China Should Send Troops to Fight ISIS

[boke]

这个由美国为首的西方国家及美国的其它追随者制造出来的恐怖组织现在自食其果了想拉中国下水？中国对恐怖主义的策略是明了清晰的，但首要的是清除国内存在的恐怖势力，其次是协助清剿中国周边对中国不利的恐怖实力，至于说在中东肆虐的ISIS，美国和他的追随实力造成的苦果还是要由他们自己去收拾，中国的军力还不够强大，也需要锻炼的机会，但是中国不会拿有限的人力物力财力去为别国的错误买单，尤其是那些长期敌视干扰中国的国家。日本人如果觉得自己很有能力，大可以以雇佣军的身份去为你们的美国主子当炮灰。提醒你们一下，你们是战败国，没有资格组建军队，如果敢以军队的身份出现中东，那么日本人跟Isis都没什么两样，一样的烧杀抢掠，一样的死不悔改！

 

[gambit]

But if you have to blame US anyway, i guess all radical muslim group were created when US back Israel and see as muddling with the ME aftair, well...

Then let us do what Counterpunch usually insinuate but too cowardly to come out and say it: The US exists, therefore, all the world's problems were/are caused by US.

Save Mr. Orange typing time.

 

[jhungary]

"ISIS indeed took advantage in the power vacumn"

A power vacuum the US was responsible for when it toppled Saddam under bogus pretenses. But don't just take my word for it. Here are more articles that support my point.

Talking Heads: How the US Created the Islamic State | VICE News

How the US Helped Create Al Qaeda and ISIS » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

ISIS “Made in USA”. Iraq “Geopolitical Arsonists” Seek to Burn Region | Global Research

Also, I see you've failed to answer my simple yes or no question regarding ISIS and Saddam. I should be surprised but I'm really not. I'm right. You're dead wrong. And...The US should clean up its mess.

lol you are wrong, let me ask you this. where were you when I was in Iraq fighting AQI IN 2004?

Dude, the group was KICKED OUT OF IRAQ in 2008, and come back in 2012 when US have left, power vacumn happened in 2004, and Zarqari himself was killed by US force in 2006, can you just try to group all this together and form something more useful.

The funny thing was there is a chinese dude here claim ISIS is a branch of Al Nusra when there are no relation between two group prior to 2013.

Maybe you should get back in trolling in Chinese tooic only, the world is too far for you to understand

Then let us do what Counterpunch usually insinuate but too cowardly to come out and say it: The US exists, therefore, all the world's problems were/are caused by US.

Save Mr. Orange typing time.

you got to admire how those chinese member here bravely spew out something really wrong and still have the guts to say this out loud...

Lol I remember one of them said ISIS is a branch of Al Nusra.... How? Al Nusra group never even existed before 2012....

Lol i got a giant faceplam when I heard that....

Then there is this Mr Orange who could not even point out different between Apples and Oranges...

LOL, i should not laugh since none of them i supposed have any kind of intelligence training, but still....

 

[Aepsilons]

Gary,


The problem with this entire thing is that there are too many changes , assymetric, in the intergroup dynamics of these groups. Be they be Al Nusra, FSA, ISIS, ISIL et al. Back in 2012-2013, most of the American public was told that FSA was one of the "moderate" rebels against Al Assad and thus should be armed and supported. I still remember when there was a Congressional Debate on whether or not to intervene militarily and some members in the Senate , McCain, were propagating that FSA was trustworthy and that it was the 'responsibility' of the United States to Arm and equip these folks.

I can still remember that. We had a huge debate on that during an outing with some of my friends. There were some who were all for it, but i still remember telling one friend how it , to me that is, was a bad idea siding with any 'rebels' in a civil war conflict. Fast track two years --- where is FSA? Its gone, many of their members have already merged, defected into ISIS.

So can we blame it that many members in the international community, Chinese, Japanese, Germans, French, Brazilians, may have some confusion or inadvertently link the groups? Theater is changing too fast , too quick, with little to no response from outside forces to negate these developments. At the same time, the US is placed in a position of 'damned if you do and damned if you don't'.

