ISIS

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Iron_Captain wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Russia doesn't have the mobilizable ground forces required to make even a half assed attempt to conquer Europe. Even with a draft they're well below minimum recruiting numbers and their retention is as is traditional, complete donkey, so what troops they have aren't exactly the volunteer armies of the West. If they move any troops off their Eastern borders to support a war in Europe their former satellites will start cutting off chunks, the Russian Navy is busy rusting it's way towards the bottom of the black sea and Pacific, their tech is, as always, lacking everywhere except their own sales brochures and the Russian economy is in the middle of collapsing which makes acquiring more parts to keep their maintenance intensive birds in the air.

Putin's roar is that of a paper tiger. Albeit one with nukes.
Since when did this turn into a discussion about whether or not Russia is capable of conquering Europe? That is rather OT.
The answer of course, is simple. No. Russia is not capable of conquering Europe, has never been and likely will never be. Nobody has ever been capable of conquering Europe, not even close. If they get the first strike, Russian troops would have little trouble getting to Berlin or maybe even further West because Europe's militaries are notoriously slow and divided, but once they get their gak together the Russians would be hugely outmanned. Russia does not have a very large population, the myth of the endless waves of Russian soldiers attacking in huge numbers is a lie. (also, the Russian navy may now be small, but it is no longer rusty, perhaps you have been asleep for the last few years)
The only problem is nukes.
Also, I think Russia should do more about fighting IS and global terrorism in general. Right now they only care about Chechnya, Kazakhstan and other parts of their backyard.

Frazz was literally just talking about Putin heading West with his chatter about the U.S. military being subsidized defense for Europe, which is actually accurate during the Cold War.

I don't know what you've been reading, but the Russian naval force is a pathetic joke, and those hulls are rusting now. Modern naval power is of course airpower which means the Russian Navy isn't even in France's weight class with a single aging, defective STOBAR carrier which is more of a bad joke then precise military weapons technology. The helo carriers they're buying from the French couldn't be built at Russian naval yards because it was literally beyond their capabilities, and the Mistral class helo carrier isn't exactly complex. What little power the Russian military has left is on land, and in their nuclear launch silos... but if their naval force is any hint for how well they've been maintaining their ICBMs...

**CptJake**

Supertony51 wrote:
IDK what the answer is, but doing nothing seems not to work either.

Also, like i mentioned, a large part of me feels like we should just leave it alone. This area of the world has been gaking on itself for a very long time. IDK if we should chomp at the bit to do much wither....I guess i have some conflicting opinions about it, especially since I've spend a good portion of my adulthood deployed to the area.

I honestly understand. The reality is there is no good answer, each will come at some cost, and many of those costs we can't even guess at this point. We can kill a ton of them, and frankly a ton need killing. But that only treats a symptom (and others can do the killing if we want to be honest). I agree doing nothing seems not to work, but at this point I really want our leaders to define what it is they want to work towards, and explain to us all why it is worth it. If they can't do so, we'll never get beyond treating symptoms, and that gets expensive fast.

Right now it looks like the wife will be deploying (again) late summer/early fall, and Son2 signs into his first unit next week (an infantry BN, he is an infantry 2LT) and his BCT is in line to go on a trip in the not too distant future. Though this time it is not my personal skin, I still got some skin in the game. None of us mind going where ever to do what ever, that's the job (as you know). But I darned sure would like the leadership to explain the WHY and to know it isn't just to Do Something! or Do MOAR!.

**djones520**

CptJake wrote:
Supertony51 wrote:
IDK what the answer is, but doing nothing seems not to work either.

Also, like i mentioned, a large part of me feels like we should just leave it alone. This area of the world has been gaking on itself for a very long time. IDK if we should chomp at the bit to do much wither....I guess i have some conflicting opinions about it, especially since I've spend a good portion of my adulthood deployed to the area.

I honestly understand. The reality is there is no good answer, each will come at some cost, and many of those costs we can't even guess at this point. We can kill a ton of them, and frankly a ton need killing. But that only treats a symptom (and others can do the killing if we want to be honest). I agree doing nothing seems not to work, but at this point I really want our leaders to define what it is they want to work towards, and explain to us all why it is worth it. If they can't do so, we'll never get beyond treating symptoms, and that gets expensive fast.

