Islamic State Crisis Megathread (ISIS/ISIL/IS)

[West Aurelia]

Syria wants more cooperation with Iraq.

[Dain II Ironfoot]

Time to deploy soldiers on the ground. Airstrikes aren't working, rebels aren't fucking working and civilians are dying everyday at the hands of ISIS.

Those soldiers on the ground started the shit that led to IS in the first place. A new western invasion would only make things worse.

[Appalatchia]

I adore how the first few try to put all blame on the USA

The US shares a significant portion of the blame. Are they responsible for people with evil, extremist views? No. Did the invasion, and more precisely the complete dismantling of every state institution in Iraq, which created mass unemployment and instability, create the conditions of chaos needed for an evil, extremist group to gain so much power? Yes, it did.

If you had a time machine and wanted to go back to prevent the rise of ISIL, the most sure way to do it would be to prevent CPA Order 2. But hindsight is 20/20 and there are no time machines. So how do you stop ISIL now? The answer is to do the thing that the US failed to do in 2003, and failed to do in Afghanistan, and that is to work with regional powers who are more capable and completely willing to assist. That means working with (dun dun duuun) Iran, which has a very vested interest in destroying ISIL, just as they had a vested interested in defeating Sadaam Hussein and Al Qaeda, but their intelligence and assistance, even when it was freely given, has always been rejected by the US.

[Washington Resistance Army]

So North Korean SF could fight in the desert then?

I see no reason they couldn't, yes.

Time to deploy soldiers on the ground. Airstrikes aren't working, rebels aren't fucking working and civilians are dying everyday at the hands of ISIS.

We're never going to, that has zero public support and would be political suicide.

[Murray land]

Time to deploy soldiers on the ground. Airstrikes aren't working, rebels aren't fucking working and civilians are dying everyday at the hands of ISIS.

No it's time to gtfo of dodge . We should cover our asses and close the door on our way out, because what's happening now, did we start it? Lul yeah we did. But. It's out of our hands now. If anything we should tell Turkey to get in line and put our weight behind the Kurds

[Migas999]

Time to deploy soldiers on the ground. Airstrikes aren't working, rebels aren't fucking working and civilians are dying everyday at the hands of ISIS.

No it's time to gtfo of dodge . We should cover our asses and close the door on our way out, because what's happening now, did we start it? Lul yeah we did. But. It's out of our hands now. If anything we should tell Turkey to get in line and put our weight behind the Kurds

Behind the Kurds yeah, Turkey should stop playing the double game it´s been playing
But we can´t just ignore the problems we´ve created

[Murray land]

No it's time to gtfo of dodge . We should cover our asses and close the door on our way out, because what's happening now, did we start it? Lul yeah we did. But. It's out of our hands now. If anything we should tell Turkey to get in line and put our weight behind the Kurds

Behind the Kurds yeah, Turkey should stop playing the double game it´s been playing
But we can´t just ignore the problems we´ve created

Oh yes we can at this point it's just chasing good money after bad. It's also not worth losing anymore of our own.

[Migas999]

Behind the Kurds yeah, Turkey should stop playing the double game it´s been playing
But we can´t just ignore the problems we´ve created

Oh yes we can at this point it's just chasing good money after bad. It's also not worth losing anymore of our own.

In my point of view if you create a problem you at least help solve it, besides ISIS isn´t a problem you can just let slide

[Migas999]

Time to deploy soldiers on the ground. Airstrikes aren't working, rebels aren't fucking working and civilians are dying everyday at the hands of ISIS.

Zero public support is why Obama hasn´t done it yet, nobody wants more bodybags to come to America

[Dain II Ironfoot]

Oh yes we can at this point it's just chasing good money after bad. It's also not worth losing anymore of our own.

In my point of view if you create a problem you at least help solve it, besides ISIS isn´t a problem you can just let slide

I completely agree.

Time to deploy soldiers on the ground. Airstrikes aren't working, rebels aren't fucking working and civilians are dying everyday at the hands of ISIS.

Zero public support is why Obama hasn´t done it yet, nobody wants more bodybags to come to America

Honestly, public support from the US is the least one should think off nor does it hold any value as the majority has no clue on what is going on or how to solve it. The public support that actually matters would be the one from Iraq and/or Syria.

[Migas999]

In my point of view if you create a problem you at least help solve it, besides ISIS isn´t a problem you can just let slide

I completely agree.

Zero public support is why Obama hasn´t done it yet, nobody wants more bodybags to come to America

Honestly, public support from the US is the least one should think off nor does it hold any value as the majority has no clue on what is going on or how to solve it. The public support that actually matters would be the one from Iraq and/or Syria.

