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

Watch
Lady Comstock
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
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)?
0
reply
Mankytoes
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
(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.
0
reply
QuantumSuicide
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
Because life is complicated

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Anonymous263
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
http://youtu.be/GQxwaVQWSbY


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Anti-Jew
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
Worse than the US in Vietnam?
0
reply
Lady Comstock
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by Mankytoes)
Well China basically never intervenes in anything outside its' borders
Until now perhaps: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...oenix_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.
0
reply
Chlorophile
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
(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.
0
reply
Lady Comstock
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by Chlorophile)
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".
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?
0
reply
Chlorophile
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
(Original post by Lady Comstock)
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.

Then what do you suggest?
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.
0
reply
Mankytoes
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by Lady Comstock)
Until now perhaps: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...oenix_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.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have the space and resources you need to succeed in home learning?

Yes I have everything I need (178)
58.55%
I don't have everything I need (126)
41.45%

Watched Threads

View All