ISIS is a problem for the nations in the Middle East to solve, not the West.

[Yavin4]

Yes, ISIS can conduct coordinated, individual acts of terror in the West, but they can de-stabilize entire nations in the Middle East. Thus, it's up to nations like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan, Yemen, Turkey, Bahrain, etc. to quell this threat. The best that the West can do is military action, but that's not an effective, long term solution. We cannot station troops there indefinitely. It's up to the nations in the Middle East solve their own problems.

[AZ Progressive]

1. What about if they don't?

Who stands to lose the most?

[Yavin4]

7. They stand to lose the most. They're the ones facing insurrection.

What's happening in Syria can easily happen in their own nation.

[GummyBearz]

13. Saudi's fund ISIS. ISIS represents their brand of Islam, why the heck...

why the heck would Saudi Arabia use all those F-15's we just sold them to attack ISIS? Is it a coincidence ISIS is right next door to Saudi Arabia, yet never takes territory from Saudi Arabia? No. The Wahabist Saudi's fund ISIS, and ISIS fights for the Wahabism interpretation of Islam.

So what about Jordan? Would you start a war with your neighbor who is about 10x bigger than you? Hell no... Syria is in ruin, Iraq is in ruin. Kurds are fighting for their survival, but they can't take on SA. Iran reportedly has sent ground troops (no surprise, they hate SA). So can the Kurds and Iran take them out? It seems like quite a gamble, and this shouldn't be gambled on. Everyone in the world who disagrees with their extremism should contribute to wiping them off the face of the world.

[Yavin4]

14. If the Saudis fund ISIS, then they're incredibly stupid for doing so. n/t

[GummyBearz]

15. I'm somewhat surprised you say that

Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, the radical (terrorist) interpretation of Islam is based on Saudi Wahabism. Saudi's fund terrorism big time, and ISIS has a shit ton of money, and I don't think they are bank rolled by some moderately wealthy guys who decided to give up their comfy lives to live in a desert.

[Renew Deal]

2. I agree, but is it sustainable if they keep attacking countries outside of the ME?

Like someone else said, what if they don't?

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. Peace through cooperation is the answer.

A coalition of middle east countries should be cultivated to deal with ISIS and then nurtured into a peaceful coexistence.

There's a good reason that none of the terrorists come from Eqypt.

[randome]

4. 'Dealing with ISIS' means destroying them because they don't want to negotiate a thing.

So does it matter which country does the destroying?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[lumberjack_jeff]

6. ISIS are criminals. The neighboring countries should be encouraged to deal with them on that basis.

[6chars]

11. They are not just criminals.

They are evil personified and dealing with them on that basis they should be eradicated from the earth.

[randome]

22. Encouraged. What if they can't or won't go it alone?

What if they don't have the resources to prevent suicide bombing after suicide bombing? I agree it's preferable for regional powers to deal with them but none of these countries have our resources.

So we end up supplying them with arms. So then we're seen as part of ISIS' ever-changing enemy. I don't see an easy answer in any of this.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. It's a problem decades in the making.

We know from experience that the empire/military approach makes the problem worse.

When your only tool is a hammer, all your problems look like nails.

[Yavin4]

10. Yes. It matters greatly which country is doing the destroying.

It's one thing if its Western powers doing the fighting because the general populace of each nation will see it as an invading force. It's another thing entirely if its the actual populace doing the fighting.

[LanternWaste]

5. "Their problem...?" That being the problem we assisted in creating.

The under-educated and sub-literate appear to consciously forget the Sikes-Picot Accord, Truman's duplicitous relationship with Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlav, the implicit results of bringing Turkey into NATO, through the American lead coup deposing Mohammed Mossadegh and beyond, it was the West which directly caused the instability.

No doubt, many Americans would simply like to pretend it never happened, that we have zero responsibility for what happened and its effects, and labor under the pretense that it's "their problem", despite the historical record.

[DetlefK]

8. So you advocate for more meddling to undo the damage from the first meddling?

That will surely remove all arab worries that the West is meddling too much in the region.

[Yavin4]

9. That's an overly simplistic reading of the conflict.

Sure. Americans have a hand in creating some of this, but not all of it. We had nothing whatsoever to do with Syria and its government where ISIS originated.

[Agnosticsherbet]

12. So what do we do about the refugee crisis, a direct result of ISIS and attacks in Western Countries.

If this were just a civil war in Syria killing a million or so Syrians and causing mass flight into neighboring countries, perhaps you could say this is a regional problem.

But the attacks aren't regional, and how do we deal with a million refugees and attacks on civilians in Western Countries.

I don't support an invasion, but it is not a regional problem we can solve by saying let the locals handle it.

ISIS, no matter how it started, would not be a problem if the Syrian Civil War had not destroyed their central government. ISIS would be a few terrorists looking for a home if they could not have captured and controlled large swathes of Syria and IRAQ.

The best way to handle a problem like ISIS is not to start the damn thing.

Once a problem like ISIS exists it is immoral and unethical to say, "let the locals handle it."

[upaloopa]

16. I think ethic and religious identities are stronger

than national ties.
The war on terrorism has been between the West and the Islamic extremists.
Our support of Israel is part of their motive to attack the West.
My guess is there are more plans in the pipeline to attack the West.
Putting our heads in the sand will not make it go away.

[Bad Thoughts]

17. They won't: ME governments play groups against one another

Saudi Arabia is the silent ally of Israel, but it lets its people send money to terrorist groups. Assad claims that he opposes religious fanaticism, but not only has he allowed terrorist groups to use Syria as a pipeline to move people, materials, and money, his family coordinated activities like AQI. The governments of the Middle East are afraid of their people: unwilling to allow democratic reforms, they allow the people to invest in questionable politics. They have no ability to shape their citizenry or gain their trust. I have every confidence that they will defeat this week's Al Qaeda, but will hesitate to oppose the next one.

[KamaAina]

18. They went a long way toward causing it.

Especially Saudi Arabia. Where do you think those brand spanking new white Toyotas are coming from?

[Codeine]

19. A convincing argument could be made

that the same applies to the refugee crisis.

[ileus]

20. Tell that to France...

[CJCRANE]

21. We need to ask the gulf monarchies to stop exporting wahhabism.

I believe in the right of soveriegn nations to enforce their own laws, but not to export and support extremism and jihadis.