Would you a full scale war against IS do more harm than good? | Page 2 | World Defense

Would you a full scale war against IS do more harm than good?

xTinx

MEMBER
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
445
Reactions
67 0 0
Country
Philippines
Location
Philippines
It depends on how this full-scare war is implemented. If there's no sufficient preparation and armed forces simply rely on their weapons, totally ignoring tactics, this war may generate severe casualties for both sides. Innocent lives should first be evacuated to avoid unnecessary deaths. I would lobby for drone technology and missiles.
 

Dez97

MEMBER
Joined
Dec 29, 2014
Messages
61
Reactions
10 0 0
Country
USA
Location
USA
I honestly think that it would cost major major problems for the US and Europe. First and foremost who is even going to go in war with them? they would have absolutely no allies to go with them because every country is also worried about the consequences that could come on them if they mess with ISIS as well. I think it would be horrible idea, these people are ruthless, and its not that I don't think both countries could go ahead and maybe do well...its just seems like attention and stuff that neither countries need right now.
 

sazzydan

NEW RECRUIT
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
13
Reactions
0 0 0
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
I cannot see this being the answer really, I think it would cause way too many military casualties and would not fully solve the problem.

Unfortunatly, if the US did scale a full war, dependent on the tactics used, it could potentially cause more problems than it would solve. Not only to mention the horrific loss of life in would incur, it would possibly cause revenge attacks on the US which in turn would probably get worse yet with the US wiping everyone out to attempt to solve the issue.

Small ground tactics would be the way forward, but with highly skilled small teams to take out the main targets rather than a full war.
 

gmckee1985

MEMBER
Joined
Jan 23, 2015
Messages
97
Reactions
17 0 0
Country
USA
Location
USA
No, it definitely wouldn't do more harm than good. What does ignoring the problem do? Allows it to spread. ISIS is taking over more and more territory and committing more and more atrocities. At some point you are going to have to go in and kill them. Waiting doesn't accomplish anything. Just makes the problem worse over time. It's not something we can put off for much longer.
 

westmixxin

MEMBER
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
65
Reactions
5 0 0
Country
USA
Location
USA
It's not meant to help anybody how many times we tried to interfere with the Middle East. That and do exactly what they want to do in new factions are going to pop up over and over again. It's up to the people themselves to make a change consciously that will revolutionize the country. Until then the country will remain doing the same thing that it's always done.
 

pwarbi

MEMBER
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Messages
341
Reactions
70 1 0
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
From a UK perspective, I don't think we can afford to go to war with anybody the way things are at the moment.
While its true that IS does need to be stopped, I think the last thing on the mind of the British government is starting a ground offensive to do this. For one reason, its also coming up to the election and I doubt going to war again after what happened in Afghanistan will be much of a vote winner.
 

Metadoom

NEW RECRUIT
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
11
Reactions
7 1 0
Country
USA
Location
USA
In terms of economic issues, would a full scale war against IS represent a problem for the US and/or Europe? If they decide to get involved and use ground forces as well.

I think it best to let this play out and the US and Europe stay out of it. The current air strikes are not even working against ISIS so what would a ground assault do? I think its time the Middle east stood on its own two feet their internal strifes quickly become the worlds problems.
 

UAE

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
1,641
Reactions
929 11 0
Country
USA
Location
United Arab Emirates
I think it best to let this play out and the US and Europe stay out of it. The current air strikes are not even working against ISIS so what would a ground assault do? I think its time the Middle east stood on its own two feet their internal strifes quickly become the worlds problems.
There is not country in the ME that is capable of fighting in three fronts. You have ISIS in Iraq, Assad in Syria and hizboallah in Lebanon which is fighting alongside Assad. Egypt is internally unstable, jordan economy is suffering due to large number of refugees. Saudi Arabia doesn't border Syria and wont sink itself in Iraq. It would a good idea if Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt and the UAE heavily intervene in Syira and Iraq to clean this mess once and for all. Get rid of Assad and ISIS and bring peace and stability to the region.
 

