Posted on Sep 3, 2014
What is Political Stance other Nations are taking against ISIS?
2.04K
2
5
0
0
0
ISIS is seemingly growing in power and capabilities. They have waged a constant war against poor old Syria for several years; they have begun to invade into Iraq just as we began to leave; declared open war against Turkey and America; and have publicly admitted to the wanton genocide of anyone who doesn't follow their beliefs.
They have amassed military grade weaponry and vehicles through various means, mostly looting bases that they have won.
So, where in the political scheme of things is the rest of the world? I understand that Israel is kinda having its own issues, but if ISIS continues to grow, will it not become part of the problem in the end? The UN can "sanction" all they want, but until physical action is taken against them this will not stop. So why is there so much "red-tape" when a second "Holocaust" is happening right now?
With the way ISIS is training and raising the children in its ranks, would the world have to resort to mass genocide against them, to include women and children, to be rid of this evil? If not, how would you propose to put an end to this?
They have amassed military grade weaponry and vehicles through various means, mostly looting bases that they have won.
So, where in the political scheme of things is the rest of the world? I understand that Israel is kinda having its own issues, but if ISIS continues to grow, will it not become part of the problem in the end? The UN can "sanction" all they want, but until physical action is taken against them this will not stop. So why is there so much "red-tape" when a second "Holocaust" is happening right now?
With the way ISIS is training and raising the children in its ranks, would the world have to resort to mass genocide against them, to include women and children, to be rid of this evil? If not, how would you propose to put an end to this?
ISIS
Politics
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 3
0
0
0
It is tempting to respond with what I wish they would do. However, your question is what are they doing? The answer appears to be nothing, at least nothing effective.
When WWII ended, a British diplomat traveled to Washington, D.C. to had off stewardship of the world to the United States. A US diplomat accepted the role on his nation's behalf. During the succeeding decades the US attempted to be "good" stewards of the world's interests, using its vastly superior economy and military to "coax" nations to get along and make nice with others (as well as their own citizens). Concurrently, they attempted to hand off the role to the United Nations. The current Administration decided to dump the role on the UN despite the fact that the UN has never evinced any willingness to accept the role or ability to perform it.
The problem is simple. The world is unmanageable. "Herding cats" fairly leaps to mind.
Now much of the world is disappointed with the US. They are waiting for America to "take care" of ISIS, but our President isn't cooperating and his constituents are clueless as to what American can and ought to do.
The simple truth is that America could never be a steward to the world in the manner in which Great Britain performed that role. GB had a presence, its empire. They surrendered stewardship when their empire ended. The US never had an empire. Despite charges of US imperialism, its empire has always been one of ideas and culture. Once upon a time you could look most anywhere in the world and see children emulating Americans culturally. (I suspect that is why many nations hated us so much. Their elders saw their children rejecting their culture and following America.) America led the world in this manner and it wasn't a bad thing because America was worth emulating.
That's not the case today. The shining city on the hill is tarnished. We have leaders proclaiming that America isn't worth emulating and the world is cast adrift.
Ultimately, that is why the world is not dealing with ISIS effectively. They haven't had to deal with global issues since the mid-nineteenth century and they don't know how.
When WWII ended, a British diplomat traveled to Washington, D.C. to had off stewardship of the world to the United States. A US diplomat accepted the role on his nation's behalf. During the succeeding decades the US attempted to be "good" stewards of the world's interests, using its vastly superior economy and military to "coax" nations to get along and make nice with others (as well as their own citizens). Concurrently, they attempted to hand off the role to the United Nations. The current Administration decided to dump the role on the UN despite the fact that the UN has never evinced any willingness to accept the role or ability to perform it.
The problem is simple. The world is unmanageable. "Herding cats" fairly leaps to mind.
Now much of the world is disappointed with the US. They are waiting for America to "take care" of ISIS, but our President isn't cooperating and his constituents are clueless as to what American can and ought to do.
The simple truth is that America could never be a steward to the world in the manner in which Great Britain performed that role. GB had a presence, its empire. They surrendered stewardship when their empire ended. The US never had an empire. Despite charges of US imperialism, its empire has always been one of ideas and culture. Once upon a time you could look most anywhere in the world and see children emulating Americans culturally. (I suspect that is why many nations hated us so much. Their elders saw their children rejecting their culture and following America.) America led the world in this manner and it wasn't a bad thing because America was worth emulating.
That's not the case today. The shining city on the hill is tarnished. We have leaders proclaiming that America isn't worth emulating and the world is cast adrift.
Ultimately, that is why the world is not dealing with ISIS effectively. They haven't had to deal with global issues since the mid-nineteenth century and they don't know how.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
I'm convinced that the best way to stop them is cut off supplies. Let them starve out and become weak first, following by similar invasions we pulled when entered Iraq after 9/11
(0)
(0)
SSgt Brycen Shumway
Yet, by cutting off "supplies" would that not just tempt them to raid more towns for what "supplies" can be found there? They are already so brash as to attack military installations, what's a town to them?
Is it really worth it to punish innocent civilians for their actions?
Is it really worth it to punish innocent civilians for their actions?
(0)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
SSgt Brycen Shumway, you may have a point there. Yes, there will be still bloodshed, but it'll start to lessen as fewer towns are raided and more people stand up against them. They're too radical and too oppressive of a group to continue existing by their terms! It's also hard to weed them out from the masses.
So the next, less violent step? Starve them! Let them use all that extra energy to find ways to survive and maybe for once love each other
So the next, less violent step? Starve them! Let them use all that extra energy to find ways to survive and maybe for once love each other
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google