0 Items  Total: $0.00

What Should the U.S. Do About ISIS?

What Should the U.S. Do About ISIS?

November 17th, 2015 // 9:53 am @

After Paris

Construction_tour_eiffel4In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Paris, here’s what we know:

  • ISIS is cheering the Paris massacres, and vowing that this is only the beginning. They promise that more such attacks on Europe and the United States are ahead.
  • One of the terrorist attackers in Paris had a passport on him that showed he came into Europe with the Syrian refugees on small boat through Greece. (It may or may not have actually been his, but whoever put it there must have been sending a message.)
  • The terrorists were highly trained, well equipped, and functioned in a way that requires additional support beyond the known attackers.
  • ISIS isn’t content to focus on gaining territory in Syria and Iraq. It is a key part of their strategy to take the war to Europe and the U.S. This has been true for a long time, but it is finally hitting home to most Americans.
  • Another part of ISIS strategy is to create a Western backlash against Muslims in Europe and the U.S. ISIS wants to create a situation where all Muslims are pushed to choose between the West and ISIS—with no middle ground.
  • According to numerous reports on the news, ISIS is calling for supporters who live in Europe and the United States to take initiative and make terrorist strikes on people without waiting for top-down orders.

If ISIS is in fact behind the Paris attack, ISIS has killed over 400 people in less than 10 days—including the Russian airliner, the Beirut bombings, and the 6 coordinated attacks in Paris. Even if ISIS isn’t behind some of these events, they all play directly into the ISIS strategy.

The U.S. Response?

But where does the United States stand on ISIS? Just hours before the Paris attack, President Obama announced that ISIS has been “contained.” The timing couldn’t have been worse for such a statement. After Paris, Obama spoke in strong terms of supporting France, but said little about any response to ISIS.

In contrast, just the night before, Donald Trump announced that his plan for ISIS was to bomb the s%&t out of it. News reports the next morning featured experts pointing out why Trump’s extreme words were out of touch and bad for America. By that very evening, after events in Paris, some of the same channels put on experts saying exactly the opposite. Other candidates spoke strongly of the need to stop ISIS.

The Big Debate

In all this, there is a big debate about what the U.S. should actually do about ISIS. After all, ISIS isn’t likely to just go away.

What should we do? Before Paris, the debate was mainly about whether or not to put American boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria. After the Paris attacks, it’s a whole new world.

Here’s how the debate is now developing:

View A: Airstrikes will never beat ISIS. To seriously stop them, we must put a lot of ground troops into Iraq and Syria-enough to really destroy ISIS once and for all. We’ve waited too long, and President Obama hasn’t been truly committed. Now, with Paris, we know that the terrorists are coming after us in our own nations. It’s time to go destroy them, and that means real ground troops and a “win at all costs” strategy. Find our Patton and go win.

View B: Hold on a minute. Slow down and think. Every time we intervene in the Middle East, we make things worse. Just look at how we armed Saddam Hussein to fight against Iran, and then he turned on us. We eventually intervened to stop Saddam, and most of the weaponry from that war is now in the hands of ISIS. And Iran is still a major problem. Also, look at Libya, which is arguably much worse off than before we intervened. Likewise, Afghanistan is another nation that our intervention made worse in some ways. Let’s stay out of the Middle East.

View A: We disagree. The reason Iraq went to pieces is that we moved our troops out. If we had stayed, the region would be stable. Same with Libya—we intervened but didn’t keep troops there to stabilize things. Same with Afghanistan: it’s only getting bad again because we keep reducing troop levels. As for Syria, if Obama had followed through on his “red line” promise and taken out Assad, Syria would be stable and ISIS would be a minor group with little or no power. That’s the reality.

View B: Really? You actually wish the U.S. had lots of ground troops right now in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, and probably Iran? You think that the Middle East can only be stable if the U.S. intervenes in all these nations—and any others where terrorists gather to train and plan—and kills the bad guys, then posts troops in those nations for decades to keep the peace? This is your strategy? U.S. troops in half a dozen nations for the next six decades, like we are in Korea? And the same in any other Middle East nation that has problems? Really? That’s a horrible plan.

