Ok here is what no one will tell you, ISIL is funded by these larger developed Middle Eastern Countries. The US will continue to be brash and ignorant and get involved in "skirmishes" every year, and waste resources. These developed Middle Eastern countries (Iran, Saudi, Jordan) will continue to grow their economies and defenses while America is concerned with the next small Islamic militant group. The U.S. needs to focus on rebuilding the middle class and our economy. Is ISIL a threat to U.S. Citizens? Yes. But ISIL is causing issues in the MIDDLE EAST, not EAST New Jersey. Saudi will have to step to the plate and do something otherwise ISIL will continue to be destructive right in their backyard. We have bigger issues than small Islamic militant groups.

[i]This Crowley woman is off her rocker. She kept asking the same questions in different ways and seems like she doesn't know what she is actually talking about. This Bernie guy however, seems logical and reasonable. [/i]

Can we stop referring them as ISIS & instead as ISIL…or Islamic death cult? Why? The American media created that name, not them, plus my -god damn dog- is named after the fuggin Egyptian goddess, Osiris's sister…

Just nuke the Middle East

Its a idea that's out there but I personally think America, Syria, and Iran should make a agreement to fight in different parts of the Middle East. If they would do that watch how ISIS would fall.

Since no one else has the stones to say it, I will. ISIS are the new Naz1 regime. just like the aforementioned fascists, ISIS wish to eradicate ANYTHING and EVERYONE that doesn't conform to Extremist Islam. they are corrupting the peaceful followers of the religion. the only way we can truly stop them is for all the western and eastern nations to unite against them. sadly though, that will never happen. and if their neighbours aren't gonna do anything, then we, the westerners, aren't going to give a tenth of a f**k. I hate to say it, but the only thing that would give our governments the kick up the ass it needs is another major attack. I don't want such a thing to happen obviously. but on the off chance it did, you watch how fast the President and Prime Minister wake up and say "oh shit, we should probably stop ISIS." TLDR: the only way the west will actively try to stop ISIS is if they attack first on a large scale.

I find myself agreeing with him. The Middle East is a shithole of perpetual war and if we don't loosen our grip w bit we'll be stuck there forever. And I do think other countries should be getting involved as well. America won't always be there to care of shit for them.

It's tough. I didn't have time to watch the video but I would agree with the democratic opinion that any kind of occupation is not the solution. It is apparent that a regional power will be needed to defeat IS and Assad for the matter. But here's a look at how the politics are currently: Kurds (most effective against Isis) are productive on the ground, taking areas in northern Iraq from ISIS close to Mosul in northern Iraq. They however are aligned with the PKK, a group labeled as terrorists by the U.S. and currently being bombed by turkey in Iraq, Syria and turkey. They also want independence to be their own country, something that isn't on the table. Hashd al-shabi: aligned with Shia Iran, using this force will encourage the Isis claim of Sunni vs. Shia Iraqi security forces: corrupt, untrained and ill equipped, their defaults lead to Isis ability to occupy Iraqi territory in the first place. In Syria YPG: Kurdish militants, they are pro Assad and reside in northern Syria. They've shown resilience against Isis, defending the towns of kobane and tel abayad. PKK aligned, U.S. Has provided air and arms support in their fights already. FSA: a deteriorating force that has lost much territory and man power to Isis, their first objective is to defeat Assad. U.S. Has offered support, however most of their arms end up being sold to enemy factions for money. Assad: a dictator, Assad has committed genocide and massive war crimes. Bombing civilians, and torturing political prisoners are his things. His main allies are Russia and Iran, who have both repeatedly stated they will not let him fall. The U.S. Has recently opened up to the idea of cooperating with him, but the two share no similar views, and Assad has recently lost land and men to Isis. Hezbollah: a military group of great political influence in Lebanon, this group has a small presence in Syria and supports assassin military directly. Iranian backed, they have no interest in pairing with the great satan - America. None of these options sound promising. The best bet would be a Sunni coalition of middle eastern allies to occupy and defeat Isis. Only problem is a coalition is currently attacking Yemen, and any occupying force would predictably fail at providing stability after leaving as the U.S. has. For the U.S. - the best bet (in my amateur opinion) is to increase the amount of air support provided to Iraqi military, as well as increasing the size of training programs. Close and direct influence over the army, along with advising the Iraqi military would also be beneficial. Properly equipping trained and monitored Iraqi units would provide a good way allow local forces to reclaim and maintain land. Local Sunni tribes should play a role and be part of all offensives / missions holding new territory. Covert missions to remove Isis leadership like the one executed on Abu Sayyaf recently. Top leaders like Abu Omar al shishani, adnani, and Abu wahib would provide great military targets and remove public figures. No matter what, an increased role for Sunni nations should still be vital to debunk the Sunni vs. the world claim Isis is making. I honestly can't find any one good idea for Syria, it's such a screwed up place currently. Finally, Murcia.

