The Student Room Group

Should the west send troops into the middle east to stop ISIS

Has it got so bad that the only sure way of destroying ISIS is to put troops on the ground in countries such as Syria and Iraq. Many of you who see this question will ask what we achieved in Iraq and Afghanistan and the little that was actually achieved in those regions. However there must be a line to be drawn when people are being butchered in not only the middle east but also here in Europe in light of the recent attacks in Paris. I want to hear peoples opinion on whether the western countries should send troops into the middle east.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
and is there any viable alternative to sending troops.
I honestly think we all should now. They need to be stomped out and we're all victims so we all need to club together and eradicate them. We're just appeasing them, like we did with Hitler. Look what happened.
Reply 3
Original post by Devkj
and is there any viable alternative to sending troops.


Yes. Use our nuclear capability and turn the deserts into a ocean of glass. Either that or use biological or chemical warfare.
They shouldn't send troops, they only make matters worse. They should leave the country to sort itself out, sending troops only makes ISIS and other groups more determined to kill people.
Original post by Devkj
Has it got so bad that the only sure way of destroying ISIS is to put troops on the ground in countries such as Syria and Iraq. Many of you who see this question will ask what we achieved in Iraq and Afghanistan and the little that was actually achieved in those regions. However there must be a line to be drawn when people are being butchered in not only the middle east but also here in Europe in light of the recent attacks in Paris. I want to hear peoples opinion on whether the western countries should send troops into the middle east.


perhaps but imagine the retaliation if troops were sent over there. There are undoubtedly extremists who would commit massacres over here if that were to happen. Maybe a muslim country should send in troops instead but I doubt USA would allow that.
Yep. Had to do it on the day the cowards threatened that will have the black flag over the White House, Downing Street and anywhere in the west.

100 troops with air support from every country represented in the un will obliterate the savages to dust.
Reply 7
Sadly it looks like the only way we're going to beat ISIS is with ground troops. Hopefully Russia will be involved in a full frontal assault, and possibly the Israelis if they slip up and attack them as well.

If the West goes in then we'll be branded murderers and butchers and everything under the sun by the left. No matter what we do, however, we'll still be blamed.

If it were up to me, I'd aim trident at Mecca and ask the Israelis to plant charges around the Dome on the Rock, and then give ISIS approximately 24 hours to comply with Western demands or we demolish their holy sites.
Reply 8
Yes maybe it may make the situation worse but ISIS are already determined to kill people, already determined to destroy the western way of life. I really think IS will keep doing what their doing even if we didn't send troops in.
We should turn all IS occupied territory into a parking lot before this virus spreads even further.
Original post by Margareter
They shouldn't send troops, they only make matters worse. They should leave the country to sort itself out, sending troops only makes ISIS and other groups more determined to kill people.


Not if they no longer exist...

The point is, if it was a thing limited to their own country then I'd agree with you but they are beginning to destroy parts of other people's lives outside of the boundaries of their own country. They're attacking other nations. We have been pulled into the issue, not walked in voluntarily.
Reply 11
People who support ISIS do not have a cause, they do what they do simply out of mindless hatred. These types of people cannot be reasoned with.
Reply 12
Gonna need the troops for when Russia come knocking.
Hardly think few thousands hotheads possess a bigger threat.
Reply 13
Well it was done to remove the leader of a stable country, also to remove the taliban yet why it hasnt been done for isis who is far worse is beyond me.
Islamic radicalism in the middle east was created by western military intervention. The more the west intervene, the more radical these people get. A complete withdrawal of all foreign troops and military bases from the middle east would be a good start.
Reply 15
As I said ISIS does not care about western powers withdrawing troops or not it wont matter, they only care about the total destruction of the west and removing military bases would hardly help. I do agree that we should not have intervened in the middle east in the first place, but we did and we can only look at the threat in front of us today. A threat which has not sanity only the full destruction of our way of life.
Original post by Faisalshamallakh
Islamic radicalism in the middle east was created by western military intervention. The more the west intervene, the more radical these people get. A complete withdrawal of all foreign troops and military bases from the middle east would be a good start.
Original post by ivybridge
Not if they no longer exist...

The point is, if it was a thing limited to their own country then I'd agree with you but they are beginning to destroy parts of other people's lives outside of the boundaries of their own country. They're attacking other nations. We have been pulled into the issue, not walked in voluntarily.


That's true, and I totally agree that ISIS should be eliminated, but they're not the only terrorist group in existence. You send troops into Iraq to destroy one terrorist group and either they'll reform or another one takes its place which'll be ten times worse. It's Bin Laden all over again.

However if you leave the country to solve its own problems, they'll get better in time. Take Iran for example, it was riddled with terrorists when it was dominated by Americans; once they left however, Iran has become a better developed country (although its really scrutinized nowadays anyway).
Original post by saeed97
Well it was done to remove the leader of a stable country, also to remove the taliban yet why it hasnt been done for isis who is far worse is beyond me.


Probably the only time I'd ever rep you and I can't.
Original post by Margareter
That's true, and I totally agree that ISIS should be eliminated, but they're not the only terrorist group in existence. You send troops into Iraq to destroy one terrorist group and either they'll reform or another one takes its place which'll be ten times worse. It's Bin Laden all over again.

However if you leave the country to solve its own problems, they'll get better in time. Take Iran for example, it was riddled with terrorists when it was dominated by Americans; once they left however, Iran has become a better developed country (although its really scrutinized nowadays anyway).


I can see your point. Maybe it'd be better for us to at least prepare for it and threaten them with such action just to show we're united and we're against the movement. ISIS is terrible but it wouldn't stand against the whole of the West and countries like Russia and so on. It wouldn't survive a day.
Reply 19
Original post by ivybridge
Probably the only time I'd ever rep you and I can't.


Well that means youve repped me before ay :wink:

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending