POLL: Should we negotiate with Islamic State?

no, we should not negotiate with ISIS.

we should offer them 2 options: surrender or destruction.

 

As long as the problem involves only them, that's their right. When their nut jobs go to war with other countries, they have only two choices: clean their own house or get out of the way.





​

 

I agree. How does killing millions of innocents equate to "get out of the way"?​

 

Agreed about not negotiating, but there is no surrender from these asshats. If they do, then take prisoners, but the only thing that will stop them is to kill them.

 

It's not necessary to kill those folks. They're welcome to get out of the way before the bombs land.






​

 

Where would they go if we nuked the entire Middle East?​

 

There is also an other problem about the usage of kinetic weapons in that region: the seismic weapons could damage the oil fields and this would be a real trouble ...

In my opinion the option of the counter guerrilla is the best option. Slow, effective and with less collateral damages.

 

Darn good question. Maybe it would have then been better for them to stop "not wanting to get involved" and start policing the place they believe is there country so we could stay home.





​

 

As much noise that has been made about the handful of Westerners murdered at the hands of ISIS, how many thousands have been similarly murdered for being the "wrong kind" of Muslim?

​

 

The oil fields would be a loss. You could use low yield weapons to minimize seismic concerns beyond the region. The real risk would be isotopes escaping the region.




​

 

Graphic NSFW

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=699_1400360595

http://lotenna.wordpress.com/2014/08/10/pictures-of-isis-brutal-killings-in-iraq/

 

Too many (however anyone defines "wrong kind"). All the more reason for folks in those countries to clean house or get out of the way.

And more than a handful of American's have died because we let that region fester while hoping it's people would grow up. That they would either build something with their lives or at least leave the rest of the world in peace.

Hope hasn't changed anything there in hundreds of years... I don't expect it ever will.





​

 

In case of usage of kinetic weapons there would be no radiations.

Kinetic weapons are substantially little artificial meteorites falling at high speed [usually launched by military satellites]. At the moment of the impact the shell releases all its kinetic energy in a single point, generating seismic waves. Unfortunately that region is far from the sea, otherwise we should take advantage from the most tremendous effect of kinetic weapons: if a kinetic shell hits the sea, it generates a giant tsunami ...

 

Saying the destruction or shutting down the oil fields for a month, much less a year or five, is a "loss" is an understatement. It would devastate the global economy on an order that would make the Great Depression look like a simple stock market correction.

The Middle East accounts for about half of the global oil supply. While the US imports less than 25% of it's oil from the ME (which automatically indicates a 25% jump in local prices!), our trading partners depend almost entirely upon it. Shut down or severely hamper our trading partner's economies and our own goes into the dumper with theirs.

​

 

I wonder how feasible it would be to open the earth from the Mediterranean to the Persian gulf with ordinance to at least put part of Iraq and much of Syria under water?

It could create some beach front property for Israel...




​

 

We really ought to start to increase domestic production.




​

 

You know what? It's clear that this time all the West is in agreement about that we have to break their as*** ... the only point of debate is how to do it!

In a few words, I can give a suggestion to this "Caliph" and to his buddies ...

Mind your ass!

P.S. it would be feasible, technology is available ...

 

You're missing my point, sir. We could be 100% independent and even be exporting oil to others, but if the ME is shut down, so does the global economy. The US economy is co-dependent upon the global economy.​

 

You're saying letting ISIS remain in control of that region puts the entire planet at risk? (... or at least those nations that blew off the recent carbon emissions summit.)





​

 

You know, a new sea in the center of that region would provide a natural buffer for Sunnis and Shiites. We'd be doing both a favor.





​

 

No, but I'm slightly surprised you'd go down that road. I'm saying nuking the Middle East would be destroying the global economy.

Since many here on this thread are not swayed by the mass murder of millions of innocent men, women and children, I thought pointing out to them how their life savings, jobs and quality of life would be adversely affected would show them the stupidity of advocating "We should just NUKE all of the middle east".​

 

We have, we now outproduce Saudi Arabia.

 

... eh, you can't make an omelet ...

Still, I'm liking this "send them to Atlantis" idea even better. Less fall out (in many senses of the word). And maybe we could save some of the oil that way.






​

 

Airburst nukes won't damage the oil.

 

Destroying the global economy and causing misery greater than the Great Depression upon 318 Million Americans isn't an "omelet".​