Islamic State Crisis Megathread (ISIS/ISIL/IS) II

[Gauthier]

That's right. Out of character, in the real world, I am a Condista, not a "commander".

So my real-world battle-plan is authored "Supreme Allied Condista" as is my username in other political forums.

Only here in Nation States is my in-character username "Supreme Allied Commander".


The reality is we are not winning the war on terror with the current half-baked, inconsistent approach and so the terrorism will continue indefinitely.

Regime-changing all state sponsors of terrorism at least offers the prospect of a final victory and a resolution of the situation to a sustainable peace.

Do you have any idea how demented that idea is?

"Hey this war and all this shit that is happening escalated by a ridiculous amount because we in the past invaded and fucked up a lot of places is not going well.

So lets fucking invade the rest of the fucking region and spend years destroying our standing, morale and economy by sending forces to all of those countries to topple their governments and get bogged down in drawn out wars and lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers, civilians and others in the process! Yay for absolute fucking stupidity!"

Fucking honestly, this is some of the most daft and far gone from reality bullshit ive read in a good while.

The general idea is so mindblowingly stupid I can't help but wonder if this is just a performance artiste trying to get a reaction out of the forum.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Do you have any idea how demented that idea is?

"Hey this war and all this shit that is happening escalated by a ridiculous amount because we in the past invaded and fucked up a lot of places is not going well.

So lets fucking invade the rest of the fucking region and spend years destroying our standing, morale and economy by sending forces to all of those countries to topple their governments and get bogged down in drawn out wars and lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers, civilians and others in the process! Yay for absolute fucking stupidity!"

Fucking honestly, this is some of the most daft and far gone from reality bullshit ive read in a good while.

The general idea is so mindblowingly stupid I can't help but wonder if this is just a performance artiste trying to get a reaction out of the forum.

Yeah, Just because it might work possibly in a video game or some cheap alt history noevel does not mean it would work in Real life, if that was the case, half of Europe would be mine by now.

[Supreme Allied Commander]

So taking the Saudis source of tax revenue and TV propaganda is "doing them a favour"? Ridiculous. The Saudis would be regime-changed and we'd be doing the Arab street a favour by ridding them of their royalist oppressors.

Regime Changing Saudi Arabia. Did you confuse a game of Risk for real life? Assuming you're not a performance artiste doing this for lulz, the very idea of invading

Who said anything about "invading"? There's no plan to "invade" Arabia, simply establish a few bases which are easy to defend.

Point 1) of my strategy has already been quoted.

STRATEGY TO DEFEAT ISIS - by Supreme Allied Condista - Newsvine - http://supremealliedcondista.newsvine.com/_news/2015/08/13/33784668-strategy-to-defeat-isis

1) Overall strategy - the West needs to apply the Bush Doctrine to all state-sponsors of terrorism - Saudi Arabia & other Gulf monarchies, Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, Sudan, Iran and other dictator states - regime change them all.

Maybe now is the time to list all 6 points so that you can read that there is no plan to invade Arabia?

1) Overall strategy - the West needs to apply the Bush Doctrine to all state-sponsors of terrorism - Saudi Arabia & other Gulf monarchies, Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, Sudan, Iran and other dictator states - regime change them all.

2) Use stand off techniques more robustly - such as seizing control over state-sponsor-of-terrorism satellite-TV broadcasting (often supplied to Arab and North African state broadcasters by European satellite TV companies) and turning that propaganda weapon around and using it to promote democratic revolution through-out the region.

3) Impose the West as sole agents for all oil tanker export sales out of the Gulf. Seize all oil tankers exporting oil and sell the oil, depriving regimes of oil profits.

4) Now once you have an overall strategy in place, then you can look at specific military actions. Bombing prestige regime targets or threatening to if Al Baghdadi's head is not on a spike within 48 hours.

5) Partition Iraq & Syria. Iraq looks like it has to go three ways - Shia, Sunni & Kurds. If the 3 new states all want to join up together in an Iraq confederacy or union of some kind of their own free will, that's fine too.

