So like Kurds, Sunni, Shia, and Persian Shia? Or more?

complicated... ain't it? ... and all of this situation has its roots in the idiotic despots that decided the fate of the region at the end of WWI.
It's incredible how far in time other people's stupidity can reach. IMHO, if we were to do everything right today, it would take at least 2 generations (50 years) before things went back to being stable again. And by stable I don't necessarily mean good stable... just plain stable.

 

as my mother always told me.... if you ask the Lord for patience, he'll make sure to send someone for you to practice with...

My mother told me, "The Lord said it came to pass"...and it will.
(I get a lot of ability to be patient with that memory.)

 

complicated... ain't it? ... and all of this situation has its roots in the idiotic despots that decided the fate of the region at the end of WWI.

But consider that this discussion is about doing EXACTLY what those "despots" did -- trying to decide the fate of a region by carving up someone else's land according to how WE think it should be done to make it better for THEM.

 

Mine would be to draw some loose boundaries based on...

Why do we think we are entitled to the right to impose onto others a form of life simply because we deem this form to be the right one for them? Isn't it against the basic principles of freedom and democracy? Doing so would make us no different than those religious nutjobs over there who are trying to impose their believes onto other people.

Puting is absolutely right on this: any (sustainable) solution there would have to be made by people there.

 

But consider that this discussion is about doing EXACTLY what those "despots" did -- trying to decide the fate of a region by carving up someone else's land according to how WE think it should be done to make it better for THEM.

You're right... but it seems that they're incapable of doing it themselves. And when they've done it, it's been under the most brutal, totalitarian conditions... should we keep interfering, or should we mind our own business?

For me, the historical answer lies in studying the trajectory of the Ottoman Empire.

 

This is one of the Threads which make me grateful that I am not a Moderator.
Judge it? I can't even understand it!

 

OK. Lots of opinions. So instead of acting like presidential candidates, lets hear some plans.
Mine would be to draw some loose boundaries based on (3) ethnic lines and support defense of those boundaries with air power. If nobody comes to fight in their own defense let the boundaries move until they do. Kind of like what is happening around Baghdad.
Maybe we can come up with a few good ideas.

We can help them most by the elimination of religion as the basis for government. Normally I would agree with those that say "stay out of the fight" but the ISIS cancer must be removed to prevent IMO us from losing our basic freedoms in a never ending terror war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/world/middleeast/isis-abu-bakr-baghdadi-caliph-wahhabi.html?_r=1

“Violence is part of their ideology,” Professor Haykel said. “For Al Qaeda, violence is a means to an ends; for ISIS, it is an end in itself.”
...
Another prominent Qaeda-linked jihadist scholar, Abu Qatada al-Falistini, echoed that: “They are merciless in dealing with other jihadists. How would they deal with the poor, the weak and other people?”

The West and Russian allies decide that Assad, as the brutal secular dictator of Syria is the best solution for stability in the region so we can have a unified front to push ISIS out from that direction. The allies also decide to reconstruct the Iraq secular dictatorships Baath party to rule that country again with immunity given to military officers and advisers that defect from ISIS when we push from that direction to destroy ISIS. All ethnic groups must learn to coexist and must not challenge the existing government structure until the allies OK that decision. The allies then declare Saudi Arabia as the primary source of radical Islam with a world-wide boycott of their oil products until Wahhabism is banned from being the basis of government laws, rules, regulations and is replaced by something close to modern rule even if it's a secular dictatorship.

Wahhabism has been accused of being "a source of global terrorism",[27][28] inspiring the ideology of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL),[29] and for causing disunity in Muslim communities by labeling Muslims who disagreed with the Wahhabi definition of monotheism as apostates[30] (takfir), thus paving the way for their execution for apostasy.[31][32][33] It has also been criticized for the destruction of historic mazaars, mausoleums, and other Muslim and non-Muslim buildings and artifacts.[34][35][36] The "boundaries" of what make up Wahhabism have been called "difficult to pinpoint",[37] but in contemporary usage, the terms Wahhabi and Salafi are often used interchangeably, and considered to be movements with different roots that have merged since the 1960s.[38][39][40] But Wahhabism has also been called "a particular orientation within Salafism",[41] or an ultra-conservative, Saudi brand of Salafism.

 

You're right... but it seems that they're incapable of doing it themselves. And when they've done it, it's been under the most brutal, totalitarian conditions... should we keep interfering, or should we mind our own business?

For me, the historical answer lies in studying the trajectory of the Ottoman Empire.

What are the odds that, as long as we keep interfering, that some group isn't going to find that as ample justification to keep attacking us? I think the answer to that approaches unity.

