Voices
in
Japan

poll

Can Islamic State be eradicated by military means?

75 Comments
© Japan Today

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

75 Comments
Login to comment

Yes, of course it can,.. but at what cost and is it worth it? And what will fill the vacuum when ISIS is gone? I also think collecting all the young jihadis from around the world to one convenient place where they can be identified or killed is one reason that the US has allowed ISIS to continue.

4 ( +6 / -3 )

They only know disrespect, torture and death. They don't exhibit civility at all. Women are almost livestock. They tech kids to hate and kill. ......purge them!

2 ( +6 / -5 )

It seems to be Yes but it would take a couple of hundreds or thousands of years!

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

I voted no because it is an ideological battle, not a military one,.

6 ( +9 / -4 )

Saddam invading Kuwait and the response seems like teddy bears picnic now. If only it all stopped there. However......

0 ( +4 / -4 )

You can destroy physical things with physical things and incorporeal things with incorporeal things. I think the IS organization can be destroyed, but the jihadi mindset is one that can only be defeated by phasing out that ideology. As the older generations die out and the new ones come, hopefully change can be allowed to occur. But that's just one of the factors needed to end this kind of violence.

3 ( +2 / -1 )

It is ideological but to ignore them allows them to flourish. To attempt to destroy them they'll recognize the ideology is out of time and place.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Not unless nukes and genocide are involved... And nobody (except for ISIS themselves) want that.

0 ( +2 / -3 )

Why not but it will be a long-term fight with an organization that has a track record of success.

0 ( +1 / -2 )

'To attempt to destroy them they'll recognize the ideology is out of time and place.'

I see. Butchering religious crackpots who saw a hundred thousand dead after the infidels intervened last time will suddenly realise that what they really need is a looser interpretation of Islam and an inclusive democracy?

Were you an adviser to the last president?

-3 ( +1 / -5 )

Easily. The problem is the political class of the world would actually have to admit not all violent thugs have a legitimate reason to be thugs. Right now, as Isis Burns a man alive, rapes women after enslaving them, the rest of the world condemns the act but then starts blaming it on the western world. Because the world politicians will not conclude the culture which produced Isis is a dysfunctional 7th century problem, the world politicians will not take real military action.

The reason is the world politicians are themselves corrupt and a problem too, so if Isis is judged, so might other politicians.

So they instead pretend Isis has a legitimate greivance and are merely excessive. No need for military action. Even though the only action is military. A number of countries could take out Isis.

What can be predicted is Isis or another group of Islamic animals will attack a country like Russia or China, the uk, some country with the means and backbone to retaliate and that retaliation will likely turn the countries of the former Islamic empire into parking lots.

1 ( +2 / -3 )

Not entirely, but you can create some big headaches for them, while diminishing their ability to do mischief.

0 ( +3 / -4 )

There's no doubt that a concerted campaign with sufficient numbers of properly trained and equipped troops could wipe out IS. Ramadi was lost due to poor training and morale only, not because of lack of equipment or troop numbers - this was a failure of government command. The Kurds are already making, and holding, substantial gains against IS in the North - and they aren't even that well-equipped, but they have good morale and discipline, plus air support. Before too long, they'll be knocking on the gates of Raqqa - invincible IS? Nope, don't think so - when they face disciplined, trained troops, their strategy will not work.

As we know, the current US administration doesn't want to commit US troops to this fight, except in a training and support role, which in a way is a pity because the enemy is so much more worthy of the attention of a few thousand Marines than the previous insurgency in Iraq, and would probably have a lot more support.

The eventual defeat of islamic state is inevitable, even if the fight is left to the Iraqis and the Kurds, with coalition support. In the end, no one wants to live under their brand of ultra-violent bigotry and they have, pretty stupidly, made enemies out of everyone. They are not a viable model for a real-world state, no matter what their propaganda tries to claim.

The bigger issue, though, is how you win the political battle once IS is destroyed. As long as there's a disgruntled and disenfranchised sectarian minority, there's always the possibility that the same thing could happen again in a different guise.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

No I don't think so. Sure they can be destroyed if you kill enough of them, but all that would do is fuel a deep resentment and anger that will lay the foundations for another like organisation to appear the next opportune moment

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Military means is the good start.

3 ( +3 / -1 )

I voted Yes, because even ISIS is concerned about territory possession or occupation.

