That's an interesting interpretation of the article I linked. I'm certain that he wasn't recommending a repeat of the Iraq fiasco when he talked about investment as part of the solution.

bbauska

Are you saying this is your plan as well? Perhaps there can be an original thought from you?

I think its a horribly complex problem that has not been solved by any interventions from the West. And won't be. Our military contribution at the moment is probably about right as I explained earlier.
Original thoughts? Well, i like to rely upon more than my own deductions. Experts,and well informed people provide information that allows me to develop an informed opinion based upon more than a cursory understanding...

How did you arrive at the incredibly novel idea that a genocide would solve things?
Was that an original thought?

rickyp wrote:That's an interesting interpretation of the article I linked. I'm certain that he wasn't recommending a repeat of the Iraq fiasco when he talked about investment as part of the solution.

bbauska

Are you saying this is your plan as well? Perhaps there can be an original thought from you?

I think its a horribly complex problem that has not been solved by any interventions from the West. And won't be. Our military contribution at the moment is probably about right as I explained earlier.
Original thoughts? Well, i like to rely upon more than my own deductions. Experts,and well informed people provide information that allows me to develop an informed opinion based upon more than a cursory understanding...

How did you arrive at the incredibly novel idea that a genocide would solve things?
Was that an original thought?

I certainly didn't see it on HuffPo...

bbauska wrote:As to what I think about ISIS? Destroying the camps, leveling the cities, eliminating the populations there, and making the land uninhabitable would take care of that...

Or... we could make schools for the boys and girls, increase the infrastructure and pour boatloads of dollars into Iraq. Oh wait a minute... We did that and it did not work.

Is this not just false dichotomy.

Ricky is wrong on a fair amount here, but he us right to point out that you are prescribing genocide.

Which cities, for example, would you raze? Name them.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:As to what I think about ISIS? Destroying the camps, leveling the cities, eliminating the populations there, and making the land uninhabitable would take care of that...

Or... we could make schools for the boys and girls, increase the infrastructure and pour boatloads of dollars into Iraq. Oh wait a minute... We did that and it did not work.

Is this not just false dichotomy.

Ricky is wrong on a fair amount here, but he us right to point out that you are prescribing genocide.

Which cities, for example, would you raze? Name them.

Great question, Owen,

I would destroy the camps outside the cities. If the ISIS forces go into cities, we ask the populace to evacuate or turn over the terrorists. Give 72 hours. Wait...

COMPLETELY LEVEL THE CITY.

Do the same thing at the next city until ISIS is destroyed.

Have you read the UN report on ISIS/ISIL? My goodness, how can you not want the evil bastards off of this earth permanently?

To answer your question, Owen:
None of them, or all of them. Where evil that has unleashed such atrocities lurks, we should find and kill them.

Please note that I answered your question. It would be nice if RickyP would answer mine.

"What would it take to spur you into action against ISIS?" The UN report topped what I thought the level off evil was.

How much more...

I do not support ANY genocide of an entire people. I do, however, support the complete and utter eradication of ISIS.

I would destroy the camps outside the cities. If the ISIS forces go into cities, we ask the populace to evacuate or turn over the terrorists. Give 72 hours. Wait...

COMPLETELY LEVEL THE CITY.

Do the same thing at the next city until ISIS is destroyed.

Isn't that more or less what Genghis Khan did ?

I don't believe you're really serious about this Brad. It's a remarkably silly idea on so many levels. Even if we completely set aside all moral qualms about the mass extermination of tens of thousands of civilians, the practicalities of the situation are such that it's a non-starter from the beginning. The US government would become international pariahs the whole world over. Internal political opposition would be immense. The scale of protest would completely dwarf anything seen during the invasion of Iraq. Anybody involved in the decision-making process would be so terrified of a change in political climate rendering them vulnerable to prosecution for crimes against humanity that they'd probably refuse to take part in the first place.

Sassenach wrote:

I would destroy the camps outside the cities. If the ISIS forces go into cities, we ask the populace to evacuate or turn over the terrorists. Give 72 hours. Wait...

COMPLETELY LEVEL THE CITY.

Do the same thing at the next city until ISIS is destroyed.

Isn't that more or less what Genghis Khan did ?

I don't believe you're really serious about this Brad. It's a remarkably silly idea on so many levels. Even if we completely set aside all moral qualms about the mass extermination of tens of thousands of civilians, the practicalities of the situation are such that it's a non-starter from the beginning. The US government would become international pariahs the whole world over. Internal political opposition would be immense. The scale of protest would completely dwarf anything seen during the invasion of Iraq. Anybody involved in the decision-making process would be so terrified of a change in political climate rendering them vulnerable to prosecution for crimes against humanity that they'd probably refuse to take part in the first place.