If you guys don't get involved, people will still say you guys started it. If you guys go in, people will say you've exacerbated it. End of the day --- is what the US will get in response if it does go in? Afteral, no nation, and i repeat, no nation in this earth does things for pure altruistic purposes. lol.

这个由美国为首的西方国家及美国的其它追随者制造出来的恐怖组织现在自食其果了想拉中国下水？中国对恐怖主义的策略是明了清晰的，但首要的是清除国内存在的恐怖势力，其次是协助清剿中国周边对中国不利的恐怖实力，至于说在中东肆虐的ISIS，美国和他的追随实力造成的苦果还是要由他们自己去收拾，中国的军力还不够强大，也需要锻炼的机会，但是中国不会拿有限的人力物力财力去为别国的错误买单，尤其是那些长期敌视干扰中国的国家。日本人如果觉得自己很有能力，大可以以雇佣军的身份去为你们的美国主子当炮灰。提醒你们一下，你们是战败国，没有资格组建军队，如果敢以军队的身份出现中东，那么日本人跟Isis都没什么两样，一样的烧杀抢掠，一样的死不悔改！

In ENGLISH, please. Not all of the members are blessed with the ability to read hanzi.

 

[Gufi]

But the one have to ask, exactly what can US do after AQI left Iraq, nothing

what could have the US done before they invaded was looked at the weapons of mass destruction, but Saddam was one who killed civilians and had to go and I can not defend that person. But what could have been done differently was understanding the delicate balance in the region and understand what bringing a hard line Shiite prime minister would do. Many knowledgeable Arabs had predicted this would happen. They did not let Sunni soldiers recruit, there were less government jobs for Sunni people and there was an extreme hatred for the American placed government and system because there was real discrimination. If sensible governance had been placed many of these soldiers would have been part of the Iraqi army.
The amount of information gathered in a war has to be more then what is the army strength but what are the political weaknesses and plans made to balance the new government. There was up rest in Syria after the Iraqi invasion when the extremists fled to Syria as you said. There should have been a proper plan coming in on how to stop the terrorists from dispersing and affecting the surrounding areas, I think as a military man you agree containing your enemy is part of your objective
Now coming to Syria, the point remains if the UN went in after the US intervention to destroy chemical weapons which were used against the Syrian people because they could be used against American allies in the region, why did they not care about the conventional military of Syria butchering the civilians. That again led to people being radicalized.

But if you have to blame US anyway, i guess all radical muslim group were created when US back Israel and see as muddling with the ME aftair, well...

And I think i have been civil and have given proper logic to back my argument that comment was quite uncalled for. the last comment was very childish and I did not expect it from you Gary. I did not blame the US without logic nor did I go on a rant but spoke because I know what people in the region feel.

 

[tranquilium]

Whoever created this mess should be the one clean it up.

 

[Aepsilons]

That was a very thought provoking analysis. The one issue we forget is the origin of ISIS in the area is feeding of the people's unhappiness with the governance. The number of innocent people killed by the Syrian Government and army needs to be accounted for and the Syrian government taken out and the moderate minds need to replace them. There are many who have no links to ISIS and are stuck fighting Assad on one side and ISIS on the other. These are the people that the coalition needs to back not just in words or supplies but with troops on the ground.
Without taking out the biggest hurdle to peace which is Assad one can not expect the war to be won because even if you remove ISIS you leave a destabilized dictator in rule which can only lead to more radicals forming.
@Nihonjin1051 i put that pictures into words.

You present a poignant analysis, @Gufi . The development of these radical groups , many of whom are forced inot it or are contributing to its critical masse vis-a-vis herd mentality. We have to also consider the behavioral and cognitive psychology that posits their actions -- and givent he ambivalence in human behavior --- requires an analysis on the external environment (and various independent variables there, such as stress, filial dynamic, religious institutionalization, economic depravity, and various others that are common in communities of low socoieconomic stratum).

One can , in part, link two events in the region as catalysts for what has happened: 1) The initiation of the Syrian Civil War (and the methodology used), and 2) The evacuation of the US Armed Forces from Iraq and the subsequent Power Vacuum (to refer @jhungary 's premise in his past post ).

