Should the US fully engage in the termination of ISIS after the death of James Foley
A video released by ISIS shows the beheading of U.S. journalist James Foley and threatens the life of another American if President Barack Obama doesn't end military operations in Iraq.
Should the US now fully engage in the termination of ISIS?
Full article here: http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/19/world/meast/isis-james-foley/index.html
Yes
Side Score: 38
|
 |
No
Side Score: 24
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
If you are looking for an outmoded and ineffective approach, sure, go ahead and do that. But the US has drawn considerable heat for its use of airstrikes and the growing civilian casualties. Fighting terrorism driven regimes with more traditional military options will feed the ISIS propaganda machine, while potentially accomplishing very little in actuality. Side: No
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
0
points
|
The thing about the land that ISIS controls is that it's very hard to make out who are extremists and who are peaceful, non-violent people. Vice did some interviews with people in ISIS controlled Syria. Apparently people are scared into obedience by the violence; it looks like people support the Islamic State, but really they do not. They are simply too scared to exhibit anything but commitment to this regime. If US threats with military force, the pressure would only act to make ISIS leaders more violent, putting more pressure on civilians, killing even more unreservedly. So that's the first problem. Threatening with war would make it outright impossible to make out who the aggressors are, and who the victims are. If war is started I suspect a lot of would-be civilians will be killed. Secondly, when a lot of would-be civilians are killed, more people will in turn become opposed to US and other western powers, thus resulting in the opposite of what was intended: more extremists supporting ISIS. Also, it would be a small wonder if ISIS didn't exploit US military presence as proof of their propaganda. Currently ISIS works because of fear, not because of sympathy. If war started, they will exploit the situation to gain sympathy. In essence, war would be a great advantage for ISIS. The only way to truly stop ISIS by using military force is to simply kill everyone in ISIS occupied lands, genocide. I have no idea how the international community would react to such a thing, but it would probably make US look worse than ISIS. I doubt anyone but anti-westerners want that. Side: No
I agree with you, but there are other ways to stop ISIS, not completely, but to damage it. Land operations, and actionable intel sources should be planted in their occupied lands. Instead of air strikes, land co ordinated strikes should be held. Rules of war should apply, unarmed surrendered "criminals" should not be shot. But the only country with enough resources to do this correctly is the US, but they wont step in that far, because right now, it is not enough of their fight, they will need to be more threatened by ISIS before doing something like this. But knowing previous US military strategies, all they will do is get out the big boy drones and wipe of a whole state. Side: Yes
Part of me thinks no, part of me thinks yes. The part of me that feels no, feels this way because if we had never put our troops there in the first place, we wouldn't be dealing with this. The part of me that thinks yes, is reigning because it's kind of a big issue in America to "never back down to terrorism" which is pretty much exactly what that display was. If America backs out after that, it'll be sending a message to the world what we do when we are threatened. Then again, in this moment of typing this response, I believe that ISIS knows full well that America won't surrender, and is in fact looking to start another war. That is why I've posted on this side. Side: No
1
point
1
point
2
points
It was fucked up and Israel is it's only hope, whether the majority likes it or not. Believe it or not, Israel WANTS the Syrians and Palestinians, etc. to stand up to HAMAS and ISIS and rebel. The people don't like what those terrorist groups are doing. We're so caught up policing the world, being the US of A that we don't realize who's business it really is to clean up the middle east. It's ISRAEL'S business to do that. The Palestinians and Syrians have tried to rebel but they get shot down by the police. Now, the fight will probably go on forever, but if Egypt sides with Israel (which would be better than the US because it's actually their business) and the Syrians and Palestinians stand up to Hamas and ISIS, it might end happily. We, the GREAT AMERICANS threw a MONKEY WRENCH into the fucking equation!!! Side: No
1
point
Hey guys I'm back from a months long hiatus. If the U.S engages with ISIS, they will probably lure us into war like Bin Laden did with The Usa and Britain. If we enter another war, we'll just FUCK EVERYTHING UP!! More solders getting killed, and billions in tax payers money being wasted. At least the UK actually had a positive result from Afghanistan and Iraq. Side: No
1
point
1
point
Its not like the USA had a town for themselves in the Middle East, and Isis killed all the Americans in that Fucking town. They killed two simple Americans who were technically no fucking bodys. The USA are acting like americans are the best people on earth. If one American gets killed, we just have to wage war. Side: No
1
point