Sass,
I would not want it to come to this. Certainly not! However, something must be done to exterminate ISIS.

Am I wanting to do this? NO! I DON'T WANT TO!

Am I willing to go to this extreme? Yes. Absolutely. If it will rid this world of such evil.

Let me ask this:
Considering the UN report and the list of atrocities that have been committed, what is the least AND most that should be done against ISIS?

I don't have an answer to that question, but I do know that I could never condone taking an action where the treatment is worse than the disease. The population of Aleppo (for example) is approximately 2 million. ISIS have killed a lot fewer than 2 million people so far. A few thousand ISIS fighters fleeing to Aleppo would probably be enough to prevent any kind of popular uprising against them from taking place within your 72 hour deadline, so you'd then be left with no choice but to exterminate 2 million people to take out 2 thousand fighters. It would be the single worst individual atrocity in the entire span of human history. I call bullshit, there's no way you'd sign off on a decision like that.

Sassenach wrote:I don't have an answer to that question, but I do know that I could never condone taking an action where the treatment is worse than the disease. The population of Aleppo (for example) is approximately 2 million. ISIS have killed a lot fewer than 2 million people so far. A few thousand ISIS fighters fleeing to Aleppo would probably be enough to prevent any kind of popular uprising against them from taking place within your 72 hour deadline, so you'd then be left with no choice but to exterminate 2 million people to take out 2 thousand fighters. It would be the single worst individual atrocity in the entire span of human history. I call bullshit, there's no way you'd sign off on a decision like that.

You missed the part where they could leave.

Thank you for your non-answer. I am used to it from others as well.

Don't be silly. We're effectively talking about a hostage situation. Thousands of nutters who signed up to be martyrs in the first place and you wade in there with a perfect opportunity to not only achieve their martyrdom but score a spectacular public relations coup into the bargain ? ISIS troops would retreat to every town and city in Syria and forcibly hold the populations at gunpoint to prevent them from leaving and then dare you to do your worst.

Keep in mind that this already part of the playbook for Hamas and Hezbollah on a more limited scale. Why do you think ISIS, who are way more extreme than either, would be any different ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll

2 Million at Aleppo. Doesn't even make it above Shaka's Conquests...

You asked another question w/o answering mine. Surely you realize the rudeness and selfishness you are exhibiting.

Sass, I respect your wisdom on so many other levels, but to not give a minimum level and a maximum level of resistance appears to be so "Neville Chamberlain" to me. Based upon your response, your maximum is less than carpet bombing. So that is a good start.

Tell me your minimum...

Brad, I guess at a minimum do what we are doing now. Your solution would a good way for the world to erupt into war. Apart from the moral considerations , I think we can come up with a better solution than that. What allows ISIS to flourish is the chaos in Syria and Iraq--stabilizing those two countries should be a prime objective.

freeman3 wrote:Brad, I guess at a minimum do what we are doing now. Your solution would a good way for the world to erupt into war. Apart from the moral considerations , I think we can come up with a better solution than that. What allows ISIS to flourish is the chaos in Syria and Iraq--stabilizing those two countries should be a prime objective.

Thank you for your input. Do you think your minimum is achieving success, or does it need to be increased to achieve the desired effect?

Well if the current bombing does not work...special forces, then ground troops, more bombing , more money to support allies, etc. Genocide is not on the list...

2 Million at Aleppo. Doesn't even make it above Shaka's Conquests...

If you look, I said the biggest individual artrocity. I'm guessing Shaka never killed 2 million people in one battle...

You asked another question w/o answering mine. Surely you realize the rudeness and selfishness you are exhibiting.

I actually don't agree with this at all. What I'm saying is that I don't feel confident enough to give you an answer because I don't feel that I have an answer to give. I don't know what the best course of action to tackle ISIS would be. If there's one thing we've learned over the last decade or so of interventions in the Islamic world it's that this is a very unpredictable place with no obvious right thing to do and the potential for unforeseen consequences to our actions that could be very severe. Back in 2003 I was confident that invading Iraq was the right thing to do and that it work out for the best in the long run. There's part of me that still clings to that belief, but it would be foolish to try and deny that I was very naive in that assumption. I don't know what should be done here and I don't see why I should be forced to answer your question rather than simply admit it.

You may feel that my refusal to give you an answer somehow disqualified me from commenting on your own proposals but if so then I'll have to respectfully disagree. It's quite possible to have an opinion on somebody else's proposed solution without being able to better it with your own. I know in my gut and also in my brain that a Mongol style scorched earth offensive would be foolish.