What would happen if US did nothing with ISIS ??

[kentuck]

Last edited Thu Sep 11, 2014, 04:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Would they be pre-occupied with taking over Iraq and fighting their neighbors in the Middle East or would they be more concerned with attacking the US?? Would they be beheading Americans on American soil?

Would the countries that are most affected by ISIS do anything to counter their offensive without American help? Or would they simply surrender to the ISIS army if America is not there to protect them?

Do you see it as a necessity that we attack ISIS now, in Iraq and in Syria, so they do not attack us in the future?

Do you see this as a worthwhile endeavor?

Or is it another fool's errand, like the Iraq invasion of 2003?

[TwilightGardener]

1. We'd be looking at least at another Taliban, pre-9/11, but even more brutal and

possibly strengthened/legitimized by ongoing rule, oil revenues, ability to attract more jihadists.

[RobertEarl]

3. Nah

Isis are enemies of most all of the ME. They are just a flash mob. A mob who armed themselves with American weapons we left in Iraq and had given to the forces fighting in Syria.

The whole Isis problem is something cheney and rush cooked up.

[randome]

28. Then it shouldn't take long to take them out.

And yeah, Obama is that easily fooled.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[kentuck]

4. And if we defeat them, what happens?

What happens with the alliance between Iran and Iraq? Does it make Iran stronger?

And what happens to Assad in Syria? Does it make it easier for him to maintain his dictatorship over that country?

What do we win and what do we lose?

[TwilightGardener]

7. The goal is a stable, unified Iraq that can repel Sunni and Shia extremists and

not be a total puppet of Iran (so we want the Sunnis and Kurds there somewhat empowered still). The goal in Syria is eliminate ISIS as a threat to both our interests and to our favored rebel groups, and then empower our favored rebel groups to put more pressure on Assad until he steps down or is overthrown and is replaced by someone more moderate (and presumably western-friendly). Which Russia and Iran don't want.

[CJCRANE]

11. But that didn't work in Iraq last time, or Libya this time.

Why keep repeating the same mistake over and over?

Why do we constantly feel the need to topple secular regimes in the middle east and allow religious fundamentalists to run riot?

[tazkcmo]

36. Why?

Money!!!

[arcane1]

19. A puppet regime in Iraq that does what DC tells them to do?

Sounds familiar.

[Scootaloo]

26. Bwahahahaha, no it's not

The Obama administration is no more interested in a stable and unified Iraq than the Bush administration was. That's not equating the two men, but rather noting a continuation of policy - the goal then, as now, is a divided iraq - a tripartate division, leaving an anemic Sunni state, a dependent Shia state, and a powerful oil-pumping Kurdish state.

And amazing how easily you leap from "preserving Iraq" to "violent regime cghange in Syria to install a favorable puppet." Yeah, that's sure to bring stability.

[geek tragedy]

12. that the US views Iran becoming a stronger regional player

with closer ties to Iraq as the preferred outcome pretty much says it all about how bad they view ISIL, no?

[SomethingFishy]

2. I think we should keep doing the same thing over and over

and pretend that all that stuff in the past didn't work because... well, because it didn't work..

This time however.. we got this. You know... hope, change...

[Puzzledtraveller]

6. It's like how I know one day I will reach for the remote

and calling on The Force it will fly into my hand. I know it won't happen, but I try anyway.

[SomethingFishy]

10. Mmmmm.. concentrate you must...

Open your mind... feel the Force flowing through you...

Mmmmmm... and if work that doesn't, then get off your ass and change the channel you must...

[tazkcmo]

37. Nice!

That was funny!

[Autumn]

13. Yeah but we got us a Democrat in charge this time

so it's bound to work, really really work like it should have worked before. We can wipe them out leave our weapons and come home. It's a win win situation.










for the MIC at least.

And if you don't like it, there's always GOTV!!!!!!




I think.

[SomethingFishy]

20. LOL.. I know, it's to the point that reality is

so tilted that you have to triple check your sarcasm...

