truth is that, after losing momentum in Iraq, IS realized they needed to consolidate before moving on with their expansionist policies.
Original post by RFowler
The USA is involved in a bombing campaign against them which has caused them to lose ground on quite a few fronts. So no, they're not.
The USA is involved in a bombing campaign against them which has caused them to lose ground on quite a few fronts. So no, they're not.
You don't know these secret plans.
Original post by KittyRe-playⅧ
You don't know these secret plans.
Yet somehow you do? What are your sources? Pray tell
Original post by Errm16
That's a ridiculous suggestion. We should simply stop arming the Middle East.
IS will only loot the weapons.
IS will only loot the weapons.
Well they won't if you create a sufficiently powerful force to overpower them.
The alternative is doing nothing, or worse - us getting involved and entirely failing.
Original post by MatureStudent36
No. Our Muslim community will believe that their host community is slaughtering its fellow Muslims.
I'd rather we not fight Isis. If the people of the Middle East are so scared of Isis I'd prefer to let them do the fighting.
I'd rather we not fight Isis. If the people of the Middle East are so scared of Isis I'd prefer to let them do the fighting.
Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have been funding them to spread wahabism and a fundamental doctrine to the peoples of the Middle East. That's why they're so reluctant to bomb them.
ISIS was created and funded by the CIA in order to generate conflict in the Middle East, leading to a war in which Europe and America will be involved. After the war, the Zionists are hoping to set up a World Government which they will control.
Original post by L i b
Well they won't if you create a sufficiently powerful force to overpower them.
The alternative is doing nothing, or worse - us getting involved and entirely failing.
The alternative is doing nothing, or worse - us getting involved and entirely failing.
What assurances can you give me that this powerful force will not turn rogue 20 years down the line?
I think it has already been said before but these counter-insurgency wars don't really work out well:
The people the west fight against are in their own country, this means they know the terrain and local environment much better than the foreign troops and can use this to their advantage. For instance in the Vietnam war the guerrila fighters (the Vietcong) used tunnels through the jungles and create networks of trading paths (the ho chi minh trail) that were undetectable by the American soldiers. They could also plant mines that injured unsuspecting american soldiers yet their own fighter were safe miles away in their tunnels. This demoralised and fustrated the Americans which was a contributing factor for them loosing the war. Similerly in the Afganistan and Iraq wars the insurgents knew all of compound areas which allows them to escape from the allied forces if they were pinned down by fire. They also have extensive knowledge of which areas are heavily booby trapped with IEDs and such weapons so can avoid them themselves and lead the allies into a area riddled with mines.
Secondly, the insurgents are not part of a formal army which represents a country. Therefore they wear no uniforms and thus it makes it impossible to distinguish between the local people and the people you are fighting. In the vietnam war this led to thousands of civilians being kiled by the american soldiers and this undermimed the US's 'hearts and minds' strategy. This eventually led to the americans withdrawing as they were becoming increasingly unpopular with the locals and the media covergae of innocent civilians being napalmed and killed reduced support for the war back in america. In more modern conflicts such as the Afghanistan war, British and american soldiers have to PID (positivelt identify) their targets before they can fire. This means that they can only retalliate to the enemy if the enemy shoots first or if they feel clearly in danger. This is to try and prevent civilian casulties however it frustrates soldiers as the insurgents don't follow any rules of combat so they have the advantage in a theatre situation. It is also very hard to tell which locals support the foreign troops or not and understandably the locals change their minds quickly and if for instance the taliban is threatening their families they will support the taliban to try and keep their families safe. The lcoals are often concerned as well as to what will happen to them if support the foreign soldiers against the taliban when the foriegn soldiers withdraw. Look for instance at what is happening right now to those afghan translators who worked for the British army.
Finally, the foreign soldiers are not in their own country and as wars don't last forever at some point they will have to withdraw. The insurgents however are still in the country and will continue fighting. For example after the Americans withdrew from Vietnam the communists who they had been fighting captured Saigon (now Ho chi minh city) as the South vietnamese army who the Americans wanted to take over the war, were too weak on their own without american manpower and finance. Similarly, at present the Taliban are taking over areas that the allies fought to capture as the ANA are too weak on their own to stop them. The weapons and equipment left behind after a war can also benefit the enemy if it falls into their own hands.
Overall i do not think that conventional warfare works to fight an ideology and not a country as history has shown us that these wars often create more politcal unrest and resentment and that the formal armies often lose or their is no clear victory.
The people the west fight against are in their own country, this means they know the terrain and local environment much better than the foreign troops and can use this to their advantage. For instance in the Vietnam war the guerrila fighters (the Vietcong) used tunnels through the jungles and create networks of trading paths (the ho chi minh trail) that were undetectable by the American soldiers. They could also plant mines that injured unsuspecting american soldiers yet their own fighter were safe miles away in their tunnels. This demoralised and fustrated the Americans which was a contributing factor for them loosing the war. Similerly in the Afganistan and Iraq wars the insurgents knew all of compound areas which allows them to escape from the allied forces if they were pinned down by fire. They also have extensive knowledge of which areas are heavily booby trapped with IEDs and such weapons so can avoid them themselves and lead the allies into a area riddled with mines.
Secondly, the insurgents are not part of a formal army which represents a country. Therefore they wear no uniforms and thus it makes it impossible to distinguish between the local people and the people you are fighting. In the vietnam war this led to thousands of civilians being kiled by the american soldiers and this undermimed the US's 'hearts and minds' strategy. This eventually led to the americans withdrawing as they were becoming increasingly unpopular with the locals and the media covergae of innocent civilians being napalmed and killed reduced support for the war back in america. In more modern conflicts such as the Afghanistan war, British and american soldiers have to PID (positivelt identify) their targets before they can fire. This means that they can only retalliate to the enemy if the enemy shoots first or if they feel clearly in danger. This is to try and prevent civilian casulties however it frustrates soldiers as the insurgents don't follow any rules of combat so they have the advantage in a theatre situation. It is also very hard to tell which locals support the foreign troops or not and understandably the locals change their minds quickly and if for instance the taliban is threatening their families they will support the taliban to try and keep their families safe. The lcoals are often concerned as well as to what will happen to them if support the foreign soldiers against the taliban when the foriegn soldiers withdraw. Look for instance at what is happening right now to those afghan translators who worked for the British army.
