war as a first answer never solved anything.


And again as for ISIS, the thing is it could end like Afghanistan: ISIS is expelled and weakened, but it can grow again once the foreign military expedition leave, this is what is going on in Afghanistan, as I said earlier, right now, today, a strategic city was taken by the Talibans. What do you think may happen once the NATO coalition leave Afghanistan Eklipse?
So to conclude: Fight ISIS yes, if you provide the efforts necessary to avoid that ISIS grow again like the Talibans nowadays.

I pretty much already said that earlier. Fight ISIS, destroy them, and then rebuild infrastructure and what not to prevent another ISIS from forming.

Eklipse, you also said that ISIS would invade Israel and Turkey which is totally unlikely: they have no chance to match powerful armies.
Also explain me why the US army in Iraq let ISIS to grow in this country and infect neighboring territories, whereas they could have stopped it way earlier?

Eklipse, you also said that ISIS would invade Israel and Turkey which is totally unlikely: they have no chance to match powerful armies.

Wrong. I did not say that.

We're at a point where ISIS will probably have to invade Turkey or Israel before the general population of western countries even considers fighting them in full.

I did not say that ISIS would invade Turkey or Israel, I was saying such an occurrence would probably be the only thing which would shake the isolationism out of people. (However, you'd have to be a fool to think ISIS won't try to invade other countries eventually should they be given the chance and ability)

Also your statement that ISIS has no chance to match powerful armies conflicts with your earlier claim that Russia attacking ISIS would be a disaster.

Also explain me why the US army in Iraq let ISIS to grow in this country and infect neighboring territories, whereas they could have stopped it way earlier?

This seems irrelevant to the conversation and more like you trying to start further argument with me for some reason, but I'll give you some possible explanations.

1.) Anytime the U.S tries to do anything in the Middle East the rest of the world craps on us, regardless of what our intentions were.

2.) The American public is extremely war weary and any post-Iraq military operation would be met with great skepticism.

3.) Since the end of the Iraq War U.S military presence in the region has been greatly reduced, as the government wanted the Iraqi government to take over it's own affairs and become self-sufficient. Once ISIS started rising this fact combined with the 2 above reasons kept the U.S army from acting.

Post Note, we've established that we're actually on the same page when it comes to the Anti-ISIS strategy. Defeat them, and then rebuild the country. So why are you still bickering with me? Why does every single discussion of world affairs have to turn into the "Blame the U.S for something" game?

will probably invade Israel and Turkey

Oh sorry so you did not say that ISIS was planning to attack Israel and Turkey, yes sure. Are you conscient you contradict yourself?

However, you'd have to be a fool to think ISIS won't try to invade other countries eventually should they be given the chance and ability

They already had a chance, do you read news? Sinai is now an official battlefield of ISIS. And Israel is the main target. But they are not worried at all since they have a seasoned army that fought much more battles than ISIS ever did.

also your statement that ISIS has no chance to match powerful armies conflicts with your earlier claim that Russia attacking ISIS would be a disaster.

I also think you do not get the basics of war. A defending army has a clear advantage whereas a foreign military expedition has clearly less chance of success, many examples:
- Russia invading Afghanistan: failure
- US invading Iraq or Vietnam: failure
- Israel defending its territory against a coalition of arab nations: success

This seems irrelevant to the conversation and more like you trying to start further argument with me for some reason, but I'll give you some possible explanations.

This is not irrelevant at all since ISIS is the product of the American invasion of Iraq.

1.) Anytime the U.S tries to do anything in the Middle East the rest of the world craps on us, regardless of what our intentions were.

The US were particularly bad in the Middle East (see, Iraq, Afghanistan, Koweit, Saudi Arabia, Iran and nowadays Syria and Israel), so the world craps on you for good reasons.

2.) The American public is extremely war weary and any post-Iraq military operation would be met with great skepticism.

That was not the case in 2003, people were following Bush, the proof is he was reelected one year later. But then, the Americans realised how that war caused catastrophic results, so they are right to be skeptics.

3.) Since the end of the Iraq War U.S military presence in the region has been greatly reduced, as the government wanted the Iraqi government to take over it's own affairs and become self-sufficient. Once ISIS started rising this fact combined with the 2 above reasons kept the U.S army from acting.

the US for this time would have shown that their action were rightful: fight a terrorist organization that would destabilize an entire region. Instead you prefered to act like cowards and let the Iraki army that proved to not be ready to handle it without backup.

Post Note, we've established that we're actually on the same page when it comes to the Anti-ISIS strategy. Defeat them, and then rebuild the country. So why are you still bickering with me? Why does every single discussion of world affairs have to turn into the "Blame the U.S for something" game?