Right now it looks like the wife will be deploying (again) late summer/early fall, and Son2 signs into his first unit next week (an infantry BN, he is an infantry 2LT) and his BCT is in line to go on a trip in the not too distant future. Though this time it is not my personal skin, I still got some skin in the game. None of us mind going where ever to do what ever, that's the job (as you know). But I darned sure would like the leadership to explain the WHY and to know it isn't just to Do Something! or Do MOAR!.

Find your own reasons. You(not you specifically) keep signing on the line and raising your hand. I don't deploy because the President tells me to. I do it because I choose to.

**CptJake**

I did it for the great chow and sleeping conditions.

But I can't expect the taxpayers to subsidize a war based on my desire to eat MREs and sleep in the gun hatch of my hummer.

It isn't about why the soldiers fight, it is about why we are asking them to do so, determining why it is important enough to go further into debt as a country as we send the troops into a war. Determining WHAT we are asking them to accomplish.

**dogma**

CptJake wrote:

And they are not anywhere near threatening to either.

I am aware.

The argument I am making is that the US should involve itself in order to keep the Da'ish threat to oil prices nascent.

**Jihadin**

Watching this thread go to Hell
Sitting back and reading point;counter point.

Some of you all are quite entertaining

Edit

Of course some of us who seen the Elephant, multiple times could be telling a Brian Williams tale

**BaronIveagh**

Da krimson barun wrote:
]If they funded the IRA they didnt lead to a lot of dead Irish.

Clearly, you didn't live through them. Or currently know anything about them. It got a lot of Irish killed too. I give credit where it's due, the IRA are a lot more precise than most terrorist organizations, and generally avoid civilian casualties, but they still got a lot of people killed. Unless the victims of a botched bombing or stray fire from a UVF/IRA shootout get to be 'posthumously English'.

Saying this won;'t make me terribly popular, but it's better that ten thousand soldiers die in some godforsaken hell than one soccer mom with a van of kids gets blown to hell by jihadis in Dallas. or Seattle. or Tallahassee. Or New York.

I've seen a lot of back and forth blame here, but here's something to consider: regardless of who lit the match, the house is on fire. 'Nothing' is only a viable option if you want to burn with it. So what do you do?

**Darkjim**

Amazing, in the same post you can describe the IRA as generally avoiding civilian casualties, and also fret about soccer moms and kids getting blown up by terrorists that might threaten your civilians.

If the IRA campaign was transferred to US soil, and they had repeatedly, deliberately targeted civlians in, for example, Dallas, Seattle, Tallahassee or New York (whilst sometimes also attacking military targets, in fact doing precisely what the jihadis you are concerned about also do) I suspect you might see the contradiction.

**Dreadclaw69**

Da krimson barun wrote:
If they funded the IRA they didnt lead to a lot of dead Irish. They killed a lot of lost English people.I wish the USA would Keep on salving its conscience. Then we could give them a map(You are in:Ireland.England is over there) and a ferry home!

I get that you are a self styled "Irish patriot", but you seem to have a very romantic notion of the Troubles typical of someone too young to have lived through it. My flag says US. I was born in Northern Ireland and grew up there during the Troubles. What you just posted is not only incorrect, it is downright insulting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappeared_%28Northern_Ireland%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh_bombing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles

Approximately 60% of the dead were killed by republicans, 30% by loyalists and 10% by British security forces.

Responsibility for killing[170]
Responsible party No.
Republican paramilitary groups 2058
Loyalist paramilitary groups 1026
British security forces 363
Persons unknown 79
Irish security forces 5
Total 3531
According to Malcolm Sutton's Index of Deaths from the Conflict in Ireland:[171]

Of those killed by British security forces:

187 (~51.5%) were civilians
145 (~39.9%) were members of republican paramilitaries
18 (~4.9%) were members of loyalist paramilitaries
13 (~3.5%) were fellow members of the British security forces
Of those killed by republican paramilitaries:

1080 (~52%) were members/former members of the British security forces
723 (~35%) were civilians
187 (~9%) were members of republican paramilitaries
57 (~2.7%) were members of loyalist paramilitaries
11 (~0.5%) were members of the Irish security forces
Of those killed by loyalist paramilitaries:

877 (~85.4%) were civilians
94 (~9%) were members of loyalist paramilitaries
41 (~4%) were members of republican paramilitaries
14 (~1%) were members of the British security forces

Status[edit]
Approximately 52% of the dead were civilians, 32% were members/former members of the British security forces, 11% were members of republican paramilitaries, and 5% were members of loyalist paramilitaries.