I think they are going to have to work it out for themselves, no matter how bloody it gets. Remember that we had to go through our own very bloody civil war to resolve (by and large) our major internal differences. There was absolutely no guarantee how that was going to end or what the aftermath was going to be. There was a LOT of suffering and innocent blood shed. The same will be true over there. I think the only chance they have of reaching a lasting, reasonably peaceful situation is for us ('us' as in 'everyone outside the region') to make it clear that they are on their own and that, as long as they do not threaten us or our vital strategic interests (which we need to define clearly and sparingly) we will not interfere. But that if they DO threaten us or our vital strategic interests, that the consequences will be immediate and drastic.

Is it an ideal solution? No. It is even a good solution? No. But I think it may well be the ONLY solution that has a chance of working in the long term.

 

This is one of the Threads which make me grateful that I am not a Moderator.
Judge it? I can't even understand it!

It can be a huge headache, for sure. What we tend to primarily look for is tempers flaring and flaming starting.

 

Why do we think we are entitled to the right to impose onto others a form of life simply because we deem this form to be the right one for them? Isn't it against the basic principles of freedom and democracy? Doing so would make us no different than those religious nutjobs over there who are trying to impose their believes onto other people.

Puting is absolutely right on this: any (sustainable) solution there would have to be made by people there.

I agree - kind of.
You will notice I didn't just draw boundaries, but loose ones. If no one comes to fight over them (besides us), let them change. Over time, and maybe less than we think, they will settle out. I think the more moderate people in the ISIS areas will reclaim their rights eventually. Kind of like Fallujah.
I must admit, I'm comming around to @WBahn 's way of thinking.

 

Over time, and maybe less than we think, they will settle out.

Those people have been slaughtering others for thousands of years - Look up what Muhammad did in Medina.

And on top of that, they have been slaughtering each other since Muhammad's death. It is unlikely they are going to change any time soon. Selfishly, the more they kill each other, the less they kill the rest of us. But more importantly, hopefully the more rational ones among them will realize the stupidity of their intolerance towards others and towards each other.

Putting that aside, the ISIS issue, just like the Bin Laden issue, was the creation of the West, particularly their eagerness towards "regime change". The ex-strong men of the region, Saddam, Ali, Mubarak, and Qaddafi are terrible people. But they held their countries together in a secular manner. With our eagerness to "spread" democracy (=imposing a political system onto other people without their consent), we created a power vacuum that laid the foundation for the spread of isis.

The Arab spring is nothing more than an religious extremism funded by the West. Think about the west's campaign to get rid of Qaddafi - check out his last televised speech where he predicted what is happening with the refugee crisis; Think about MaCain's taking pictures with the Syrian nutjobs; Think about the arming of those "moderate" Syrian rebels; Think about millions of dollars of US equipment airdropped there; and think about the US' insistence, until recently, that Assad has to go for a peace process to start; and think about the latest revelation that the JCS' covet operations to undermine the whitehouse' Syrian strategy; And think about the West's inability and reluctance, until recently, to bomb the oil infrastructure that has been the life line of ISIS.

ISIS is a small potato for any real army to smash in a real war and is no (long-term) threat to the world at large. The real threat to world peace comes from two existing "caliphates": Turkey and Saudi Arabia. It is total stupidity on the part of the west not to have a strategy against the graduate and sure radicalization of those two "allies".

 

And think about the West's inability and reluctance, until recently, to bomb the oil infrastructure that has been the life line of ISIS.

Just think about that for a minute. The West had thousands of aircraft flying over Syria, a few sorties a day, most of which didn't drop a single bomb, for four years.

The Russians had about a dozen aircraft (mostly Su 24 and some Su 34), and over a period of weeks, they made a measurable impact on the battle front, and to ISIS' purse line.

Remember the US dropping leaflets warning ISIS truck drivers of impending bombing runs - and I am not kidding on that.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see through the media propaganda there. All it takes is a person who's willing to evaluate the facts on the ground.

 

Those people have been slaughtering others for thousands of years - Look up what Muhammad did in Medina.

And on top of that, they have been slaughtering each other since Muhammad's death. It is unlikely they are going to change any time soon. Selfishly, the more they kill each other, the less they kill the rest of us. But more importantly, hopefully the more rational ones among them will realize the stupidity of their intolerance towards others and towards each other.

Putting that aside, the ISIS issue, just like the Bin Laden issue, was the creation of the West, particularly their eagerness towards "regime change". The ex-strong men of the region, Saddam, Ali, Mubarak, and Qaddafi are terrible people. But they held their countries together in a secular manner. With our eagerness to "spread" democracy (=imposing a political system onto other people without their consent), we created a power vacuum that laid the foundation for the spread of isis.

