The debate "NATO should and is required to stop ISIS" was started by
July 1, 2016, 9:14 am.
21 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 6 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Alex posted 17 arguments, Daffa8799 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
PoliticsAsUsual posted 10 arguments to the disagreers part.
Alex, Bman192837465, Daffa8799, leftyg1111, Yorkie, debatabillity, Koe, TheCanadianRepublican, moneybagboyz and 12 visitors agree.
PoliticsAsUsual and 5 visitors disagree.
does Nato have anything to do with attacks by non state actors?
I don't believe NATO emphasize International aid after all. It didn't reduce attack from terrorism for decades. Maybe it's underfunded or lobbied by those extremist movements
nato has nothing to do with this. terrorists groups cannot declare legitamete war, only nations can. being attacked by a non state organization does not trigger war treaties as far as I know.
how do we enpower those people if we are not there to help them, and ensure ISIS is defeated?
I'm all for the locals defeating ISIS, I simply don't see a way without NATO playing a large part
and we should empower those people to destroy isis
more people in the middle east hate ISIS. most muslems and Islams hate ISIS. it's a huge difference.
unless your saying there is a majority of American hating americans your wrong
Russia would invade for the same reason you want to, they don't like us. the example is still very relevant. the good people would be people who support Russia I assume. just as good people in your opinion is probably pro American people.
the current plan is to provide significant support to our Muslim allies so they can deal with the issue of Muslim extremism. if Muslims attack ISIS they can't propagandize that Americans are killing Muslim women and children. If you invade you are only fueling the hatred that allows ISIS to exist. even if you could destroy ISIS by invading, a dozen other terrorist organizations would spring up to try to force you out again.
liberal/current plan "let them take care of themselfs, ignore NATO law, ohh, look we just got shot up, do better muslem countries"
why would Russia do that? who will the good people be? there is no ISIS in america.
the middle East certainly is divided. all the factions hate each other. the only group they hate more than each other is us.
the plan is to allow Muslim countries deal with Muslim extremists, with our help. if we invade it makes us the evil invaders, not the good guys.
you didn't respond to my example. what would you do if Russia started setting up bases all over America to protect the good people. it would be an outrage. it would spawn the kind of hatred we haven't had since the cold war. that is what your plan will do. convince even more people that America is an evil empire bent in controling the world. and they would have good reason to think so.
America's are more or less on one side. the middle east is all divided and stuff.
we turn the locals against them, by turning them toward us. hoping the locals will defeat ISIS isn't a strong plan.
if they are underground they can't recruit well, they also can't train, plan, or get weapons as easily. this way they won't be able to do as many attacks or they will be killed off.
2.) your plan is to have muslems who hate us defeat ISIS who chant death to america. I say work to be friends of those people who hate us a little. tell them we will protect them.
america has been more of a "kill those guys" instead of "protect these guys" country. NATO should put up bases but to protect the good people, and focus on that.
in Vietnam both sides didn't like us, so the chance of winning was really low. the plan now should be different and making friends with those against ISIS, or those even considering joining ISIS should be a huge priority
4) you want to militarily occupy a country that doesn't want you there. that is not going to win over the locals. that is going to convince them the only way to get rid of you is by force. how are you not getting this. people don't like being occupied by their enemies.
if Russia attacked America and then set up bases "not for war, but to protect the good people in that area" do you think Americans would love them for it? they would despise the Russians. that is what you are proposing. it will never work. it will only make things worse.
and America will never deploy anywhere near half the number of troops they sent to Vietnam. it wouldn't really matter if they did anyway.
1) you are assuming that driving them underground would significantly reduce their attacks. ISIS has proven to be more aggressive in their activities than al qaeda. there is no reason to believe they would lessen their attacks as an underground group.
2) stop calling them islams, that isn't a word. the word is Muslims.
I'm not saying all Muslims there are evil terrorists. I'm saying there is no group that wants to be your friend. they all hate you, it is just the degree to which they hate you. you are not going to be able to get many local allies. and the ones you can get will not have much support from the people.
3) as I said, you can't occupy a hostile population any more. world history has proven it only breeds more hatred and violence until they finally drive their occupiers out. your own recent history should have taught you that. that is exactly the kind of thinking that got America's a** kicked in Vietnam, causing you to run away in disgrace as your puppet state fell to the communists.
size doesn't matter. they are guerilla force. the bigger their target, the more damage they do to it.
do you seriously not understand how guerilla forces work?
the only way to beat them is to turn the local people against them.
ISIS isn't even close to half the size of Vietnam's army and equipment.
I love number is 3, do you even know your own history?
England was the world power, and a few colonists drove them out. America was the world power and 3rd world Vietnam drove them out.
traditional military doesn't stand a chance against guerillas, especially when the guerillas are the home team.
1.) in the past few years ISIS has killed hundreds more then AL Quiada. worst case senario - if ISIS becomes like them, great.