However I believe that it shall not be military action by nation states primarily that can cause their defeat or demise. Rather it would be non-nation-affiliated militia and the like (Kurds the interesting exception). In a sense it becomes like a gangland war.

The world-internet aspect is another theater and needs to be considered differently - for instance there are no Toyota Hilux utes with 50 cals mounted on the back and ISIS banners waving driving around New York, Paris, Melbourne or even Kuala Lumpur. Even for ISIS-inspired terrorism events outside of its occupied zones, online responses, public policy and law, clandestine infiltration or at most para-military responses by states is how they would be dealt with.

Responses by US and coalition, Saudi Arabia and (who knows) maybe even Iran, are limited by orthodox war-related treaties and international law, not so much because they abide by the law as much as other nation-states would always use international law and treaties as excuses for what they subsequently would say or do.

No, rather it is organizations, institutions or parties who do not see themselves bound by established nation-state organization structure of the world, which are going to make a difference with ISIS. Nation states can make a lot of noise, and blow up a lot of things from a distance but little else directly besides covertly supply 'clients'. These clients then are the ones to engage in direct military confrontation with ISIS.

0 ( +1 / -2 )

As a physical entity, yes (nukes anyone?). as an ideology no

1 ( +1 / -1 )

At some point they will have to be tackled head on because they will not just sit there happily enjoying their little islamic caliphate, slowly but surely their intent is to take over the world.

1 ( +2 / -2 )

It will take military action and education to wipe this scum out.

2 ( +3 / -2 )

slowly but surely their intent is to take over the world.

Supporting sources please. I can't say that I've heard them make this claim anywhere. That said, I also haven't looked, so I'd like to see something where they are stating that's their intent.

-6 ( +1 / -8 )

Strangerland:

" Supporting sources please. I can't say that I've heard them make this claim anywhere. That said, I also haven't looked, so I'd like to see something where they are stating that's their intent. "

The intent to eventually rule over the world is fundamental to all jihadist movements. "Dar-al-Salam" (the house of piece) will be achieved when the whole world is submitted under the rule of Allah. If you were unaware of that, you might want to do some homework.

Back to the question, of course the Islamic State can be eradicated by military means. The question is what then? If outsiders march in and defeat ISIS, they better be prepared to babysit the place indefinitely; otherwise ISIS returns as soon as they withdraw.

1 ( +3 / -3 )

They wont be wiped out because they have control of oil that America so lusts for so most attacks by the West against ISIS are only for propaganda purposes. Its ironic though that the whole thing began because of oil and now America has ISIS to deal with. What comes around goes around I guess. Anyway oil aside, their ideology seems to have International appeal. They will be around for a while. Then again maybe they have some sort of Western support or support from countries allied to to America in the Mid East. Basically something doesnt add up.

-2 ( +0 / -3 )

The intent to eventually rule over the world is fundamental to all jihadist movements. "Dar-al-Salam" (the house of piece) will be achieved when the whole world is submitted under the rule of Allah. If you were unaware of that, you might want to do some homework.

So you don't have any supporting evidence that ISIS wants to take over the world. Got it.

-5 ( +1 / -7 )

'Back to the question, of course the Islamic State can be eradicated by military means. The question is what then? If outsiders march in and defeat ISIS, they better be prepared to babysit the place indefinitely; otherwise ISIS returns as soon as they withdraw.'

I'd pretty much agree with that apart from the use of 'babysit'. Babysitters usually don't usually get killed or have limbs blown off. 'Occupy' is a better choice of word for me.

2 ( +1 / -0 )

'To attempt to destroy them they'll recognize the ideology is out of time and place.' I see. Butchering religious crackpots who saw a hundred thousand dead after the infidels intervened last time will suddenly realise that what they really need is a looser interpretation of Islam and an inclusive democracy? Were you an adviser to the last president?

Hey, works for Israel.

They wont be wiped out because they have control of oil that America so lusts for so most attacks by the West against ISIS are only for propaganda purposes.

Give me a break with the none sense oil talk. We all need oil. All of us. From your tires, the paint you use, shavers, TVs, iPhones and an endless list, we all need oil. It is a vital and an important source to making virtually anything.

Its ironic though that the whole thing began because of oil and now America has ISIS to deal with.