View A: ISIS is a new and more modern kind of terrorist group, and its strategy is to take the war to France, Britain, Germany, the United States, etc. It plans to ramp up Paris-like terrorist attacks far and wide in Western Europe and North America. We are at war with these people! Whether we like it or not, they are waging war on us, and this will not only continue but actually escalate as long as we don’t entirely destroy them in their home base—Syria, and even Iraq. What choice do we have? If we don’t destroy them, they’ll keep waging terrorist attacks in Europe and the U.S. They’ll kill hundreds, then thousands. Then they’ll keep killing our people until we absolutely destroy them in their home base. And air strikes won’t do it. Ground troops are essential.

View B: Actually, after four years with ground troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, we still haven’t solved the problem of terrorists coming from those places and attacking Western nations. Ground troops don’t seem to be a real solution. We need something better.

View A: Like what? Ground troops is what works.

View B: But it hasn’t worked. Seriously.

View C: Can I join this debate? I have something to interject here. What about literally bombing them back into the stone age? Bomb their oil. Bomb their buildings, where they might be on computers running their huge financial resources or posting their online recruiting videos. Bomb all their buildings. Flatten them. Leave nothing but dust. We know what areas ISIS controls. Let’s flatten them. Period. It’s us or them. Let’s win this war before it gets much, much worse. Let’s don’t be like Chamberlain appeasing Hitler, hoping ISIS will start being nice. Bomb them until they’re all destroyed.

Views A and B: That’s so barbaric. That’s not the kind of country we are. Think of all the women and children we’ll kill or maim.

View C: The women and children are either slaves of ISIS or supporters of ISIS. For the ones who are slaves, our actions in ending the slavery would be merciful. Just look at the way ISIS treats such people—repeated rapes and maiming and torture and slavery. It’s unspeakable brutality. THAT’S the barbarism. Bombing will create chaos and free a bunch of them, and the ones who are casualties will at least be released from the ongoing torture. On the other hand, those who aren’t slaves are nearly all supporting ISIS. Cut off their support. Destroy them. It’s us or them, and they’re getting stronger. If we let them keep spreading, they’ll eventually gain an air force, missiles that can reach Europe and America, and probably even nukes—given how much money they’ll have. Stop them now.

View A: We can do this humanely, if we get serious about this war and put enough ground troops into Iraq and Syria, and leave them there long enough to really turn things around.

View B: But that might mean a thirty-year war, or more. We’ve already been in Iraq and Afghanistan for fifteen, and we haven’t made much progress. Let’s rethink this. What if we put all our resources into protecting the United States? Let’s protect our borders and protect our cities and states. Let’s focus on our national defense, not on the security of the Middle East.

View A: That sounds good, and we should certainly do that too, but it won’t work if that’s all we do. Just look at the nation of Israel. It is so much smaller than the U.S., with only a few cities and populated areas to protect—like the U.S. trying to protect New Jersey, or to make the point, even New York. Yet in Israel, with armed soldiers on every corner in times of terror threats, and with a huge portion of the adults trained in the military and prepared with weapons to fight, hundreds of terrorist attacks still occur. The U.S. cannot stop a committed ISIS (and other groups like it, of which there are many) that finds ways to recruit homegrown American terrorists online. Nor can Europe do it effectively.

Moreover, if we give ISIS a free rein in the Middle East, by just pulling out all U.S. involvement, it will drastically increase its funding, and its online influence around the world. The number of terrorist attacks in Europe and the U.S. will significantly increase. In fact, if the U.S. pulls out of the Middle East, ISIS will take over more oil, territory, and gain intercontinental missiles and naval and air power.

Make no mistake. ISIS intends to weaken and eventually take over the United States. That’s what the Caliphate is all about—taking over the whole world, starting with anyone who stands in their way. That’s their plan, as many experts on ISIS have been telling us for months.

