Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

US blocks attempts by Arab allies to fly heavy weapons directly to Kurds to fight Islamic State

{ “If the Americans and the West are not prepared to do anything serious about defeating Isil, then we will have to find new ways of dealing with the threat,” said a senior Arab government official. “With Isil making ground all the time we simply cannot afford to wait for Washington to wake up to the enormity of the threat we face.”

Millions of pounds-worth of weapons have been bought by a number of European countries to arm the Kurds, but American commanders, who are overseeing all military operations against Isil, are blocking the arms transfers.

One of the core complaints of the Kurds is that the Iraqi army has abandoned so many weapons in the face of Isil attack, the Peshmerga are fighting modern American weaponry with out-of-date Soviet equipment. }

I thought that last bit would be especially hysterical to all of you who have told me that ISIS is the one with out of date Soviet equipment that wouldn't stand a chance against a real army.

{ The US has also infuriated its allies, particularly Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Gulf states, by what they perceive to be a lack of clear purpose and vacillation in how they conduct the bombing campaign. Other members of the coalition say they have identified clear Isil targets but then been blocked by US veto from firing at them.

Western leaders increasingly accept that the “war on Isil” has not gone well, from the moment last year Mr Obama called the group a “JV [junior varsity] team” of jihadists compared with al-Qaeda. }

The article actually says Britain is considering expanding their role in Syria and a lot of countries are looking at directly defying the US opposition to fighting.

Is there anyone here from the UK with thoughts on getting into it with ISIS?

Is there a point where we become obligated to actually fight them?
Have we passed it/if not what would be the move that crosses the line for you?

Gee, why not bother reading the last thread to get all the answers to your questions, and more? I'm sure that must be hard.

Because what happens down the line when the Kurds we help fight become new super powers in the region and do what every other new regime does? Mainly commit massive genocidal campaigns against its religious dissenters and plot invasions of its fellow countries?

We were handcuffed to Egypt for a long time. And then we got handcuffed to Isreal and Saudi Arabia. Do we need another set of cuffs just to get more hate from everyone in the third world?

Maybe its better to let the region have a decade or two without the united states as a presence. Maybe 5 decades so they can form some sort of stablized norm that doesn't involve vengeance.

We go in, everyone is like "Get the fuck outta there!"
We leave and everyone is like "Get the fuck in there!"

1 – Because there is nothing we can do that won't create a bigger problem later
2 – Because no one in America wants another Iraq War

I wouldn't exactly be the best guy to ask about this, but I think things would inevitably snowball into another world war. And we all know how well the last one went.

>lisa-Isis thread #5890

I believe I speak for vast majority of Britains when I say "fuck off" to your idea of the UK "getting into it" with ISIS.

We never wanted the afghan war in the first place, we all hate Tony Blaire and those who think the same as him. Our problems are at home not in the middle east.

Don't get yourself muddled up thinking that the British public would support you.

Also why is this thread happening again?

My idea of the UK getting into it?

Honey your MPs and Defense Secretary are debating live right now to decide whether or not to expand their role in Syria, and most of them are leaning "yeah we should probs do something now".

This is ISIS thread #3 and it's in response to new reports about the world collectively deciding that the US non-engagement plan is no longer viable.

{ Because what happens down the line when the Kurds we help fight become new super powers in the region and do what every other new regime does? }

The Kurds are the only truly pro-American ally we have in the region and easily the most moderate. They aren't Islamic fundamentalists, their religions (even the Muslims) are very syncretistic (they've passed gender equality laws, women can fight alongside men, they don't have to wear hijab or burka, etc).

ISIS has volunteer fighters leaving their countries to join them, peshmerga has volunteer soldiers from the West's armies coming to join them. They've shown nothing but willingness to compromise and cooperate and they're literally out there fighting with no real support. They're the only people actively fighting ISIS on the front line, and now they're getting pissed that they're defending the world from ISIS only to have no support from the West.