You do know most of the oil the US gets doesn't come from the ME. It comes from the country that gives us maple syrup.

What comes around goes around I guesss.

It'll get back to them too, sooner or later, most likely after this president is out of office.

So you don't have any supporting evidence that ISIS wants to take over the world. Got it.

I do....

http://www.listland.com/top-10-things-that-isis-really-wants/

'Back to the question, of course the Islamic State can be eradicated by military means. The question is what then? If outsiders march in and defeat ISIS, they better be prepared to babysit the place indefinitely; otherwise ISIS returns as soon as they withdraw.'

If they keeps us all safe, then so be it.

I'd pretty much agree with that apart from the use of 'babysit'. Babysitters usually don't usually get killed or have limbs blown off. 'Occupy' is a better choice of word for me.

Whatever euphemism you care to choose.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

no they wont be eradicated by military alone, but when youve got such violent scum murdering there way into other into power, then the only response they will get is an equal and greater military one. This is a battle thatll be ongoing for many years to come.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

sure. kill it now, and some time later a new version with different name will pop up. its a local culture thing, which wont change as long as the rest of the world stays the same.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Strangerland:

" So you don't have any supporting evidence that ISIS wants to take over the world. Got it. "

Do you need evidence that the sun rises in the East? Expansion by the sword is at the heart of islamic history. Every single Caliphate was in constant wars, expanding their territory. I pointed out the underlying ideoloy for you: Bringing peace on earth by establishing "Dar-al-Salam". Read any islamic source texts to confirm that.

That is of course an abstract concept for ISIS. The short-term goal is to unifiy the Sunni areas of the Middle East under their Caliphate.

1 ( +2 / -2 )

Do you need evidence that the sun rises in the East?

No, I need evidence that the caliphate is focused on taking over the world. I can see for myself that the sun rises in the east.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

'I'd pretty much agree with that apart from the use of 'babysit'. Babysitters usually don't usually get killed or have limbs blown off. 'Occupy' is a better choice of word for me.

Whatever euphemism you care to choose.'

I'd like to see the rightist keyboard warriors doing the occupying. You as a professional writer could run an English class when you are not wiping bits of your comrade off your uniform.

What's the strategy? Occupy this place permanently or pull out after an invasion and then go back in when the head cases start running around with firearms and bombs again? Would it depend on which is more cost-effective? Clearly the sickening number of deaths of soldiers in bloody failures means absolutely nothing to you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bombing never solved a conflict. At best, all it did was shift a conflict from one of outright warfare to one of occupation by a foreign power (see Japan's surrender at the end of WWII). The conflict is only truly ended when the losing side no longer finds an incentive to fight, and history has shown us the time it takes to reach that stage is far longer than the time it takes to fight a war to the enemy's surrender.

Until someone is willing to step up and build an economy and society in Iraq, Syria, and the Levant that people want to be a part of and which gives people's lives both purpose and a chance at prosperity, then all bombing is ever going to do is keep the cycle of violence spinning. And no one is willing to do that because building a future costs loads of time, energy, and money and comes with a high risk of failure if you don't do it right. While a predator drone and a kid who likes video games to fly it is fairly cheap. And if you don't kill your target in the first round, you can always play again. And if your leadership is dodgy enough and your public biased enough, then no one will stop to question why your constant bombing isn't stopping the violence.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

No, I need evidence that the caliphate is focused on taking over the world. I can see for myself that the sun rises in the east.

Whether you want to believe it or not, it is here and it's happening. Just because you don't think so doesn't mean that it's not true.

0 ( +2 / -4 )

Whether you want to believe it or not, it is here and it's happening.

And yet, no one seems to be able to provide any proof of this.

I think it's far more likely this is a speaking point to provoke fear of ISIS, thereby brainwashing the people into thinking it's a good ideal to invade their homeland in the fight against them.

-3 ( +0 / -4 )

You can't militarily wipe out hate.

But you can militarily wipe out this manifestation of hate, absolutely. If we were to wipe out IS, does that mean this holy war would go away forever? Of course not, that's absurd.

But just because we can't end this kind of thinking doesn't mean we should allow it free reign. A disease arises, you know whatever cure you make for it will only work on this strain, but you still have to make a cure to end this particular disease, and when a new strain arises, you have to then get back in the lab and work at it again. Threats will always arise and we must always confront them.

