ISIS takes Palmyra

[K. A. Pital]

I think that simply saying "intervene NOW" without an actual plan is worse than not intervening. There can be a plan for intervention, and likely it can be conditionally supported by some regional actors (Iran?), but there is very little substance on what is to be done and much hot air.

Instead of saying "we should clean up the mess" (imperative), how about proposing working solutions? Goals are noble - what are the ways to achieve them?

[Channel72]

Sending a few tens of thousands of Americans over there to kill thousands more is going to do... what, exactly? What plan other than "march some guys in there"?

I already explained the idea like 3 times now. Retake Mosul. Drive IS out of Iraq and deprive them of oil revenue. Establish base in Kurdistan to make it easier to respond to further problems. What are you not getting?

Are YOU planning to put your money where you mouth is? Volunteering to go over there and fight for strangers? Or do you want your neighbor to do it?

Spare me this stupid "hypocrisy shaming" bullshit. I want the US to use its military, which consists of professional volunteer soldiers, to go fix a situation which we created. Or do you think that only ground infantry should have a say in US military policy?

Confining them to Syria deprives them of valuable oil revenue, thus severely diminishing their effectiveness.

They'll just sell the antiquities they've stolen, when they aren't selling women as living fuck-toys. You think losing oil revenue will stop these guys? They'll find something else to sell.

Wrong. ISIS has a GDP of about $1billion dollars. Estimates are that anywhere from 70 to 90% of that comes from oil revenue. Losing the oil revenue will severely dimish ISIS' effectiveness. ISIS was nothing before they took control of the oil fields in northern Iraq - just another Syrian militia like Al Nusra.

[Simon_Jester]

The difficulty, I suppose, is that Da'esh is the most obvious example of "the world should stop these fiendish madmen" the world has seen since the Rwandan genocide. Therefore it is extremely natural for everyone to want to say "stop them!"

Meanwhile, everyone with an ounce of historical literacy or even knowledge of current events understands how interventions in the Middle East keep managing to contribute to the general chaos. So devising an actual plan is hard. Also, we know such an intervention will be expensive, which is why we get "other country, stop them!"

I already explained the idea like 3 times now. Retake Mosul. Drive IS out of Iraq and deprive them of oil revenue. Establish base in Kurdistan to make it easier to respond to further problems. What are you not getting?

Would Da'esh remain driven out of the Sunni territory in Iraq? Or would it just go underground, plant bombs for any US forces that drove past, and wait for us to leave?

I mean, know that Da'esh has absorbed a lot of the former Iraqi insurgent groups, they have plenty of people who have spent five or ten years doing literally exactly that. Why wouldn't they do so again?

[K. A. Pital]

I also wonder why there is no possibility of IS or a very similar radical Sunni group emerging later. It is logical to go into hiding, like the Taliban did.

[Channel72]

The difficulty, I suppose, is that Da'esh is the most obvious example of "the world should stop these fiendish madmen" the world has seen since the Rwandan genocide. Therefore it is extremely natural for everyone to want to say "stop them!"

Simon, the huge difference here is that US policy was not directly responsible for causing the Rwandan genocide, so there is less of a case to be made for insisting the US immediately intervene in Rwandan tribal conflicts.

I already explained the idea like 3 times now. Retake Mosul. Drive IS out of Iraq and deprive them of oil revenue. Establish base in Kurdistan to make it easier to respond to further problems. What are you not getting?

Would Da'esh remain driven out of the Sunni territory in Iraq? Or would it just go underground, plant bombs for any US forces that drove past, and wait for us to leave?

I mean, know that Da'esh has absorbed a lot of the former Iraqi insurgent groups, they have plenty of people who have spent five or ten years doing literally exactly that. Why wouldn't they do so again?

Of course they would go underground and continue to plant bombs, as usual. But the point is that this makes them less effective by an order of magnitude. Without the oil fields, without a fucking GDP, they are back to being your average Sunni militia that plants car bombs, rather than a rampaging, genocidal horde that controls entire swathes of Iraq, and ethnically cleanses entire cities.