The Arab spring is nothing more than an religious extremism funded by the West. Think about the west's campaign to get rid of Qaddafi - check out his last televised speech where he predicted what is happening with the refugee crisis; Think about MaCain's taking pictures with the Syrian nutjobs; Think about the arming of those "moderate" Syrian rebels; Think about millions of dollars of US equipment airdropped there; and think about the US' insistence, until recently, that Assad has to go for a peace process to start; and think about the latest revelation that the JCS' covet operations to undermine the whitehouse' Syrian strategy; And think about the West's inability and reluctance, until recently, to bomb the oil infrastructure that has been the life line of ISIS.

ISIS is a small potato for any real army to smash in a real war and is no (long-term) threat to the world at large. The real threat to world peace comes from two existing "caliphates": Turkey and Saudi Arabia. It is total stupidity on the part of the west not to have a strategy against the graduate and sure radicalization of those two "allies".

So Dannyf - your solution???

 

Just think about that for a minute. The West had thousands of aircraft flying over Syria, a few sorties a day, most of which didn't drop a single bomb, for four years.

The Russians had about a dozen aircraft (mostly Su 24 and some Su 34), and over a period of weeks, they made a measurable impact on the battle front, and to ISIS' purse line.

That is a fine example juxtaposing the political wherewithal of those two countries.

Nation building, is not the U.S. forte, no matter how well it worked out in the past. Speaking of history, the Marshall Plan was first mentioned after WWII when the politico's were seeking the answer to the question ... We won the war, now what?

If we are to believe in self-governance, we must let those who live there decide on their government. We can not mandate what their government should look like, we can't delegate their political divisions and sub-divisions.

Like WBahn, I lean towards them figuring out what they want and if they should harm an American, then all hell should break loose. They know America doesn't have the political wherewithal to carry forth a battle plan to destroy them and their infrastructure as the collateral damage would be political suicide.

Until Congress grows a pair and declares war, the actions by the president will be ineffective. We can say that Congress, the people's representatives, offered tacit declarations by funding the action, it's not the same as a declaration.

Even 9-11-2001 didn't bring Congress to declare war. What is the body count required for a declaration? December 1941 had 2400 servicemen being killed.

For background, there have been Hague Conventions and Geneva Conventions on conducting a war. The signatories agreed to those actions. Those who are NOT signatory to either, deserve NO treatment afforded by those conventions. The lack of political wherewithal allows those non-signatories to be afforded the protection of those conventions.

There is a time to unleash the "dogs of war". Apparently beheadings of Americans on youtube is not the time. My feelings on theses matters are of no consequences. I can't call up, well I can, the generals and admirals, to give them my opine, which they will summarily dismiss before the receiver hits the hang-up cradle. Sharing that opine here is equally fruitless.

 

Latest post on who in the U.S. government armed ISIS.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/wh...ad-u-s-military-feeds-syrian-govt-intel-isis/

 

This would be a positive reply!

 

Wasn't it Bill Clinton that said that it depends on the definition of ISIS?

 

German's view on Islam, How true this is
This is by far the best explanation of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. The author's references to past history are accurate and clear. It's not a lengthy read, it's easy to understand, and it's well worth the read. The author of this email is Dr.Emanuel Tanya, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist.
A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When he was asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'
We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.
The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.
China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people..
The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.
And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.
Now Islamic prayers have been introduced into Toronto and other public schools in Ontario, and, yes, in Ottawa too while the Lord's Prayer was removed (due to being so offensive?) The Islamic way may be peaceful for the time being in our country until the fanatics move in.
In Australia, and indeed in many countries around the world, many of the most commonly consumed food items have the halal emblem on them. Just look at the back of some of the most popular chocolate bars, and at other food items in your local supermarket. Food on aircraft have the halal emblem, just to appease the privileged minority who are now rapidly expanding within the nation’s shores.
In the U.K, the Muslim communities refuse to integrate and there are now dozens of “no-go” zones within major cities across the country that the police force dare not intrude upon. Sharia law prevails there, because the Muslim community in those areas refuse to acknowledge British law.
As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts - the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world-wide, read this and think about it, and they also continue to send it on - before it's too late.
And we are silent......

 

They don't like our foreign policy.

What type of policy is it?

 

If this is not a political discussion, I can't read.

That is not to say that I am against political discussions; I am not against them, and have taken part in them. But if they are going to be permitted, the TOS should be changed.