Ending hate like ending disease and genocide is a never ending battle, but it's still a fight worth fighting. Learn from history or your doomed to repeat it is a meaningless expression. Humans will always hate, they will always fight, it's happened since animals first roamed the Earth, but after long periods of war, there will be periods of peace. Right now, we are witnessing the beginning of this century's war, the rise of fanatical Muslims.

End it now, so we can enjoy peace, for however a short time it may last until a new threat rises again.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"They wont be wiped out because they have control of oil that America so lusts for"

They won't have control of any oil once they're wiped out.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

You can't militarily wipe out hate.

You seem to recognize that it cannot be wiped out. So why wouldn't you want to take efforts to mitigate the amount of hate in order minimize the terror caused by that hate? And on that note, why would you want to take action that would increase the hate, and therefore increase the likelihood of being a target of that hatred?

It's baffling that people can still think that fighting ISIS is in our best interests.

-3 ( +0 / -4 )

MarkG

They only know disrespect, torture and death. They don't exhibit civility at all. Women are almost livestock. They tech kids to hate and kill. ......purge them!

The US military?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

And yet, no one seems to be able to provide any proof of this.

If you cannot see what's going on and if you are not convinced, then you can relax and don't worry about it. That's your right.

I think it's far more likely this is a speaking point to provoke fear of ISIS, thereby brainwashing the people into thinking it's a good ideal to invade their homeland in the fight against them.

If you think like that and feel like that, that's all that counts and if the rest of the world and the people that are suffering under ISIS feel differently, that's also their prerogative as well.

It's baffling that people can still think that fighting ISIS is in our best interests.

And I feel the exact opposite.

-2 ( +1 / -4 )

If you cannot see what's going on and if you are not convinced, then you can relax and don't worry about it.

I do worry about people making unfounded claims that brainwash the populace into making the world a more dangerous place.

If you think like that and feel like that, that's all that counts and if the rest of the world and the people that are suffering under ISIS feel differently, that's also their prerogative as well.

Their prerogative is making the world a more dangerous place.

And I feel the exact opposite.

The difference of course being that you're wrong.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I do worry about people making unfounded claims that brainwash the populace into making the world a more dangerous place.

So how do you expect to solve this? Fly all over the world and tell everyone ( including the Kurds, the Saudis, the Israelis, the Europeans ) far and between that ISIS are really are friends and they mean us no harm. ROFL

Their prerogative is making the world a more dangerous place.

The world is already a dangerous place and Obama and ISIS didn't help it get any safer.

The difference of course being that you're wrong.

And I think you're very wrong on this issue.

0 ( +1 / -2 )

So how do you expect to solve this? Fly all over the world and tell everyone ( including the Kurds, the Saudis, the Israelis, the Europeans ) far and between that ISIS are really are friends and they mean us no harm. ROFL

No, I expect western nations to pull out and let the Middle East deal with it on their own.

The world is already a dangerous place and Obama and ISIS didn't help it get any safer.

And the Americans are making things worse by being in the Middle East.

And I think you're very wrong on this issue.

The difference of course being that I'm right.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Absolutely no, unless you cut-off financial support and weapons supply.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

No, I expect western nations to pull out and let the Middle East deal with it on their own

That will never happen, hasn't happened yet and never will.

And the Americans are making things worse by being in the Middle East.

For the last 6 years Obama has virtually pulled all of our troops out and if you do the math as far as the ratio of advisors and special forces that are there on and off are now with the 450 that Obama sent are about 3,500 or so and you have over 20 million ISIS members. Making things worse? Really? If so, these are some of THE best advisors Obama has sent. Hopefully, he'll keep it coming!

The difference of course being that I'm right.

And I think opposite.

-1 ( +1 / -3 )

That will never happen, hasn't happened yet and never will.

It worked for Russia. And look at the abject failure of America in the Middle East. There have literally been no positive accomplishments of American aggression in the middle east. None. And yet you'd have your country continue to go in there, following failure with failure, only to fail some more.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Getting rid of religious extremists, no matter what religion, is like playing whack-a-mole. You take down one and another pops up elsewhere. They have to be marginalized physically, politically, morally, economically, and every other way possible. You may not get rid of them, but they lose all power to affect large groups of people.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

A true world-wide response on a military scale may not work long term but these vermin must be stopped by men & not cowards.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It worked for Russia.