If the U.S. pulls out of the Middle East, ISIS will grow, strengthen, gain more funding, and eventually attack us with missiles, warships and nukes. We must stop them now. Not barbarically by wiping them out with bombs, like View C wants, but humanely, with ground troops.

Specifically, put enough U.S. and allied troops into Iraq to push all ISIS fighters back into Syria. Then Assad and Putin and Western air strikes can get rid of ISIS. But it starts with ground troops.

View C: No. Let’s not send another generation of our young men and women into a Middle Eastern war zone. Bomb ISIS into oblivion. ISIS doesn’t even have an air force. At least not yet. Let’s do this now, before they expand and gain an air force, missiles, even nukes. Bomb them into the dust. Right away. France will help. Britain will help. Russia might even help. We might even get Saudi Arabia and other moderate Arabic nations to help. Flatten ISIS. Now. It will save more lives and ultimately be more humane—with fewer dead and injured—than any other strategy.

View B: Wait. Think this through. There’s got to be a better way.


This is basically where the discussion in Washington stands right now. What do you think? Ideas?

Do you have any great alternatives to these three main viewpoints? If so, share them.

This is worth thinking about deeply.

Category : Blog &Culture &Current Events &Featured &Foreign Affairs &Generations &Government &History &Information Age &Liberty &Mission &Politics

25 Comments → “What Should the U.S. Do About ISIS?”

  1. Alma DeMille

    8 years ago

    View C, as described above, is pretty much the way I see things, but I have another possible way to stop them. Having been a farmer/rancher all my life, I can’t help but notice something about all the photos and videos of that region of the world. It is a dry, barren, poor food producing area. The climate, soil etc appears to be unable to produce even the barest necessities of sustaining life. So, I ask, Where does ISIS get its supplies…food & water to be more specific? Could we not cut off all highways and other sources of supplies so that ISIS has nothing but the meager food they grow in that barren place to eat? Would this not also stop their source of ammunition, computers, and every other thing they use to wage war? Could we not just bomb every oil pump and source of income they have to fund their war? Could we not bomb their sources of water, electricity, gas and every other utility? Could we not just starve ISIS out & destroy all comforts and even necessities of living? We could have all the combined nation’s military surround them & check every person trying to leave and let out only the women and children? I don’t claim to be a political expert, but I see these things as a possible solution to save lives and still destroy ISIS. If this fails, it is far better to bomb ISIS & it’s entire occupied area, to nothing but dust, than to have them bombing us on our soil, which WILL happen if we let them continue to grow. Our church meetings and sports events and even our very homes will be under attack in the future, IF we do not destroy ISIS now.

  2. Keith

    8 years ago

    View D,

    According to Paul Craig Roberts, in a recent post, he said “I have received a report from European security that there was a massive cyber attack on French systems 48 hours prior to and during the Paris attacks. Among other things, the attack took down the French mobile data network and blinded police surveillance. The attack was not a straightforward DDOS attack but a sophisticated attack that targeted a weakness in infrastructure hardware.

    Such an attack is beyond the capability of most organizations and requires capability that is unlikely to be in ISIL’s arsenal. An attack on this scale is difficult to pull off without authorities getting wind of it. The coordination required suggests state involvement.”

    If all this and more evidence points to state sponsored false flag events, then we should stop looking at the immediate cause and start looking at who stands to benefit. Who stands to gain from increased terrorism in the world? Solution? Every alternative news site should start talking about False Flag events to bring that entire idea into the the social conscience. The Muslim terrorists are nothing but pawns in a global military industrial complex always sowing discord for more central control. It is time we start talking about evil honestly.

  3. Mark Stamps

    8 years ago

    I’m no expert, but I think that we need to set parameters of what is right and then find a solution. It’s not just winning that matters, but HOW you win. If winning were all that matters then we would be no different then our enemies. But we are more than just a hungry mob who want power, aren’t we?

