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

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

Scroll to see replies

The sooner the better. Those terrorists just want to destroy anything against their philosophy... economy & tourism, western cultures,etc. Every key organization will be infiltrated by them.

Moscow & Beijing are also their targets. Those two leaders have been sleeping well? I wonder.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 41

billydisco

Original post by SNichol

How interesting that that is the part you pick up on.

No, I would not say that "this group of people" are easy to "turn into murderers."

But to put it into context, if a group of people were conducting terrorism in the name of Christianity and the global response was to demolish all churches, the remaining non extreme Christians would certainly be likely to fight for their right to a religion and a place of worship.

It is quite obviously not going to make the situation any better, I thought I was just exercising common sense.

I think you just showed how extreme followers of Islam are generally-speaking.....

Reply 42

SNichol

Original post by billydisco

I think you just showed how extreme followers of Islam are generally-speaking.....

Kindly don't make generalisations on my behalf - what I actually just did was make clear the naivety of punishing an entire religion for the wrongdoings of a specific group.

Reply 43

jeremy1988

I think Obama is the reason why we left the Middle East in the first place. He was just so obsessed with peace and getting the troops out that he created a power vacuum and made the situation even worse than it was before.

He failed to understand that this isn't like Vietnam where we can just let the enemy win, shrug, and walk away to cut our losses. Communists are at least civilised. Islamic fundamentalists will cause problems for us in the future if we leave them alone.

I think ground troops could have ended this mass migration a lot sooner if the president weren't determined to stick to using cowardly little airstrikes and sending tiny numbers of troops after things have gotten really bad.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 44

wobuaini

Yes, we need to go and kill all of that scum for the sake of humanity. Would be preferable if all religion in the world went extinct, too

Reply 45

TheArtofProtest

Original post by jeremy1988

Obama was not going to carry on spending money in wars that would not achieve anything.

The problem with intervention is that you need an afterplan. America had none when they invaded and occupied.

He failed to understand that this isn't like Vietnam where we can just let the enemy win, shrug, and walk away to cut our losses. Communists are at least civilised. Islamic fundamentalists will cause problems for us in the future if we leave them alone.

We didn't "cut our losses". We simply installed regimes that would safeguard our interests. Now those interests are being threatened.

I think ground troops could have ended this mass migration a lot sooner if the president weren't determined to stick to using cowardly little airstrikes and sending tiny numbers of troops after things have gotten really bad.

You'd rather see our armed services brought back in body bags?

Reply 46

billydisco

Original post by SNichol

Kindly don't make generalisations on my behalf - what I actually just did was make clear the naivety of punishing an entire religion for the wrongdoings of a specific group.

You subconsciously admitted followers of Islam are more-likely to revert to violence.

Reply 47

seeXYZ

Hate to acknowledge it, but we should consider backing people like Assad etc ...

Reply 48

SNichol

Original post by billydisco

You subconsciously admitted followers of Islam are more-likely to revert to violence.

Patronising much.

If I'm honest, I'm an atheist. But if I were religious and the places that I worshiped and valued were destroyed, I'd be feeling pretty violent too.

Are you honestly suggesting that if a group of Catholics committed an atrocity, and the Vatican was destroyed as a result, the innocent Catholics would just be like "oh, that's alright, no problem"? A violent response to the specific actions you were condoning would not be "typical of Islam," it would be typical of humanity. People protect what is important to them.

I'll state again; innocent Muslims should not be penalised or attacked for the actions of a minority.

I find most remarkable that you're so set in your idea that all followers of Islam are violent, aggressive and extreme that you're attempting to twist everything I say into fitting your ridiculous ideology.

Reply 49

jeremy1988

Original post by TheArtofProtest

Obama was not going to carry on spending money in wars that would not achieve anything.

The problem with intervention is that you need an afterplan. America had none when they invaded and occupied.

Just withdrawing troops and allowing the place to be controlled by ISIS was a pretty stupid move in my opinion, though. They should have come up with a better plan, yes, but I'm really sick of how people keep trying to fight a war on a budget and dragging it out forever rather than trying to actually get anything done. We always lose wars when we try to fight them on a budget and spend as little as possible. I don't understand that mentality.