Most Russians aren't Muslim and believe in a Caliphate and a desire to kill infidels and with Russia for better or worse, you can at least talk to them.

And look at the abject failure of America in the Middle East.

Yes, it got a lot worse after Obama came into office and sadly his inability to do nothing will definitely give a lot of headaches to the next president, but 511 days, he doesn't have to worry about Iraq and neither will the rest of the world have to worry about Obama.

There have literally been no positive accomplishments of American aggression in the middle east. None.

But as long as we make bullets and other weapons, you can't defeat an ideology, but they can't beat our spirit as well, they can try and come to the US and see what the infidels do to Jihadists.

And yet you'd have your country continue to go in there, following failure with failure, only to fail some more.

I see my country in 511 rid itself of a weak president that is crippling and slowly destroying the country.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

It worked for Russia.

Most Russians aren't Muslim and believe in a Caliphate and a desire to kill infidels and with Russia for better or worse, you can at least talk to them.

What?!?! Are you trying to confuse by posting irrelevance? You do realize that Russia used to be in Afghanistan and eventually entirely pulled out, right? That same thing you said 'has never happened'.

And look at the abject failure of America in the Middle East.

Yes, it got a lot worse after Obama came into office

I'm glad you agree it's been an abject failure.

And yet you'd have your country continue to go in there, following failure with failure, only to fail some more.

I see my country in 511 rid itself of a weak president that is crippling and slowly destroying the country.

And once again you make a comment completely unrelated to the text you quoted. The question is whether you are doing it on purpose, in order to obfuscate the point, or if you lack the intelligence to realize that the two are entirely unrelated.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Steve CrichtonJUN. 15, 2015 - 07:55AM JST Saddam invading Kuwait and the response seems like teddy bears picnic now. If only it all stopped there. However......

I guess you missed the intervening unnecessary invasion of Iraq by, primarily, the U.S. and the fact that it resulted in the complete disintegration of what was an inorganic state to begin with. We destroyed more of Iraq and killed more Iraqis in 2003 than we did in 1991.

Steve CrichtonJUN. 15, 2015 - 01:03PM JST They wont be wiped out because they have control of oil that America so lusts for so most attacks by the West against ISIS are only for propaganda purposes. Its ironic though that the whole thing began because of oil and now America has ISIS to deal with.

If it were about oil these days, then Western military forces could easily go in and take control of the oil fields. But Iraq's oil hasn't been much of consideration in world supply since 2003 when the U.S. invaded and with the U.S. fracking our environment away, won't ever be. The U.S. feels zero strategic pressure vis-a-vis IS. We are doing what we are more out of guilt at having created the conditions for this to happen. Again, if it were of any strategic concern to the U.S., we'd be back in their in full force. Otherwise, no thoughtful person could possibly blame Obama for a reluctance to commit Shrub's sins and errors.

StrangerlandJUN. 15, 2015 - 11:49PM JST And look at the abject failure of America in the Middle East. There have literally been no positive accomplishments of American aggression in the middle east. None. And yet you'd have your country continue to go in there, following failure with failure, only to fail some more.

A foreign policy rat hole down which we pound sand.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Jeff Huffman JUN. 16, 2015 - 05:58AM JST If it were about oil these days, then Western military forces could easily go in and take control of the oil fields. But Iraq's oil hasn't been much of consideration in world supply since 2003 when the U.S. invaded and with the U.S. fracking our environment away, won't ever be.

Iraqi oil is increasingly flowing to China. China already buys nearly half the oil that Iraq produces, nearly 1.5 million barrels a day, and is angling for an even bigger share, bidding for a stake now owned by Exxon Mobil in one of Iraq’s largest oil fields. The Chinese had nothing to do with the war, but from an economic standpoint they are benefiting from it. The more money and interest China has tied up a stable Iraq, the harder it will work to keep it that way, something that very much benefits the U.S.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

What?!?! Are you trying to confuse by posting irrelevance? You do realize that Russia used to be in Afghanistan and eventually entirely pulled out, right? That same thing you said 'has never happened'.

Point is. different country, different scenario.

Yes, it got a lot worse after Obama came into office

That's exactly, my point. Now you understand.

And once again you make a comment completely unrelated to the text you quoted. The question is whether you are doing it on purpose, in order to obfuscate the point, or if you lack the intelligence to realize that the two are entirely unrelated.

