ISIS Behead Palmyra Archaeologist Khaled al-Assad And Hang His Body From Ruins

[The Minsky Moment]

Wahhabism has been around for quite a while.  The Saudi regime is no human rights paradise but Daesh is orders of magnitude worse. 

[The Minsky Moment]

This does appeal to the inner Evangelical Christian in me.

As a foreign policy objective it does seem fraught with difficulty.

Obvious that it would make the problem worse/accelerate radicalism.
Also no civilized western government could carry it out constitutionally. 

[alfred russel]

This does appeal to the inner Evangelical Christian in me.

As a foreign policy objective it does seem fraught with difficulty.

Obvious that it would make the problem worse/accelerate radicalism.
Also no civilized western government could carry it out constitutionally.

Lots of countries used to follow that mission, and not all of them have gotten new constitutions since then. Of course the legal system may have shifted with political opinion, but in an imaginary world where political opinion shifts back there is no reason to believe the legal systems wouldn't as well.

[Barrister]

This does appeal to the inner Evangelical Christian in me.

As a foreign policy objective it does seem fraught with difficulty.

Obvious that it would make the problem worse/accelerate radicalism.
Also no civilized western government could carry it out constitutionally.

Lots of countries used to follow that mission, and not all of them have gotten new constitutions since then. Of course the legal system may have shifted with political opinion, but in an imaginary world where political opinion shifts back there is no reason to believe the legal systems wouldn't as well.

While the US clearly couldn't carry out a deliberate policy of Christian evangelism, I don't see the constitutional constraints on countries with official religions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion

Heck, looking at the list, perhaps we should rely on a policy of Tongan missionaries spreading Methodism around the globe. 

[alfred russel]

While the US clearly couldn't carry out a deliberate policy of Christian evangelism, I don't see the constitutional constraints on countries with official religions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion

Heck, looking at the list, perhaps we should rely on a policy of Tongan missionaries spreading Methodism around the globe. 

The US has in the past. Even if informally.

[Camerus]

ISIS may be vicious scum, but let's leave the Muslim states to sort this one out this time, beyond perhaps our offering of air support or a highly limited support of proxies. 

Sadly, neither the Realpolitik arguments nor, given our track record of fucking things up and the likelihood of needing to resort to significant brutality, the moral perspective seem persuasive in arguing for greater involvement at this point (but that could be subject to change).

[Eddie Teach]

Also I have this vision of how this will go down if we back Iran and they go after ISIS. We will start hearing stories about how 15 ISIS militants destroyed five Iranian Revolutionary Guard Divisions and now have all their stuff. That is normally how this tends to go for us.

Maybe we should ally with Russia.

Why do you want ISIS getting nukes? 

[jimmy olsen]

This is an actual outrage.
How hard could it be to bomb the ISIS/ISIL/IS or whatever they want to be called out of existence?

I remember us debating the Iraq invasion a LOT, in fact, it's why we ended up here. After some persuasion about how neo-conservatism would work and the Middle East would become a beacon of FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY!!!1111 I succumbed to supporting the war. Which was terribly, terribly wrong.
We made this. It's up to us to clean it up. Kill them all, if need be.

I thought it is now well-established that air strikes alone aren't very effective?

They can be if you have spotters on the ground, especially if they have laser designators.

[Eddie Teach]

ISIS may be vicious scum, but let's leave the Muslim states to sort this one out this time, beyond perhaps our offering of air support or a highly limited support of proxies. 

I'm beginning to wonder if destroying ISIS and military occupation might be the least disruptive choice available. Considerably easy than assimilating 10, 20, a hundred million refugees in the West.

[alfred russel]

ISIS may be vicious scum, but let's leave the Muslim states to sort this one out this time, beyond perhaps our offering of air support or a highly limited support of proxies. 

I'm beginning to wonder if destroying ISIS and military occupation might be the least disruptive choice available. Considerably easy than assimilating 10, 20, a hundred million refugees in the West.

It isn't as though occupied Iraq and Afghanistan have been stable places. Maybe not as bad as ISIS, but ISIS is filling a power vacuum that will almost inevitably be created once the US leaves.

[Camerus]

ISIS may be vicious scum, but let's leave the Muslim states to sort this one out this time, beyond perhaps our offering of air support or a highly limited support of proxies. 

I'm beginning to wonder if destroying ISIS and military occupation might be the least disruptive choice available. Considerably easy than assimilating 10, 20, a hundred million refugees in the West.

Well, perhaps.  But I suppose:

1. I'm not sure an invasion and military occupation (which would in reality likely be an endless counter-guerrilla war) would really be a feasible option for a huge number of reasons.
2. Would such a war and occupation (counter-guerrilla war) result in significantly fewer refugees?
3. Your figures seem rather dire.
4. But even so, the West is under no compulsion to absorb anywhere near that number of refugees anyway, and probably lacks the will of existing populations (which needs to be taken into account both ethically and for democratic reasons) or even the material resources.

[crazy canuck]

This is an actual outrage.
How hard could it be to bomb the ISIS/ISIL/IS or whatever they want to be called out of existence?

I remember us debating the Iraq invasion a LOT, in fact, it's why we ended up here. After some persuasion about how neo-conservatism would work and the Middle East would become a beacon of FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY!!!1111 I succumbed to supporting the war. Which was terribly, terribly wrong.
We made this. It's up to us to clean it up. Kill them all, if need be.

If the problem was created by us launching military action against Iraq I have my doubts more military action is the solution. It just reconfirms my bias that we are too stupid and incompetent to solve the world's problems.

Apparently, most of the world is incompetent in solving world problems. I think the last time we were somehow on track was 1945.
It seems like the IS/ISIL/ISIS/FUCKNUTS hate being called DAESH, though. So we could start with that?

There is no moral fibre left in people selling 9 year old girls into slavery. These people are no different from Einsatz-gruppen.
I tend to shy away from the most unapologetic Islam-bashing here, but these people deserve to be called what they are. Pissflaps, cunts, shits, evil bastards.
A friend of mine recently said "If I weren't an old bastard and had two daughters, I'd volunteer for the Peshmerga. We need to kill these people."

And I agree. While I would gladly join the fighters, I doubt they would take overweight, alcoholic unfit idiots like me, though.

You don't have to go back as far as 1945.  In the early 90s it seemed like the world was entering a golden age of peace and prosperity. We sure dropped the ball.

[Eddie Teach]

1. I'm not sure an invasion and military occupation (which would in reality likely be an endless counter-guerrilla war) would really be a feasible option for a huge number of reasons.
2. Would such a war and occupation (counter-guerrilla war) result in significantly fewer refugees?
3. Your figures seem rather dire.
4. But even so, the West is under no compulsion to absorb anywhere near that number of refugees anyway, and probably lacks the will of existing populations (which needs to be taken into account both ethically and for democratic reasons) or even the material resources.

1. Perhaps not. But it's more feasible than throwing open the borders for mass migrations of entire populations of ethnic or religious minorities.
2. There's a lot more now than there were ten years ago.
3. There's a lot of vulnerable regimes in the region. I don't think ISIS will be confined to Syria and Iraq without western intervention. It'll be nice if I'm wrong about that.
4. This is probably true, but many posters on the forum have expressed great dismay at the idea of turning refugees away.

[Razgovory]

This does appeal to the inner Evangelical Christian in me.

As a foreign policy objective it does seem fraught with difficulty.

Obvious that it would make the problem worse/accelerate radicalism.
Also no civilized western government could carry it out constitutionally.

It's also fucking insane.

[Syt]

Well, whatever the world is doing now, doesn't help. I say we unleash our new "friends" in Iran on them.

You don't actually think that suddenly people start to care about problems that aren't on their door step and don't affect them except for making it a bit harder to have your TV dinner when watching the evening news?