• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. to begin to train and equip moderate Syria rebels

No,

Allied air force attacks combined with local troops can work. See how it worked in the Balkans as an example.

But it hasn't worked in an area that wasn't infested with Radical Islam. That is my point. Touche though, I didn't about that. We're also talking about a society that isn't about hundred or two hundred years behind the time.

A very costly proposal. Costly both in money and in blood.[/QUOTE]

Never said it wouldn't. But at a point down the line, the cost of inaction, will be higher.
 
Which is the reason you'd have to take a scorched earth approach to the religion in the region. But even beyond that, Islam has become a danger even to those who practice it. And by that, I mean all the sectarian differences. In the scenario that we go in and acts as a true occupying power (we haven't really done this, instead opting to take a more hands off approach to internal politics). We broke Japan of Shintoism, we can do the same with Islam in the Middle East. They key would be we'd have to show a better way by providing rebuilding effort not seen since the Marshall Plan.

I was getting worried that we cannot cover such a high price at the moment, but then:

Make no mistake, this will be the costliest endeavor in US History, and one which will have to have the cooperation of not just Europe and the US, but also other world powers affected by Islamic attacks such as Russia, China and even India. (as neither of those powers are going to be willing to sit back and allow NATO to carve up the Middle East without getting a cut). Again this solution isn't something that could be pulled off now of course, but only the worst comes to pass.

You mean turn the whole world against the backwardness in the Middle East? That, of course, can work. I mean, even without the rest (especially not Russia), just consider China and India coming in for a cut!
 
But it hasn't worked in an area that wasn't infested with Radical Islam. That is my point.

Hmmm, what about Bosnia?

Touche though, I didn't about that. We're also talking about a society that isn't about hundred or two hundred years behind the time.

Bosnia was not that behind because of religion, true.

Never said it wouldn't. But at a point down the line, the cost of inaction, will be higher.

While there I propose removing all other religions as well.
 
You mean turn the whole world against the backwardness in the Middle East? That, of course, can work. I mean, even without the rest (especially not Russia), just consider China and India coming in for a cut!

It's not just an economic cost if such an operation were to be undertaken that you have to consider. I mean, imagine it from the perspective of Russia and China, the prospect of the strategic adversaries suddenly being in control of so much of the world energy reserves? Were NATO to seriously consider such an endeavor, there'd have to be some sort of Potsdam Conference to split up the Middle East. Otherwise, as soon as we're done fighting Arabs, we'll end up fighting the Chinese and the Russians for much needed Oil.
 
Hmmm, what about Bosnia?

Bosnia was not that behind because of religion, true.

While there I propose removing all other religions as well.

I can't imagine there's a lot of Christians and Jews hanging out in Riyadh. Again though, we'd have to do something along the lines of the Shinto Directive didn't outlaw the practice of Shintoism so much as it cut out all government support. It did go further though then merely establishing the Separation of Church and State though:

The application of the directive relied upon a stream of instructions from the government covering a wide range of prohibitions:
of visits to religious institutions by pupils at state schools and children of pre-school age
of fundraising for shrines by local town committees; of the performance of groundbreaking (jichinsai) and roof-raising rites (jōtōsai) for public buildings
of conducting funerals and rites of propitiation for the war dead by the state and public bodies
and of the removal and/or erection of commemorative sites to the war dead.

國學院デジタルミュージアム

I don't agree we have to remove all religions, just make them equal. The way that was done in Japan:

"According to the directive, State Shinto was to be stripped of public support and of its "ultra-nationalistic and militaristic" trappings. With the severing of its traditional state patronage the Shinto establishment required privatization, and to that end any Shinto entity that had been dependent on public funding but not actually part of the secular administrative structure was to be assimilated either into what the directive calls "Sect Shinto" with no special privileges above the other popular faiths, or to be reformed, with conditions stipulating complete and permanent loss of government support, as "Shrine Shinto," which was to be supported by voluntary private donation only."

Shinto Directive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shintoism still exists today by the way, but it's of course very small portion. Only about 40% of Japan follow and organized religion, with the majority actually being Buddhist.
 
There are terrorist from Morocco, but that comes more from the cancer that is within Islam today than any policies the state is enacting. I actually think that there's is a good model to work off of. The problem is that the infection may run so deep that eventually you have to deal with it.



The problem is that this hasn't worked. I mean say what you will about Iraq, but the moment we took over, we were more than ready to hand over power to the Iraqis. And that just got blown up into a sectarian mess with Islam at the heart of it. Egypt ousted Mubarak, and what do the people do? They install the Muslim Brotherhood. We assist in the ousting in Lybia, and now that's a hot bed for Islamist. And Syria? Well, perhaps if we'd of kept our noses out of that, ISIS wouldn't of been a problem, especially of Saddam was still in power to prevent them from pushing as far in as they did.

It didn't work in Iraq for the same reason ISIS is in Syria-it fills a power vacuum. If we hadn't ceded Iraq to them, we wouldn't be in this mess-do you honestly think if we left our forces in Iraq that we would even need to be having this discussion about ISIS in Iraq?
 
It didn't work in Iraq for the same reason ISIS is in Syria-it fills a power vacuum. If we hadn't ceded Iraq to them, we wouldn't be in this mess-do you honestly think if we left our forces in Iraq that we would even need to be having this discussion about ISIS in Iraq?

Yes because I think you still have a power vacuum. Unless the US becomes a colonial power in Iraq, then there was inevitably going to be a vacuum between the political factions. Perhaps ISIS isn't the problem they are right now, but I think you still have civil wars in Iraq and Syria because the causes of those two conflicts remain in place. I mean, the Arab Spring still happens, which ultimately leads to the Syrian Conflict. And you still an ineffectual government in Baghdad that abuses the Sunnis which leads to the conflict there.

Maliki isn't stupid, he knows we couldn't take over Iraq again if we wanted to. So ultimately, the troops that remained would be giant bluff.
 
Honestly, you know why they are doing this? Because they don't have the balls to go all in to solve the problem. And until the problem warrants that level of a solution, they will continue to try and copy of the success of the Afghan Campaign* (by success I mean ousting the Taliban from power.)

What would solve the problem over there? turn the desert into glass?
 
It didn't work in Iraq for the same reason ISIS is in Syria-it fills a power vacuum. If we hadn't ceded Iraq to them, we wouldn't be in this mess-do you honestly think if we left our forces in Iraq that we would even need to be having this discussion about ISIS in Iraq?

If Iraq weren't ****ed with at all we wouldn't be in this situation either. ever think of that? :doh
 
Yes because I think you still have a power vacuum. Unless the US becomes a colonial power in Iraq, then there was inevitably going to be a vacuum between the political factions. Perhaps ISIS isn't the problem they are right now, but I think you still have civil wars in Iraq and Syria because the causes of those two conflicts remain in place. I mean, the Arab Spring still happens, which ultimately leads to the Syrian Conflict. And you still an ineffectual government in Baghdad that abuses the Sunnis which leads to the conflict there.

Maliki isn't stupid, he knows we couldn't take over Iraq again if we wanted to. So ultimately, the troops that remained would be giant bluff.

ISIS wasn't in Iraq (significantly) until we left. There is a variable there you must account for-our withdrawal.
 
If Iraq weren't ****ed with at all we wouldn't be in this situation either. ever think of that? :doh

But we did get involved, so the choice became go home and have to come back in 3 years or stay and keep the peace.

For politics, Obama chose to pull out-and its blown up in his face in spectacular fashion-so much so that he's been forced back in.
 
ISIS wasn't in Iraq (significantly) until we left. There is a variable there you must account for-our withdrawal.