So now, you instead of politely disagreeing, you resort to name calling? Hmmm, anyway, of course it's related in the sense that you can't defeat an ideology everyone knows that, but you can defeat the person(s) and if you have a strong leader leading the charge to defeat a possible threat or invasion like...say, Israel for example, it is very possible. Israel's will to survive will outmatch or at least equal the Jihadists desire to expand their Caliphate. As for the US, we don't have that kind of leadership.

@sfjp330

As usual, always on point. Agreed.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

sfjp330JUN. 16, 2015 - 06:42AM JST Iraqi oil is increasingly flowing to China. China already buys nearly half the oil that Iraq produces, nearly 1.5 million barrels a day, and is angling for an even bigger share, bidding for a stake now owned by Exxon Mobil in one of Iraq’s largest oil fields. The Chinese had nothing to do with the war, but from an economic standpoint they are benefiting from it. The more money and interest China has tied up a stable Iraq, the harder it will work to keep it that way, something that very much benefits the U.S.

While that may be true, short of sending in the People's Liberation Army to fight ISIL, I don't understand what Chinese oil contracts do to stabilize Iraq.

And, again, current U.S. oil output dwarfs Iraq.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=19911

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Jeff Huffman JUN. 16, 2015 - 08:46AM JST While that may be true, short of sending in the People's Liberation Army to fight ISIL, I don't understand what Chinese oil contracts do to stabilize Iraq.

China is the biggest foreign investor in Iraq’s oil industry, and will lose billions if ISIS manages to take over the country’s oil fields. The China's National Petroleum has already had to abandon its oilfields in Syria.

Recently Chinese FM Wang Yi, has made an offer to help Iraq fight Islamic State militants. China will assist with airstrikes, but it will not join the US-led coalition against ISIS. China’s offer is close to official policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Recently Chinese FM Wang Yi, has made an offer to help Iraq fight Islamic State militants. China will assist with airstrikes, but it will not join the US-led coalition against ISIS. China’s offer is close to official policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries

Do you think the Chinese can be trusted or at the very least be reliable undertaking such a mission? Sure, they're doing this to safeguard their natural interests. But do the Chinese have the muster to carry out an assault?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

bass4funk JUN. 16, 2015 - 09:40AM JST Do you think the Chinese can be trusted or at the very least be reliable undertaking such a mission? Sure, they're doing this to safeguard their natural interests. But do the Chinese have the muster to carry out an assault?

China is extremely doubtful that U.S. airstrikes will be able to achieve those goals. U.S. will be forced to choose between breaking promise not to send in U.S. ground forces or watching as ISIS further destabilizes Iraq. U.S. is already sending trainers and not ruling out the deployment of more trainers, so an advisory mission can very quickly become a ground combat mission.

China prefers political solution, one that unifies Iraq’s government and Iraqi Sunnis, that can end the violence. On this point, China and U.S. are in agreement. There’s no American military solution to the larger crisis in Iraq. An ISIS victory would be disastrous for China. As the crisis continues to worsen, China is willing to wait and see if U.S. intervention actually helps.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Point is. different country, different scenario.

The real difference is, they were smart enough to realize that they were never going to win, that being there was no good whatsoever, and that it hurt them more than helped.

Yes, it got a lot worse after Obama came into office

That's exactly, my point. Now you understand.

Now you're quoting yourself, and using that as some sort of basis for my understanding? You've lost the plot Bass. Seriously, that's just weird.

And once again you make a comment completely unrelated to the text you quoted. The question is whether you are doing it on purpose, in order to obfuscate the point, or if you lack the intelligence to realize that the two are entirely unrelated.

So now, you instead of politely disagreeing, you resort to name calling?

Well, since only one of those could have been considered calling names, I guess you've clarified which it is.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

THis is the 21 century crusade and the christians will win and islam will loss in a big way. They did over Mohomadin the 4th century. Martin put a stop to islam in Spain and we did not hear from them for a millennium .Yes there will be a genocide of islam. Once a better energy product other then oil is on the market, that will signal the end to islam. India and China will not put up with islam when they both annex South East Asia and Pakistan. This what happen to new trendy religion. Islam is only a young religion like Christianity. they will both fade away in time.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The real difference is, they were smart enough to realize that they were never going to win, that being there was no good whatsoever, and that it hurt them more than helped.