Finally, the foreign soldiers are not in their own country and as wars don't last forever at some point they will have to withdraw. The insurgents however are still in the country and will continue fighting. For example after the Americans withdrew from Vietnam the communists who they had been fighting captured Saigon (now Ho chi minh city) as the South vietnamese army who the Americans wanted to take over the war, were too weak on their own without american manpower and finance. Similarly, at present the Taliban are taking over areas that the allies fought to capture as the ANA are too weak on their own to stop them. The weapons and equipment left behind after a war can also benefit the enemy if it falls into their own hands.
Overall i do not think that conventional warfare works to fight an ideology and not a country as history has shown us that these wars often create more politcal unrest and resentment and that the formal armies often lose or their is no clear victory.
Original post by KimKallstrom
Yet somehow you do? What are your sources? Pray tell
I know these things don't worry about it. Leave it to the pros.
Original post by JohnDonne333
ISIS was created and funded by the CIA in order to generate conflict in the Middle East, leading to a war in which Europe and America will be involved. After the war, the Zionists are hoping to set up a World Government which they will control.
Tin foil hat time.
Was zyklon B only used in the concentration camps taught typhus?
ISIS numbers approx 50,000 - 100,000
UK army number- 80,000
They couldnt do anything to the Taliban in Afghanistan who were much smaller in number. I dont think David Cameron is stupid enough to put boots on the ground against a hardened, blood thirsty sect of a plague who will stop at getting what they want. Plus with the advanced US weaponry they stole from the Iraqis plus oil reserves... you get the picture
My solution the nuke the whole place
UK army number- 80,000
They couldnt do anything to the Taliban in Afghanistan who were much smaller in number. I dont think David Cameron is stupid enough to put boots on the ground against a hardened, blood thirsty sect of a plague who will stop at getting what they want. Plus with the advanced US weaponry they stole from the Iraqis plus oil reserves... you get the picture
My solution the nuke the whole place
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by DominicRCWC
We have more allies than ISIS don't we? Say if we did fight them, who would back us vs who would back them?
Surely the whole of the EU or those in the UN would be against ISIS. And don't we have the USA and (apparently Russia as mentioned in a previous comment on this thread).
Surely the whole of the EU or those in the UN would be against ISIS. And don't we have the USA and (apparently Russia as mentioned in a previous comment on this thread).
3/4th of EU is in recession so they cant afford another war. We cant as well. The french and germans are useless on their own.
The US has faced 2 costly wars which they gained nothing from and spent Trillions.
Russia learnt their lessons from Afghanistan is that you cant win against radical muslims on their own terrain. ( the US was stupid not to learn from that)
Left is India and China ( lets be honest they dont really care), India has its own problems in Pakistan and unless ISIS becomes a force in Pakistan and launches terrorist attacks in India, there is no possibility of India getting involved.
Now everyone knows the rich Gulf countries are bankrolling ISIS as they are Sunni and Bashar the president of Syria is Shi'te so they wont attack them, But they have no problem in bombing Shi'te rebels in Yemen
To conclude why would the US want to bomb something they created? ( Hint CIA and Al Qaeda all over again
)
Original post by DominicRCWC
This may seem like a dumb question or has probably been asked before but why don't we just go to war with ISIS? As well as having the USA on our side.
ISIS is clearly terrorising, killing and raping innocent people and destroying cultural heritages, expanding their army by getting loads of girls and women pregnant, surely we should be fighting them to stop them before it gets even more out of hand and they start taking over other countries?
ISIS is clearly terrorising, killing and raping innocent people and destroying cultural heritages, expanding their army by getting loads of girls and women pregnant, surely we should be fighting them to stop them before it gets even more out of hand and they start taking over other countries?
Off you go then. Good luck.
Original post by 雷尼克
because any army fighting a war thousands of miles away is not sustainable
This and also the war will just have a black hole effect.
Original post by thunder_chunky
Off you go then. Good luck.
youre an idiot, lol.
Original post by DominicRCWC
youre an idiot, lol.
To answer your question though, it would be worth it if it meant saving the lives of the innocents. The women amd children, and rescuing sex slaves. In terms of fighting the combatants themselves, we could knock off their fighters every day for years but it may not make a difference. We could even knock off a few of their bigwigs but even then they'll just get replaced.
Even if ISIS were wiped out, another would easily take it's place. It's the extremist ideology which is near impossible to kill, unless you get rid of that which fuels it. Religion, poverty, corruption etc etc. And that's unlikely.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Moscow concert hall shooting: at least 40 people dead and 100 wounded
- I want to be in a relationship but only with one person
- Psychology 9 mark question
- Bad vibes 😬
- would you date a guy…
- What's the craziest thing that's happened at your school?
- Should XL bully dogs be banned?
- Girls boxing, your views
- Missing order please help
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- De Broglie wavelength
- My girlfriend never gets jealous?
- I need advice!
- Sleeping with other people whilst dating
- my boyfriend’s sister disrespected me
- I have no friends, no relationship, nothing, I'm rejected for my Nationality
- Physics question ripples
- Hot to stop a bully?
- Does it put you off if a guy is nervous not good at fighting
- Asylum seeker dies on bibby Stockholm barge
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