The US screwed it up once, and we'll screw it up again. Right now, we are all attempting to go into Syria and combat ISIS. This is a stupid idea. We took out Al Queda and just screwed the middle east even further. The only country that can do is Israel. And maybe Egypt, and the Syrian people as their sidekicks. Either Israel wins, or the middle east is screwed. This is NOT a US war. Side: No
This seems a little too perfect for me. At the exact moment the US want to go to war against ISIS they start taking USAian hostages. Perfect. They now have the perfect excuse to go to war. Why would the ISIS do this? Are they so stupid to think that the USA is just going to say "okay, we'll back down now, you've scared us off"? No they are not. Why has the video clip been so widely disseminated? I think the USA themselves are behind this. The result is just too perfectly in their favour. In a few years time when the USAians have lost another 100 or so soldiers (and killed 10,000 or so civilians) all the president has to do to justify it is say "remember James Foley?" Side: No
At the exact moment the US want to go to war against ISIS they start taking USAian hostages. How does the US want to go to war? The American people don't... polls show that and God knows Obama doesn't so I don't know what in the hell you're talking about? Also Foley wasn't just taken hostage. He and others have been held hostage for a very long time now. I think the USA themselves are behind this. You're delusional... I'd get that checked out. Side: Yes
Fabrication and misrepresentation are not new to the political machine, in the US or elsewhere. That said, I find it unlikely that the US is behind the execution, recording, and dissemination. For starters, ISIS does stand to benefit from provoking US engagement. Further military engagement by the US (or other Western forces) in the region would lend credibility to ISIS propaganda. Meanwhile, a military intervention against a terrorism based regime like ISIS is matching an outdated approach to an emerging phenomenon. Further, while the recording has been widely spread I think it is simplistic to attribute that to the "US" at large and in general. Perhaps this is owing to some political and/or governmental influence, but it is a solid bet that there is a counter-campaign brewing into action. Regardless, even if the US (in sum or part) utilized the video towards a desired ends that is hardly evidence in and of itself that the US was behind the execution. Finally, playing the "Foley card" would hardly be a new trick in politics (nor is it one unique to American politics). Further, while some Americans might get behind that, I think it is entirely safe to say that a not insignificant portion would not. Our initial engagement in Iraq was justified by the WMD propganda, and when that was revealed to be bogus there was backlash and there continues to be residual distrust over the matter. And, frankly, I just do not think that the nation would get that galvanized over this one journalist; not to trivialize his life, but Foley is not the name on everyone's tongues over here right now... Brown is. Side: Yes
1
point
Is it that the US took James Foley hostage, or that ISIS took him hostage for an irrelevant reason to the US, THEN the US took advantage of that one hostage as a reason to go to war? You know, there have been be-headings of people from several countries, including Britain. All of them are from ISIS. Check out this guy. Should Britain go to war with the middle east too? Should every country who birthed a hostage of ISIS go to war with them? No, because It'll be every Islamic country vs. Non-Islamic countries. It'll be World War III. And a third world war wouldn't end well. The only way for it to end well is Israel. I have a lot of faith in Israel right now. 70 years ago, they wouldn't dare insult a Nazi. Now, the Swedish Neo-Nazis wouldn't dare kill a Jew outside of Sweden. Israel has developed an army almost as powerful as the US. The difference between Israel and the US fighting it, is the history. Israel has a very specific history in the middle east. Either THEY win, or another terrorist group will traumatize the Jews. Either the Jews win, or it happens again forever. That's just how their history is. Side: Yes
0
points
If those people want a caliphate let them! UK's foreign policy and other western polices has left some Muslims feeling isolated and seeking an alternative solution. I as a muslim believe in the concept of caliphate, I blieve in a true leader, as that person follows the sharia law, and the quran and sunna, we muslim have lived like that for centuries until the ottoman empire. I do not know what to think of Islamic state for the moment, Yes they beheaded now the second american journalist, which i OPPOSE , as i think that person was having moderate view towards muslim and went to the middle east to report his news as freelancer. However I can understand their frustration when for years their country have been exploited by western nation and become westernised, some arab nation live in constant war because of the western nation, or they suffer because of the western policies. You kill one men, you get 10 more behind your back, I blelieve we as muslim , we have that heart, that if one muslim gets killed we want to revenge back our brother/sister and have justice, and dont talk about the UN because the UN Is very selective when it comes to who they help, and the right of veto is even more unbalanced and give the superpowers the right to dictate! By seen a caliphat establishing itself and erasing fictional borders,by implement the sharia, well thats good for muslim, but I also have heard they have extreme views which is less appealing as the muslim man , is a juste man! Side: No
1
point
|