Public support from the US does matter to US politicians sending troops would be political suicide, no US politician is interested in that certainly not the President

[Utrinque Paratus]

So North Korean SF could fight in the desert then?

I see no reason they couldn't, yes.

Time to deploy soldiers on the ground. Airstrikes aren't working, rebels aren't fucking working and civilians are dying everyday at the hands of ISIS.

We're never going to, that has zero public support and would be political suicide.

It would have almost 100% support in the Middle East, the public opinion that actually matters at the moment.

[Dain II Ironfoot]

I completely agree.


Honestly, public support from the US is the least one should think off nor does it hold any value as the majority has no clue on what is going on or how to solve it. The public support that actually matters would be the one from Iraq and/or Syria.

Public support from the US does matter to US politicians sending troops would be political suicide, no US politician is interested in that certainly not the President

It does not, wether or not there's a 100% or 0% public support, if war is on the agenda then war will come, or did you miss the whole propaganda flow after 9/11? The averange people of a nation are stupid and will believe any crap you put in front of them on a screen. Now looking at this conflict, the last relevant matter concerning a US invasion would be the public opinion of US citzens, period.

[Dain II Ironfoot]

I see no reason they couldn't, yes.



We're never going to, that has zero public support and would be political suicide.

It would have almost 100% support in the Middle East, the public opinion that actually matters at the moment.

Where did you got that number from? Last time i recalled Iraq and Syria both of them more or less hated america. IS probably only increased that hate as the US has played a big role in the establishment of IS.

[Migas999]

Public support from the US does matter to US politicians sending troops would be political suicide, no US politician is interested in that certainly not the President

It does not, wether or not there's a 100% or 0% public support, if war is on the agenda then war will come, or did you miss the whole propaganda flow after 9/11? The averange people of a nation are stupid and will believe any crap you put in front of them on a screen. Now looking at this conflict, the last relevant matter concerning a US invasion would be the public opinion of US citzens, period.

As a matter of fact I did miss the propaganda flow, I´m not from America, but it doesn´t matter I see what you´re saying.
If people believe in any crap in front of them then maybe it´s time to put something in front of them that makes them support the war so troops can be sent and ISIS dealt with

[Dain II Ironfoot]

It does not, wether or not there's a 100% or 0% public support, if war is on the agenda then war will come, or did you miss the whole propaganda flow after 9/11? The averange people of a nation are stupid and will believe any crap you put in front of them on a screen. Now looking at this conflict, the last relevant matter concerning a US invasion would be the public opinion of US citzens, period.

As a matter of fact I did miss the propaganda flow, I´m not from America, but it doesn´t matter I see what you´re saying.
If people believe in any crap in front of them then maybe it´s time to put something in front of them that makes them support the war so troops can be sent and ISIS dealt with

I'm not American either, but even over here in the Netherlands we got alot of that crap on TV.
Perhaps yeah, though there are barely any governments willing to fight IS directly, so that stuff won't appear on the screen in front of the people sadly. Aside from that, if there would be an actual intervention in Iraq and/or Syria, it should be a complete international one in my opinion.

[Blakk Metal]

Public support from the US does matter to US politicians sending troops would be political suicide, no US politician is interested in that certainly not the President

It does not, wether or not there's a 100% or 0% public support, if war is on the agenda then war will come, or did you miss the whole propaganda flow after 9/11? The averange people of a nation are stupid and will believe any crap you put in front of them on a screen.

Don't cut yourself with that edge.

[Saiwania]

It is possible to obtain a favorable outcome or at least a better one without sending ground troops, but it requires the Obama administration to stop doing the same things it has been doing but expecting a different result. A change in strategy is in order.

The primary flaws in what the US is currently doing is 1. The refusal to cooperate with Assad and treating him as hostile when quite simply he'd be the only best option for Syria, and 2. Supporting only Iraq's central government when they are proven to be ineffective and are fully in bed with Iran, and 3. Not adequately supporting the Peshmerga in their efforts to hold northern Iraq.

IS can be more rapidly crushed if 1. The US actually helps Assad win control over Syria in sending the necessary game changing equipment and lobby the help of Russia and China to do the same, being that it is in their interests as well to see a stable government in Syria. 2. Fully supporting the Peshmerga and ignoring Turkey if they object, quite frankly if Turkey is supporting IS- that country ought to be expelled out of NATO. If Peshmerga holds their territory in Iraq and Syria, they will be allowed to keep it as part of an independent Kurdistan. 3. Scale down support for Iraq's central government, only give the bare minimum of assistance because the lion's share of the help they're getting is from Iran and Iraq is only really interested in holding Shia territory.

The aim as I see it, is to reduce the area to be pacified to only the Sunni portion of Iraq and to have it crushed on all three sides by supporting whichever faction can best conquer territory. No more of this supporting the FSA nonsense. It should be solely about supporting those on our side with the potential to win and to quit backing losers because it is wasting resources. Future materiel aid should be tied to battlefield successes after it has been sent.