It is often disputed whether some civilians were members of paramilitary organisations due to their secretive nature. For example, several casualties that were listed as civilians were later claimed by the IRA as their members.[172] One Ulster Defence Association (UDA) and three Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) members killed during the conflict were also Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) soldiers at the time of their deaths.[173][174] At least one civilian victim was an off-duty member of the TA.[175]

Deaths by status of victim[6]
Status No.
Civilians (inc. Civilian political activists) 1840
British security force personnel (serving and former members) 1125
British Army (inc. UDR, RIR and TA) 757
Royal Ulster Constabulary 319
Northern Ireland Prison Service 26
English police forces 6
Royal Air Force 4
Royal Navy 2
Irish security force personnel 11
Garda Síochána 9
Irish Army 1
Irish Prison Service 1
Members of Republican paramilitaries 396
Members of Loyalist paramilitaries 170

**BaronIveagh**

Darkjim wrote:
Amazing, in the same post you can describe the IRA as generally avoiding civilian casualties, and also fret about soccer moms and kids getting blown up by terrorists that might threaten your civilians.

Not my civilians. I wish to GOD that the mods would fix that little flag.

And you totally miss the point.

The IRA, in general, avoided directly targeting civilians. They preferred going after military targets. Did they always do so? No. Did people screw up on occasion? Yes. Were there radicals and crazies involved? Yes, but they were not the ones in charge.

ISIS on the other side, seems to almost prefer 'soft' targets. It's not a matter of someone going off script or an accident happening and civilians being killed. Civilians being killed would be the entire point for how they do things. It's a matter of intent.

The IRA is a negative thing, don't get me wrong, but compared to ISIS they're saints.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Da krimson barun wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Da krimson barun wrote:
Ouze wrote:

Also, what is the rationale for the US fighting ISIL in the first place? What is the US, national security reason?

Typical. Whenever a bunch of crazies take over a country and commit brutal atrocities and mass murders,instead of fighting America sits twiddling its thumbs looking at its army and scratching its head wondering what its for. Sounds KINDA like 1914 and 1939......they better realise that to be the good guys they need to act like it and stop doing this"wait until it sorts it self out" act. It hasn't worked so far has it?

Is there a reason you haven't gunned up and joined the good fight yet? The Kurds are taking volunteers, as are some anti-Da'Ish/Anti-Assad groups in Syria.
my military training,experiance with firearms and atheleticism would be a great help! Pity they don't exist.

The Army can help you with that. Don't be shy, go make an appointment with your local recruitment centre.

Otherwise, please stop with the Keyboard Warrior gak. Its embarrassing.

That sounds an awful lot like what people claim "check your privilege" is used like; throwing out a phrase that's meant to completely shut down an opponent's argument without actually countering it. Or are you saying that it is impossible to make informed decisions about military matters without having first served in the military? Because that sounds an awful lot like the identity politics that you so often mock on this very forum.

**CptJake**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Da krimson barun wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Da krimson barun wrote:
Ouze wrote:

Also, what is the rationale for the US fighting ISIL in the first place? What is the US, national security reason?

Typical. Whenever a bunch of crazies take over a country and commit brutal atrocities and mass murders,instead of fighting America sits twiddling its thumbs looking at its army and scratching its head wondering what its for. Sounds KINDA like 1914 and 1939......they better realise that to be the good guys they need to act like it and stop doing this"wait until it sorts it self out" act. It hasn't worked so far has it?

Is there a reason you haven't gunned up and joined the good fight yet? The Kurds are taking volunteers, as are some anti-Da'Ish/Anti-Assad groups in Syria.
my military training,experiance with firearms and atheleticism would be a great help! Pity they don't exist.

The Army can help you with that. Don't be shy, go make an appointment with your local recruitment centre.

Otherwise, please stop with the Keyboard Warrior gak. Its embarrassing.

That sounds an awful lot like what people claim "check your privilege" is used like; throwing out a phrase that's meant to completely shut down an opponent's argument without actually countering it. Or are you saying that it is impossible to make informed decisions about military matters without having first served in the military? Because that sounds an awful lot like the identity politics that you so often mock on this very forum.

I think when the argument equates to "You and your countrymen are big poopyheads for not stepping up and going to war", without ever giving decent reasons as to WHY that war should be entered nor what the goals of said war should be, establishing that the person making that argument has no intention of ever going to war himself is a fair tactic. Heck, the guy could step up and financially back groups fighting against Da'Ish, or help move supplies and recruits.

I think being told "You're not doing enough" by someone unwilling to do anything wears thin.

