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

Why isn't the whole of humanity rallying against ISIS?

One of the most despicable evil since the Nazis; surpassing them in some respects.

Why isn't the whole world launching at ISIS and eradicating them (and I mean more than words)?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 1

Mankytoes

Original post by Lady Comstock

The most despicable evil since the Nazis; surpassing them in some respects.

Why isn't the whole world launching at ISIS and eradicating them (and I mean more than words)?

Well China basically never intervenes in anything outside its' borders, Russia is mainly concerned about keeping the region stable, the USA and UK are very wary about invading Iraq again, and everyone knows the infamous perils of getting into a land war in Asia.

Or to be brief, foreign relations isn't a childish "goodies go and kill the baddies" system.

There's been worse regimes than them or the Nazis, try the Khmer Rouge.

Reply 2

QuantumSuicide

Because life is complicated

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 3

Anonymous263

http://youtu.be/GQxwaVQWSbY

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 4

Anti-Jew

Worse than the US in Vietnam?

Reply 5

Lady Comstock

Original post by Mankytoes

Well China basically never intervenes in anything outside its' borders

Until now perhaps: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/08/11/the_islamic_state_chinese_media_hong_kong_phoenix_xinjiang

Russia is mainly concerned about keeping the region stable

Yes, it has a lot more on its plate at the moment, granted.

The USA and UK are very wary about invading Iraq again, and everyone knows the infamous perils of getting into a land war in Asia.

It seems to have the support of the people. Never did I think I would see a top Daily Mail comment suggesting that we should launch in Iraq again.

Or to be brief, foreign relations isn't a childish "goodies go and kill the baddies" system.

It should be. Granted, you have to be realistic, but you should not let evil like this thrive and expand.

There's been worse regimes than them or the Nazis, try the Khmer Rouge.

And, for many, it remains a disgrace that the Khmer Rouge were allowed to get away with what they did.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 6

Chlorophile

Original post by Lady Comstock

The most despicable evil since the Nazis; surpassing them in some respects.

Why isn't the whole world launching at ISIS and eradicating them (and I mean more than words)?

Firstly, if you think they're the most despicable evil since the Nazis, I think you need to brush up on your history. Secondly, the world is a lot more complicated than "Here are some bad guys, let's shoot them and hope the problem goes away". Generally, any attempt to kill people who are doing bad things just results in even more hatred, making the problem even bigger.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 7

Lady Comstock

Original post by Chlorophile

OK Fair enough; changed OP. However, even the Khmer Rouge did not display severed heads on spikes in public streets.

I think, if allowed to progress, ISIS will engage in acts similar to, or even more despicable, than that of the Khmer Rouge.

Generally, any attempt to kill people who are doing bad things just results in even more hatred, making the problem even bigger.

Then what do you suggest?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 8

Chlorophile

Original post by Lady Comstock

As far as I can see, the only sustainable solution to this problem is a social solution. Radical groups like Isis are only capable of getting power in a very chaotic and poor socio-political environment where people have low qualities of life and low levels of education, resulting in a high rate of radicalisation. Even if we somehow managed to wipe out the entire of Isis, as well as everyone associated to them (which is completely impossible) then another group would simply rise to take their place. The only actual solution to this problem is changing the social situation so that an organisation like Isis cannot exist. The problem is that this solution is firstly extremely expensive and people don't care enough to give money, secondly that people (specifically America) are too aggressive to even realise that a peaceful situation like this could actually work and finally, wealthy countries profit a lot from the situation in the middle east.

Reply 9

Mankytoes

Original post by Lady Comstock

Until now perhaps: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/08/11/the_islamic_state_chinese_media_hong_kong_phoenix_xinjiang

It seems to have the support of the people. Never did I think I would see a top Daily Mail comment suggesting that we should launch in Iraq again.

It should be. Granted, you have to be realistic, but you should not let evil like this thrive and expand.

And, for many, it remains a disgrace that the Khmer Rouge were allowed to get away with what they did.

If they invade China they truly are mad, and not the militarily intelligent force they appear to be.

The thing is, who do we support instead of IS? Assad? You don't just take out a regime, unless you're conquering, you need a strong allie to take their place. Surely Iraq demonstrates this- we take out Saddam Hussein, but ISIS end up conquering the territory. Similarly, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, so the Americans supported the local fighters, some of whom became Taliban. Sometimes foreign intervention isn't a good thing, even when fighting monsters. There can be monsters on both sides.

Well seeing as the US had just lost in Vietnam, it was pretty unthinkable anyone would invade. Of course they were taken out by foreign intervention- by the Vietnamese Communist regime who'd just beaten the Yanks.