SHOULD ISIS BE STOPED?

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 03 Sep 2014, 00:14

Ok should the rest of the world be alarmed at the rise of ISIS and take action to stop their progress? More to follow based on your answers.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 03 Sep 2014, 00:24

ISIS are a monster of the West's making. Or, that is to say, their rise to prominence is the West's making. There has, of course, always been an extreme strand of Islam that is geographically particular to that specific region of the world. But, it has largely been held in check by relative prosperity and stability and also by strong-arm and relatively secular leaders. Our various political and military adventures in the region have led, over the course of many decades, to the mess that now exists.

But, we are where we are. We should ignore and/or contain where possible and only intervene in extremis where absolutely necessary. Stability is all that matters now. It doesn't matter any more who is in charge over there as long as the region is stable. It was stable with Hussein. It was stable with al-Assad. As ever, our elites over here are responsible for all of this now more or less intractable mess. As ever, it will not be their blood or blood of their sons who pay the price.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 03 Sep 2014, 00:57

stevecook172001 wrote:ISIS are a monster of the West's making. Or, that is to say, their rise to prominence is the West's making. There has, of course, always been an extreme strand of Islam that is geographically particular to that specific region of the world. But, it has largely been held in check by relative prosperity and stability and also by strong-arm and relatively secular leaders. Our various political and military adventures in the region have led, over the course of many decades, to the mess that now exists.

But, we are where we are. We should ignore and/or contain where possible and only intervene in extremis where absolutely necessary. Stability is all that matters now. It doesn't matter any more who is in charge over there as long as the region is stable. It was stable with Hussein. It was stable with al-Assad. As ever, our elites over here are responsible for all of this now more or less intractable mess. As ever, it will not be their blood or blood of their sons who pay the price.

Sometime a simple YES or NO would serve better.

Mr. Fox · Post by **Mr. Fox** » 03 Sep 2014, 01:52

Why should they be stoped? Are you just trying to undermine their position?

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 03 Sep 2014, 02:53

Mr. Fox wrote:Why should they be stoped? Are you just trying to undermine their position?

Is that a NO?

Mr. Fox · Post by **Mr. Fox** » 03 Sep 2014, 03:25

Perhaps you should take the time to get to know the bedrock upon which they build their foundations, try to understand their underlying stratagy.

We can't just sit and whinze about them, else we've 'adit.

I'm going to stop, now, before I'm ladderway in chains, but I hope you get my drift.

Is this your homework for the NATO summit, BTW?

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 03 Sep 2014, 03:30

Mr. Fox wrote:Perhaps you should take the time to get to know the bedrock upon which they build their foundations, try to understand their underlying stratagy.

We can't just sit and whinze about them, else we've 'adit.

I'm going to stop, now, before I'm ladderway in chains, but I hope you get my drift.

Is this your homework for the NATO summit, BTW?

So you think they have a point and should be negotiated with?

Mr. Fox · Post by **Mr. Fox** » 03 Sep 2014, 03:33

Well, we wouldn't want to shaft any chance we had of drilling down on to the core of the issue.

If you refuse to negotiate, isn't that just sinking to their level?

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 03 Sep 2014, 03:58

Mr. Fox wrote:Well, we wouldn't want to shaft any chance we had of drilling down on to the core of the issue.

If you refuse to negotiate, isn't that just sinking to their level?

Should ISIS be stopped? Yes or NO? At their level I think this will do.

Mr. Fox · Post by **Mr. Fox** » 03 Sep 2014, 04:19

Ah, 'stopped'. I was just thinking that this thread is the pits.

Stoped by who, exactly?

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 03 Sep 2014, 11:12

vtsnowedin wrote:
Mr. Fox wrote:Why should they be stoped? Are you just trying to undermine their position?
Is that a NO?

No, it was a joke. He's taking the mickey out your spelling.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 03 Sep 2014, 11:20

Should ISIS be stopPed?

No, a simple yes/no answer will not suffice.

HOW could ISIS be stopped?
What would be the final outcome if we tried to stop them?

Look at what happened in Iraq, and is still likely to happen in Afghanistan. What the western world cannot do is go into Islamic countries, topple the existing powers, and expect that whatever ends up replacing it when we leave is going to be any better than what we toppled/stopped. Not so long ago the western leaders were claiming Assad was the worst thing. Gaddafi was the worst thing. Saddam was the worst thing. Unless we (the west) are going to occupy long-term and rule these places then it looks like they are going to end up in the control of either ruthless dictators (who are likely to hate us) or Islamic extremists (who will definitely hate us). Given that this is the case, what is the point in intervening? That just makes them hate us even more.

I don't see what can be done to stop ISIS apart from dropping some bombs on them, which won't actually stop them. It would be a bit like poking a stick into a wasp's nest. Might kill a few wasps...

Mr. Fox · Post by **Mr. Fox** » 03 Sep 2014, 11:25

UndercoverElephant wrote:No, it was a joke. He's taking the mickey out your spelling.

Spoilsport.

To be fair, UE, I was taking the Mick out of core beliefs, bi-polar thinking and unwillingness to click a link as well.

15-nil I make it...

Victory is mine!

(ok, 16)

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 03 Sep 2014, 11:53

ISIS is a brutal regime, and my reading of history is that such regimes are generally short lived. They often come into existence when a long term suppressed social grouping or people get desperate and resort to extreme measures that bring quick, but short lived, real improvements in resource supplies. However, this is usually by looting the stored resources of their blood spattered foes. There is some comment about ISIS putting in social structures in the regions they control, but these seem deeply divisive, and basically amount to looting the resources of any other minority in the region.

If they run out of enemies to loot, or they are constrained by better armed foes, they tend to run out of steam fairly quickly, start fighting among themselves, and die or fade away.

I think restraint is the best option. Limit their advances and target their key resources. In a couple of years they will begin to fall apart from within.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 03 Sep 2014, 12:42

My terrible spelling and typing aside. I would like to get to the question. If you decide that ISIS should be stopped, contained , eradicated or exterminated. Then we can move on to the question of who and how to accomplish said goal. Standing aside and letting ISIS run roughshod over a large part of the middle east for a decade or more would not be a good choice for the other people in the region.