{ but I think things would inevitably snowball into another world war. And we all know how well the last one went. }

WW3 is definitely going to be started by China and Russia. Another WW is inevitable, and it'll probably get started fairly soon as the crashing markets of Europe effect the rest of the world. China's stock market crashed in response to Greece, our own stock market has suffered the worst drop in 2015, same for Germany, France, Portugal, and all of these markets were overvalued in the first place, so the resulting crashes (which are coming) will be even worse.

Lisa I'm just curious . Why do you think WW3 will be enevitably started by a stock market crash?

Previous wars were started by assassinations. Land claims and WMD possession (or claims of)

You'd be right that it would take China or Russia to get the world war ball rollin again. It needs an big influential nation that can drag others into it. However I don't think either China or Russia are keen for mutually assured destruction any more than the US. Which is why I don't think ww3 is enevitable. Not one single nation wants it

Lisa "if your pants sag I unload my mag" Lombardo said:

Honey your MPs and Defense Secretary are debating live right now to decide whether or not to expand their role in Syria, and most of them are leaning “yeah we should probs do something now”.

What difference does this make? the British public still vehemently disagree with more war. We have just started chopping our own army down into reservists so these pleb labour MP's are just as clueless as yourself.

Also
>Implying that the UK parliament actually represent the peoples opinion

Stop derailing your own thread with your immaturity

I didn't infer the parliment accurately represents the people, I told you it wasn't my idea that the UK step up their actions, but an actual debate talking place in real life. Turn on the news every once in awhile, a world exists outside of KYM.

So is the rule "Lisa can not 'derail' threads or we'll suspend her but the mods can feel free to derail all they want"? If I had answered that WW3 question in my ISIS that would a mod have suspended me again? I'm just trying to understand how the rules work here so I can follow them~ you guys seem to change your minds by the hour.

He's not really derailing the thread, he's asking about a tangent to your own statement. Get over yourself.

Lisa "time to pray with the KKK" Lombardo said:

I didn’t infer the parliment accurately represents the people, I told you it wasn’t my idea that the UK step up their actions, but an actual debate talking place in real life.

And I already told you that the British public doesn't want another war so why give me this redundant shit?

I don't care what labour MP's have to say nor, once again, does the public.

Turn on the news every once in awhile, a world exists outside of KYM.

Hahahaha wtf

Is this thread some sort of ploy to continue moaning?

I was suspended two days ago for asking a question about a tangent of another statement~ am I not allowed to have the rules clearly explained either? Explaining the rules is a mods job.

Nobody answered my question, am I going to get suspended if I explain why I think ww3 will be influenced by the market crashing in a thread made to discuss the world's response to ISIS? Would I get suspended if I try to compare our response to ISIS to our response on other foreign affair issues, like Iran's nuclear program? Comparing cannibalism to abortion really seemed to rustle your jimmies, I want to get direct mod approval first this time.

{ And I already told you that the British public doesn’t want another war so why give me this redundant shit? }

The British public are already in a war, the question is whether they'll become a larger part of it. "The public doesn't want a war at all!" tells me nothing about your opinion or response to your government taking a bigger role in the war you're already participating in, or your opinion/response to the West's middle eastern allies demanding action.

I include spoons so coming up with an answer doesn't have to be this big a strain on your brain.

The British public are already in a war

You mean Operation Shader? supply drops, reconnaissance and airstrikes against ISIS? hardly a war is it?. It's a bit insulting to call that a war effort…

“The public doesn’t want a war at all!” tells me nothing about your opinion or response to your government taking a bigger role in the war you’re etc etc

I don't feel the need to prove myself to you or give you an elaborate answer, your lack of maturity and cuntish remarks is just making me more blunt with my answers.

Have you ever actually been to England, to any cities other than London? nobody gives a shit about ISIS enough to start demanding a war, we are all too busy working and getting on with our lives. We read about it in the paper, take a deep sigh then turn over the page. we dont go on the internet and scream about it over and over again until someone starts paying us attention

So no I'll say it again, the British public doesn't want another war, not a good enough answer? well that's all you will get on that matter.

I was suspended two days ago for asking a question about a tangent of another statement~ am I not allowed to have the rules clearly explained either? Explaining the rules is a mods job.

