Care to expand or is this just another snarky Buster drive by?
The people calling for a full-blown war with ISIS are grossly misrepresenting the threat ISIS poses, the circumstances that led to ISIS manifesting, and the benefits such a war would even bring.
My full thoughts on ISIS: they're not worth a single American life at this point.
ISIS, from my perspective, if the result of 1) post-WW1 borders being incongruent with cultural/religious boundaries, 2) an Iranian/Saudi battle for Middle Eastern hegemony taking place over top of that, 3) a power vacuum happening right in the middle of it all. A three-layered clusterfuck that birthed the wretched ISIS we have today, and issues a war with ISIS won't come close to solving.
Just so we're clear: we are the ones who destabilized Iraq. We are the ones who disbanded Saddam's army and let unemployed generals go find work in the private sector (see: ISIS). We are the ones who installed a Shia President in Iraq who then disenfranchised the Sunni populations (see: unemployed military generals). We are the ones who helped destabilized Syria to the point where Assad couldn't keep a lid on ISIS lunatics. We have made a whole host of bad decisions that created the ISIS situation we have. I think we could use a little humility and we should probably stop thinking that the answer to every problem over there is a lack of US bombs being dropped.
If ISIS is such a threat to the Middle East, why isn't Israel doing something about it? Oh that's right, this band of thugs can't even win against the Kurds, or capture Baghdad, or even topple an Assad regime that's dealing with its own civil war. The idea of ISIS somehow beating competent militaries from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, etc is laughable. Kurdish fighters and American air power have already stopped their advance in Iraq.
Which brings up another point, this is happening in Syria and Iraq, two known Iran puppets. Sending Americans to their deaths to put Syria/Iraq back together to the ultimate benefit of Iran has stupidity written all over it from my view.
Are we even considering the fact that ISIS wants us to invade them? Let me repeat that: the enemy wants you to invade them. Last time I checked doing exactly what your enemy wants isn't how you win. We can review the last fifteen years of fighting Al-Qaeda and see that Osama bin Laden got exactly what he wanted: Western troops running around the Middle East killing Muslims and simultaneously stirring up anti-West sentiment. The ISIS calculation is simple: they win either way if Westerners/Israelis are there. So right off the bat, the neighboring Sunni countries are the ones who will have to be on the ground.
Self important Buckeyes love to lob grenades...
This is cute considering there are people here advocating for the literal lobbing of grenades.
How long do we wait? Until they have gathered strength, killed and enslaved thousands more? Do we honestly believe the ME will handle it?
ISIS is gathering strength? Last I checked their advance has been stymied. Wake me up when they capture Baghdad or Damascus.
And yes, I'm all for pushing for a coalition to exterminate BH.
I think you're seriously underestimating the monetary and personnel costs of occupying a country. These things can easily cost a trillion dollars. How far down the list should we go? Should we occupy Mexico to seek out their barbaric cartels who murder tens of thousands too?
Never in the history of the world has a country been able to project its power to stop all the world's evil, and it isn't the case today. I'd argue the mindset that we should even attempt it are more harmful
for Americans than the actual evil existing today.