[K. A. Pital]

What you say is true, its just that to keep them "just a militia" would probably take another decade of occupation...

[Channel72]

It would take a decade or more to totally eradicate them. But to simply deprive them of oil revenue just requires a month or so of well planned military operations in the Mosul area, and a presence in Kurdistan.

Anyway, this whole "let's not get involved, we'll just make it worse" attitude is bullshit. We're ALREADY heavily involved. We're pulling strings, supplying weapons, equipment, and logistics support, nagging Turkey, conducting air strikes, moving around militias like chess pieces, etc. The point is, our involvement is half-assed, which is even worse than being non-involved. Swift, decisive action in Mosul would be better than what we're doing now.

[The Xeelee]

Okay broomstick, your spouting the kind of nonsense you would expect from a child "well you do it then". Do you not realise that "Europe" is a continent, not a country? And that means we have separate military structures that would lead to an ineffective effort. The U.S. needs to step up and take responsibility for its actions. Of course Europe has to help but that isn't possible without U.S support and help.

[Thanas]

Again - don't like the job America is doing? Then step up.

We fucking are. We will take in 800k-1m refugees this year. We sent all of our reserve weapons to the kurds.

Now how about your nation fucking cleans up the mess that it created? If it means 2 decades in Iraq, so be it. In my opinion, no country gets the option to invade another nation and then wipe its hands off the whole affair, which is what you are proposing.

And if your idea of pulling your weight is "meh, let Europe handle the refugee crisis and don't do anything too risky in Syria", how the fuck is that going to be a credible response?

[Darmalus]

Since the modern US government is incapable of running a successful occupation, nation building or even identifying their enemy due to various ideological blinders, I think it's fairly simple to determine if the USA should get involved.

"Would indiscriminately bombing friend, foe and bystander in the area of conflict improve the situation?"

If the answer is "No." then the USA should probably not get involved.

[Broomstick]

Okay broomstick, your spouting the kind of nonsense you would expect from a child "well you do it then". Do you not realise that "Europe" is a continent, not a country?

Of course I realize it's a collection of nations and not one unified whole, but over the past 70 years those nations have demonstrated an ability to make alliances and work towards common goals. You, the collective, could have devoted more to defense but you chose not to. Indeed, you do rely on the US for military assistance. That means you'll have to struggle with US politics which have driven a lot of bullshit over the years.

And that means we have separate military structures that would lead to an ineffective effort.

And... that means you expect to hire the Americans as mercenaries? You realize that the US is not part of Europe, yes? Why are you shocked that they aren't eager to jump into the fire again?

The U.S. needs to step up and take responsibility for its actions. Of course Europe has to help but that isn't possible without U.S support and help.

Are you saying that Europe has no effective military without the US? What I'm hearing is "You Americans fix it, you send your people to get shot at and maimed and dead, you pour your money into the project... we'll help you - however much we think we can spare - and meanwhile we'll tell you how horrible a job you're doing again."

Why does anyone think intervention by the US at this point will have any different outcome than over the last two decades? None of you have answered that: why do you think doing the same thing again will have a different outcome?

Again - don't like the job America is doing? Then step up.

We fucking are. We will take in 800k-1m refugees this year. We sent all of our reserve weapons to the kurds.

Germany is an exception to the general rule - you HAVE taken in your share and more of refugees, it's the base on your territory that provides medical care to most of wounded Western warriors from the Middle East conflicts prior to them being sent home, and post-WWII Germany's ability to build up an effective military was restricted.

However, it has been pointed out that the UK could take more people in. I'm not conversant with the details, but apparently some nations are taking few or no refugees. Germany criticizing the US efforts? Meh, they have some points. Some other nations? Hypocritical. They're not doing their share to deal with this crisis which, they need to realize, is a continent-wide issue.

Now how about your nation fucking cleans up the mess that it created? If it means 2 decades in Iraq, so be it. In my opinion, no country gets the option to invade another nation and then wipe its hands off the whole affair, which is what you are proposing.

Nope, what I'm afraid of is that the US going in again will only make things worse. I would be thrilled to be proven wrong, but there is a real possibility we'll get some war-mongering Fundie asshole in the Oval Office come November 2016 more interested in some whacked-out religio-conservative agenda than actually fixing the problems.

We've had a quite a few years of America fucking shit up in the MIddle East. Again, why do you think the results would be different this time? Because Obama is in office? He won't be for much longer. You're banking on a Democratic win next major election? Never a certain thing. There's been some sort of turn-over in the Joint Chiefs that will affect how a war is run this time around? What? Why do you think there will be a different outcome this time?

And if your idea of pulling your weight is "meh, let Europe handle the refugee crisis and don't do anything too risky in Syria", how the fuck is that going to be a credible response?

Personally, I think the US could take more of those people. There is the issue that we've had an on-going illegal immigrant problem for a couple decades now that complicates any discussion of giving a million or so other people asylum, but yes, we COULD do that... and probably should.

I think whoever takes these people in will have to realize most of them will never go home again. A few will return, when things settle down, but most of those that are fleeing now will remain where they stop running. Some way will have to be found to make them functioning members of whatever society they wind up in rather than perpetual aliens for generations to come.

I don't think anyone right now has a fucking clue what to do in Syria. I understand the impulse to rush in and try to fix things, to put a band-aid on the gaping wound, but rushing in without a plan will just get more people killed. We already know people are using poison gas in Syria which neither Europe nor the US have really dealt with in combat since WWI. It's going to be hard to tell the enemies from the friendlies. And there WILL be "collateral damage", a lot of it, and I wouldn't be surprised if ISIS will start pulling stunts like threatening mass murder if we attack a location or attempt an invasion. It's going to be uglier and bloodier and more brutal than what happened in Iraq when the US invaded. I'm worried people will see that and suddenly develop cold feet and want to run home, which would be the WORST thing that could be done in reaction to that.

[Simon_Jester]

It's one thing to maintain that the US should be 'paying for' fixing the chaos caused by Da'esh.

It's another thing to maintain that the US should fix the chaos by leading (another) coalition into Iraq (and presumably Syria) to suppress Da'esh.

I mean really, I'm surprised to see people thinking that's a good idea. The US hasn't done a successful military occupation and reconstruction of a foreign country since, at best, South Korea, and that's a borderline case. Vietnam was a disaster, Iraq is a disaster, if Afghanistan isn't a disaster yet it's probably only because Western troops haven't pulled out of the country. Even Libya is turning into a mess as far as I can tell, and that one the US was in less of a lead role in!

So clearly, after the US has repeatedly and conspicuously failed, somebody should be demonstrating how much smarter and better they will handle occupation of a Middle Eastern country. Maybe the US should be underwriting their checks (I'm sure the Republicans will be happy to fund that in between threatening to blow up the government over debt ceilings and government shutdowns), and certainly the US owes a huge debt for its responsibility.

But just because the fox owes me for six dead hens doesn't mean I want him building the new henhouse.

[Channel72]

The options here are NOT "get involved" vs. "don't get involved", as many people in this thread continue to naively reduce everything to. We are already involved. The discussion here is to what extent we should escalate or de-escalate our involvement.

Secondly, the disccusion at hand is not whether or not we should invade a country, occupy it, and reconstruct it. That already happened. The discussion is whether we should follow-up our mostly-failed reconstruction with some band-aids that address immediate issues.

Additionally, I'm not even suggesting the US do something that isn't happening anyway. There are already plans to retake Mosul and drive ISIS out of Iraq. That will happen regardless. What I'm suggesting is that the US allocate ground troops at least to support that operation in order to expedite it and provide the Iraqi army and Peshmerga with an overwhelming advantage. No matter what, the battle for Mosul will be bloody as hell, involve endless street fighting, snipers, planted explosives, civilian casualties, and other horrible realities of urban warfare. My argument is that the US should be directly involved on the ground with this battle, rather than just pulling strings from afar, in order to expedite it and at least provide the Iraqi and Kurdish ground troops who are risking everything the support and advantage they need to ensure casualties are mostly ISIS casualties.

Then, I'm suggesting the US expand the already existing plans for an Erbil airbase, to create a full military base in Kurdistan, so that further Syrian-war spillover into Iraq can be responded to and contained more easily. If that requires that a certain contigent of US troops are stationed in Kurdistan for another 20 years, so be it.

These are specific, band-aid measures that can be taken to stop the "bleeding" to a certain degree, by

• (1) containing ISIS in Syria,
  (2) depriving ISIS of oil revenue, thus dramatically reducing their effectiveness.

That is the plan I would propose - not some vague strawman "invade Iraq, kill bad guys!" plan which people in this thread seem to have in their heads.

[Broomstick]

Well, yeah NOW that you've given some detail it's no longer so vague.

Now, how are you going to convince both political parties and the American people to buy into that plan?

[Simon_Jester]

Also... who's in charge of implementation? Is the US supposed to subordinate itself into the Iraqi or Peshmerga command structure? Or vice versa? There are obvious difficulties with either.

[Broomstick]

Not the least being long-standing US policy to never subordinate it's troops to the command of another country.

[Themightytom]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/ ... OJ20150830

The United States and its allies staged 15 airstrikes on Islamic State targets in Iraq and seven in Syria since early Saturday, the Combined Joint Task Force said in a statement on Sunday.

In Iraq, targets successfully struck included two boats and two IED caches near Al Baghdadi; a tactical unit, three vehicles and a building near Bayji; and a tactical unit and armored vehicle near Tuz.

In Syria, airstrikes destroyed tactical units, bunkers, an air defense artillery system, a mortar system and a rocket launcher near Al Hasakah, artillery and an excavator near Al Hawl and a staging area near Washiyah.

It's not like we are doing nothing. We're also about to be short an aircraft carrier in the region too.
Is anyone who actually lives there interested in the U.S. invading? We can't exactly show up because Europe told us too, and... yeah such an action would guarantee us a Republican President for the next 8 years

[wautd]

Also words that the troglodytes have now destroyed the Bel temple. I'm afraid there won't be much left standing once these savages are done with it

[Thanas]

They have also started demolishing ancient burials.

[Broomstick]

Fucking graverobbers.

[cmdrjones]

Again - don't like the job America is doing? Then step up.

We fucking are. We will take in 800k-1m refugees this year. We sent all of our reserve weapons to the kurds.

Now how about your nation fucking cleans up the mess that it created? If it means 2 decades in Iraq, so be it. In my opinion, no country gets the option to invade another nation and then wipe its hands off the whole affair, which is what you are proposing.

And if your idea of pulling your weight is "meh, let Europe handle the refugee crisis and don't do anything too risky in Syria", how the fuck is that going to be a credible response?

This is in reply to broomstick and Channel72 etc etc as well. This is a mind-bogglingly complex situation and I don' think we're going to come up with the one powerpoint slideshow to end the war here, but I see how everybody here is searching for solutions to various parts of the problem AND being relatively civil while doing so.

The refugee crisis is exacerbated by the politics in the gulf region and the European countries internal policies. Most of the people who are arriving in Europe aren't technically refugees from the war, many of them are economic refugees, a good chunk from eastern europe. Europe doesn't OWE them anything, but is aiding many of these migrants out of the kindness of their hearts, which even I can admire in a simple sort of way. The problem arises in determining when you've reached 'lifeboat' ethics in that if you take in over a certain amount of refugees you swamp the boat and compromise your ability not only to take in more, but also to aid those you have already taken in.

So, my ADVICE would be to the Euro nations: Take them in if you must, but have a plan to A) sift through them to find ISIS infiltrators, B) Make sure the Wealthier Arab/muslim nations that are NOT at war take the VAST majority (Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Oman, S. Arabia, Brunei, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Maylaysia, Singapore, Qatar, Iran, Albania, and to a lesser extent: Sudan, Tunisia, Eritrea, pakistan, bangladesh, heck some could go help rebuild Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia and Libya if they were funded properly....) even if they are cared for in Europe, given some seed money, and organized into groups before they go to those countries it would be a vast improvement over "let them stay in Europe effectively forever... with no plan"
The reason they don't WANT to go to those countries shows how they aren't truly fleeing ONLY the war: They want the $$$$ and the benefits of living in Europe.

My personal response to that is: To Effing bad! The other Muslim nations of the Ummah need to step up and start chipping in their Zakat money for their brothers or they can admit they are secular humanists like Europe (for the most part) and that thier public stance on Islam is Bullshit and we can all admit that ISIS was right all along, they ARE the ISLAMIC state and we can just get it all overwith. (It being the "clash of civilizations" we've all been waiting for)

As for defeating ISIS militarily, this is a secondary issue to the political and cultural conditions that spawned ISIS in the first place. The US devastated Vietnam too, but despite the spasms of the Final assaults on S. Vietnam and the insanity of the Khmer Rouge (which communism was a major driving factor) nothing as long lasting and ambitious as ISIS arose in SE asia in the 70s and 80s that tore the area apart in the years after our departure. (if the Khmer Rouge were an 8 on the 10 scale of evil bastards, i'd give ISIS a 9 and climbing just for the ongoing nastiness of their regime and its continued regional influence.)

I do agree that the US should lead a coalition to destroy ISIS, not because I think our intervention would end any differently but because if WE intervene directly it is FAR more likely that Europe and other nations will join a coalition to get rid of them as well and it wont BE just the US intervening unilaterally anymore. A true coalition of the US, Europe, Turkey, the Kurds, Iraq, Assad, Russia and the Gulf States could crush ISIS within months if not weeks. The subsequent peace talks and redrawing of boundaries would probably last YEARS, but it would be better than letting this shitstorm continue indefinitely.

[Broomstick]

So, my ADVICE would be to the Euro nations: Take them in if you must, but have a plan to A) sift through them to find ISIS infiltrators,

Normally, refugees are pre-screened before being let into a country.

The difference here is that you have something like a million people just coming in, with no screening. Frankly, I think the percentage of Bad Guys (not just ISIS but other hotheads and just plain ordinary criminals) is pretty low compared to those who are legitimately in need but I doubt any country is simply letting them in and not tracking them somehow.

B) Make sure the Wealthier Arab/muslim nations that are NOT at war take the VAST majority (Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Oman, S. Arabia, Brunei, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Maylaysia, Singapore, Qatar, Iran, Albania, and to a lesser extent: Sudan, Tunisia, Eritrea, pakistan, bangladesh, heck some could go help rebuild Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia and Libya if they were funded properly....) even if they are cared for in Europe, given some seed money, and organized into groups before they go to those countries it would be a vast improvement over "let them stay in Europe effectively forever... with no plan"

I've actually done a little bit of research on that. The numbers aren't exact, I'm sure there's some to quibble over, but roughly speaking this is how many Syrian refuguees the following nations have taken in:

Turkey: 2,100,000
Jordan: 500,000*
Lebanon: 600,000**
Kuwait: 120,000***
Saudi Arabia: 100,000****

* Jordan's population is 8 million, so that makes 1/16 of Jordan Syrian refugees
** Lebanon's population is 4.5 million, an even larger percentage of Lebanon is Syrian refugees than Jordan. About 1 in 6 people if my math isn't fucked up.
*** Another relatively small nation, you get the idea
**** Saudi Arabia is only allowing in refugees who already have family in the kingdom so apparently they often aren't counted as refugees, but that still adds up to six digits. It doesn't help the masses fleeing to Europe, but did peel a few off from the larger crowd.

Keep in mind those are just Syrian refugees - there are refugees from other places also in those countries. So I think it's misleading to say the Middle Eastern and Muslim nations nearby have done nothing.

The reason they don't WANT to go to those countries shows how they aren't truly fleeing ONLY the war: They want the $$$$ and the benefits of living in Europe.

This argument is starting to piss me off. Who came up with the notion that once a refugee reaches a "safe" country they have to stop there? When the fuck was that ever the case? (Certainly not in my family!) All that attitude does is shove the problem onto already overburdened countries who by a geographic lottery are close to the disaster(s).

What do we gain by keeping 5 million people in poverty and further burdening already struggling nations? How the hell is that going to turn out well down the line?

A true coalition of the US, Europe, Turkey, the Kurds, Iraq, Assad, Russia and the Gulf States could crush ISIS within months if not weeks. The subsequent peace talks and redrawing of boundaries would probably last YEARS, but it would be better than letting this shitstorm continue indefinitely.

Well, fuck, we could declare WWIII and crush them in a matter of days if you don't mind massive, massive collateral damage and images of dead and dying bystanders live on YouTube. Hell, we could just nuke the whole fucking region and "solve" the problem in a matter of minutes... but the consequences down the line would likely be worse than doing it the long and slow way.

See, that's the thing - as bad as this is, it's not bad enough that anyone wants to start WWIII over it. We're still trying to find an alternate and less damaging solution.

[cmdrjones]

B) Make sure the Wealthier Arab/muslim nations that are NOT at war take the VAST majority (Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Oman, S. Arabia, Brunei, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Maylaysia, Singapore, Qatar, Iran, Albania, and to a lesser extent: Sudan, Tunisia, Eritrea, pakistan, bangladesh, heck some could go help rebuild Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia and Libya if they were funded properly....) even if they are cared for in Europe, given some seed money, and organized into groups before they go to those countries it would be a vast improvement over "let them stay in Europe effectively forever... with no plan"

I've actually done a little bit of research on that. The numbers aren't exact, I'm sure there's some to quibble over, but roughly speaking this is how many Syrian refuguees the following nations have taken in:

Turkey: 2,100,000
Jordan: 500,000*
Lebanon: 600,000**
Kuwait: 120,000***
Saudi Arabia: 100,000****

* Jordan's population is 8 million, so that makes 1/16 of Jordan Syrian refugees
** Lebanon's population is 4.5 million, an even larger percentage of Lebanon is Syrian refugees than Jordan. About 1 in 6 people if my math isn't fucked up.
*** Another relatively small nation, you get the idea
**** Saudi Arabia is only allowing in refugees who already have family in the kingdom so apparently they often aren't counted as refugees, but that still adds up to six digits. It doesn't help the masses fleeing to Europe, but did peel a few off from the larger crowd.

Keep in mind those are just Syrian refugees - there are refugees from other places also in those countries. So I think it's misleading to say the Middle Eastern and Muslim nations nearby have done nothing.

The reason they don't WANT to go to those countries shows how they aren't truly fleeing ONLY the war: They want the $$$$ and the benefits of living in Europe.

This argument is starting to piss me off. Who came up with the notion that once a refugee reaches a "safe" country they have to stop there? When the fuck was that ever the case? (Certainly not in my family!) All that attitude does is shove the problem onto already overburdened countries who by a geographic lottery are close to the disaster(s).

What do we gain by keeping 5 million people in poverty and further burdening already struggling nations? How the hell is that going to turn out well down the line?

A true coalition of the US, Europe, Turkey, the Kurds, Iraq, Assad, Russia and the Gulf States could crush ISIS within months if not weeks. The subsequent peace talks and redrawing of boundaries would probably last YEARS, but it would be better than letting this shitstorm continue indefinitely.

Well, fuck, we could declare WWIII and crush them in a matter of days if you don't mind massive, massive collateral damage and images of dead and dying bystanders live on YouTube. Hell, we could just nuke the whole fucking region and "solve" the problem in a matter of minutes... but the consequences down the line would likely be worse than doing it the long and slow way.

See, that's the thing - as bad as this is, it's not bad enough that anyone wants to start WWIII over it. We're still trying to find an alternate and less damaging solution.

A couple things: I'm sure many muslim nations in the immediate vicinity have taken in refugees (hence why I didn't include Jordan, Lebanon, or Turkey on my list) I also didn't include active warzones like Yemen or Libya. As for the argument pissing you off.... Oh well.
I am not saying that they "have to stop there" (there being, for example, Turkey.) I am just saying that calling them all 'refugees from war' is just as misleading when about a third of them are from eastern europe or elsewhere. It would behoove the European nations to demand that the Ummah take in their fellows long before they do, but if they WANT to do these things, I can't stop them... All I can say is: Go Long on Redenbacher.

AS far as the WWIII argument, the hyperbole of it REALLY doesn't apply for two reasons: #1 we don't need nukes to rid ourselves of ISIS, and #2 to get down to brass tacks, if we did declare "WWIII" or something similar, can you really say that ISIS isn't the worlds best current example of a WWIII-ing?

[Channel72]

^ What are you talking about? Jordan has setup massive refugee camps and is shouldering a huge portion of the refugee relief effort here. (Meanwhile the US - who played a major role in creating this crisis and has way more resources than Jordan - has allowed like 2 refugees to enter...)

AS far as the WWIII argument, the hyperbole of it REALLY doesn't apply for two reasons: #1 we don't need nukes to rid ourselves of ISIS, and #2 to get down to brass tacks, if we did declare "WWIII" or something similar, can you really say that ISIS isn't the worlds best current example of a WWIII-ing?

...

Are you ... real?

[Broomstick]

I am not saying that they "have to stop there" (there being, for example, Turkey.) I am just saying that calling them all 'refugees from war' is just as misleading when about a third of them are from eastern europe or elsewhere.

In my last post I was discussing JUST Syrian refugees. No one else. Those numbers are for Syrians, about 3 million of which are seeking refuge in the Middle Eastern nations listed, and 2 million of which are believed to on their way to Europe or already there. Dragging in "but there are X number of Eastern Europeans" is irrelevant to this particular part of the discussion. If you did filter out all those EE's you'd still have two million refugees in or wanting to enter Europe.

Even if in the past a third have been EE that's going to change, if it hasn't already.

It would behoove the European nations to demand that the Ummah take in their fellows long before they do, but if they WANT to do these things, I can't stop them...

It does seem that countries in the Middle East have absorbed 3 million refugees already, even if a few of them aren't doing as much as they could. This "make them take care of their own" is once again saying it's someone else's problem. And what do you care if that sort of migration destabilizes the Middle East further, it can't affect you, right? (Actually, it could affect all of us.)

All I can say is: Go Long on Redenbacher.

I have no fucking clue what this sentence means. How about you explain yourself?

AS far as the WWIII argument, the hyperbole of it REALLY doesn't apply for two reasons: #1 we don't need nukes to rid ourselves of ISIS

We didn't need nukes to bring Japan to it's knees in WWII, what they are is a really efficient way to cause death and destruction. If you want an absolute quick end to an enemy regardless of consequences it's pretty damn quick. It's the perception the costs wouldn't be worth the benefits that keep them from being used.

#2 to get down to brass tacks, if we did declare "WWIII" or something similar, can you really say that ISIS isn't the worlds best current example of a WWIII-ing?

Again, WTF is this supposed to mean? Stop trying to be clever, it isn't working.