6) Establish Western military bases in Iraq & Syria for training up the local armies. Better if we can supply them by sea or air rather than by long land routes which can have supply routes attacked by road side bombs and ambushes.

or instigating a coup in a hardcore Wahhabist den

It's only a Wahhabist "den" because the West gives the Saudi kingdom money and satellite TV which they use to control the country and gives nothing to opponents of Wahhabists.

If the Wahhabist's suddenly get no oil tax revenues and don't control satellite TV, the country is no longer for them a "den" but becomes a danger zone, as their opponents suddenly get all their money and all their air time on satellite TV.

especially where Mecca happens to be is nothing short of a "Come at me Bro" to the entire Muslim world.

No, we tell the Muslim world what it is - a pro-Muslim regime-change which will benefit the vast majority of Muslims. Since we'd control satellite TV we would not allow the Wahhabists on TV to misrepresent our regime change actions.

[Ganos Lao]

Who said anything about "invading"? There's no plan to "invade" Arabia, simply establish a few bases which are easy to defend.

You keep talking about regime changing Saudi Arabia. How do you do that? Just ask them nicely? Hey, guys, can you please be a republic that respects human rights and that, when we support you, doesn't make us look like massive hypocrites when we talk about how bad ISIS is? The Saudis will think their pet monkey's gone loco. The same can be said for any of the other countries you've listed as requiring a change in regimes.

1) Overall strategy - the West needs to apply the Bush Doctrine to all state-sponsors of terrorism - Saudi Arabia & other Gulf monarchies, Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, Sudan, Iran and other dictator states - regime change them all.

Egypt supports terrorism? When has Abdel Fattah el-Sisi supported terrorism? Also, and other dictator states? Does that include North Korea and Zimbabwe?

Also, the Bush Doctrine essentially calls for invasions. Notice this key speech from Bush himself:

We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

And:

We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long — Our security will require transforming the military you will lead — a military that must be ready to strike at a moment's notice in any dark corner of the world. And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives.

And, of course, it's easy for some politician to tweak the meaning of the word, terrorist....

Maybe now is the time to list all 6 points so that you can read that there is no plan to invade Arabia?

Invading would be the only way to compel them to change their ways, but since you insist, I shall dissect your plan accordingly.

1) Overall strategy - the West needs to apply the Bush Doctrine to all state-sponsors of terrorism - Saudi Arabia & other Gulf monarchies, Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, Sudan, Iran and other dictator states - regime change them all.

Already deconstructed this one.

2) Use stand off techniques more robustly - such as seizing control over state-sponsor-of-terrorism satellite-TV broadcasting (often supplied to Arab and North African state broadcasters by European satellite TV companies) and turning that propaganda weapon around and using it to promote democratic revolution through-out the region.

How do you seize control of them?

3) Impose the West as sole agents for all oil tanker export sales out of the Gulf. Seize all oil tankers exporting oil and sell the oil, depriving regimes of oil profits.

Acts of war are fun, aren't they? But it's almost like you think they won't defend their tankers and potentially throw everyone into some sort of conflict.

4) Now once you have an overall strategy in place, then you can look at specific military actions. Bombing prestige regime targets or threatening to if Al Baghdadi's head is not on a spike within 48 hours.

So essentially you're saying they should bomb the King of Saudi Arabia, etc's stuff if some guy whose location they don't know themselves isn't dealt with?

5) Partition Iraq & Syria. Iraq looks like it has to go three ways - Shia, Sunni & Kurds. If the 3 new states all want to join up together in an Iraq confederacy or union of some kind of their own free will, that's fine too.

History will record this as: "America fucked up the first time, and then they really fucked up this time."

6) Establish Western military bases in Iraq & Syria for training up the local armies. Better if we can supply them by sea or air rather than by long land routes which can have supply routes attacked by road side bombs and ambushes.

I get the whole wanting to change the world sentiment you got, but you're clearly delusional, son. I'm disappoint.

It's only a Wahhabist "den" because the West gives the Saudi kingdom money and satellite TV which they use to control the country and gives nothing to opponents of Wahhabists.

If the Wahhabist's suddenly get no oil tax revenues and don't control satellite TV, the country is no longer for them a "den" but becomes a danger zone, as their opponents suddenly get all their money and all their air time on satellite TV.

No, what happens is the money and air time goes to the US until Islamist radicals a la ISIS take both for themselves when they march into Riyadh and "cleanse" the holy cities of "infidels".

No, we tell the Muslim world what it is - a pro-Muslim regime-change which will benefit the vast majority of Muslims. Since we'd control satellite TV we would not allow the Wahhabists on TV to misrepresent our regime change actions.

I get the impression you think that America is like the British Empire of old. That's incompatible with the present state of things.

Do you have any idea how demented that idea is?

"Hey this war and all this shit that is happening escalated by a ridiculous amount because we in the past invaded and fucked up a lot of places is not going well.

So lets fucking invade the rest of the fucking region and spend years destroying our standing, morale and economy by sending forces to all of those countries to topple their governments and get bogged down in drawn out wars and lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers, civilians and others in the process! Yay for absolute fucking stupidity!"

Fucking honestly, this is some of the most daft and far gone from reality bullshit ive read in a good while.

The general idea is so mindblowingly stupid I can't help but wonder if this is just a performance artiste trying to get a reaction out of the forum.

Well, you have to be an artist and a madman, a creature of infinite apathy....

That's right. Out of character, in the real world, I am a Condista, not a "commander".

So my real-world battle-plan is authored "Supreme Allied Condista" as is my username in other political forums.

Only here in Nation States is my in-character username "Supreme Allied Commander".


The reality is we are not winning the war on terror with the current half-baked, inconsistent approach and so the terrorism will continue indefinitely.

Regime-changing all state sponsors of terrorism at least offers the prospect of a final victory and a resolution of the situation to a sustainable peace.

Do you have any idea how demented that idea is?

"Hey this war and all this shit that is happening escalated by a ridiculous amount because we in the past invaded and fucked up a lot of places is not going well.

So lets fucking invade the rest of the fucking region and spend years destroying our standing, morale and economy by sending forces to all of those countries to topple their governments and get bogged down in drawn out wars and lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers, civilians and others in the process! Yay for absolute fucking stupidity!"

Fucking honestly, this is some of the most daft and far gone from reality bullshit ive read in a good while.

All his plan would do is accelerate the process of the decline those in power already started a thousandfold.

So taking the Saudis source of tax revenue and TV propaganda is "doing them a favour"? Ridiculous. The Saudis would be regime-changed and we'd be doing the Arab street a favour by ridding them of their royalist oppressors.

Regime Changing Saudi Arabia. Did you confuse a game of Risk for real life? Assuming you're not a performance artiste doing this for lulz, the very idea of invading or instigating a coup in a hardcore Wahhabist den especially where Mecca happens to be is nothing short of a "Come at me Bro" to the entire Muslim world.

It can't be for lulz because I've seen this guy posting his plans all over the internet. He seriously believes this is the way to go and he wants Rice for President in real life.

Sorry but I don't have time to read all your nearly 10,000 posts. Either you debate point to point or lose the argument by default.

"You lose the argument by default," in this instance would mean "you lose the battle but ultimately win the war," because you can't justify your plan by saying "well, it must be good since Ganos won't debate it."

What aspect of my plan would fail? You reckon the US and allies would fail to seize oil tankers or satellites? That we would fail to end "business as usual" for the Saudis?

Your plan would utterly fail. It's the equivalent of trading Wayne Gretzky for a single seventh round pick. There'd be so much blood on your hands that you'd probably drown in it.

So taking the Saudis source of tax revenue and TV propaganda is "doing them a favour"? Ridiculous. The Saudis would be regime-changed and we'd be doing the Arab street a favour by ridding them of their royalist oppressors.

I take it you don't know the reality of the Saudi-American friendship.

[Supreme Allied Commander]

So lets fucking invade the rest of the fucking region and spend years destroying our standing, morale and economy by sending forces to all of those countries

Again, I repeat, there is no plan to "invade" all the countries on my regime-change list, like was done with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Admittedly, I've suggested up to 10,000 US and 10,000 European NATO forces could supplement a largely Turkish army invasion force to take Raqqa, the capital of ISIS, in Northern Syria.