Stop being paranoid, we are not conspirating against the US, the thing is the US these recent years strategically made really bad choices, and those bad choices influenced greatly the situation in the Middle East. Hence the US credibility has taken one heck. It's been 25 years the US are making things worse in the Middle East, Kuwait wasn’t a democracy before Saddam Hussein’s army marched in, in 1990, and Kuwait isn’t really a democracy today. No doubt it’s a nicer place to live than Iraq, either during the Saddam era or during the subsequent American protectorate. ISIS is merely the most recent in a parade of horrible groups, Shiite and Sunni, religious and secular, murderous and even more murderous, to which we have been introduced through the years. They sometimes are US's friends, though secretly helping the other side, or they are sworn enemies of the imperialist aggressor, but still secretly taking bribes from the C.I.A. They are often splinters from some larger tree, either “brand extension” by the original group or its sworn enemy due to ideological or religious differences that are impossible to fathom.

Edited 9/28/2015 20:01:55

To be fair, the US isn't the only country that wanted and still wants a destabilized Middle East.

the thing is the US these recent years strategically made really bad choices, and those bad choices influenced greatly the situation in the Middle East.

It's not bad choices for American foreign policy.

Kuwait wasn’t a democracy before Saddam Hussein’s army marched in, in 1990, and Kuwait isn’t really a democracy today.

America is not democracy, and America has no interest in building democracy.

Scuse me nigga, America has the best funded and most advanced military on Earth....AND THEY ARE LEADING THAT COALITION!

Also, America is a Republic with a few Democratic Ideas. Indirect Democracy? Democratic-Republic?

Edited 9/29/2015 02:51:19

Oh sorry so you did not say that ISIS was planning to attack Israel and Turkey, yes sure. Are you conscient you contradict yourself?

I did not contradict myself. I pointed out an event that would likely lead to the general public finally pulling their heads out of their rears and seeing the real threat, I didn't say it was surely going to happen.

I also think you do not get the basics of war. A defending army has a clear advantage whereas a foreign military expedition has clearly less chance of success, many examples:

There are also many examples of a smaller defensive force being defeated by a larger, better trained, and better equipped army.
-U.S Civil War, North invades the South. Northern victory. (Not the best example as it took four years, but the North was victorious nonetheless)
-World War 2, Nazi Germany successfully invades several smaller nations in very short time.

Being on the defensive does not guarantee a victory. The reason that the U.S had such a hard time in Iraq and Afghanistan is because instead of fighting a conventional army, American forces were up against terrorist bands who used guerrilla warfare and rarely presented a fair target to shoot at.

ISIS is not like those cases however. ISIS is an organized military force, and can be engaged like one. Sure they can easily shift their tactics and go into guerrilla warfare, but it'll make it much harder for them to hold down cohesive territory as they currently do.

This is not irrelevant at all since ISIS is the product of the American invasion of Iraq.

ISIS is a the product of Islamic extremism. Even if events in Iraq had unfolded differently ISIS or a group like it would still exist.

The US were particularly bad in the Middle East (see, Iraq, Afghanistan, Koweit, Saudi Arabia, Iran and nowadays Syria and Israel), so the world craps on you for good reasons.

The wars in Iraq (The 2nd one) and Afghanistan were total mess that should of been avoided. However, there was nothing wrong about liberating Kuwait from Saddam Hussein (U.S withdrew not long after in this case. I still hold that the 1st battle against Iraq was justified, the second was not). As for the other countries, what are you referring to? Two of the listed countries are U.S allies, and the other two have never been invaded by the U.S.

the US for this time would have shown that their action were rightful: fight a terrorist organization that would destabilize an entire region. Instead you prefered to act like cowards and let the Iraki army that proved to not be ready to handle it without backup.

Tch. People like you spend years bashing on the U.S for intervening in Middle Eastern affairs, and once you finally get your wish and the U.S backs out you start complaining about why America isn't doing something about the latest problem. You can't have your cake and eat it too. European countries just love to tell the U.S how bad it was in the Middle East, well maybe it's time to step out altogether and see how Europe handles the situation on it's own.

Stop being paranoid, we are not conspirating against the US,

I didn't say anything about conspiracy. I was expressing frustration about how every discussion around this topic always comes back to "It's all America's fault, blame the United States for everything!"

The blame game is really unproductive and isn't going to solve anything. Did the U.S do a lot of stupid stuff in the middle east? Yes. Should a lot of it been avoided? Yes. However, this constant tirade about how horrible the U.S.A was/is goes nowhere.

