It is a false dilemma in some ways because there ARE other alternatives, such as a propaganda war, but on the face of it a military response seems the most likely alternative to just throwing in the towel.
What do you think? Are we going to end up committing soldiers to fight ISIS and take their territory away from them.
And by "we," I don't necessarily mean the United States. ISIS is a lot more at Europe's and Asia's backdoor than the US's.
After a LOT of thought, my opinion is that the Muslim world has to deal with ISIS. We in the ''west'' can't go in and begin blasting other Muslims without creating more resentment and troubles around the world.
Hi there, the ISIS army fight against the rest of the world is similar to the old Roman Empire Army. That is death for failure and take slaves only and kill the rest.
When asked what is best in life, Conan the Barbarian famously said "To crush your enemies -- See them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!"
ISIS think they are invincible with their version of god helping them in war & sending them to some awaiting paradise with spas & virgins if they die.
It is hard to fight an ideology founded on faith, they are brainwashed from birth as are most of our theists.
Some facts are starkly obvious letting them get more successful & control more area, resources & people is not an option, hoping they will go away is not another.
Sending a lot more of them to paradise seems the only solution, as soon as possible.
Hi there, the ISIS are hoping that the United States sends in troops against them as this would make it easy for them to get atomic weapons underhand. this would make it possible to take over the Saudi oil fields and control the price of oil.
How would introducing US troops give ISIS atomic weapons. You skipped right over explaining that.
I suspect that if they took over the oil fields, we'd find a way to make that not worth their while.
It came out today that while we have a program to train Syrian dissidents to fight ISIS in Syria, they have to promise not to fight Assad. Result, we've only trained about 60, not the thousands and thousands we were prepared to train.
WTF, are we protecting Assad now?
Here's the reasoning given by the State Dept.:
U.S. officials say the “ISIL-first” strategy is essential because without a political structure in place to replace Assad if he died or left power, chaos in Syria would worsen and the state would fail, like in Libya.
But many Syrians who have been brutalized in the civil war bear more animus toward Assad than toward ISIL, which is one reason why the “ISIL-first” commitment has winnowed out so many people who came forward.
Full article here.
Hi there, one could say that Syria is already a failed state and now in the hands of ISIS, the start of their new empire. The odds of getting the Saudi oil fields are very good, then they control the main body of the ISLAMIC RELIGION, with the sacred stone in the desert near the oil fields. Then they can buy lots of atomic weapons and triple the size of their army.
Except, I think that before that happens someone will do something to keep it from happening.