However, I have placed such a proposed invasion in a wider strategy to defeat all the state sponsors of terrorism in the region- such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf kingdoms, who are sponsoring ISIS as a, so to speak, "barking guard-dog defence", to distract our attention so that we fixate on ISIS to the exclusion of the duplicitous states which are secretly sponsoring ISIS, drawing us away from applying pressure against state-sponsor of terrorism's sensitive areas of aid and trade.

For most of the countries on my regime-change list, I don't propose any invasion. Simply changing our conditions for aid and trade can provide sufficient pressure to countries to force or embarrass them to carry out their own regime-change.

[Supreme Allied Commander]

Who said anything about "invading"? There's no plan to "invade" Arabia, simply establish a few bases which are easy to defend.

You keep talking about regime changing Saudi Arabia. How do you do that?

Points 2), 3) and 4) of my strategy.

2) Use stand off techniques more robustly - such as seizing control over state-sponsor-of-terrorism satellite-TV broadcasting (often supplied to Arab and North African state broadcasters by European satellite TV companies) and turning that propaganda weapon around and using it to promote democratic revolution through-out the region.

3) Impose the West as sole agents for all oil tanker export sales out of the Gulf. Seize all oil tankers exporting oil and sell the oil, depriving regimes of oil profits.

4) Now once you have an overall strategy in place, then you can look at specific military actions. Bombing prestige regime targets or threatening to if Al Baghdadi's head is not on a spike within 48 hours.

Just ask them nicely?

No. Points 2), 3) and 4) of my strategy are what they are but they are not "just ask nicely" or anything else you misconstrue them to be.

1) Overall strategy - the West needs to apply the Bush Doctrine to all state-sponsors of terrorism - Saudi Arabia & other Gulf monarchies, Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, Sudan, Iran and other dictator states - regime change them all.

Egypt supports terrorism?

Covertly, yes.

For example, broadcasting terror TV like al-Zawraa on NileSat the Egyptian state TV satellite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Zawraa_TV

Link to helpful graphic to explain how Egypt's good-dictator / bad-terrorist routine, like a good-cop, bad-cop routine manipulates the stupid US to pay Egypt to "help stop" terrorism which Egypt itself has deliberately stoked up.


Click for big image - http://s5.postimg.org/fdvzoyew7/mapof_USAvs_Egypt1222.jpg

Modified CBS News report making the satirical point that it is strange indeed the US pays military aid to Egypt while it sponsors terrorism on its state satellites.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxLSVF3T1nI - YouTube - Iraq X-File: USA vs USA (1) Support satellite terror TV NOT!

It's the same kind of protection racket which the Pakistani military employs also to extort military aid from the US. There is more evidence available of how Pakistani military intelligence organise the recruitment, training and equipping of the Taliban terrorist forces which attack US and allied forces in Afghanistan. Yemen has done this too, as I expect Egypt does it. But it is all done covertly, so evidence is hard to winkle out.

When has Abdel Fattah el-Sisi supported terrorism?

When Uncle Sam pays big bucks to watch the same old old "good dictator / bad terrorist" routine.

Sisi is not Mubarak but is just a new dictator playing Mubarak's same old protection racket tricks on the foolish US.

[Seraven]

So lets fucking invade the rest of the fucking region and spend years destroying our standing, morale and economy by sending forces to all of those countries

Again, I repeat, there is no plan to "invade" all the countries on my regime-change list, like was done with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Admittedly, I've suggested up to 10,000 US and 10,000 European NATO forces could supplement a largely Turkish army invasion force to take Raqqa, the capital of ISIS, in Northern Syria.



However, I have placed such a proposed invasion in a wider strategy to defeat all the state sponsors of terrorism in the region- such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf kingdoms, who are sponsoring ISIS as a, so to speak, "barking guard-dog defence", to distract our attention so that we fixate on ISIS to the exclusion of the duplicitous states which are secretly sponsoring ISIS, drawing us away from applying pressure against state-sponsor of terrorism's sensitive areas of aid and trade.

For most of the countries on my regime-change list, I don't propose any invasion. Simply changing our conditions for aid and trade can provide sufficient pressure to countries to force or embarrass them to carry out their own regime-change.

