Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

If you had a choice that'd benefit society ...

Scroll to see replies

I think it's a mistake to aim for mere containment, at least in the case of the Islamic State. It has to be defeated, not contained. The quickest, but perhaps not the best, way of doing that is to use NATO ground forces in addition to airstrikes. Suffice it to say, it would be field day for IS recruiters, but it's arguable that the slow crawl to stalemate (which is what's happening at present) is somewhat morally reprehensible.

It's one thing to not act because you can't; it's an entirely different situation in which you refuse to act despite having the capability to do so. And for what? Just to appease the collective conscience of regressive leftists who've no understanding of the causes of terrorism and can always be relied upon to oppose any intervention by default, with little to no regard for any facts.

Of course, any such invasion must be followed by a vastly better occupation than the one which followed the invasion of Iraq in 2003. There will need to be massive deradicalisation efforts both at home and in the occupied countries, followed by a much more gradual handover of power (>20 years). We'd do well to take a few pages out of the books of people like Maajid Nawaz and promote a kind of secular Islam in the region to counter the Wahhabist nonsense that presently has the peoples of both Iraq and Syria under its heel.

As for climate change, the solution is a lot clearer: massive simultaneous investment in both current renewable generation capacity and research into improving energy storage, efficiency and nuclear energy. And all this has to be done alongside a huge reduction in carbon-based sources of energy. The political aim of this, which ties in with the issue of terrorism, is energy independence. The sooner we can kick the Saudis' collective asses to the kerb, the sooner we can get back to a state of relative security.

If you use NATO, then there is a risk of a full scale war in my opinion, I may be wrong, plus a lot more westerners would retaliate and join IS, defeating it full on has cost ramifications financially as well as the lives of civilians domestically and internationally being at risk

Reply 41

Alaska+

Original post by Glors

I don't understand how

Well principally because of capitalism.

Some of the inequality in the world is innate in the fact that there will always be some groups / peoples / nations that are the producers of goods & services, and some who relatively consume much more than they produce. As such, more wealth will sit in the hands of the producers than the consumers.

Also, one thing I realise is that if tomorrow everyone in the world had the same wealth, for a period of time theft would skyrocket, because if you rob all of someone's possessions you can potentially double your wealth, and it would be a very quick way to put yourself into the world's wealthiest.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 42

troubadour.

Original post by Glors

It's already a full-scale war. As I said, we would have to take a good stab at deradicalisation, championing secular Islam of the kind that Maajid Nawaz aims for. That's the long-term solution: a reformation is needed within Islam to bring it in line with modern, Western values (or at least some of them). If people still join the IS then, well, there's nothing that can be done about that other than to let them perish in their chosen line of work.

As far as cost is concerned, I don't think that money is that substantial an issue in a military alliance like NATO, whose whole defence strategy is to pool the military resources of all its members. Not to mention that the finances are the last thing to worry about when dealing with a genocidal rogue state. They have to go, whatever it takes.

Civilians are already dying; leaving the IS alone (with the exception of limited airstrikes) isn't going to improve that.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 43

Sae.HH

To fix climate change just wish everyone vegan. Sorted :smile:

Reply 44

Glors

Original post by Shahe

To fix climate change just wish everyone vegan. Sorted :smile:

nope we need nice tasting food so yh... :tongue:

Reply 45

Macy1998

Original post by Argentinababy

Simply untrue.

How can anyone fight climate change? No amount of human tech or how advancement of society can control weather. The climate has a mind of its own. No man can change it on command. We can only predict what tomorrow will be to prepare.

So how can every person on the Earth live in a home and receive an income? Poverty is always going to exist.