  4. David W. Wilson, LTC (ret), USA

    8 years ago

    From my first combat tour: I will say the lesson learned was not bringing Saddam Hussein to the surrender table to sign the documents was a critical mistake. Impact on today’s situation? Minor in most terms, but we expended lots of American lives, energy and tax payer dollars in a follow on war that maybe could have been avoided by leaving a weaker President for the Iraqi people.

    From my second combat tour: I will say, without a doubt, the goal for devout Muslims is to rule the world and exterminate all other religions. One of the thousands of captured documents was a map of the world, identifying the % of Muslims for each country. The USA was titled The United States of Islam. The most memorable moment was during a conversation with a former member of Hussein’s Ba’ath Party, who was now working for us. In a rare moment when he interrupted and spoke without being asked to speak, he said this, “What you call Muslim extremists, we simply call Muslim.” That statement has been the basis of my definition from that moment on.

    The US needs a plan. A coordinated plan with other countries who will stand against terrorism. A plan that does NOT consider all Muslims terrorists, but considers Islam a terrorist organization. Those who wish to change it through some reformation, should do so quickly and publicly. The US needs to ensure the safety of it’s citizens wherever they are. States are already taking action to prevent Syrian refuges from being dumped into their state. States need to take maximum action to secure their citizens and their property. We have not seen the worst of it. We must be prepared on an individual, local, state and national level.

  5. Nick

    8 years ago

    Gotta go deeper than this superficial debate based on incomplete premises.

    1. Before we talk about going to war with ISIS, we should probably stop funding them and sending weapons their way.

    2. This whole debate is based on the premise that the intentions of our own government are completely pure and completely ignores the substantial influence of international insiders working behind the scenes.

    3. They have also left out the concept of leaving those people alone and closing/controlling our own borders.

  6. Ammon Nelson

    8 years ago

    It seems to me that all three of these views are trying to find a neat and tidy solution to this growing problem. This whole problem has been caused by xenophobia, rash judgements and political machinations – there is not going to be a neat and tidy solution. View A is making huge assumptions about what the US government is capable of controlling – and controlling other cultures has worked so well for us …
    View C is making some similar assumptions about the effect that a “bomb the $%*#$% out of them” will have. Human nature is not so simple, and ISIS doesn’t seem to be so easily beaten into submission.
    View B is the only one who is in essence saying, “Let’s hold off on intentionally killing more people. Our intervention hasn’t fixed things in the past, let’s consider more carefully.” However I don’t think completely pulling out of the area after being so involved in the area doesn’t seem to be the best solution either. Since we are a part of the cause of the problem, it seems we should also be part of the solution.
    Unfortunately, I do not know enough about the history of the issue here, nor enough about international politics and religion to make an educated guess at a specific solution. I’m not convinced that this can be fixed. When someone is as angry at the US as ISIS seems to be, there is not a lot that can be done to fix that anger. We have created a monster by our history of meddling. It doesn’t seem to me that ISIS is interested in anything but the annihilation of Western culture – at least from what i’ve read, which is admittedly from a point of view heavily based on the side of Western culture.

  7. John

    8 years ago

    We should learn some lessons from Vietnam, previously our longest war, until Afghanistan.

    We had half a million troops on the ground, in an area 3/4 the size of Iraq, 1/2 the size of Afghanistan and 1/5 the size of Iran.

    And we still lost.

  8. Matt Foote

    8 years ago

    Views A and C are talking only put what to do and leaving out the importance of the process in which we do things. Only those close to the B viewpoint are talking about the importance of the Constitution and how any kind of military action should be done. So much emphasis is put on the the office of the president and ignoring the role of the Constitution and Congress in this kind of action. Any action that would mean talking the life of another human being should be done slowly and soberly.