What? Are you expecting those countries to suddenly surrendering just because USA changing conditions for aid and trade to provide pressure to countries to force them to regime-change? Haven't you ever heard of black market, smuggling, trading with other countries?

You don't honestly expect USA is the only major trading partner for Middle East nations, right? You don't count China? European Union? India? Countries in Asia?

[The Huskar Social Union]

Sure America can just regime change them as well, as we all know America only has to say and every country in the world will go for it because fuck logic and actual understanding on how countries function.

[Pulau Singapura]

Sure America can just regime change them as well, as we all know America only has to say and every country in the world will go for it because fuck logic and actual understanding on how countries function.

Sadly, true.

Can't America just stop babying the whole world? The only "intervention" they should be doing now is airstrikes against IS, like what Russia does.

[Uxupox]

Sure America can just regime change them as well, as we all know America only has to say and every country in the world will go for it because fuck logic and actual understanding on how countries function.

Sadly, true.

Can't America just stop babying the whole world? The only "intervention" they should be doing now is airstrikes against IS, like what Russia does.

I also definitely believe that the US should practice isolationism. Let the world fuck themselves up and let themselves clean up their own mess.

[Gauthier]

Sadly, true.

Can't America just stop babying the whole world? The only "intervention" they should be doing now is airstrikes against IS, like what Russia does.

I also definitely believe that the US should practice isolationism. Let the world fuck themselves up and let themselves clean up their own mess.

Because a United States that has practically ditched all its manufacturing infrastructure and cockblocked attempts at alternative energy research can afford to completely seal itself off from the rest of the world.

[Korhal IVV]

http://www.nationstates.net/region=isla ... _and_syria

I don't know if this region is really ISIS members in NS... But... Ugh...

[Pulau Singapura]

http://www.nationstates.net/region=islamic_state_in_iraq_and_syria

I don't know if this region is really ISIS members in NS... But... Ugh...

Holy shit that's pretty freaky ._. Worse than The Red Fleet/Nazi Europa, it seems(except they don't raid...yet)

[Uxupox]

I also definitely believe that the US should practice isolationism. Let the world fuck themselves up and let themselves clean up their own mess.

Because a United States that has practically ditched all its manufacturing infrastructure and cockblocked attempts at alternative energy research can afford to completely seal itself off from the rest of the world.

Just saying it is an idea to do.

[Saiwania]

Can't America just stop babying the whole world? The only "intervention" they should be doing now is airstrikes against IS, like what Russia does.

Even the "airstrike only" route isn't going well under Obama. And the US is capable of intervening far more than is being done right now, short of invading with ground troops.

I propose delivering equipment to the belligerents which have a track record of winning battles against ISIS. Right now arms are only being supplied to Iraq's central government, when more of the equipment needs to go to the Peshmerga. Syria needs help but can afford to get less of it, because they're getting help from Russia. Iraq needs help but can afford to get less because they get help from Iran. So this leaves the Kurds as the ones that can really take away ISIS' northern flank if only they got the help they needed beyond just airstrikes.

Syria, Iraq, and the Peshmerga do not need more small arms to turn the tide, what they need is more main battle tanks and other armored units and artillery pieces, real weaponry that can smash through any ISIS lines they come up against and really scorch earth the entire front.

[Ganos Lao]

http://www.nationstates.net/region=islamic_state_in_iraq_and_syria

I don't know if this region is really ISIS members in NS... But... Ugh...

It's probably all in character. If it's real (and if so, I'm surprised I don't see Lyrova, NSG's (he even called himself a ISIS member in his sig) ISIS fanboy from Iraq itself), then I suspect the mods would crack down on it like they did that Greater German Reich region.

I propose delivering equipment to the belligerents which have a track record of winning battles against ISIS. Right now arms are only being supplied to Iraq's central government, when more of the equipment needs to go to the Peshmerga.