[Jackpine Radical]

5. We would greatly disappoint the leadership of ISIS.

It's pretty obvious that they're trying to get our attention, that they want us to attack them. I expect that our ignoring them would have about the same effect as ignoring the tantrum of a child, metaphorically speaking (although ISIS is capable of deadly and horrific tantrums). That is, they would take ever more desperate and outrageous actions trying to draw us into their mess. If we manage to withstand that, they will wither away. It's sort of like extinguishing a behavior in a rat.

I believe that when we respond to their outrages with military action, they will be able to use our attacks to portray themselves as victims and martyrs, thereby drawing even more fanatics to their cause. I think the best solution--and it could still lead to attacks within the US--is to let their neighbors handle it. If we provide those neighbors with intelligence and with nonlethal supplies, so much the better, but we ought to keep our presence and our weaponry out of it.

[Puzzledtraveller]

8. You got that right.

They will also have no problem using human shields, and then using the images to gain support. We know they will use captives in Iraq as shields and maybe even their own, innocents, children, the ends justify the means to these people, attacking them this way is exactly what they want.

[SomethingFishy]

18. Our response to terrorism is the greatest recruiting tool they could have asked for.

Someday we will figure out that "Kill them all" is bad foreign policy.

I believe your solutions are the only sane ones I have heard and I agree 1000%

[jwirr]

32. IMO they gain three things when we attack them. Publicity - what else is the world talking about?

Economic support from those who have similar goals . And finally it is their recruiting tool. They use it to argue that they are very strong and worth joining. Why else would the USA be worried about them?

[riderinthestorm]

34. Continuing the metaphor ISIS' "parents" should be taking care of them!

The Saudis, Qataris etc.

NOT the "neighbors" you hate (ie, the US)

[geek tragedy]

9. the question I would pose is: if we let Iraq burn, how likely is it that we'd be back

in there with troops in a big way down the road?

And I think we all know the answer to that one.

[LordGlenconner]

14. Fewer people whining about Obama on DU?

[polichick]

15. The war industry would be pissed.

[arcane1]

16. Perhaps other countries would get off their asses and protect themselves?

It's not like IS is the 5th largest military.

Then again, I'm not convinced we didn't create them in the first damn place. They are awfully convenient!

[dilby]

17. The portfolios of Billionaires would go down a couple %.

We can start worrying about ISIS when they build a Navy.

[MohRokTah]

21. They'd try to solidify current holdings while expanding where ever possible.

They'd begin training for guerilla warfare abroad (read terrorist attacks) in order to return expats to their countries of origin to pre-occupy those nations with internal threats.

You'd see a solidification of the power structure, most likely centered on previous major officials within the Saddam Hussein regime, since these people understand how to govern through brutality.

Some ethnic groups would end up being completely wiped out. There would eb a brutality towards women the likes of which have never been seen in the more secular Baathist regimes.

It's possible enough power could be assembled so that ISIL is capable of overthrowing Assad. With the sort of power that would come with that event, it would be a matter of time before Iraq is completely overthrown.

From there, my guess would be the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia would become the next targets. Possibly Turkey as well.

[Tatiana]

22. I suspect the other countries in the region would have to step up and take action.

I do believe without American intervention, Iraq would fall to ISIS. Iraq is finally producing the amount of oil Cheney and the other neocons dreamed of. I'm pretty sure someone leaned heavy on President Obama to ensure that oil doesn't fall into the wrong hands.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. I'm still awaiting the Cuban Invasion when the Cubans were the scary Bogeymen.

Or, was that the Sandinistas? FARC? Viet Cong? Red Army? Pancho Villa? Crazy Horse? The bomb throwing Wobblies?

