Most Britons think ISIS is getting more powerful and would back stronger military action against the - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Chopstick;47789743]I'll tell you one thing, you'd have a better chance of me signing your birthday card than contributing towards any war effort, but sure the lecture is appreciated.[/QUOTE] History has taught us time and time again that leaving shit alone isn't necessarily the best course of action. Take Pearl Harbor or the sinking of The Lusitania prior to the US entering WWI for example. If you let it fester or don't handle it correctly, said problem will come back and bite you.

[QUOTE=Michael haxz;47793352]History has taught us time and time again that leaving shit alone isn't necessarily the best course of action. Take Pearl Harbor or the sinking of The Lusitania prior to the US entering WWI for example. If you let it fester or don't handle it correctly, said problem will come back and bite you.[/QUOTE] The Lusitania is a bad example to use.

[QUOTE=Chopstick;47789293]Suppose that we did something about ISIS, what's in it for us?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Chopstick;47789743]I'll tell you one thing, you'd have a better chance of me signing your birthday card than contributing towards any war effort, but sure the lecture is appreciated.[/QUOTE] imagine what ISIS would do if they had nukes, or even just anything bigger than what they have I think dying should be incentive enough to at least PRETEND to care [editline]24th May 2015[/editline] and the fact that you actually think war should benefit the country dishing it out is actually completely fucking sick, shame on you. What is your problem?

At this point it'd be political suicide for a US politician to suggest a ground offensive in the Middle East. However it seems to me that coordinated air strikes is only doing so much. In all honesty was IS inevitable or was it truly caused by American presence in Iraq for a decade? IMO, something more needs to be done before idiots like Santorum, who want to bomb everything, start making sense.

[QUOTE=Dempsey;47794247] In all honesty was IS inevitable or was it truly caused by American presence in Iraq for a decade? [/QUOTE] We groomed it into a group of significance, but the group had been created in its prior form before the US invaded Iraq. The occupation galvanized jihadi groups toward Iraq in a big way, and this group flourished to a point, but what really gave it its large control that we see today is the chaos that erupted in Syria (where the Islamic State has and still does have better luck in fighting than in Iraq) and the Shia government of Iraq's treatment of Sunnis. During the US occupation, a thing called the "Sunni Awakening" happened, where hundreds of Sunni militias helped and fought alongside the US government to get rid of jihad groups in western Iraq. They were quite successful, but when the US withdrew, the Iraqi government controlled by Maliki and majority Shi'ites, proclaimed that those militias were illegal and had to give up their arms, despite the fact that they had helped the US and that government just a couple years prior. This pissed off [I]a lot[/I] of Sunnis in Iraq which then threw their support to the Islamic State, the only safe place for Sunnis in a Shia dominated country. Of course, you still have the fact that when the US invaded, it completely tore out the military and government structure and command, even if they were honestly not guilty of any atrocities and left them jobless - which a jihadi group looking for military experience and leadership skills would gobble up without complaint.

[QUOTE=Chopstick;47789293]Suppose that we did something about ISIS, what's in it for us?[/QUOTE] We aren't mercenaries mate. The military dies and kills so that others may live

[QUOTE=Michael haxz;47793352]History has taught us time and time again that leaving shit alone isn't necessarily the best course of action. Take Pearl Harbor or the sinking of The Lusitania prior to the US entering WWI for example. If you let it fester or don't handle it correctly, said problem will come back and bite you.[/QUOTE] But time and time again, we've intervened in the Middle East and we seem to have made things get worse every time. Of course, we have no way of knowing if things would have been even worse had we not intervened, but it's certainly not a 'DEFINITELY PUT BOOTS ON THE GROUND' thing, although it's not a 'NEVER IN A BILLION YEARS' thing either.

[QUOTE=Chopstick;47789293]Suppose that we did something about ISIS, what's in it for us?[/QUOTE] Getting the Media to shut up about them so we can get informed about more pressing and important things about our own country.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;47793074]At this point its basically damned if you do or don't. We can never really get rid of the underpinnings that cause such terrorist groups to form or re-form after going underground in the event of a catastrophic failure or defeat, but we can try to keep them off-balance enough in the long term that they can't cause major incidents, or at least that's how I see it. They'll always have a pool of both willing recruits and brainwashed individuals who're ready to die for their causes, so there's that. Though really, at this stage, it would be too much for hoping that we'd ever completely be rid of the spectre of terrorism, even in the unlikely event of radicalism being completely destabilized as an ideology.[/QUOTE] If you are damned if you do it or not. You might as well just do it. It's a shitty situation but goddamnit leaving it alone will just make it much worse.

[QUOTE=Chopstick;47789293]Suppose that we did something about ISIS, what's in it for us?[/QUOTE] More debt and another pointless war in Iraq.

For every person in the middle east we kill, they've got family members that will be mad and blame the west. We should never have gotten involved.

[QUOTE=Flapadar;47795180]For every person in the middle east we kill, they've got family members that will be mad and blame the west. We should never have gotten involved.[/QUOTE] Where if the west stays out of it they kill each other..... Sometimes nothing the best option.

[QUOTE=SuicideZ;47789543]You could help possibly stabilizing the Middle East? Britain is at least partly to blame for some of the problems in that region.[/QUOTE] worked out great the last dozen times we tried i don't get the reasoning "the middle east is shit because of british military occupation and badly-drawn borders" "therefore britain needs to help via a military occupation and re-drawing the borders!"

this whole situation reminds me of vietnam, which US intervention started with air strikes, then advisers on the ground and finally full troop deployment. The first two have already happened, wont be long until the US and its allies deploy a "small" amount of troops to the fight

[QUOTE=Chopstick;47789293]Suppose that we did something about ISIS, what's in it for us?[/QUOTE] Prestige. And Prestige is what helps people agree with you without having to flex your political muscles too much.

[QUOTE=Chopstick;47789293]Suppose that we did something about ISIS, what's in it for us?[/QUOTE] Y'know, I'd actually like to live in a timeline where the middle east wasn't all fucked up due to one group of fiends or another, and thats without mentioning that I'd like to live in a world where you don't fear fanatic suicide bombers. Not that its a big fear or anything but...

[QUOTE=gamefighterx;47798873]this whole situation reminds me of vietnam, which US intervention started with air strikes, then advisers on the ground and finally full troop deployment. The first two have already happened, wont be long until the US and its allies deploy a "small" amount of troops to the fight[/QUOTE] How did Vietnam War turn out? I mean if the same pattern is happening, it must mean doing the same thing leads to success right? Sarcasm aside, this is what I am thinking too.... Its a pattern I noticed. Korean War. Vietnam. Most wars where the us came in first were not successful. However, during the two world wars, america was a late comer to the party, after everyone exhausted themselves. America won those wars.....

[QUOTE=gamefighterx;47798873]this whole situation reminds me of vietnam, which US intervention started with air strikes, then advisers on the ground and finally full troop deployment. The first two have already happened, wont be long until the US and its allies deploy a "small" amount of troops to the fight[/QUOTE] At what point is it a just cause?