If you're talking about napalming refugees, you're an idiot. I admit, it is a sticky situation. You can't let millions of people, many of which are terrorists, or peaceful Muslims who are susceptible to becoming radicalized, but if you turn all of them away, the media will scream bloody murder. The solution is fix the issue at the root. Engage ISIS so these people don't have to flea.
Castiel, so you would advocate doing nothing and drive hundreds and thousands of people straight into the hands of radical terrorism? Terrific foresight, sir. Bravo.
Other countries , not just the EU should be helping too. Japan, Russia, Germany all have more people leaving the country then are being born. They should take some refugees. Keep them under heavier surveillance if they're worried about terrorism.
boots on ground in syria, iraq. If the USA wants to they could probably get done with this in a year or so or less. But amarican soldiers will die; they freaking chose to be a soldier, they are meant to die. (applies for all of nato)
This is an option. The only 2 faults I see with the monitoring is that A. Terrorists would avoid being monitored and tracked B. Monitoring would not stop them from attacking public places. It would be impossible to stop them, until it is too late.
Zethor fixing the issue at the root is complex even more so when you consider the regional dynamics and distrusts. One of the strongest groups fighting IS is the ppk whose allies the ypk are fighting Turkish forces for a Kurdish homeland in eastern turkey. Turkey is bombing both is and ypk while America is helping all three groups if only indirectly. Also Syrian president Bashad is supported by Russia and Iran as long term allies so any more moves against him by western powers would be a disaster. Then Iraq president who made it very clear he doesn't want any western combat formations in his country again. He's running a country full of militias with an army that's underperformance is terrifying. Then you turn and look at the surrounding countries turkey Lebanon Egypt all have considerable numbers of displaced Syrians indeed it's nearly 1/4 of the total population of Lebanon. Meanwhile the gulf states with their considerable military power and enormous financial resources seem to be studious in their desire to ignore the issue. No refugees have been welcomed in to Saudi the UAE or a mother gulf states despite Saudi being in the top twenty richest states in the world and are least as strong militarily. The UN has stated by are short nearly 50% of the money required to help effectively and donations are drying up rapidly.
Again, it is a very complicated situation. But if you allow millions of people in without knowing the first thing about them, you are opening yourself up to radical extremism and complications untold. ISIS never should have gotten a foothold. But that's beside the point and they are a major threat now.
American populace doesn't approve of sending our troops overseas since Vietnam. Wars involve reporters now, and I'm sure you know as well as I do what media does to violent situations. That and, costs are far too high for US currently. If we stopped spending so damn much launching missiles and drone strikes we might have a stabilized economy and cheaper healthcare. But, topic for another thread. Point is, no president can afford the bad rep from sending troops, or the costs from lending air support.
ISIS are a direct result of the illegal war carried out by USA and UK against Saddam Hussain's regime. Those countries have a moral obligation to provide aid to the people displaced by ISIS. Standing there and doing nothing will breed nothing but resentment and make the world a much less safer place.
Because sadly they and their allies did so well in years of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq with similar insurgancies. Boots on the ground won't work even more so western" Christian" boots would actually be playing into the is mythology.
Why should other countries that are already to the max limit...bring in more people when already in debt? Sorry to say but its tough ****. Or should we just come and bomb the **** out of your leaders? Then more trouble arises? Its a vicious circle in the middle east. Middle east is best to just not exist.
I mean, we could just you know... Declare war and uh go MW2 ON their ass's and claim casualties of war? This is probably ****** up but it crossed my mind so I will type it. Edit: Nuclear Warfare =MW2