You know why it's not going to the Peshmerga more? Because the American government is going to throw them aside in favor of propping up Iraq as a viable nationstate. That's why they're not giving the Peshmerga anything of real use, because then that equipment, a la ISIS, will be turned at American interests when said interests decide that Iraqi Kurdistan is forever a part of Iraq. Do people honestly believe that the Iraqi government and their American buddies will just stand by and let the Kurds go? Please. They (America, the West, etc) didn't do that after Saddam gassed the whole bunch with reckless impunity, so what's the difference now? And even if they do, guaranteed Uncle Sam fucks it up somehow and the West will lap up the excuses as "well, they were dealing with terrorists and such anyway," while the region's people are once again trying to break into Europe.

People like to tout that the whole "unconditionally open immigration" thing is what's getting all these migrants into Europe, but in reality, it's also the whole "hey, we fucked their countries up really good with our meddling" thing too. And that's not to say that the West is solely to blame, but rather the West aggravated the bullshit that the region's inept leadership instigated to begin with. Like fuel onto the fire, really.

Syria needs help but can afford to get less of it, because they're getting help from Russia. Iraq needs help but can afford to get less because they get help from Iran. So this leaves the Kurds as the ones that can really take away ISIS' northern flank if only they got the help they needed beyond just airstrikes.

The airstrikes only strategy is code word for "we're too scared the public will think we all need to be impeached if we do anything more that we're going back there a la 2003," and combined with the likely fact that they really don't have any ideas on how to defeat these guys anyway, it makes for a toxic combination. Besides, like I've said before, when are we going to have a real and frank discussion about regional affairs after ISIS? When are the powers that be going to sit down and say to each other, "So what do we do after we beat these guys?" because the last time they went into the region without any real plan, they ended up provoking the rise of ISIS in the first place. Need I remind you that ISIS has been around since 1999 and was originally the group led by al-Zarqawi in the Iraqi insurgency? ISIS didn't just spontaneously appear out of the blue.

Syria, Iraq, and the Peshmerga do not need more small arms to turn the tide, what they need is more main battle tanks and other armored units and artillery pieces, real weaponry that can smash through any ISIS lines they come up against and really scorch earth the entire front.

Syria will never get that because America wants Assad gone (hence why Russia's propping him up - Putin wants to get back at America for their support of Ukraine in the Crimea)
Iraq probably will once ISIS is dealt with to deal with the pesky Kurdish separatists.
And the Kurds will be betrayed once again, and America will lose its only real ally in the region after Israel.

[Reiynstan]

http://www.nationstates.net/region=islamic_state_in_iraq_and_syria

I don't know if this region is really ISIS members in NS... But... Ugh...

It's probably all in character. If it's real (and if so, I'm surprised I don't see Lyrova, NSG's (he even called himself a ISIS member in his sig) ISIS fanboy from Iraq itself), then I suspect the mods would crack down on it like they did that Greater German Reich region.

Hopefully in-character, yes. Unfortunately, any political simulation game is bound to draw in people with radical beliefs, however unrealistic the game may seem.

[Ganos Lao]

Sure America can just regime change them as well, as we all know America only has to say and every country in the world will go for it because fuck logic and actual understanding on how countries function.

This is exactly what I was talking about in my earlier posts. Pretty much sums up the entire situation at hand. We are inbound for a clusterfuck of titanic purportions all because of this cheerleading for Uncle Sam nonsense.

[Ganos Lao]

Sure America can just regime change them as well, as we all know America only has to say and every country in the world will go for it because fuck logic and actual understanding on how countries function.

Sadly, true.

Can't America just stop babying the whole world? The only "intervention" they should be doing now is airstrikes against IS, like what Russia does.

Yeah, because it's not like groups like IS will try to launch attacks against American interests anyway. It doesn't matter if you were isolationist or not. Your very existence offends some people's sensibilities enough that they want to kill you.

Sadly, true.

Can't America just stop babying the whole world? The only "intervention" they should be doing now is airstrikes against IS, like what Russia does.

I also definitely believe that the US should practice isolationism. Let the world fuck themselves up and let themselves clean up their own mess.

"Nice mess. Sorry about how we added to it and all over the past several years, maybe even decades, but you have to clean it all up now, you hear? I got to go watch Monday Night Football and ogle the cheerleaders. See ya!"

