What should be done about ISIS?

[Everlong]

With another beheading and more and more pressure mounting for the US and UN to do something, what exactly should be done? Does the US dare sending troops back so soon after pulling out of Iraq? Do we continue wait and feel out the situation? Do we attempt to intervene without ground troops?

Definitely a tough situation, so I figured I'd see where people's opinions lie.

[Str8Shooter]

The right thing is probably what it seems they're going to end up doing, which is to authorize more air strikes, this time on Syrian soil, and try and target the upper hierarchy of ISIS.

[Westcoastvibes]

its really a no win situation.

the types of people that make up groups like this have no end. they refuse to resolve things politically or rationally, they would rather die than work towards a peaceful resolution.

with that being said, the only action is a violent action and even that wont work. we can systematically target and eliminate all of the top members but the second one of them dies there are 2 more to take his place. they will never give up. we could destroy the entire chain of command within ISIS and cause the lower level grunts to disband and run leaving the affected areas free from ISIS control but the ones that ran and hid will just form a new regime under a different name with the same beliefs and agenda's.


I think the best thing we can do is lend support to those affected the best we can without physically putting boots on the ground. If/or when ISIS decides to take action against the US directly is when we should be justified to take greater action.

[Str8Shooter]

If/or when ISIS decides to take action against the US directly is when we should be justified to take greater action.

They've already killed 2 American journalists via beheading and made it available for anyone to see. If that's not "taking direct action against the US" I don't know what is.

[Westcoastvibes]

If/or when ISIS decides to take action against the US directly is when we should be justified to take greater action.

They've already killed 2 American journalists via beheading and made it available for anyone to see. If that's not "taking direct action against the US" I don't know what is.

that is not taking direct action against the US. That is killing two people who happened to be American that made a choice to interject their own lives into the chaos for the purpose of a news story. I am not taking away from the horrible situation that both have encountered but the fact is that they knew what kind of consequences could happen by going there and they made the choice to go anyways.

I was referring more along the lines of direct military style attacks against the US. I personally can not see the justification to send thousands of troops into battle because two journalists decided to ignore the warnings and put themselves into harms way for the sake of a story. I am sorry if this offends you or anyone else but that's my opinion.

the us needs to stop playing babysitter every time one country pisses off another. we have enough problems at home that need to be addressed before we worry about others problems. when the nations security is at risk is when we need to defend ourselves

[AkydefGoldberg]

ISIS seem more dangerous and financially more stronger than any group of recent times. They apparently have wealth rumoured to be $1.2bn and a very twisted, illogical ideology.

It seems the responses to the earlier airstrikes by the US has been to kill two American citizens as a Brit, I fear if we get involved directly or assisting the US, we'll be on the receiving end of nationals of ours being murdered brutally in Iraq, Syria. But I'm not so sure they've got the capability to directly strike us in our country but it's not a far possibility especially if some British based people are going over there, getting militarized and coming back to attack which might be exacerbated further if the UK get involved.

Cameron has ruled out working with Assad and it's so difficult because other Middle Eastern states just don't want to get involved because ideally you'd lean on them to assist. But they won't besides providing logistical support I imagine.

I would try and arm and fund the Iraqi army as much as you can to try and encourage them to use ground forces but not great confidence in that.

[Chewy]

Sell Leeds United to them and they will be happy.

On a serious note what the west need to do.

1. Stop giving arms and munitions today to the terrorist groups of next decade.

2. Either resolve to wipe them all out, and i mean all of them, or just leave them to their own devices and let them resolve it over there. Wait til ISIS start busting heads with India, China and Israel and let them handle it.

3. Open a chain of cheesecake factories in Australia.

[CubsIn5]

Sell Leeds United to them and they will be happy.

On a serious note what the west need to do.

1. Stop giving arms and munitions today to the terrorist groups of next decade.

2. Either resolve to wipe them all out, and i mean all of them, or just leave them to their own devices and let them resolve it over there. Wait til ISIS start busting heads with India, China and Israel and let them handle it.

3. Open a chain of cheesecake factories in Australia.

#2 is actually pretty important, I'm pretty strongly of the "non-intervention" mindset, however if military action is to be used, it must be swift, direct and targeted. No long battles, no fights, just quick planned direct attacks on ISIS.

[AkydefGoldberg]

It seems Britain is providing funding to Kurdish troops in Iraq and I think that might be the best route. Iraqi Kurds seem more organised than the Iraq army in general and they've done well in building their own autonomous region in Iraq.

[ShaneOfan]

We should stay out of it. If they kidnap one of our journalists we should make every effort to bring them back alive, other then that until they invade America they are none of my concern. We have more important things to worry about.

[SortaCreative]

So Obama essentially said the US is going to war again?

A la Bush, without congressional support?