U.S gets involved in the Middle East: "Oh my God! You need to stay out of other countries' business! Look at all the damage you caused, stay out of it next time!"

U.S does not get involved in the Middle East: "Oh my God! Look at all the horrible stuff happening, why don't you do something about that?! You're so cowardly!"

You really can't please anyone.

Scuse me nigga, America has the best funded and most advanced military on Earth....AND THEY ARE LEADING THAT COALITION!

Have you heard of the new killdeath5001? You shouldn't, because it's a top secret project I'm working on for the Italian military and actually this whole sentence is counterintelligence.

Also, republic is a government that uses democracy - democracy is the idea, republic is the one who uses the idea. There is very little difference in the meanings of the words "republican" and "democratic".

A true republic is just not as powerful as an autocracy - in a true republic, folk do what they want, in an autocratic nominal republic, folk do what's in the government's interests. I'll give you a +1 if you spot a country today that has true democracy and support your grounding why (and yes, there most likely are a few).

There are 2 problems with both extremes.

In Autocracy, the people are inclined to rebel.

In Democracy, the government struggles to unify the people.

A proper synthesis is necessary.

Stop being so half-assed and either invade properly instead of like one airstrike a day or sit up with a beer.

Meritocracy is the best choice really

Eklipse,
About whether the US should have been involved or not in the Middle East, the answer is simple: No, they should have not entered a war that would bring more negative outcomes than anything else. The best thing would have been an international force (under the UN leadership, there were discussions about it in 2003 but the US wanted to go faster and scuttle the negociations), not a single country like the US declaring war against everyone just because they want to do so.
The US were clearly better when they respected their Monroe doctrine. People respected you, now whereas you should have been an example to the world (as you are the so-called superpower) you just abuse of this power and people worldwide despise your actions.

And again stop denying the truth: ISIS is the product of the Iraq war led by the US that turned so bad that instead of improving Iraq it is worse than ever. You could have improved that by stopping ISIS at the very beginning (dont tell me CIA was not aware of anything before 2013??) but again you did nothing.
Moreover, this was an exceptional display of hypocrisy, ill will or stupidity: Bush and his government asserted that it would bring democracy to this region? Oh really guess what we've got: ISIS...

Panda here's a good read for you on why the US isn't going to attack ISIS except with air strikes, why they went to Iraq and why they do a lot of things.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik

Realpolitik implies pragmatism and ponderous answers. For now since the US invaded Iraq, the US werent into realpolitik at all, they answered disproportionnally and the result was a total disaster. Realpolitik no real disaster yes.

Disaster for the Middle East , opportunity for the rich.

+1 Tupac

The wealthy cast earns money and spreads misery, but one day there will be a new 1789...

Eklipse,
About whether the US should have been involved or not in the Middle East, the answer is simple: No, they should have not entered a war that would bring more negative outcomes than anything else. The best thing would have been an international force (under the UN leadership, there were discussions about it in 2003 but the US wanted to go faster and scuttle the negociations)

I already said the 2nd invasion of Iraq wasn't justified so I don't know what this whole paragraph is about. Even in areas where I agree you come up with an entire rant against me, it really is starting to seem as if you're being contrary just for the sake of it.

The US were clearly better when they respected their Monroe doctrine. People respected you, now whereas you should have been an example to the world (as you are the so-called superpower) you just abuse of this power and people worldwide despise your actions.

As much as I like the Monroe Doctrine, and as much as Isolationism appeals to me. I'm always reminded of the nagging fact that an Isolationist attitude is what kept the U.S out of WW2 for so long and might of kept the country out all together if not for Pearl Harbor.

but again you did nothing.

I'll spell it out for you again. We were pulling out of Iraq, the general public was sick and tired of war, even mentioning that we were sending troops BACK into Iraq would of caused a huge uproar. The U.S public wanted us out of Iraq, other countries wanted us out of Iraq, well the wish was granted. Seriously, don't cry about the U.S needing to stay out of things one minute and then turn around and cry for the U.S to fix the latest problem.

Bush and his government asserted that it would bring democracy to this region? Oh really guess what we've got: ISIS...

Yeah, I'm sure the incompetence of the Iraqi government has no bearing here what-so-ever....

Lastly, it's interesting to me how you ignored most of my points regarding the subject matter of ISIS and how to deal with them, and continued pressing your blame game against the U.S.

Edited 9/29/2015 12:58:41

Ok so the thread was going pretty intense filled with knowledgible facts from both parties and here comes one soo damn immatured sorry if I offended you