A democratic solution is great, if the other party believes that you have both the ability (we have) and the will (currently missing) to crush them if they violate the agreement. No one believes we have the will.

I wanna get an Xbox just so i can play with you

deals aren't going to do crap. i mean, the Iran deal is corrupt af. Let the Middle East nations kill each other of course while spying on their heinous actions/plans against other nations. I feel so bad for Israel being in the location that they are in.

Honestly I'd prefer to just let the middle east burn instead of wasting our soldiers lives and our taxpayer money on people who don't care about their situation. When the Saudis and other powers in the middle east show us that they genuinely give a damn, then we should help. But that day will probably never come.

I've noticed many people are saying that ISIS isn't our problem, and that they are foreign. But this isn't the case at all. ISIS is not only on the Eastern side of the world, but in Canada, Mexico, and America itself. They're killing anyone, and a part of "anyone" includes Americans. My point is, how can we say ISIS [i]isn't[/i] our problem, when the US is a prime target for them?

Lol took him less than 4:30 to blame ISIS on Bush. I hope this isn't like 2008 and all you have to do is blame Bush to be elected.

Nothing that the world does will stop the Middle East. They have to kill themselves off. Pull the troops and defend the borders and seal everything off. Make a sand coffin for those freaks.

Why don't other countries see Isis as a problem??? Really??? Maybe it's because WE don't see them as a problem. No, our president views them as an annoyance, a JV team. "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing people that he doesn't exist"- Winston Churchill. "Open your eyes and see the creatures for what they are"- Disturbed (yes I quoted them. When we lead from behind the world goes to hell in a hand basket. And if guys like Bernie Sanders or Barack Obama aren't willing enough to call this "JV" team evil and aren't willing enough to make Isis feel our wrath because "we don't wanna waste taxpayer dollars" or "it'll be Iraq all over again", then they shouldn't be in any public office. If the United States won't do something to prevent this evil then no one will. We didn't do anything about Germany in 1939 and 50 million people had to die because of it. For those of you who think that this will kill innocents you either lack the knowledge of our military strength or play too much CoD. Yes a couple may unfortunately get caught in the crossfire and that happens, but soldiers are trained to minimize collateral damage and civilian casualties. In other words they don't go mowing down everything they see. They are trained to sight a hostile and kill it. If done right civilian casualties should be next to nothing and if they happen they certainly won't be caused by our troops. So mr. President and Bernie sanders, buck up and see these animals for what the really are. Show people what the devil looks like and lead the front of the charge to wipe this disease known as Islamic terrorism of the face of the planet. We can easily do it, but do they have the guts? My guess is no I don't believe so.

I know everyone wants to avoid a war, but if everyone sits by while ISIS murders thousands of innocent people, we might as well be the ones pulling the trigger. Money shouldn't be more important than innocent lives. Just because you don't see it first hand, doesn't mean it's not happening. If your neighbor, friend, or family was about to get beheaded and you could stop it, would you? It shouldn't be any different for the neighbors, families, and friends in the middle east.

The countries of those regions have to unite and step up. We have to keep our ground forces out of it, because every time time we send troops worse shit happens later because we become to easy target of a scapegoating for groups like ISIS. We could fight 100 wars over there but it will mean nothing if those countries don't do anything to stabilize the area.