I'm sure your extremely abrasive attitude has nothing to do with it…

>inb4 lol urr just talking bout my personality emoji emoji dumb nerd

If the civilized world were less cowardly, we would smother this problem while we still can. At the very least, we should be arming the Kurds.

@Lisa

Nobody answered my question, am I going to get suspended if I explain why I think ww3 will be influenced by the market crashing in a thread made to discuss the world’s response to ISIS? Would I get suspended if I try to compare our response to ISIS to our response on other foreign affair issues, like Iran’s nuclear program? Comparing cannibalism to abortion really seemed to rustle your jimmies, I want to get direct mod approval first this time.

Well I personally wasn't going to suspend you for answering that question, otherwise I wouldn't have asked it. I didn't really want a tangent discussion. Just your answer

I allow smaller sidetopics to follow for a while so long as they don't stop discussion on the main topic from continuing. I don't really suspend for that either. If a sidetopic overtakes a main topic, I'll kindly ask things to get back on track before using suspension

Of course when you act like a really unlikeable person that tests mod patience, some mods might be more prone to just suspending you on the spot (as you have experienced) rather than act as forgiving as myself.

If you need permission, you have mine to continue. But just give me the answer to the question, not more debate on that subject. I don't plan on arguing it

Because there is no point in fighting a war that can't be won. We can fearmonger and say that ISIS is a large, multi-billion dollar organization that will take over the world or we can call it like it is, a struggling, unpopular group of radicals that aren't going to survive in the region in the form they currently exist. There is no action that the United States can take that will fix the problem. I know all of the hawks want to drop fuel bombs on them but that mindset is how ISIS came to exist in the first place.

I'd argue that's how al-quada came into existence as well, and that 'Murican hawking or typical Christian fundamentalists are the reason that the Middle east hates America in the first place.

Smothering terrorist organizations and arming their local enemies. Ah, sounds familiar. Maybe like everything else we've done over there that doesn't work and just extends the problem and creates more terrorist organizations?

To be fair:

One post off tangent is not derailing. Several posts off tangent is derailing.

On the other hand, Turkey could probably use some help. The west doesn't need to intervene directly, but portions of Turkey have been resisting heavily against ISIS expansion and caused ISIS some major defeats

They've asked for more support from the west but haven't gotten much. What if they got more? So far they've shown a lot of promise. And Turkey isn't another rival terrorist group, they're a developed and allied nation

I'm opposed to nation-building, but we can't just sit this fight out. There are local factions that are relatively civilized and it makes more sense to arm them, rather than giving token support to the ineffective Iraqi military. Still, adding more weapons to such an unstable region carries risks, so the U.S. Leaving a permanent residual fighting force is a good option.

Because you can't get rid of them.

Its the reason why so many terrorist organizations are still around, despite repeated attempts to destroy them.

You can't destroy ideas or concepts. Things such as al-qaeda and isis were created in response to the environment around. And as long as that environment remains the same, they will never cease to exist, no matter how many bombs you drop on them.

Its the same reason why organizations like the KKK and Neo-Nazis still exist, despite repeated attempts by the FBI to destroy them they still exist.

There are local factions that are relatively civilized and it makes more sense to arm them

And who says they will remain relatively civilized?

Leaving a permanent residual fighting force is a good option.

I bet you'd change your mind when you saw the bill for that.

So it's like sort of an evolution. In order for different species to survive, it's the environment that has to be altered. Altering the environment is a problem though.

There is a rather open conspiracy of the Big Five nations who are also the world's biggest arms dealers to NOT stop war between Middle East Muslims and Western nations including Israel. These bad boys make too much money to stop wars that they need to sell more armaments. There's a very good chance that IS was an CIA/Mossad project to ramp up "terrorism" after Bin Laden and Al Qaida petered out in raising terrorism fears in Americans. The drone war technology could easily find the IS perps as they do their murderous staged public shows and take them out but this doesn't happen, does it? No, create more terror because it sells guns and that's what the Big Five want, not peace in the world but a world continually at war.