[Wellstone ruled]

24. In the Middle East the one player with the most

at stake is Saudi Arabia. Lets see what is going on this week. Commodities are taking a dump. There is a glut of Oil on the Seas looking for a home. Turkey is selling and buying all of this hot oil from ISIL fields,there for no push back against ISIL. Try this on for size,the head General for ISIL was one of Saddam's guys. Our Bush/Cheney debacle allowed this guy to form his own army with our equipment,not bad for a guy whom probably said pay back is going to be a bitch,and away we go.

When the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia gives the go ahead for us to use the base we build under Bush-Shit the first,you know they are scared shitless. We are just propping up the Saudi's again and it's all about saving the World from a major money crash. This is nothing more than a operation to protect a !%er group from their minions. Notice also no Brits in this operation,and,they help create this Shit Storm.

[ecstatic]

25. No, we should excuse ourselves from the Middle East, including the Israel-Palestine dispute

The US created this mess and is incapable of fixing it. The world community can and should hold former US presidents accountable. When the smoke clears and a democracy is formed in the affected countries, the US should probably pay reparations to those who were directly affected by the Iraq war, etc.

[Scootaloo]

27. We didn't "create" the mess; we just left a significant donation to the shit-pile

[ecstatic]

30. fair enough. nt

[Aerows]

43. Contributing more

to the shit pile isn't going to improve the situation one iota, and will make it worse.

My mother always told me that the more you stir in a pile of shit, the worse it stinks.

[jwirr]

33. Why do you think that a democracy will form in the affected countries?

[ecstatic]

39. It probably won't, but reparations/amends can't be made

until it does. Otherwise the money would just go into another rogue regime's pockets.

[jwirr]

40. Agreed. IMO leadership in many of the ME countries is more a symbol of power than of popularity.

The thing that I think makes this necessary is that I grew up learning first hand from people who fought in WWII and Germany ignoring the danger of Hitler's rise to power and did nothing. By the time it was too late he had the power he needed to hold onto the country even if they would have tried to depose him. That is what I am afraid of with ISIS. And I am not comparing ISIS to Hitler, merely saying that if left to their own ends they will become steadily more powerful and the ME will suffer for it. That is why the various countries in the ME need to step up and join together to stop this rise to power. It cannot be us. The USA and Europe have interfered enough - we can help in ways that they want but this has to be done their way. That is the only way there is ever going to be peace in the ME.

[TreasonousBastard]

29. Anything in the ME, at this point, is a fool's errand.

Just about everything in the ME right now is a bright, shiny petard upon which to hoist Bush and Cheney who will likely be remembered by history of causing the greatest cockup any political leader has seen since Buchanan failed to stop the Secession.

(The Kaiser's firing Bismarck could be considered even more upgefucked, but I doubt Bismarck could have stopped WWI from the grave)

The US can't agree on a national medical plan, true religious freedom, environmental improvement, economic recovery, or any other relatively simple national problem or solutions. How in bloody hell could we even begin to straighten out the Balkanized mess that is now the Middle East?

[marions ghost]

35. Your last paragraph

rings true to me....

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

31. Neighbouring countries would have to get off their butts?

Because they really wouldn't want ISIS for their new neighbours?

[Aerows]

42. Why aren't they taking action?

Seriously, if ISIL is that big of a threat, why don't the get off of their own dead asses and do something about it.

I'm in agreement with you.

[grahamhgreen]

47. Heaven forbid.

[GeorgeGist]

38. a superfools errand ...

comic book style.

[Aerows]

41. Nothing that legitimately affects the US.

It might stagnate the flow of oil for a while, but ultimately getting our troops and consultants out of the Middle East is a good idea.

If we did, major players in the oil market like Saudi Arabia would quit with the posturing.

This is being instigated, orchestrated and infiltrated by entities and governments that are up to no good. It is politically profitable to have civilians slaughtered on the way to the ballot box and the bank.

[JEB]

44. Quagmire.

[Zorra]

45. i don't really care, cuz i'm gonna get raptured soon anyway.

Hasta la vista, baby!

[grahamhgreen]

46. Fools errand. Our last escapade created 31,000 new terrorists..... Them!