  9. Roland Roberts

    8 years ago

    We live in a strange new world where secular progression has dulled our ability to think rationally! Secular Progression ha removed our ability to recognize our perpetrators of evil deeds. In this country we erases the use of “individual” and replaced it with “person”resulting with a drastic loss of responsibility for individual acts. Let’s learn from our folly and name names.
    Significantly the overwhelming difference between Western belief and that of the middle East is freedom. Freedom to think and practice ones own belief system. This can only continue to exist in a Country of laws, thus we must uphold the rule of law.
    The basic difference between us and ISIS is their belief system it is necessary to recognize and stop terrorist of radical Islamic practices and the Muslims must step up to remove their radical teachings which their extremists use as justifications for their heinous acts of barbarism. Roland

  10. Roland Roberts

    8 years ago

    We live in a strange new world where secular progression has dulled our ability to think rationally! Secular Progression ha removed our ability to recognize our perpetrators of evil deeds. In this country it erased the use of “individual” and replaced it with “person”resulting with a drastic loss of responsibility for individual acts. Let’s learn from our folly and name names.
    Significantly the overwhelming difference between Western belief and that of the middle East is freedom. Freedom to think and practice ones own belief system. This can only continue to exist in a Country of laws, thus we must uphold the rule of law.
    The basic difference between us and ISIS is their belief system it is necessary to recognize and stop terrorist of perpetrating radical Islamic practices and the Muslims must step up to remove their radical teachings which their extremists use as justifications for their heinous acts of barbarism. Roland

  11. Bryson

    8 years ago

    As I was doing a little research on ISIS for an English paper I stumbled across this viewpoint from Farah Pandith, senior fellow with the Belfer Center’s Middle East Initiative:

    “In the thirteen years since 9/11 we have learned a massive amount about the way in which Muslim millennials get radicalized. What good is this knowledge if we don’t use it to prevent the process from happening? ISIL, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and other ideologically driven non state actors are winning because they have a steady stream of recruits. America can’t “degrade and destroy” these groups without committing itself (and building a new kind of coalition) to stop the appeal of the extremist ideology.
    The answer is not in using hard power alone, but combining it with the same amount of attention, coalition building, money and seriousness in a global soft power strategy. This means unleashing the creative, local, organic efforts that stop a young boy (and increasingly young girl) from finding their narrative appealing. This has been done on a micro scale through counter narratives and programs in the real and virtual world. There is proof of concept from which to scale up.
    Based on an “us and them” framework, these groups are savvy and smart in their online and offline marketing. Their consumers are digital natives, share a crisis of identity, and seek answers from Sheikh Google and beyond. Using credible voices from across the planet, we must build like-minded active networks and organize campaigns that criscross the planet and prevent the spread of the appeal. Fierce attention to religious education and global public pressure on Saudi and Qatar to stop their systematic indoctrination of intolerance for diversity of Islam (not to speak of other faiths) is key. Mobilizing vibrant millennials by lifting up their voices to speak to their peers will catalyze action in new ways.
    If we use the next 12 months to focus as seriously on soft power as hard power, we will not only “degrade and destroy” ISIL, we will be on our way to prevent a new generation from joining the extremist’s call to action. Winning the ideological war against the extremists is possible, but America must commit to this effort in its entirety – not just a current group called ISIL.”

    I think this combination of forces is really what is needed to stop ISIS. Even if we, or others, wiped them out completely, they would still rebuild. There has to be an attack on the propaganda and indoctrination, as well as the military threat.

  12. Sherice Kral

    8 years ago

    There are flaws in all three of these mindsets. If there were a View D, I believe it would look something like this:

    First off, we cannot make a rash decision. We must think about not only what any action will immediately affect overseas, but also what it will affect at home. I have been in those countries, I have seen the issues first-hand and what happens back home. Looking at our history and the effects that have come because of our previous decisions were not always flowers and rainbows but View A, B, and C need to understand is that there will never be a perfect outcome. There will always be loss for whatever we do. We simply need to look for the most effective answer that has consequences that are easiest to live with.

    We cannot blow up the Middle East, for obviously reasons but I will state them anyway. We will not be the cause of World War III which would inevitably happen. The U.S.A. would be blamed for destroying a big chunk of the world, the ecosystem, and making every part of it permanently uninhabitable, since we would ultimately need to use Nukes to do so. We would allow a silent admission for other countries to use them again, and then the rest of the countries in this world would most likely make a decision to use nukes on the U.S.A. because we would be too dangerous to be left alone with so much power and a mindset that genocide is okay. We cannot become Hitler for any reason.