I've done a lot of thinking about this over the last few days and talked with one or two very smart people about it over dinner. In this argument, one side says meddling in the middle east comes with terrible unforseen consequences. The other says we can't let ISIS grow any larger. My conclusion: they're both right. America really does need to arm the Kurds, if not put ground troops in the region, and accept the resulting problems.

The muslim world is hell. Life in the middle east, north Africa, or Arabic penensula is going to suck, regardless of whether you are ruled by Sadam Hussein or ISIS. When America tries to interfere in the area, even with good intentions, it usually makes things worse somehow. The removal of Hussein is a good example. He was an evil tyrant who deserved what he got, but his removal (along with the absence of a residual American fighting force) created an environment in which Isis could flourish. In retrospect, minding our business doesn't look so bad. Now we're in a no-win situation. We have to be involved. Will it create unintended problems? Probably. Will it contribute to our national deficit? Absolutely. Too bad. We've been involved with this shitstorm for decades and can't step out now. The alternative is letting ISIS grow until it's strong enough to lash out at the West. Either fight now or deal with a death cult the size of several large countries. Radical Islam can not be defeated through military victory, but by the international muslim community taking a stand. Until then, America and the rest of the civilized world must periodically slap down whatever new version of Isis pops up. it's horribly expensive, but we kind of brought it on ourselves.

What the situation shows me is just how impotent America has become. In a time when the country is speeding headfirst into financial ruin and the great existential threat of our time grows ever stronger, we distract ourselves with non-issues like the Confederate flag and the fake oppression of special interest groups. Oh, well. At least we aren't western Europe, which has basically shrugged it's shoulders and said, "Fuck it. Bring on Sharia."

The alternative is letting ISIS grow until it’s strong enough to lash out at the West.

Like that's ever gonna happen.

ISIS releases picture of 14 year old suicide bomber who killed at least 50 Kurds in recent attack

side note: this comes less than a week after ISIS staged a public execution of a whole line of Kurdish fighters who were shot point blank in the head at the same time by young children and teenagers, in front of a large audience of eager male spectators (women aren't allowed to attend).

{ Its the same reason why organizations like theKKK and Neo-Nazis still exist, despite repeated attempts by the FBI to destroy them they still exist. }

Pretty sure the goal is to eliminate the threat, not the ideal. The KKK and New Black Panther Party are not sending child suicide bombers into crowded areas to take out as many people as possible, they're not establishing a caliphate that reigns by terror and intimidation, they're not actively waging war against the rest of the modern world, despite existing.

So do we let ISIS continue to exist unchecked until they cross our borders, like south Asia and northern Africa who were content to mind their own business until the group had established sister organizations within their boundaries and thousands of their citizens were fleeing to Syria to join the terrorist ranks? Or do we dismantle their power until they stop representing an active threat?

way to take what i said out of context.

The reason why the kkk is no longer a threat is because the environment changed. Attitudes towards race changed, and new laws were implemented.

Despite how much you think aggression will help it will do so much. Because like i said in the rest of my post which you ignored until the environment in which isis spawned is changed, they will never cease to exist, and they will continue to be violent.

I am very quite hesitant of posting this video as it can be related to tin foil hat conspiracies, (hell I myself used to be a conspiracy believer until I realized after a bit of research that I was just manipulated by persuasive misrepresentation of facts, but after the TPP issues, I slowly crept back into the world of conspiracies. Now, I'm just a moderate conspiracy observer). What this video suggests could be a possibility of what's really happening, but there's always the possibility that it's wrong as well. Don't assess whether it is crazy, rather determine if it's likely or unlikely the situation is the reality this video suggests.

Oh and yes, it covers the question.

It's a bit hard for me to debate this issue since it's all quite complicated for me.

UPDATE: The official SCG article for the video is down, I can't tell if it was done a while ago or recently. Never the less, lack of sources can deduct reliability points for this video, however I found a link to a possible copy-and-paste of the article:

http://www.wanttoknow.info/war/isis-islamic-state-origins