[Salus Maior]

Public support from the US does matter to US politicians sending troops would be political suicide, no US politician is interested in that certainly not the President

It does not, wether or not there's a 100% or 0% public support, if war is on the agenda then war will come, or did you miss the whole propaganda flow after 9/11? The averange people of a nation are stupid and will believe any crap you put in front of them on a screen. Now looking at this conflict, the last relevant matter concerning a US invasion would be the public opinion of US citzens, period.

That's what they thought during Vietnam, and look how that turned out.


Whether you realize it or not the war after 9/11 did have public support because WE WERE DIRECTLY ATTACKED. The current situation in the Middle East does not directly effect the U.S and thus does not have public support. Not to mention we just got out of there after 11 years or so of a failed occupation. The people are tired of U.S intervention in the Middle East and will not react well to us going back, hell I won't react well to us going back. Us intervening any more in Iraq is not what anyone wants and will just make things worse.

And to dismiss the element of public support in a war shows you're incredibly ignorant as to how wars have been won and lost in the past century or two.

[Ganos Lao]

For reference, since it's come, the DPRK already provides military support (logistics, supplies, and training) to Syria, one of the parties fighting IS. As well, unfortunately, two North Korean civilians have been captured by IS - fate unknown as of present.

So while they aren't a major party to this, as they are geographically isolated and certainly have other priorities, in a limited sense, the DPRK is providing support in the fight against IS.

~funfactoftheday~

It's the only good thing that the DPRK has ever done.

[Ganos Lao]

IS threatens Michigan and several other states.

They'd be better off focussing on Minnesota, where the Somali community isn't doing so well financially. Michigan's Arab-American community is firmly middle-class (it's been here for over 125 years, so there's been lots of opportunity for them to lay down entrepreneurial roots), and the Iranian community in this State isn't going to give ISIL the time of day.

They could also hit up Alberta, where the Somali community has been racked with a series of murders over the past several years. There's even a documentary about this. Over 30 young Somali-Canadian men have been murdered in Alberta since 2006. No doubt ISIS could capitalize on this somehow.

[The Romulan Republic]

Time to deploy soldiers on the ground. Airstrikes aren't working, rebels aren't fucking working and civilians are dying everyday at the hands of ISIS.

Those soldiers on the ground started the shit that led to IS in the first place. A new western invasion would only make things worse.

I think people are a bit mindless about this- its become some mantra that any western intervention will lead to disaster simply because a previous one did, regardless of any differences between the two situations or the fact that their were specific examples of abuse and grotesque incompetence that lead to the previous failure.

That said, I don't think things are yet at the point where a large scale deployment of ground troops would be justified.

[Jamzmania]

Those soldiers on the ground started the shit that led to IS in the first place. A new western invasion would only make things worse.

I think people are a bit mindless about this- its become some mantra that any western intervention will lead to disaster simply because a previous one did, regardless of any differences between the two situations or the fact that their were specific examples of abuse and grotesque incompetence that lead to the previous failure.

That said, I don't think things are yet at the point where a large scale deployment of ground troops would be justified.

The locals are either incompetent, Iranian, or unwilling. Our aimless air campaign (as well as the phantom 60-nation coalition) is doing little to stop ISIS. ISIS is expanding, committing daily atrocities as they go, and there are fears that they will soon be able to strike the homeland. What more justification is necessary?

[Imperial City-States]

I think people are a bit mindless about this- its become some mantra that any western intervention will lead to disaster simply because a previous one did, regardless of any differences between the two situations or the fact that their were specific examples of abuse and grotesque incompetence that lead to the previous failure.

That said, I don't think things are yet at the point where a large scale deployment of ground troops would be justified.

The locals are either incompetent, Iranian, or unwilling. Our aimless air campaign (as well as the phantom 60-nation coalition) is doing little to stop ISIS. ISIS is expanding, committing daily atrocities as they go, and there are fears that they will soon be able to strike the homeland. What more justification is necessary?

I don't think you quite understand exactly how much of an ordeal it is to deploy troops. Not even getting into the other ramifications.

[The Romulan Republic]

Actually, there is an argument that ISIS isn't doing nearly as well in Iraq as the hype would suggest.

www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32881854

People are freaking out because ISIS won a couple of battles and they're brutal fuckers. But I doubt you can point to any major war where the winning side had no setbacks. It doesn't mean we're losing or that the current strategy is inadequate.

Its even possible that fighting on the ground would play into ISISs' hands, as it would make it easier for them to kill western troops, be tremendously costly, and likely cost support for the war and allow ISIS to portray it as a western occupation.