Or financially and military, they were just lacking.

Now you're quoting yourself, and using that as some sort of basis for my understanding? You've lost the plot Bass. Seriously, that's just weird.

No, just saying you understand difference of opinion, you believe one way and I another. Not about losing, it's about what and how you feel. I feel that I am right and you think that you are right, that's it. You have the right to feel the way you do as do I.

Well, since only one of those could have been considered calling names, I guess you've clarified which it is.

Yup, and he has another 511 until he's out of office.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Or financially and military, they were just lacking.

The Soviets? I think not.

Now you're quoting yourself, and using that as some sort of basis for my understanding? You've lost the plot Bass. Seriously, that's just weird.

No, just saying you understand difference of opinion, you believe one way and I another. Not about losing, it's about what and how you feel. I feel that I am right and you think that you are right, that's it. You have the right to feel the way you do as do I.

And once again you're back to quoting text, then making an entirely irrelevant comment to the text you commented. Right after quoting yourself. You just lost the plot a little further.

Well, since only one of those could have been considered calling names, I guess you've clarified which it is.

Yup, and he has another 511 until he's out of office.

And you've followed it up by doing it again.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The Soviets? I think not.

Latest technology, financially strapped, hmmm.

And you've followed it up by doing it again.

Just looking forward to the celebrations of his departure.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

sfjp330JUN. 16, 2015 - 10:08AM JST China prefers political solution, one that unifies Iraq’s government and Iraqi Sunnis, that can end the violence. On this point, China and U.S. are in agreement. There’s no American military solution to the larger crisis in Iraq. An ISIS victory would be disastrous for China. As the crisis continues to worsen, China is willing to wait and see if U.S. intervention actually helps.

Oh yes. The Chinese, who have been dealing with their own low-level revolt by Islamic "Chinese" in the west, are sure to succeed where Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia (whence IS leadership arose - sound familiar?) are failing. It is no more within China's power to strike a compromise with IS than it is for any of the other states in the region. IS is not interested in reaching a political compromise until, maybe, they've secured Baghdad. Your grasp of history and current events isn't even shaky.

IS is unlikely to be stopped unless the Turks and Iranians join in the fight. The Sunni controlled Iraqi military, IS quasi-co-religionists, has proven itself to be useless and only the Kurds and Shia militias have had any success against IS. No one, including the U.S., believes that air power alone will "win," and just how many times can we train and advise the Sunni dominated Iraqi military? We've been doing it now for at least 10 years with nothing to show for.

StrangerlandJUN. 16, 2015 - 03:44PM JST Or financially and military, they were just lacking. The Soviets? I think not.

Not technologically, but the Soviet Union was strapped to begin with and the Afghan War, which began so delightfully for them, became their Vietnam after the Carter administration and then Reagan administration escalated our intelligence and material support of the mujahideen, who, unfortunately, morphed into the Taliban.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/25/books/wilson-the-warrior.html

The disaster of the Afghan War bled the last drops out of the collapsing Soviet economy, something the CIA actually got right in a series of reports going back to the late 1970s, which served as a key foreign policy point for John Anderson's presidential campaign, but for which he was ridiculed.

https://books.google.com/books?id=rUIauNFQnngC&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=1980+CIA+report+on+soviet+economy&source=bl&ots=4XFUrgyVdK&sig=O0mheF1wTzmqrhs0WfB9HtfNXS0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEgQ6AEwB2oVChMIvv_amcSUxgIVBSqICh1egw5x#v=onepage&q=1980%20CIA%20report%20on%20soviet%20economy&f=false

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Jeff Huffman JUN. 17, 2015 - 12:50AM JST IS is unlikely to be stopped unless the Turks and Iranians join in the fight.

U.S. military is very concerned that the Iranians will come after American personnel in Iraq. The potential danger is factored into U.S. military planning. Iran’s ability to harm American troops in Iraq has shaped a debate on whether to step up efforts to depose Syria’s Assad. U.S. is worried about retaliation in Iraq. Iran has spent billions of dollars to help the Syrian dictator, a longtime friend for Iranian influence in the region, survive that country’s sectarian civil war.