What is the situational awareness we have? How can this situational awareness project itself in a thorough game plan. Clearly, one thing has to happen to restore some kind of balance: 1) Provide a power re-balancing in Iraq, 2) End the Syrian Civil War. How can we do this ? Well, for one, a power balance can be achieved in various ways --- the deployment of an allied contingent to help aid the Iraqi Armed Forces to combat and retake ISIS-held municipalities throughout the country. Establish a UN Peace-Keeping Force in war affected towns, cities, provinces and thus prevent communal clashes from happening post-ISIS. Lastly, how can we end the Syrian Civil War? Clearly and ultimatly the only way the war will end is if Assad steps down (or is removed from power), he cannot expect to maintain legitimacy as ruler of Syria when he has been responsible for humanitarian travesty in his own country. Syria would, thus, be required to be under UN Peace Keeping until a democratic assembly is made and a leader and administration is selected through popular will.

Then, here's the caveat --- how can we dis-arm ex-militants / ex-terrorists ? Therein lies another conundrum for policy and strategic analysts.

Whoever created this mess should be the one clean it up.

Therein lies the caveat --- this problem is a result of various external factors. The Syrian Civil War, the American Pullout and subsequent power vacuum in Iraq, the Sectarian differences in Iraq (Sunni vs Shi'a vs Kurd), then to nefarious interferences to destabilize the region (and there is a plethora of players here; ergo, the united states is not the one you should be focusing on all the time).

 

[AgentOrange]

You cited globalresearch.ca, a well known loony 9/11 conspiracy web site...

As for my 'claim' that Snowden is a double agent...You must have had a bad hair day...It was a JOKE.

Do you even take time to read and think about the sources you brought on ? Apparently not.

For example...

Talking Heads: How the US Created the Islamic State | VICE News

Critical thinking would ask Mark Danner that if the US had done everything perfectly, as he criticized, would that effectively %100 deny any source or even potential source of grievance that would serve as recruitment tools and incentives to create IS any way. Mr. Danner would most likely dance around the question because he is smart enough to know the truth: No, there is nothing to prevent the Muslims from using anything as recruitment tools and incentives to create IS or any alternate version of it.

You also conveniently ignored the role of the locals themselves, as if they and their incompetence at putting down IS when it was nascent, had no contribution to the current state of IS today.

Yeah...You are real credible...

Stop skirting the issue. The whole point is that had the US not gone into Iraq under false pretenses, ISIS wouldn't have nearly the clout as it does today. ISIS would still be yoked under Saddam's regime. Iraq under the Baath party, whilst brutal, was more or less secular and effectively kept its problems within its own borders.The US upset a delicate equilibrium and now the West is paying for it with ISIS inspired terrorist attacks all over the world.

 

[terranMarine]

What Japan (or should i say Abe) wants and i can see @Nihonjin1051 's desire as well is to let JSDF have a more prominent role in safeguarding its assets and maintaining peace in the ME/Africa region. By "dragging" China into this mess it may be seen as an opportunity for building up real life battle experience by joining the coalition with US and Japan. It could be a chance for creating trust between China and Japan according to nihonjin although i doubt this. Some experts consider Japan's military intervention could be seen as the kickoff point for a stronger militarization and gaining influence in the region by stationing in those countries. From China's point of view, outsiders should understand our politicians are skeptical of the revival of Japanese forces though we all know Japan cannot threaten China again. Most likely Germany and Japan will not try that sh!t ever again.

Now back to the question whether China should be sending troops fighting ISIS. First i'd like to know why aren't the Europeans and the US sending boots fighting ISIS? The f*cked up mess is the ramification of constant meddling and training of terrorists by using these barbarians fighting enemies until one day those dogs starts biting the "trainers".
The region wasn't peaceful already and we all know what the Americans did by adding more oil (pun not intended) to fire by using x to fight y, and then when x is not needed anymore x becomes angry and starts attacking Americans as well or others whom x considers as meddlers. Americans will use y or z to fight x in retaliation and we have a vicious circle, a never ending problem period.
I understand there are foreign investments, assets, fellow countrymen that needs protection from these barbarians but declaring terrorists war is like inviting trouble. Just look at some of the EU countries being attacked from these vermin. The US has made plenty of mistakes, removing Saddam and Gadhaffi or anyone they don't like and replacing these countries with a new puppet isn't gonna work. It seems to me chaos after chaos, which begs the question why should China be sending troops to fight ISIS? Isn't it why 2 Japanese lives are now in grave danger after Abe had pledged financial aid in fighting ISIS? ME is a hopeless sh!thole, better stay away from it.

 

[gambit]

Stop skirting the issue. The whole point is that had the US not gone into Iraq under false pretenses, ISIS wouldn't have nearly the clout as it does today. ISIS would still be yoked under Saddam's regime. Iraq under the Baath party, whilst brutal, was more or less secular and effectively kept its problems within its own borders.The US upset a delicate equilibrium and now the West is paying for it with ISIS inspired terrorist attacks all over the world.

Then let us put it this way: If Saddam Hussein had complied to UN resolutions, then may be the US would not have gone into Iraq under those 'false pretenses'.

All Saddam Hussein had to do was confine his dictatorial rule inside Iraq's borders. But his invasion of Kuwait initiated the suspicion of his stability, which upset that delicate equilibrium, which led US to focus our attention on Iraq. That mean everything that happened since is Iraq's fault.

 

[AgentOrange]

lol you are wrong, let me ask you this. where were you when I was in Iraq fighting AQI IN 2004?

Dude, the group was KICKED OUT OF IRAQ in 2008, and come back in 2012 when US have left, power vacumn happened in 2004, and Zarqari himself was killed by US force in 2006, can you just try to group all this together and form something more useful.

The funny thing was there is a chinese dude here claim ISIS is a branch of Al Nusra when there are no relation between two group prior to 2013.

Maybe you should get back in trolling in Chinese tooic only, the world is too far for you to understand



you got to admire how those chinese member here bravely spew out something really wrong and still have the guts to say this out loud...

Lol I remember one of them said ISIS is a branch of Al Nusra.... How? Al Nusra group never even existed before 2012....

Lol i got a giant faceplam when I heard that....

Then there is this Mr Orange who could not even point out different between Apples and Oranges...

LOL, i should not laugh since none of them i supposed have any kind of intelligence training, but still....

Where was I when you were in Iraq? Stop trying to deflect from the issues by name dropping. Your participation in the invasion of another country impresses no one and I care less than nothing about what you did or didn't do in Iraq. The US made no difference there except to make the region worse. None of your flag waving and see no evil/hear no evil schtick will change that fact and deep down you know this.

But back to my main point. I'll quote an earlier post since you're incapable of answering a yes or no question and usually end up posting incoherent ramblings about apples, oranges, bananas, and mangoes in response to anything I write:

While Saddam was in charge, was ISIS as powerful then as they are today? Did ISIS control large swathes of Syria and Iraq while Saddam was still in power? Was ISIS striking all over the world and publicly beheading foreign journalists and massacring people in Western countries while Saddam was in power? Yes. Or. No.

Yes or no.

Then let us put it this way: If Saddam Hussein had complied to UN resolutions, then may be the US would not have gone into Iraq under those 'false pretenses'.

All Saddam Hussein had to do was confine his dictatorial rule inside Iraq's borders. But his invasion of Kuwait initiated the suspicion of his stability, which upset that delicate equilibrium, which led US to focus our attention on Iraq. That mean everything that happened since is Iraq's fault.

His invasion of Kuwait resulted in Gulf War 1. Gulf War 2 was purely driven by a neo-con agenda and is almost universally recognized as a bogus war. All the US had to do was to mind its own business and not let a cabal of chickenhawk right wingers drag the country into a war with a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11. Of course we know how well that turned out and the rise of ISIS is a direct result of the unstable power vacuum created by US meddling.

Edit: But let's play your game. Had Saddam complied with some vague resolutions, the US would not have gone into Iraq. And Saddam would still be in power keeping a lid on ISIS and maintaining a tenuous but peaceful equilibrium. So you actually agree with me. The US completely screwed up the region by invading Iraq.

 

[Gufi]

1) Provide a power re-balancing in Iraq, 2) End the Syrian Civil War. How can we do this ? Well, for one, a power balance can be achieved in various ways --- the deployment of an allied contingent to help aid the Iraqi Armed Forces to combat and retake ISIS-held municipalities throughout the country. Establish a UN Peace-Keeping Force in war affected towns, cities, provinces and thus prevent communal clashes from happening post-ISIS. Lastly, how can we end the Syrian Civil War?

1. The new Government is working hard towards that goal but there needs to be no Iranian involvement because it is giving credibility to the notion that there is sectarian war going on and it is not a war against terrorist but a war against Sunnis.
2. Again remove Iranian involvement against ISIS will stop the Sunni Shiite problem and leave only a civil war and not a proxy war, Stop any Israeli interference which is making the problem worse. AFTER that is done one can move towards finding a way to dispose of the Syrian Government. After that a proper government can look at ISIS because without proper governance there will always be a vacuum.

 

[Aepsilons]

What Japan (or should i say Abe) wants and i can see @Nihonjin1051 's desire as well is to let JSDF have a more prominent role in safeguarding its assets and maintaining peace in the ME/Africa region. By "dragging" China into this mess it may be seen as an opportunity for building up real life battle experience by joining the coalition with US and Japan. It could be a chance for creating trust between China and Japan according to nihonjin although i doubt this. Some experts consider Japan's military intervention could be seen as the kickoff point for a stronger militarization and gaining influence in the region by stationing in those countries. From China's point of view, outsiders should understand our politicians are skeptical of the revival of Japanese forces though we all know Japan cannot threaten China again. Most likely Germany and Japan will not try that sh!t ever again.

Now back to the question whether China should be sending troops fighting ISIS. First i'd like to know why aren't the Europeans and the US sending boots fighting ISIS? The f*cked up mess is the ramification of constant meddling and training of terrorists by using these barbarians fighting enemies until one day those dogs starts biting the "trainers".
The region wasn't peaceful already and we all know what the Americans did by adding more oil (pun not intended) to fire by using x to fight y, and then when x is not needed anymore x becomes angry and starts attacking Americans as well or others whom x considers as meddlers. Americans will use y or z to fight x in retaliation and we have a vicious circle, a never ending problem period.
I understand there are foreign investments, assets, fellow countrymen that needs protection from these barbarians but declaring terrorists war is like inviting trouble. Just look at some of the EU countries being attacked from these vermin. The US has made plenty of mistakes, removing Saddam and Gadhaffi or anyone they don't like and replacing these countries with a new puppet isn't gonna work. It seems to me chaos after chaos, which begs the question why should China be sending troops to fight ISIS? Isn't it why 2 Japanese lives are now in grave danger after Abe had pledged financial aid in fighting ISIS? ME is a hopeless sh!thole, better stay away from it.

All very strong, poignant points.

 

[SALMAN F]

China is still developing country and and full developed why they waste their money on war that is not their business

 

[Aepsilons]

The new Government is working hard towards that goal but there needs to be no Iranian involvement because it is giving credibility to the notion that there is sectarian war going on and it is not a war against terrorist but a war against Sunnis.

This --- I agree with you 110%. So long as Iran continues to meddle in Iraqi affairs by cultivating the Shi'a community in Iraq, a goal of national solidarity will never be possible since segments of that nation (Iraq in this case) will be siding loyalty to a foreign nation and leaders (religious or otherwise) of that said nation.

1. Again remove Iranian involvement against ISIS will stop the Sunni Shiite problem and leave only a civil war and not a proxy war, Stop any Israeli interference which is making the problem worse. AFTER that is done one can move towards finding a way to dispose of the Syrian Government. After that a proper government can look at ISIS because without proper governance there will always be a vacuum.

Excellent conjecture, @Gufi .