Yes but ISIS wasn't created as a result of American Withdrawal, instead it grew out of it's absence. The origins of ISIS were born out of the Arab Spring. I think we can all agree that American troops in the area wouldn't of prevented a Moroccan store owner from killing himself and launching the Arab Spring right? I think we can all also agree, ISIS would of still formed in Syria out of the Civil War there that came up.

Then the question becomes if they would be able to roll through western Iraq with the ease they did. Your gut may say no, as of course ISIS is no match for the American Military. But there's a lot more considerations that would have to be taken into account. For instance, the local Sunny populace anger at the regime in Baghdad, would still be very sympathetic to ISIS coming in and offering them something better. This is also assuming that the Iraqi Government would of allowed the US Military to interfere in the early stages where some good could of occurred. At that time, Maliki had a lot to prove to his own people, specifically that he didn't need American support (aka not their puppet). This would lead to his overconfidence and allowing ISIS to push them back further and further. In the end, you've got a US military base in the middle of hostile territory, cut off from land routes of supply. We'd have Hamburger Hill in the desert.

So no, I don't think even if we still had that Base manned and operational, would it of been able to stop ISIS. The politics in the area are still what they are.
 
Last edited:
But we did get involved, so the choice became go home and have to come back in 3 years or stay and keep the peace.

For politics, Obama chose to pull out-and its blown up in his face in spectacular fashion-so much so that he's been forced back in.

What about the status of forces agreement of November of 2008?
 
The problem is that this hasn't worked. I mean say what you will about Iraq, but the moment we took over, we were more than ready to hand over power to the Iraqis. And that just got blown up into a sectarian mess with Islam at the heart of it. Egypt ousted Mubarak, and what do the people do? They install the Muslim Brotherhood. We assist in the ousting in Lybia, and now that's a hot bed for Islamist. And Syria? Well, perhaps if we'd of kept our noses out of that, ISIS wouldn't of been a problem, especially of Saddam was still in power to prevent them from pushing as far in as they did. In every single circumstance we've given freedom to Muslims in the Middle East, it's blown up in our face (with the lone exception of Morocco).

It is not a done deal. Perhaps it takes longer for it to work.

Could it of eventually blown up in our faces down the road? Maybe, but maybe not. Every year we get closer to not having to rely so heavily on ME oil. And once we finally kick that habit, we can seal off the ME and let the whole place burn itself down. At the very least, it wouldn't be our problem anymore, so long as we aren't letting them into Europe.

This has not worked neither,

Isolating our lands and expecting the east to destroy themselves only allows for an all encompassing leader to emerge like: Genghiz Khan, Atill the Hun, Ottoman Empire, etc. Being proactive is better then reactive.
 
The saudi's are very totalitarian and they are so terrified of ISIS they are building a heavily fortified and armed wall to keep them out. I dont think that will work. If the house of saud goes down it will be horrifically bloody.

Not sure what it had to do with my post?

But I do not think ISIS would venture down with Saudi Arabia.
 
It is not a done deal. Perhaps it takes longer for it to work.

Fair Point. But then again, even though my New York Knicks are 5-36, doesn't their championship hopes are out of the question right?

This has not worked neither,

Isolating our lands and expecting the east to destroy themselves only allows for an all encompassing leader to emerge like: Genghiz Khan, Atill the Hun, Ottoman Empire, etc. Being proactive is better then reactive.

Don't you think that it would actually be in our strategic interests to allow a central organization to develop from this mess? After all, that'd just provide us a target to blow up after all.
 
Just that even a totalitarian state is terrified of ISIS.

Not sure what it had to do with my post?

But I do not think ISIS would venture down with Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia and ISIS would never be allies. One's Sunni and the other's Shia with all the baggage that entails. Part of the reason for the Conflict in Iraq is that you have the Sunni ISIS that is pushing through friendly Sunni territory, and not is being resisted by Shia Iraq that will be backed by the Sauds.

Something major would have to shift for these two to work together.
 
Fair Point. But then again, even though my New York Knicks are 5-36, doesn't their championship hopes are out of the question right?