Iran has avoided threatening American troops in Iraq because they welcome the U.S. air campaign against ISIL, which has massacred Shiites and attacked their shrines. Iran has avoided actions that could derail the nuclear talks. The collapse of the nuclear talks would increase the chance of possible U.S. military action against Iran. Then it would increase the risk to the Americans based in Iraq. And that will continue to exist even if U.S. get a nuclear deal.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I voted yes. But that is incomplete. The real answer is military means, and justice.

0 ( +1 / -0 )

If history has to have thought us one thing: If the causes for an idea are prevalent, still feeding the idea... it will never die. The only way to beat an idea, is to make the causes that create it... vanish.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And look at the abject failure of America in the Middle East.

Yes, it got a lot worse after Obama came into office and sadly his inability to do nothing will definitely give a lot of headaches to the next president, but 511 days, he doesn't have to worry about Iraq and neither will the rest of the world have to worry about Obama.

It's far too easy to lay the blame at Obama's feet as though he caused the problem but this is all just a leftover of the opportunism committed by successive American and Soviet governments of exploiting a mindset that has been around for centuries. It took decades to get to this stage so the chances of a quick fix are minor to say the least. Obama didn't stand a chance at eradicating this problem and I doubt that his successor will have much luck either.

Until this whole business of "Caliphate" thinking is eradicated, there will always be a threat that this will blow up again, whether it's ISIS behind it or another hard line radical group. We're in for a long haul and I'm afraid that more acts of inhumanity are likely before we get anywhere. The idea of armed intervention, however, can only be thought of as a short term relief as the one thing that cannot be eradicated by the gun are ideas.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

War and million action will never eradicate an ideology, we still got neonazis, radical left and right winger organisation.

Look at the recent church shooting in Carolina kr similar hate crimes worldwide. Too many people still put others in categories and assign labels.

It is talk and communications that ended a lot of stuff, like bringing the wall down, ended the cold war and more. It also ended many thinks like apartheid, terrorist groups like IRA, ETA.

But you need a good meditator to get both sides to sit down and talk.

Just my view.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

JT needs to have a third option here: I don't know. It would win in a landslide

0 ( +0 / -0 )

War and million action will never eradicate an ideology, we still got neonazis, radical left and right winger organisation.

Yeah, well, we don't have Nazi Germany, now do we...

Violence works. It ended the Nazis.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

John-SanJUN. 16, 2015 - 11:42AM JST THis is the 21 century crusade and the christians will win and islam will loss in a big way. They did over Mohomadin the 4th century.

Only off by 300 years (Islam is considered to have been founded in the year 610) and some 700 years from when the Crusades began.

Ya know, you can Google these things pretty easily.

Once a better energy product other then oil is on the market, that will signal the end to islam. India and China will not put up with islam when they both annex South East Asia and Pakistan.

This is no longer about oil and I kind of doubt that India has much interest in Pakistan at this point in history - the Hindu majority doesn't particularly like Muslims and Pakistan is pretty close to a failed state. China is having problems managing it's own minority populations, so I doubt they want to be responsible for the Philippines or Indonesia and theirs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, I don't know, but I think leaving sophisticated weapons in weak hands for IS to pick up has not been an effective strategy. Neither has hiring groups of thugs to fight against thm. The only militarily effective group in the region has been the Kurds, and we've shown them less respect that they deserve.

A permanent solution has to include a consistently understandable and fair policy on the part of those working against IS. That is, the vcure has to be better than the disease. Moderate Muslims also have to provide a morally and scripturally valid alterative to the views of IS as well, especially on the issue of the killing of innocents, if we're going to see any decrease in the number of IS recruits.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Violence works. It ended the Nazis.

If only this were true. Neo-Nazis and other fascist groups still plague the political landscape in a number of countries.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Military action cannot stop an ideology but it can show its practioners that there are consequences for lunatic behavior.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@samwatters

Military action cannot stop an ideology but it can show its practioners that there are consequences for lunatic behavior.

As long as the lunatics are paying attention and understand the lesson.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I am always against war but this is an exception.

ISIS is a group that terrorizes, tortures, and brutalizes the lives of others who do not follow in their claim.

If freedom and human rights are threatened than how is this different from WW2 when the Nazis tried to take over Europe and essentially the whole free world?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't support their thinking, but no I don't believe they can, the reason being threw history it has shown a way of thinking can never be abolished by violence, you have to gain that goal thew education and reason.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites