ISIS being attacked

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by 63dot, Jan 24, 2015.

  1. 63dot, Jan 24, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2015

    63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #1
    Though not in news too much, it's been said maybe 6,000 ISIS troops (out of 7,000-12,000 total troops) have been killed.

    Now with Japan getting involved, it may not be a situation where a country plays as passive with their citizens getting murdered.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/22/politics/us-officials-say-6000-isis-fighters-killed-in-battles/

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30966651

    Also though not talked about, Japan has had a pretty considerable military since the 1970s, downplayed as a "defence force", but have certainly been trained in offensive capability, much of it by good ole USA. I wonder if Japan will consider adding troops as well as money.

    In the past when Japan says something is unforgivable and will act, they don't hold back. It doesn't matter if it's Yakuza or whatever so I think they will pledge some troops this time. The US can't expect to singlehandedly take out ISIS or let just Arabs die doing the policing over in Syria.
     
  2. stroked Suspended

    stroked

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    #2
    If you're fighting a war to defend your country, you have to have an offense. How would you defeat an enemy, without attacking them? Do you think they should rely on the US to be their offense?
     
  3. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #3
    I think you're perhaps missing the context in which the Japanese have a cultivated a defence force.
     
  4. 63dot, Jan 24, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2015

    63dot thread starter macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #4
    The basic understanding I had was that after World War II, Japan was to mostly disarm their military and for some time the United States would protect them.

    Of course this was during a time where the US didn't want Japan to rearm their former empire but it was still important for Japan to have teeth against the iron curtain.

    By 1976 when my US Navy friend did joint exercises with the Japanese, World War II was more than 30 years past and Japan had built quite a few ships that were not meant to bring in a lot of attention. According to him this was at the behest of the United States and any threat of an out of control, aggressive Japan was way past. The US military there was pretty much told to stay very quiet about the Japanese military buildup but the main reason was so that the Soviet Union or China would be dissuaded from attacking Japan's west coast by sea.

    Some of our later Essex class carriers were used by Japan as were the then modern F4 Phantoms. Later on, Japan used F-14s, F-15s, and the ever present F-16s but the exact number and nature of mission has been kept under wraps.

    With so many of the people who suffered from the extreme bombing of the Japanese homeland now deceased (the generation that was vehemently anti-war), it may sound like a good idea for Japan in 2015 to commit troops against ISIS.

    My guess is that a western force (including Britain and probably Japan) will go in with the expressed goal of finishing off ISIS with the larger goal of taking Syria away from Assad. This will probably lead to an unfortunate and long, bloody occupation. As time goes on, public opinion will sour on such a long and expensive occupation and it will be seen as short sighted to bring in a coalition of troops (or just US troops with international monetary support) sometime this year.

    Unfortunately we are damned if we do and damned if we don't so an invasion, either large or piece by piece will happen in Syria the way it did in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think killing a Japanese citizen, and perhaps getting an outsider country involved in the Middle East, is the straw that broke the camel's back. Yes, this will end ISIS and unfortunately kill many innocent Arabs in the process, but it will only lengthen the jihad against the west with no winner.
     
  5. johnnyturbouk macrumors 68000

    johnnyturbouk

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Location:
    on the yellow [oled] brick road to tech nirvana.
    #5
    :eek: {:p}

    -good summary post.
    - I agree, if countries like Japan were to enter the war, something unheard of post-WW2, would help to reinforce the validity of of the war against the filth that is ISIS.
     
  6. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #6
    This is one group that for the collective good needs to be sent on their spiritual way...
     
  7. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #7
    It's too easy for us to pass harsh judgement on others struggling with issues like sovereignty and self-rule. The U.S. has gone through enough war and committed enough horror to know that conflict like this often involves appalling violence and atrocities. We should understand that those acts are as much a product of the process and not the people. When you propose mass killing to solve a socio-political problem, then you're making the same mistake ISIS is making, and you're proving how easy it is to fall for violence as a means to an end.
     
  8. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #8
    Violence is one thing, depapitating people and trying to extinguish entire demographics due to religious belief is another.
     
  9. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #9
    We did the same, if not worse.
     
  10. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #10
    I did not advocate the mass killings of innocent people. Any actions taken have to under the guise of self defense, or of defense of peaceful citizens. I recognize that this is a monumental power struggle for control. An analogy might be, if you have a pack of rabid dogs in the neighborhood, how do you handle it? What do you do with mass murders? Remember for ISIS, the only requiemet for your gruesome death is to diagree with them. How do you bring such a group back to live amongst civilized people?
     
