Fight ISIS yes or no. If so how?

Whats is your opinion on this group?

  • Yes fight them, with airstrikes.
    60% (9)37% (7)47% (16)Vote
  • Yes fight them, with troops on the ground.
    13% (2)37% (7)26% (9)Vote
  • Yes fight them, by arming the locals
    13% (2)0% (0)6% (2)Vote
  • No dont fight them, its too risky.
    14% (2)26% (5)21% (7)Vote
And you are? I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

0|0
3|11

Most Helpful Guy

  • I think we should fight them with air strikes and ground troops. ISIS is determined to kill everyone who doesn't agree with their beliefs and they won't stop so the only way to defeat them is to kill every last one of them

    0|0
    0|0

What Girls Said 3

  • For some reason i feel like the best way to beat them is through strategy of the mind.. Or some kind of manipulation, intelligence.. I dunno. Of course fighting works, but i wonder for how long.

    0|0
    0|0
  • America has the strength to take them out. I like the idea of keeping the leaders beheaded since if a group doesn't have a leader, they are not a threat to most people. Hitler is a great example of this.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Just nuke them all! Easy and simple. Or maybe bio weapon...

    0|1
    0|0

What Guys Said 10

  • A coalition of Arabs needs to be led by the US to destroy ISIS. Air strikes aren't enough. Look where air strikes have gotten us.

    0|1
    0|0
  • It's not as simple as that I'm afriad, to beat them it will take a mix of strategy, intelligence, manipulation and troops on the ground fighting them at land, air and sea. And in order for it to be effective multiple nations around the world have to be involved ISIS is just to embedded around the world for any one nation by themselves to take them out. It as to be a joint coordinated effort, starting with the US rebuking the Iran deal and putting back on the sanctions, even tougher then before.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I think it will work with both airstrikes and ground forces but, fighting a militia is way different than fighting a standing army. We might eventually win at the end but, we may suffer heavy casualties. In that kind of warfare, we must have strong intelligence work (spy networks, strong surveillance... etc) before we can send boots there.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Air strikes mean collateral damage (I. e native civilians)

    Troops on the ground mean collateral damage (I. e the troops)

    Arming the locals means more war.

    Doing nothing means letting them grow.

    I don't know what we're supposed to do, I guess.

    0|0
    0|0
    • I say, if people are going to die. Might as well get ISIS too.

    • Show All
    • @Mishae Why? It's his opinion

    • It was made for a civics project. Otherwise i wouldn't have posted it

  • If we don't fight them then they're not gonna conquer the world but they'll be a huge bee sting in our ass. Bring on the airstrikes and UAV's, plz!

    0|0
    0|0
  • Fight them , how? With troops on ground a lot of soldiers will die but they will save lives of civilians

    0|0
    0|0
  • The current situation is stupid. you have the two most powerful militaries on Earth fighting ISIS (by air) but doing it separately. Personally, I think Obama and Putin should put aside their differences and join forces to fight ISIS.

    0|1
    0|0
  • It would be nice not to have to fight them and if all of it just stopped. It's hard to know everything about what motivates people but it would be good for the violence to stop. We're all on the same side after all - well should be

    0|0
    0|0
  • If you said ground troops but didn't at least try to join the military, then you are a punk. I say ground troops. I'd be happy to kill some ISIS fucks.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Your options unfortunately miss the reality.

    ISIS will collapse as soon as other countries stop using Syria as a proxy war for their national interests. As soon as the international community has lost its patience with ISIS and they decide to settle the political matter in Syria, ISIS will be gone almost overnight.

    This isn't about ISIS being a legitimate threat. They aren't. It's simply a lack of political will, because currently other countries don't want their monetary and political interests undermined.

    0|0
    0|0
    • They could have already been gone by now if someine would have killed them all, but no. We have to take our sweet time thinking it twice.

    • Killing is only a small part of the solution here, I'm afraid. It's a little more complex than that.

Loading...