Scorpion

THINK TANK: SENIOR
Joined
Nov 27, 2014
Messages
3,869
Reactions
3,201 56 0
Country
Saudi Arabia
Location
Saudi Arabia
I think it best to let this play out and the US and Europe stay out of it. The current air strikes are not even working against ISIS so what would a ground assault do? I think its time the Middle east stood on its own two feet their internal strifes quickly become the worlds problems.

Saudi Arabia won't dispatch ground troops to fight ISIS and leave Assad behind. Currently, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and Jordan are part of the US led coalition against ISIS. Its true the ongoing air strikes are doing enough but If we were to take it to the next level by conducting a ground assault, it will drag us to a confrontation with Russia and Iran. That will trigger WWIII. The only way to solve this is by empowering the rebels and continuo with the air strikes to slow ISIS movement. Unfortunately, the US and Europe are not welling to arm the rebels with some advanced weaponry and that kind of making it difficult for the rebels to fight ISIS and Assad on the other hand.
 

TommyVercetti

MEMBER
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
55
Reactions
9 0 0
Country
USA
Location
USA
I'm guessing you mean 'boots on the ground' rather than the more conventional drone and air strikes. If that's the case it would certainly bring about the fall of ISIS quicker, which is good. But I don't think that is the main goal of our policies right now. Right now the government is exploring how effective international coalitions are going to be against a common enemy. We are gaining allies-partial allies maybe, but nevertheless it's a good experience.
 

pwarbi

MEMBER
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Messages
341
Reactions
70 1 0
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
Without some sort of coalition I don't think any country is going to be willing to go back into the middle east on its own. Especially against an enemy like IS who I would have thought have a lot of supporters scattered across the middle east.
It won't be just a case of in and then out, to fight IS is going to take a massive amount of muscle and even more diplomacy with various countries, countries that I suggest won't be too willing to let US or European soldiers pass through.
 

kana_marie

MEMBER
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Messages
273
Reactions
45 0 0
Country
USA
Location
USA
I think it's getting to the point that we don't have a choice. More and more people are going to get hurt until something is done. As mentioned before, the strategy is very important. But good, strategic action is our only reasonae response to this situation
 

003

MEMBER
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
205
Reactions
11 0 0
Country
Philippines
Location
Philippines
The thing is with a war against ISIS could be an opportunity for other communist countries like Russia and China to wage a war against EU countries and America. This is really the danger, and I think, what's holding back those countries to declare an all out war against ISIS. If ever there'd be an open war between EU and America, it wouldn't be just a war between the two and the ISIS, but a war of many countries, and of course those who are going to greatly suffer are those small, developing countries as they would be used again as pawns by these powerful countries.
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2015
Messages
98
Reactions
17 0 0
Country
Sweden
Location
Sweden
Do more harm to whom? A full scale war with ISIS would be costly, yes, but it would also destabilize the entire middle east. ISIS isn't a country so they can hide anywhere. Waging war against them would mean that you would have to invade several countries. And as always, insurgents hide amongst the local population.

I think after ISIS has been dealt with another organization will take it's place. Maybe it will take a while, but it will happen. The western world may feel a bit safer for a while, but Sunni and Shia will soon go at it again. In the end I think it will be the people living in the middle east who will suffer the most.
 

djordjem87

MEMBER
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Messages
117
Reactions
35 0 0
Country
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Location
Bosnia and Herzegovina
First of all i am going to repeat a quote of a smart man from my country. This is like 10th time i did this here. ' For a smart man, every war is lost. You do not need to participate to lose it!'

Now please open your eyes and realize that ISIS is the same thing as US. We could say they are synonyms. Sure, the terrorism is real, the war is real but it is conducted by the US and for world banking cartels. People in that war are the biggest losers because their holly war is in vain. For all the humanity any war will do more harm but for those inhumane bastards that strive for the power, control and money it will do so good. Divide and conquer is what they do for God only knows how long. I have seen it in my country of former Yugoslavia. The weak ones get the better end and the stronger , Serbia in this case , will get bad CNN propaganda so that the rest of the brainwashed world thinks Serbian people are some butchers, and child killers. The truth is for those who really care and are not blind to its harshness. Peace.
 
Top