Perhaps if Da krimson barun were to at least express a coherent argument for why he feels the US should put the World Police Hat back on and express why he thinks that is a good solution, rather than just berating the US for not having donned that hat, he would have been responded to differently.

**AlmightyWalrus**

CptJake wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Da krimson barun wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Da krimson barun wrote:
Ouze wrote:

Also, what is the rationale for the US fighting ISIL in the first place? What is the US, national security reason?

Typical. Whenever a bunch of crazies take over a country and commit brutal atrocities and mass murders,instead of fighting America sits twiddling its thumbs looking at its army and scratching its head wondering what its for. Sounds KINDA like 1914 and 1939......they better realise that to be the good guys they need to act like it and stop doing this"wait until it sorts it self out" act. It hasn't worked so far has it?

Is there a reason you haven't gunned up and joined the good fight yet? The Kurds are taking volunteers, as are some anti-Da'Ish/Anti-Assad groups in Syria.
my military training,experiance with firearms and atheleticism would be a great help! Pity they don't exist.

The Army can help you with that. Don't be shy, go make an appointment with your local recruitment centre.

Otherwise, please stop with the Keyboard Warrior gak. Its embarrassing.

That sounds an awful lot like what people claim "check your privilege" is used like; throwing out a phrase that's meant to completely shut down an opponent's argument without actually countering it. Or are you saying that it is impossible to make informed decisions about military matters without having first served in the military? Because that sounds an awful lot like the identity politics that you so often mock on this very forum.

I think when the argument equates to "You and your countrymen are big poopyheads for not stepping up and going to war", without ever giving decent reasons as to WHY that war should be entered nor what the goals of said war should be, establishing that the person making that argument has no intention of ever going to war himself is a fair tactic. Heck, the guy could step up and financially back groups fighting against Da'Ish, or help move supplies and recruits.

I think being told "You're not doing enough" by someone unwilling to do anything wears thin.

Perhaps if Da krimson barun were to at least express a coherent argument for why he feels the US should put the World Police Hat back on and express why he thinks that is a good solution, rather than just berating the US for not having donned that hat, he would have been responded to differently.

See, that's a reasonable response. "KEYBOARD WARRIOR!!!11!" isn't.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Ouze wrote:

Also, what is the rationale for the US fighting ISIL in the first place? What is the US, national security reason?

The cost of oil. I don't like using that as an explanation, but in this case it is valid.

It is a shame the US engaged in an expensive, unnecessary ME adventure, but this is one it really needs to weigh in on.

Seriously? The price of oil dropped in half in the last six months. Do better.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Since when did this turn into a discussion about whether or not Russia is capable of conquering Europe? That is rather OT.

All threads now eventually turn to Russia, the evilz of religion, gunz, or Justin Bieber: History's greatest Villain or Just this Century's?

**Darkjim**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Darkjim wrote:
Amazing, in the same post you can describe the IRA as generally avoiding civilian casualties, and also fret about soccer moms and kids getting blown up by terrorists that might threaten your civilians.

Not my civilians. I wish to GOD that the mods would fix that little flag.

And you totally miss the point.

The IRA, in general, avoided directly targeting civilians. They preferred going after military targets. Did they always do so? No. Did people screw up on occasion? Yes. Were there radicals and crazies involved? Yes, but they were not the ones in charge.

ISIS on the other side, seems to almost prefer 'soft' targets. It's not a matter of someone going off script or an accident happening and civilians being killed. Civilians being killed would be the entire point for how they do things. It's a matter of intent.

Edited. Fine, the IRA were saints, compared to ISIS. I hope such saints never visit your neck of the woods.

**Frazzled**

Darkjim wrote:
Edited. Fine, the IRA were saints, compared to ISIS. I hope such saints never visit your neck of the woods.

They'd be easy to pick out. We all speak Spanish here.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Obama said to request war powers against ISIS. Here we go again.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/06/384256123/jordan-strikes-at-isis-obama-said-to-be-preparing-to-request-war-powers

**PhantomViper**

Darkjim wrote:
Edited. Fine, the IRA were saints, compared to ISIS. I hope such saints never visit your neck of the woods.

They would be rendered docile as kittens by the thousands of american women that would throw themselves at them as soon as they heard their Irish accents.