  11. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #11
    When the disagreement that you mention regards sovereignty and rule it's common for gruesome death to be a consequence. ISIS didn't invent this. It's a basic human tendency in civil conflict to kill those who oppose your way.

    Take any group of people and start a civil war. What have we seen happen time and time again? People act uncivilized. Remove the conflict, and they will return to acting more civilized. Do you have any reason to believe ISIS does not fit this pattern?
     
  12. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #12
    Should we have exterminated the Japanese after WWII? What they did to POWs, and people in occupied territories wasn't much better than what ISIS does, it just wasn't as well reported back then.
     
  13. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #13
    I agree with you analysis on general terms, and I also see that war while grusome can be handled with humain standards. Murdering everyone who disagrees with you crosses a line. For the zealots who promote this standard I don't really see bringing them back and I don't see them volunteering to come back. By our standard, they would be tried and executed for war crimes.
     
  14. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #14
    By our standard? Puhleeze.
     
  15. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #15
    I think our standard is to try the other side for war crimes and ignore the ones that we or our allies commit.
     
  16. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #16
    Ideally that standard can be upheld and those who violate it be brought to justice. I have noticed however, that justice is often not fairly meted out, and that many deserving people avoid it.

    And I don't mean to minimize how hard it is to see this cruelty inflicted upon the innocent. I understand the desire to fix it. I would funnel that compassion into humanitarian efforts, aid to refugees, etc.
     
  17. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #17
    Best thing ISIS did was take hold and occupy large, contiguous land... the easier to blast them all to kingdom come in one fell swoop. Mass elimination is the only way to deal with them.
     
  18. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #18
    14 years after 9/11 and you are still fighting in the area a war that you cannot win.
     
  19. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #19
    That's fine. You go out there with your ISIS buddies. The only problem that I see is that you won't see or hear it when the blast occurs.
     
  20. 63dot thread starter macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #20
    There's too much oil there. The US, Japan, and Britain are reliant on the stuff. If this was a century ago it would be simple and the three countries would make a coalition and permanently occupy the territory, like an India or Indochina. But this is 2015 and while the "west" needs the oil, it will be in the guise of bringing democracy to Iraq and Syria.

    The truth is at least two of the three countries are going to put military down there soon (look at all the US deployments in last few months) and it will be the kinder, gentler version of "I am going to take your land". Instead of calling the region a colony of the west, we will say we are remaining there to stabilize the region. Each day we are there and stabilize the oil production and prices will be considered a victory for the west. It just took a very violent ISIS to get the populace in the west to have the stomach to go in again.

    Being that on low end numbers that ISIS can be down to their last couple of thousand fighters, it seems like the time to come in and mop up after all the bombs we let down from the sky. Even if ISIS is as big as 30,000 troops including those who were forced into their army, nobody can withstand constant bombardment with no cover of trees/jungle, etc.

    The beheadings are not anything new, but it's a way to bring out that aspect in order to get everyone behind no just an invasion, but a full on long term (decades long) occupation. As much as I don't like it with ISIS on one end and Assad on the other, it still makes more sense to make it our 51st state and call it a day, oil or no oil.

    Just like the empire of Japan and Nazi Germany committed atrocities and brought on the wrath of over 100 countries against them, especially in 1945, the situation that is there in the region will guarantee a western occupation. Nobody wins here.
     
  21. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #21
    Ok, you are saying Geneva conventions don't exist or they are ignored? I'm making a philosophical case here. :p Ask me about Dubya and Cheney. They both deserve a trial for war crimes.
     
  22. impulse462 Suspended

    impulse462

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    #22
    lol
     
  23. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #23
    KISS. People tend to over think the issue of the global Islamic nuisance and terrorism. It's all about oil in the modern world and not the great general Salahuddin purging crusaders from Jerusalem.

    We can starve the radicals and fanatics by supporting clean energy, domestic energy and living more efficiently. It's a lot harder for ISIS to exist when there is less oil revenue.
     
  24. 63dot thread starter macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #24
    That is so true. There's a certain point, probably just a few decades from now, where oil will not be a big player. The reliance on oil is something I know could have been extinguished had we really put the money into alternate energy in the 1970s. Even our hybrid cars got off to a slow start even though the technology was readily available a full 10-15 years before.
     
  25. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #25
    They are ignored when it is convenient for us, and enforced when someone we don't like breaks them.
     

Share This Page