    We also cannot stop fighting this war completely. ISIS, the Taliban, etc. started this war on the U.S.A. and they will continue to attack us whether we stop or continue. That is a simple fact and if you do not agree, you are very ignorant.

    In light of that, we only have a few options and we need to think of the after-effects of each. If we put more boots on the ground, we risk losing hundreds of more sons and daughters, But if we back off and only go on the defense, we will lose thousands of people in the same way we did with the 9/11 attack. Building up defense and not fighting offense does a couple things. If you were to play a game of soccer, and you only played defense, what do you think would happen? You would never win because you need to make goals to win and that’s the job of the offense. You would eventually lose because playing defense is expensive and tiring. It is like a cat trapped in a corner with no way out. They will go crazy to fight off the attacker at first, but will eventually tire and will not have the energy to defend. The cat will die. Also, think of a child being bullied at school; only taking the defense would be to find ways to avoid the bully and hide from him. Standing up to the bully is the only way to stop the attacks. This mindset is, I believe, the cancer of America and we see it in our schools, our gun rights, and the defense of this country. It is of weak-minded or scared individuals.

    We also have to consider what a full-out war would do back home. We went off the gold standard in 1971 because of a war so that we could fund it. We, as an entire country, has since then fallen into so much debt that it takes more to service our current debt than we had entirely before this year. Raging a full-out war would require so much more funding upfront that we could be turning car manufacturing plants military plants again. We could all have much higher taxes or a separate tax all-together just to help with the war. We possibly could put our economy into a greater depression than the first simply because our economy is so bad now.
    We could find a smarter, more cunning way of attacking terrorists without putting boots on the ground which would be ideal but also could be very costly.
    Personally, I believe we need to rage a full war. The military tactics we use need to save as much money, people, and time as possible. We could think of a better way to attack the terrorists. Possibly find their weak spot like they have found in us and our allies (technology). We would start swinging and hitting instead of missing. Without an ingenious idea of how to do that, we are left with the next best option of using our boots, technology, and supplies to fully attack. Our defense is strong enough to where ISIS has not been brave enough to pull off a 9/11 or what happened in Paris. France is much weaker than us, and ISIS was only smart enough to attack them in that way. We need to stop their death toll at once, but do so wisely and quickly. Lengthening out a war like we have, costs us more money in the long run than if we fully raged war against them. ISIS is like the raptor dinosaurs (Or at least my understanding of them). Raptors were scavengers, picking a lot of little fights all over and they hunted in packs of many little attacks. They can’t rage a full out war or they would have already, but the time we’re giving them right now lets them grow and put more of their people in ideal places to learn our weaknesses.
    There are many other issues to think about such as “Would we lose our allies if we simply stopped fighting and turned our backs on the other countries being attacked?” and “What if we wait too long before putting this enemy down and they grew strong enough to rage a full-out war on our homelands?” I don’t think the people in America who are sipping coffee and sleeping 8 hours a night in their silk sheets will care about our sons and daughters going to war when the extremists pull up on our shores and sneak over the boarders from all sides…No, they will be hiding behind our legs and pushing us toward them. There are consequences to all of our actions but once we wait too long, we will be hiding in the mountains and wishing our government had acted sooner.

  13. Bart

    8 years ago


  14. Steve Swann

    8 years ago

    There is no easy solution to this problem it has been around for hundreds of years. The Muslim faith has no room on this planet for any other belief system be it Christian, Jewish or atheist. Given enough power or wealth the Muslim faith has always struck at non-believers. So we cannot be naive to their intentions. When two sides go to war you can always find a million agendas to support either side, military advancement, industrial profits, religious piety etc. But fundamentally this is about the survival of a moral people against an immoral people. America is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but we are a good people and have perhaps a better than average sense of fairness and morality. Because of this I believe we must play our role of being the good cop in world affairs. Not a role I relish, but one that is never the less needed. And one that carries responsibility and sacrifice as its ultimate cost. Who else can really do it better than the US?
    For this reason I believe the models we have carried out in post war Germany and Korea have been successful. They helped to raise the standard of living in devastated countries and saved many people from dark times. This model unfortunately was mis-managed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

