Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

What -I wonder- does the OP think?
Are any of the "great powers" going to destroy this incipient Caliphate?

Incidentally I am  now  neighbouring the Caliphate myself, I am in Qatar.

It's very strange that no one has ever asked for the real solution, to send the Legion Etrangére with an heavy back up and international support. That's why they exist for, they are the only ones able to deal with the situation.

This in case, obviously, for States that still bothers with international laws.

It's very strange that no one has ever asked for the real solution, to send the Legion Etrangére with an heavy back up and international support. That's why they exist for, they are the only ones able to deal with the situation.

The real reasons we object to the Russian "help" in Syria is that we don't want competition.

It's part of a dirty game called: "reshaping the Middle East". It started with Iraq and wonder who will get hit next after Syria.

What I say is that Europeans have the perfect tool for that while the US has none. Legion Etrangére.

It's important, ultimately important, to respect International Law to Europeans, it makes all the difference from the new world barbarians.

From a March 28, 1786, letter written by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who were American diplomats at the time, to U.S. Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay reporting on their conversation in London with the ambassador from Tripoli regarding piracy by the Barbary States:

We took the liberty to make some enquiries concerning the ground of their pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet; that it was written in their Koran; that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners; that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Mussulman [Muslim] who was slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise. (Wall Street Journal)

The Caliphate would make the same reply today. You can buy a truce – never peace – by paying tribute; but they are always at war with the infidels, and have no choice in the matter, for it is commanded.

The Caliphate – ISIL as the President seems fond of calling it – accepts the command. It gives as a sign of legitimacy that it rules lands and in those lands applies the Law of the Koran; this demonstrates its legitimacy in the eyes of God. All Muslims must give it allegiance, for it rules by the will of Allah. And so long as it can make this claim of legitimacy, it grows, as more and more Muslims, including middle class citizens of the United States find they have no choice but to render it obedience. This not “radicalizing”; this is obedience to the fundamental marching orders that have prevailed since the Prophet returned to Mecca. To those who have accepted the Caliphate – ISIL – they have seen the sign, and they accept its commands.

The Caliphate grows daily. It must someday be defeated. It grows stronger daily. It is far more difficult and costly to defeat today than it was a year ago when the President of the United States pronounced it contained and called it the junior varsity. And it will never be easier to defeat than now.

However, the Caliphate is not our only enemy in the region. Iran has repeatedly declared a “state of hatred” with the United States. That does not have the legal implications of a state of war—indeed we negotiate with them and relieve sanctions so that they will become richer—but it is a declaration of intent, and we would be foolish not to believe the current regime, which is even now testing missiles capable of carrying nuclear war heads, does not mean it. So long as Iraq was held by Sunni or Baathist elements we could count on Iraq to be the enemy of our enemy, but we eliminated the Baathists and turned the Iraqi Sunni over to the tender mercies of the long persecuted Shiite majority. We then proceeded to withdraw. It should hardly have been a surprise when the Shiites turned to Shiite Iran, the ill trained “unity” army ran from the Caliphate, and the Sunni in the region did not fight the invading Sunni forces, even though they would have preferred to be liberated from invading Caliphate forces by Sunni Jordan (with which they were briefly federated in the United Arab Kingdom in the times of Egyptian Nasser). That not being possible, they saw the incoming Caliphate as preferable to the Shiite Iraqi government Obama left in place. For Obama, Clinton, and Both Bushes there is plenty of blame to go around.

If we destroy the Caliphate, we destroy an enemy of Iran. If we are not prepared to exert the power of the Republic in stabilizing the area, is this wise?

I suppose a State can only declare war against another State, something the ISIS is not despite the name.
This in case, obviously, for States that still bothers with international laws.

It's very strange that no one has ever asked for the real solution, to send the Legion Etrangére with an heavy back up and international support. That's why they exist for, they are the only ones able to deal with the situation.

It's part of a dirty game called: "reshaping the Middle East". It started with Iraq and wonder who will get hit next after Syria.

The real solution, this century, was to NOT invade Iraq and Afghanistan.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-12-09, 22:52:29

The real solution, this century, was to NOT invade Iraq and Afghanistan.

And -I suppose- the USSR shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan, either… (BTW: Why did they do that?

Your "view" of "this century" seems limited to 20 or 30 years — which is to say, you remain math challenged.

And how is Légion Etrangère different from other Western colonial military tools of intervention?

Colonial? Colonial?? If the west doesn't colonize it will be colonized. As we can see today.

By west I obviously exclude the USA. Such place is not part of the European culture.

Fact is - Merkel, Hollande, Cameron and the rest of Europe get directives from Washington - whether you consider the White House part of European culture or not .

How right things can justify wrong actions...