The analogy fails to apply because championships are yearly campaigns, while our involvement in the east may be a lifetime involvement.

Don't you think that it would actually be in our strategic interests to allow a central organization to develop from this mess? After all, that'd just provide us a target to blow up after all.

Historically, that has been a bad idea. A central organization is too powerful, it becomes a greater factor, and destroying it then can only bring the centralized organization down to the current state of affairs. So dealing with it then would cost more and the result would be to bring it down to this level and then some more. While we are here, why allow it to?
 
A transparent excuse. What about Obama's military advisors explaining what would happen?

I see, America should just ignore agreements they sign with other countries.

President Bush and Iraq Prime Minister Maliki Sign the Strategic Framework Agreement and Security Agreement

The USA should just do what it wants to do, and be the world's police force,

just think of all those Iraqis who were trained to protect themselves, and who received money, support and arms to defend their country with, all down the drain because their people were too gutless and lacked spine enough to protect themselves. They abandoned equipment and arms a ran away from a fight like little baby school boys.

Anything else you want to add to the conversation? Other than blame Obama?
 
Saudi Arabia and ISIS would never be allies. One's Sunni and the other's Shia with all the baggage that entails. Part of the reason for the Conflict in Iraq is that you have the Sunni ISIS that is pushing through friendly Sunni territory, and not is being resisted by Shia Iraq that will be backed by the Sauds.

Something major would have to shift for these two to work together.

If the whole world turns against them for instance.
 
If the whole world turns against them for instance.

Fair point. But even then, it's one thing to say you are going to work with one another against a common foe, it's another thing to actually pull it off. Come to think about it, I think Saladin actually faced a similar situation. I believe he ended up murdering the guy and his family, and absorb their strength into his instead of working with them.

The analogy fails to apply because championships are yearly campaigns, while our involvement in the east may be a lifetime involvement.

Fair point I suppose, so let me be real then. We are going to consistently have a problem with democracies in the region as long as the majority of the population continues to support Islam, specifically the intolerant and oppressive strain that exists in the Middle East. Unless you see them hitting an Enlightenment Phase in the next few years, I doubt we'll ever see natural change.

Historically, that has been a bad idea. A central organization is too powerful, it becomes a greater factor, and destroying it then can only bring the centralized organization down to the current state of affairs. So dealing with it then would cost more and the result would be to bring it down to this level and then some more. While we are here, why allow it to?

I can certainly understand from a Historical perspective why it would seem that way, and you know how I love History and love to use it, but this is one of the rare instances where I don't think it applies. For one thing, especially from a military perspective, it is far easier to target a destroy a single entity with a standing army. I mean, more so than nation building, our military was meant to engage in large scale combat against an organized foe who has a single command and control. You see, we would then be fighting a war that plays to our strengths instead of to our weaknesses, which is what trying to invade the Middle East right now would entail.

Also, there is something to be said for the shock value. Back in WW2, the MacArthur understood this very well and used the people's own belief system to make the transition much easier. This is why we kept the Emperor alive and never tried him for war crimes. He was a far more useful tool alive and dead. But more importantly, it did a lot to shock the Japanese people to be humbled. And more than anything, if Islam is to be contained, the people have to be humbled to the point where they no longer believe (as the majority of many Arab nations do) that it's okay to punish those that leave Islam and convert (or I suppose go Atheist). You wanna know the smartest thing MacArthur did during the entire war? This Photo:

macarthurHirohito.jpg

The image of MacArthur towering above the Emperor, a man who most Japanese had never seen before and most saw as a god-like figure, was very humbling. And regardless of if we end up having to deal with one enemy, or a dozen, the only way we end this scourge once and for all, is by breaking their will and making them know that violence will no longer be tolerated.
 
May the most secular anti Assad side win!

Mornin D. :2wave: Throwing money to these guys and training them is a waste of time and Money. But that's not to say they can't be used for bait!
 
Back
Top Bottom