We didn't "cut our losses". We simply installed regimes that would safeguard our interests. Now those interests are being threatened.

They only half-finished installing those regimes. Now ISIS controls most of that territory.

You'd rather see our armed services brought back in body bags?

Seems like a better plan than just letting the entire population of that region come to live in Europe. If we had ended the conflict decisively rather than wringing our hands with tiny little movements for several years, there might have been less damage to Syrian infrastructure and an actual chance of stopping the flood of refugees. All those stupid airstrikes probably destroyed more buildings than people, which is the opposite of what you want. You want to leave the buildings intact and kill the people you're trying to kill, which is why you want ground troops rather than just air strikes.

It's better to expend money and men on foreign wars than to wait for all the people from that country to come live with you and yell/blame everyone around them for their situation.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 50

Margareter

Original post by ivybridge

I'm not being funny, I respect your opinion but I really do disagree that sending troops won't destroy them; sitting idly by and watching them obliterate our own citizens and their own country is the one and only thing that certainly will not destroy them. Media coverage isn't exactly taking a stand and it's about what is going to be an effective stand. Believe me, I normally always say the same thing about intervention as you do but this is an exception to every rule. They're fighting back but with little impact. ISIS are growing. They are involving us, they are attacking us, we should attack back because it's not okay.

I know, I respect your opinion also, and I see what you mean in a sense. I'm not saying sit and watch, I'm just saying that by attacking this terrorist group, another one is going to replace it. You can wipe off ISIS one day, but another groups going to replace it, because behind the name ISIS, there is the idea of mass murder, there are people who want to kill others because they like to have blood on their hands, regardless of whether they are in a group like ISIS or acting alone. If there was a terrorist in the UK, we would get our own men to sort it out, we wouldn't want, say Germany to barge in and take over them. I know that with all these bombings in Paris and Lebanon have dragged over countries in the situation, I see that it isn't just Syria/Iraq's problem now, we all hate ISIS, they're evil and must be removed, everyone agrees with me on that. But you can't just send troops into Iraq/Syria, it'll completely muck up the country. Once ISIS is eradicated, the whole country will be left battered and weak, open for another terrorist group to take charge and the whole cycle will start over again. If other countries want to participate, I think the best solution is to work alongside the Syrian/Iraqi gov to find a solution where the gov themselves could solve it, not just shove a load of American/British troops in there. Give their gov weapons and solutions to it and they could solve it themselves. It's not like America knows more about Iraq or Syria than their government does...

The problem in Middle Eastern countries is that their gov is unstable, if all the countries had as much money and power as America, many innocent families would not have died. I guess there's nothing we could do about it, and I guess that's why everyone wants us to send troops in there, because they want America to take over the situation, but I just don't think more bloodshed is going to get rid of these horrors.

Once again, you're entitled to think that I'm an utter prune, but it's just my opinion that other countries shouldn't completely shatter the gov

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 51

Margareter

Original post by Devkj

We have not stood up to ISIS in the slightest, bombing them will do very little. It is said for the Air Force to have any effect on ground forces there must be forces on the ground methodically taking out the ground forces. Yes there are forces fighting for their land the problem is the major group doing so are Assad's forces which are hardly our friends. ISIS lastly doesn't care if their on the news its better publicity for those wishing to support them. The only way to defeat this threat is through a coordinated attack by those with power without this IS will reek havoc for many years to come.

Oh yes we have, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/13/killing-mohammed-emwazi-was-significant-blow-to-isis-says-us

ISIS does car, why else would they upload pictures of them beheading innocent people and stuff like that, they want attention, they want people to fear them, and we do, but as I've said above, sending troops wouldn't make terrorism extinct, another group will replace them in Syria, with a different name, but with the same intentions. You have to upgrade the Syrian gov, to make them more powerful so they can deal with situations like this themselves. However there is a fine line of poverty between Syria and developed countries like America, so it's a lot harder to keep under control. Many people believe that making America do all the dirty work for them is the only solution, but by giving the Syrian gov power themselves, they could take the whole thing under control themselves.