**Darkjim**

It is truly bizarre to me that some people can become so intoxicated with outrage and terrified at the actions of AQ or ISIS or the rest, and yet the IRA were just a load of freedom fighters who needed funding despite bombing (for instance) pubs or shopping centres in England and NI without a single soldier within dozens of miles, or executing selected or random civilians. They are all terrorists, whatever percentage of their actions are against civilians. And I would certainly extend that argument to the behaviour of parts of the UK government during the Troubles, who also clandestinely funded some very unpleasant organisations. The fact that we now talk rather than kill each other is probably the single best thing that has happened in politics here in the last quarter century.

**CptJake**

When was the last time the IRA or PIRA or New IRA video taped members beheading hostages/prisoners, or setting them on fire, and used those videos as recruiting tools? When was the last time they sold captured children into slavery?

Heck, when was the last time they attacked a town and controlled territory (other than as a shadow gov't at the local level)?

The IRA is not making the news now a days. Even at their best, they were several orders of magnitude beneath the scale we are seeing from Da'Ish and their ilk.

You'll never see me defending the IRA (or the Red Brigades, or the FARC or Tupac Amaru or any of these scum). But to pretend there are not differences in scale of the brutality and in the resources each was or is receiving (and the size of the populations supporting them) is kind of silly. There are major differences.

**Darkjim**

Well that just the sort of histrionics I meant.

Attacking a town and controlling territory is what armies do the world over, no point complaining about that. If the IRA had had the capacity to take and hold territory from the UK government, I'm pretty sure they would have given it a try.

As to the rest, they didn't use videos of killing prisoners because that would have seriously turned off their primary funding, those who paid up but pretended it was all in a good cause, and they didn't sell anyone into slavery, because, well, I don't think it would have been practical.

They certainly killed children. For me that's enough for them to be considered just as bad as ISIS. I agree entirely what ISIS are doing is utterly disgusting, but differentiating one lot of brutal murderers from another is just the sort of thing that allows them to continue, ISIS and their followers believe they are just as justified in their behaviour as the IRA did when they blew up pubs.

**Frazzled**

Darkjim wrote:
Well that just the sort of histrionics I meant.

Attacking a town and controlling territory is what armies do the world over, no point complaining about that. If the IRA had had the capacity to take and hold territory from the UK government, I'm pretty sure they would have given it a try.

As to the rest, they didn't use videos of killing prisoners because that would have seriously turned off their primary funding, those who paid up but pretended it was all in a good cause, and they didn't sell anyone into slavery, because, well, I don't think it would have been practical.

They certainly killed children. For me that's enough for them to be considered just as bad as ISIS. I agree entirely what ISIS are doing is utterly disgusting, but differentiating one lot of brutal murderers from another is just the sort of thing that allows them to continue, ISIS and their followers believe they are just as justified in their behaviour as the IRA did when they blew up pubs.

Strangely we don't hear about Shining Path either which makes the IRA look to be a bunch of schoolboys. Whats your freaking point?

**CptJake**

Darkjim wrote:
but differentiating one lot of brutal murderers from another is just the sort of thing that allows them to continue, ISIS and their followers believe they are just as justified in their behaviour as the IRA did when they blew up pubs.

Again, you are ignoring the magnitude of the problem, and it IS a difference, and a significant one (though nowhere near the only one). You admit the IRA did not do certain heinous acts because it would have lost them backing. Regardless of the reason, they did not commit those acts, and the acts they did commit did not come near the magnitude we are seeing today from the various Islamic movements. And the level of backing groups like the IRA got never came remotely close to level of backing the various Islamic movements are getting.

When there are differences, as there clearly are, understanding them is important. Pretending Da'Ish is no worse than or is the same as the IRA is asinine. Ignoring the differences serves zero constructive purpose. Frankly I am confused as to why anyone would want to cover over the differences or pretend they do not exist.

Understanding the differences allows you to figure out the problem or aspects of the problem you can address. Pretending all 'brutal murderers' are the same greatly hampers any attempt to address a particular group or movement. It really isn't a hard thing to grasp. The solution set for addressing the IRA =/= the solution set for addressing groups like Da'Ish.

**Darkjim**

I was merely trying to point out the utter hypocrisy in stoutly defending one set of people prepared to kill people, not to mention actively funding them, whilst decrying the others as murderous sadists. To the victims, it doesn't make any difference at all.

**Frazzled**

Darkjim wrote:
I was merely trying to point out the utter hypocrisy in stoutly defending one set of people prepared to kill people, not to mention actively funding them, whilst decrying the others as murderous sadists. To the victims, it doesn't make any difference at all.