  15. Alma DeMille

    8 years ago

    I totally agree with Matt Foote about following the proper protocol, with Congress making the decisions and not the President taking unconstitutional action. We definitely need to think things through with soberness and consideration for all humanity….but I disagree about being SLOW. Action is needed, and promptly. We must not forget that ISIS believe that killing Christians and people of the Western culture is A GOOD THING, and they have to be stopped or we will be killed and our nations overthrown. ISIS, and their beliefs, have not just happened since our involvement in that region, but has been definitely growing in military power as a result. That growth must be stopped. It is sad, when human lives have to be taken, but if we had not stopped Hitler or others like him then the world we now live in and freedoms we enjoy and families we love and enjoy life with would not even exist today as we know them. ISIS is probably the most dangerous threat to our lives and freedom that has ever existed, because they are not just a different nation, but an idea…a belief system, if you will, focused on spreading terror, killing, raping, murdering, destroying human religion and freedom. If they continue to grow to where they have use of an air force or Heaven forbid, nuclear missiles, then we will all rue this day that we did not act to stop their growth. Yes, we must act wisely though, through the correct procedures, as outlined in the Constitution.

  16. Cathy Kilpatrick

    8 years ago

    I saw a suggestion on some sites that we act peacefully. The only problem is the leaders of these terrorists want to throw us all back into a 14th-century Muslim caliphate, with them (or their chosen one) at its head. Peaceful solutions don’t work with people whose very mindset doesn’t understand peaceful means. They view peaceful means as submission to their subjugation. Which is where the Chaldean Christians are now, subjugated, persecuted, enslaved and martyred.

  17. Alma DeMille

    8 years ago

    Mark Stamps, I have to say that I agree with you to a point. We don’t want unnecessary casualties. It is important HOW we win, but if we go to war then casualties are going to happen. We should only fight if we are going to fight to win and win fast, precise and destroy ISIS completely. Political wars fail. Leave the fight to the military and tell them the objective and let them give it everything we have to win. The casualties will be less in number than the alternatives, and the percentage of American and others from free countries will be far less than if we wait and let ISIS grow. Your statement, “If winning were all that matters then we would be no different then our enemies.” I totally disagree with. Let’s put it on a personal level. If a rapist or burglar attacks you or your family member with a gun or knife and you use a similar (or more powerful) weapon to stop the attacker, does that make you as bad as the criminal? Of course not! ISIS has already attacked us and all humanity! If we use extreme force to wipe out ISIS, it is not only justified, but honorable…in spite of the sad innocent casualties…as we are protecting the entire free world, and every person therein!

  18. Cecilia

    8 years ago

    It occurs to me that these kinds of things require funding and supplies that must come from somewhere. This evening we had an interesting conversation regarding this with our exchange student who is from Italy. The complex economy in Europe is part of this terrorist plot he said. We talked about why can’t we just cut off the supplies to a group that kills innocent people.
    Is it a possible option to unify those throughout the world against ISIS and cut off supplies to this group? My European exchange student says that this would be too difficult because any place we send money may use that money to get the supplies to this organization. Economic impact to the countries supporting this terrorism may be an option we could explore. There has got to be a way to discontinue or disrupt the flow of needed items to ISIS.

  19. Cecilia

    8 years ago

    It occurs to me that these kinds of things require funding and supplies that must come from somewhere. This evening we had an interesting conversation regarding this with our exchange student who is from Italy. The complex economy in Europe is part of this terrorist plot he said. We talked about why can’t we just cut off the supplies to a group that kills innocent people.
    Is it a possible option to unify those throughout the world against ISIS and cut off supplies to this group? My European exchange student says that this would be too difficult because any place we send money may use that money to get the supplies to this organization. Economic impact to the countries supporting this terrorism may be an option we could explore. There has got to be a way to discontinue or disrupt the flow of needed items to ISIS

  20. chandrashekhar iyer

    8 years ago

    The approach appears to be pessimistic. It looks like ISIS have already won the ground.
    I think ISIS must be crushed whatever it may cost at this juncture. No return till they are shown the hell. The time for any discussion and planning has passed , the powers together must strike and strike.