I also definitely believe that the US should practice isolationism. Let the world fuck themselves up and let themselves clean up their own mess.

Because a United States that has practically ditched all its manufacturing infrastructure and cockblocked attempts at alternative energy research can afford to completely seal itself off from the rest of the world.

YOLO, man.

Because a United States that has practically ditched all its manufacturing infrastructure and cockblocked attempts at alternative energy research can afford to completely seal itself off from the rest of the world.

Just saying it is an idea to do.

And Gauthier's just saying why it's a bad idea.

[Ganos Lao]

What? Are you expecting those countries to suddenly surrendering just because USA changing conditions for aid and trade to provide pressure to countries to force them to regime-change? Haven't you ever heard of black market, smuggling, trading with other countries?

You don't honestly expect USA is the only major trading partner for Middle East nations, right? You don't count China? European Union? India? Countries in Asia?

Just as I thought. This guy literally thinks the USA is the British Empire of its time, where it can do anything with impunity because fuck it, we're the US/British Empire! Fuck yeah!/Huzzah!

It'd be funny if it weren't so tragic that the powers that be are composed of people just like him.

[Uxupox]

Just saying it is an idea to do.

And Gauthier's just saying why it's a bad idea.

Practicing isolationism does not necessarily mean cutting off trade with the rest of the world. The United States practiced it back then why can't it go back now (Obviously doing so would be unrealistic but not un-achievable).

[Ganos Lao]

And Gauthier's just saying why it's a bad idea.

Practicing isolationism does not necessarily mean cutting off trade with the rest of the world. The United States practiced it back then why can't it go back now (Obviously doing so would be unrealistic but not un-achievable).

Because it's not that easy, especially when "isolationism" means a variety of things to a variety of people. And, like I said, it's not like the terrorists won't stop trying to kill you. Your very existence offends them.

[Valaran]

So lets fucking invade the rest of the fucking region and spend years destroying our standing, morale and economy by sending forces to all of those countries

Again, I repeat, there is no plan to "invade" all the countries on my regime-change list, like was done with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Admittedly, I've suggested up to 10,000 US and 10,000 European NATO forces could supplement a largely Turkish army invasion force to take Raqqa, the capital of ISIS, in Northern Syria.

Just to say: the Turks don't have any intention or desire to do this whatsoever.

Secondly, what would we do once we have Raqqa (I'm not dealing with the casualties and difficulties involved in conducting such an operation, since that's a whole other kettle of fish)? This would hurt IS, but not cripple it; other places like Mosul are more important centres, and focusing on territory at all misunderstands IS' strategies and modus operandi.

How would this help us, and not say, instead mire us in a situation where our forces become a target. How could we ensure that the region goes away from IS, and who would it go to instead (this isn;t a Kurdish area)? What realistic endgame could we have by doing this, other than another Iraq situation, except without a proper govt. to prop up as we leave, and an undiminished terror threat?

This would seem to entirely play into IS' hands. They could bog down western forces there and start to kill them, allowing them to manipulate western public opinion again while rallying more support to their cause against infidel oppressors. Equally, their overall situation would not have greatly worsened, since they are territorially flexible. We'd be the ones overstretched and vulnerable in such a position.

[Valaran]

The United States practiced it back then why can't it go back now

When precisely would you mean by this? Because the most recent bout of US isolationism happened to be in the 1920s and 30s. I'd argue that didn't go so well.

I'd also point that just because something happened in the past, does not make it a good policy to follow now.

[Uxupox]

Practicing isolationism does not necessarily mean cutting off trade with the rest of the world. The United States practiced it back then why can't it go back now (Obviously doing so would be unrealistic but not un-achievable).

Because it's not that easy, especially when "isolationism" means a variety of things to a variety of people. And, like I said, it's not like the terrorists won't stop trying to kill you. Your very existence offends them.

I did say it would be unrealistic scenario but it is achievable.

The United States practiced it back then why can't it go back now

When precisely would you mean by this? Because the most recent bout of US isolationism happened to be in the 1920s and 30s. I'd argue that didn't go so well.

I'd also point that just because something happened in the past, does not make it a good policy to follow now.

What do you mean by it didn't go well?