2.) there are no good Islams who want peace in that part of the world? come on, that's worse then Trump. but if there is no good, then carpet bombing can't kill good people then right?
3.) biggest military in the world VS. a few dozen dudes with a couple guns. I'll let you pick the winner
4.) we kill ISIS, set up bases, not for war, but to protect the good people in that area. that way the people choose us, not terrorist groups
1) you won't defeat ISIS. at best you will drive them underground like Al quiada. you've been fighting them for over a decade now and they are very much alive and kicking.
2) there are no people you would consider to be good. there are Islamists, extreme Islamists and corrupt dictators. there are no "good" factions to support.
3) you aren't allowed to build bases there. once you drive Isis underground it goes back to being Syria. they are definitely not going to allow an American military presence in Syria. so there is absolutely nothing you could do to try to combat a terrorist group.
and really, you had lots of bases in both Afghanistan and Iraq for years. you were never able to destroy the terrorist groups there either. there is no reason to think you would do better now. history should have taught you that you cannot occupy a hostile population.
what problem? if a smaller problem is formed, fine, but I don't see a group like ISIS rising after ISIS is defeated. if NATO does it right they will encourage the good people, and make sure they know who the friends and ememies are. they will build bases to quickly shut down any formations of terrorist groups.
it doesn't matter which western, Christian country kicks the hornet's nest. it will cause the same problem.
that's why I'm saying "NATO" not "the USA" other countries need to help out.
I'm saying that invading is incredibly stupid. you won't solve the problem you will only make it worse.
let's put it like this. if you need to drive in a nail, you use a hammer. if you need to cut a board you use a saw. only relying on the military (a hammer) to get the job done is stupid. you have to use the right tool for the job.
American intervention is what caused large parts of the problem to begin with. more direct intervention only feeds the problem while bleeding you of manpower and money. there are more effective ways that spend less American lives.
your saying not to invade places that kill inocent people in mass amounts?
what are you talking about? the random invasions and interfering in foreign countries is what has caused them to attack you. invading more countries will only intensify the problem.
your way - the way things are going now
how things are going now- biggest mass shootings ever
how exactly does my way lead to bigger mass shootings? that is random statement of the year.
since we know your way leads to the biggest mass shootings ever, then my way can't do any worse right?
they will suicide bomb our bases. we tried that. a lot of soldiers died, and a lot of soldiers are killing themselves. your macho patriotism is not helping our troops, it's breaking them.
why do you always jump to extremes?
we are fighting them, by making sure the people fighting them win.
are we at war with ISIS? if so we should build bases at where they were (after we knock them out)
if not we are not stopping killers who threaten our citizens and our alies
that isn't the reason. it's just beneficial to us to have bases all over the world and they allow us to stay there. they can at any point tell us to leave and we will have to. what we have in Germany and Korea is a mutual agreement, not a perpetual invading army.
Korea wants us there cause of NKorea and Germany allows us as part of nato in case Russia goes heywire. unlike ISIS which at best kills a few civilians, Russia can actually pose a threat to the existence of Europe and the US in a conventional military way. they won't win, but that's what will be a war. ISIS is just a bunch of regional guerillas.
okay, I see what your saying. your saying if there is a way to defeat ISIS without bad things happening, great.
you said "either we drive them underground temporarily and they come back stronger than ever as soon as we leave"
then don't leave. the US still has soldiers in Germany, and in Korea for that reason.
just remember George Bush with that "mission accomplished" banner. that victory is as close as we'll get in a direct confrontation.
it would be a great thing if we defeat isis, it just won't work.
either we drive them underground temporarily and they come back stronger than ever as soon as we leave, or the same people and ideas resurface under a different name. eitherway, we won't succeed.
I have no idea where you got me thinking their defeat would be bad from anything that I said.
what your saying is defeating ISIS is a bad thing and NATO shouldn't do it, but if local groups defeat ISIS then all is good?
also what local groups. in Iran/Iraq there are such groups, but not in other countries, and not in Europe.
I think we should support and encourage local groups to battle the insurgencies happening in their own countries.
ever since we stopped actively invading Muslim countries and started supporting local groups, there have been no foreign terrorist attacks on US soil. only a handful of radicalized citizens digruntled at the demonization of their communities. that seems to be the strategy that actually increases our safety and not just a false perception of safety.
you won't stop ISIS by conventional war. you will just fragment them and then splinter groups will rise up. just like ISIS rose up after we destroyed alqueda and taliban.
all you will do is reinforce their ideology and bolster radical recruitment.
The Paris attacks and recent attacks in Europe by ISIS are acts of war. NATO regulations and laws say "an attack on one us an attack on all" so where is NATO taking out the ISIS stronghold al-Rai 50 miles from Turkey? we know where it is. NATO could defeat it in a day, why don't they?