  21. James Powell

    8 years ago

    We can massage everyone feelings and findings to no end. Democracy is not an option. If man would only listen to God. If we would know the mind of God, the issue may have been resolved from the beginning. ‘C’, if this is multiple choice. Humane? Thinking like men? Pray. I was taught, “Kill’ em all and let God sort’ em out.” Isn’t that what He’s done in the past? Leave nothing not even the livestock!? Hmmm? Who? Why? When? History. Repeats. If not obeyed. Is God not “humane”? Let’s just debate until it’s too late. Before you refute or rebuke. Read, study, pray. God is not mocked.

  22. […] profile pictures. And talks about what to do about ISIS have ramped up (here’s a great article summarizing the debate on what the US should do about […]

  23. Kim of Ohio

    8 years ago

    I am a self directed educator/researcher. Of all the books I have read, and mostly old history texts, it seems to me that we have lost our ability to get the upper hand. We easily revert to force and when that force is not successful, we feel boots on the ground didn’t work. So lets look at this from a tiered approach. 1. Psychologically, 2. Financially, 3 Physically, 4 Spiritually. Now using Sun Tsu, Know thy enemy. Well, most Americans and people in other countries are completely ignorant as to what ISIS is. ISIS “is” a multinational coup de tat, governed by a self proclaimed general/spiritual leader. Our constant “reluctance” to fight feeds their strength and boosts their courage. Also, our confusion in how to deal with our own affairs, namely a man posing as our president, who has been aiding and abetting the enemy in every move since he was elected. Our other obstacle is we have very little to fight for. Our American exceptional ism has left a bad taste in some while others are struggling to make it to Friday. Until Americans rally together and want to make America the BEST place to raise a family without corrupt, unjust laws, a means to hold bad politicians to the same fair laws as their consituents, and swift and meaningful sentencing, we are just living in a flea circus. So psychologically, we must feel bigger than they are, be ready to use all force if necessary and stop using rubber bullets. Financially, we need to ascertain where their aid is coming from and pinch that at the markets, the oil fields or the banks. Our debt is their king’s reward. So stop using their laundry markets to finance stuff. Find out what businesses support Sharia Compliant lending and move out of them! Physically, show them mercy by giving them an option to disown ISIS, or die. They are well know for kidnapping 5 year old children, locking them up and training them to hate, kill and destroy. Only going after the able body males is not the root. The migrants that riot, rape and pillage, disobey civility, lets put some big cages on trucks and round them up like the beasts they act like and not pander to their “cult’s” demands. Finally, spiritually, pray for the fortitude, courage and discernment to address those who are acting like criminals evangelize the moderates, but know that Islam is obsessed with evil throughout its trilogy. Know also how Islam is governed by reading their trilogy. The Sira is the biography of Mohammed, the Hadith is the traditions and the Koran. Combined, religion only accounts for 2% of Islam and the rest is Jihad. So, until we fully understand what we are dealing with, what we want to accomplish for America, unite on the use of force and all types of force, pinch their purse strings and have zero tolerance for lawlessness, blood and bullets will be of little use. No matter what, show no fear, never bow to any other god, and be merciful. Aim small shoot small”. William Wallace said. That is how the above actions could create a ripple effect and put us on the offense. This applies to ISIS, BLM, spoiled college kids and street gangs! Thank you for reading.

  24. Colby

    8 years ago

    I’ve been seeing a lot of pretty credible evidence that the US helped create ISIS and that we are supporting them and their allies. In my mind the first thing we need to determine is if we are actually supporting ISIS and their allies. If this is really the case, could we look at option D- stop supporting them and their allies?

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Oliver’s Blog