Who the heck is defending the IRA? Is the IRA even in business? Why is this part of the conversation about ISIS?

**Ratius**

No, the IRA were not saints, they committed some fairly brutal acts and in well documented cases did target civilians which I loathe them for.

However, comparing their ethos, overall methods, ideology and leadership (in general) to ISIS is nonsense. And do you really believe if the IRA had the military capability they'd take over towns or cities in the UK? Come off it. On the most basic level wtf would be the point? Theyd have the ultimate counter offensive set agaist them in a country which they have absolutely no claim on. Their core tenet at their outset was the reclamation of the 6 counties back to Irish rule. With the greatest of respect to the Brits they didnt give a gak about the UK or its mainland territory.
And yes they did commit mainland bombings before you say it but bombing the mainland and actively taking over parts of it are absolute poles apart.

**Easy E**

Again, I agree with Fraz? Why are we talking about the IRA in an ISIS thread? Have they cememnted some villainous pact to work together and I missed the news?

**Da krimson barun**

Frazzled wrote:
Darkjim wrote:
I was merely trying to point out the utter hypocrisy in stoutly defending one set of people prepared to kill people, not to mention actively funding them, whilst decrying the others as murderous sadists. To the victims, it doesn't make any difference at all.

Who the heck is defending the IRA? Is the IRA even in business? Why is this part of the conversation about ISIS?

Im not defending the IRA. They were murderous b*sterds. However they at least had a good cause:teaching the British geography.(You are in:Ireland.England is over there)As too those who said KEYBOARD WARRIOR!was not a reasonable response they are wrong.It was what snapped me out of a stupid rant.They must not have read the part where I admitted to being wrong.And yeah how did this involve the IRA.

**CptJake**

Easy E wrote:
Again, I agree with Fraz? Why are we talking about the IRA in an ISIS thread? Have they cememnted some villainous pact to work together and I missed the news?

Well, back in the day they did get weapons from Libya. That is close, right?

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
CptJake wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Da krimson barun wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Da krimson barun wrote:
Ouze wrote:

Also, what is the rationale for the US fighting ISIL in the first place? What is the US, national security reason?

Typical. Whenever a bunch of crazies take over a country and commit brutal atrocities and mass murders,instead of fighting America sits twiddling its thumbs looking at its army and scratching its head wondering what its for. Sounds KINDA like 1914 and 1939......they better realise that to be the good guys they need to act like it and stop doing this"wait until it sorts it self out" act. It hasn't worked so far has it?

Is there a reason you haven't gunned up and joined the good fight yet? The Kurds are taking volunteers, as are some anti-Da'Ish/Anti-Assad groups in Syria.
my military training,experiance with firearms and atheleticism would be a great help! Pity they don't exist.

The Army can help you with that. Don't be shy, go make an appointment with your local recruitment centre.

Otherwise, please stop with the Keyboard Warrior gak. Its embarrassing.

That sounds an awful lot like what people claim "check your privilege" is used like; throwing out a phrase that's meant to completely shut down an opponent's argument without actually countering it. Or are you saying that it is impossible to make informed decisions about military matters without having first served in the military? Because that sounds an awful lot like the identity politics that you so often mock on this very forum.

I think when the argument equates to "You and your countrymen are big poopyheads for not stepping up and going to war", without ever giving decent reasons as to WHY that war should be entered nor what the goals of said war should be, establishing that the person making that argument has no intention of ever going to war himself is a fair tactic. Heck, the guy could step up and financially back groups fighting against Da'Ish, or help move supplies and recruits.

I think being told "You're not doing enough" by someone unwilling to do anything wears thin.

Perhaps if Da krimson barun were to at least express a coherent argument for why he feels the US should put the World Police Hat back on and express why he thinks that is a good solution, rather than just berating the US for not having donned that hat, he would have been responded to differently.

See, that's a reasonable response. "KEYBOARD WARRIOR!!!11!" isn't.

When someone make a reasonable argument, I will make a reasonable response.

"You're all cowards for not militarily intervening in yet another Middle East conflict" is not a reasonable argument.

So get over yourself.

**Da krimson barun**

We are going back on topic. Now then:Jordan will destroy ISIS by getting the king to lead a cavalry charge on horseback with phasers and general awesomeness.Also:I saw an article saying ISIS had a twitter feed.Really?That would be like the IRA-No.Stay on topic,stay on topic....
Shadow captain:Move on.I admitted to being wrong.Let it go.....