ISIS

3 Reasons to NOT Fight ISIS

|

This story was originally released on September 16, 2014. The original write-up is below:

President Obama has effectively declared war on the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, announcing that "we will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIS through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy."

But here are three reasons we should not be fighting ISIS in the Middle East.

1. ISIS isn't that powerful.  

War hawks such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) claim that "the threat ISIS poses cannot be overstated." That is itself an overstatement. The FBI and Homeland Security both say ISIS isn't a credible threat to the American homeland. The group may be great at using social media to exaggerate its power, but estimates of its troop strength range between 10,000 and 30,000 and most analysts talk about a core group of a few thousand fighters.

2. It's a regional conflict.

ISIS controls territory inside Iraq and Syria. But even President Obama concedes that ISIS does not currently pose a threat "beyond that region."

Iraq and Syria—and their neighbors, including Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the Kurds—are the ones that must deal with this problem. Iraq's army has more than one-quarter of a million U.S.-trained troops, the Peshmerga almost as many. Iran's active forces number over half a million.

3. What counts as victory?

In announcing bombing runs and sending more American soliders to the Middle East, President Obama not only failed to call for congressional authorization, he neglected to discuss any sort of exit strategy. That's a prerequisite for any responsible war plan. As important, his definition of success—we will "ultimately destroy" ISIS—is a goal nobody has ever achieved against any terrorist group.

Let's be clear: The U.S. should do everything it can to defend its citizens and its interests.

But if the past dozen years have taught us anything—in Iraq and elsehwere—it's that war is more complicated than our leaders ever want to admit. And it's a lot easier to start wars than to win them—or even know when they're over.

About 2 minutes.

Written by Nick Gillespie and produced by Meredith Bragg. Camera by Todd Krainin and Amanda Winkler.

Scroll below for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for automatic notifications when new videos go online.

NEXT: Ron Paul at LPAC: Liberty Depends on Both Non-Aggression and Tolerance

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What? No old comments? Has somebody spiked the interns’ water cooler with Adderall?

    1. Did someone SF the link? I came for fees and got isis.

      1. FUCKING INTERNS!

        Fix the fucking link and get rid of the old fucking comments!

        GOD DAMMIT!!!!

      2. ISIS fees are the worst.

        1. I’m told they’re close to Detroit fees, but I’m not gonna find out here!

        2. ISIS boobs are awesome, though.

  2. Location, location, location?

  3. All of the reasons given except the third are terrible. As to the first, why should their relative strength be of importance in the context of asymmetrical threats to US power? Assuming that we have agreement that asymmetrical threats are nonetheless threats that can be responded to by force, can we then agree that it is preferable to fight a weak enemy rather than a strong one? A weak enemy is easier to destroy and will not cause as much harm. Regarding the second, this is true of every conflict which is not in our backyards; unless I have it wrong aggression is not limited by geography and one can be aggressed against outside one’s place of origin. In particular, ISIS has already declared a willingness to attack the US in our borders and inside their own they have made good on such threats; such a direct attack on our citizens is certainly an act of violence that can be responded to in kind, as our intervention against the Barbary pirates for actions taken in international waters (rather than our own borders) clearly demonstrates.

    The third reason is very compelling as a reason not to intervene, and I wish Reason would elaborate further on it rather than wasting our time with qualifiers which are easy enough to dispense with.

    1. “Assuming that we have agreement that asymmetrical threats are nonetheless threats that can be responded to by force,”
      I don’t agree to that.

      “one can be aggressed against outside one’s place of origin.”
      Certainly *can be*, but there is not so much as a hint of that turning into *is*.

      1. “Assuming that we have agreement that asymmetrical threats are nonetheless threats that can be responded to by force,”
        I don’t agree to that.

        Correction:
        Yes, I do agree, but ISI(X) has yet to be shown as a threat to US residents/citizens/whatever.
        So the asymmetry here is 0:some positive number.

        1. they were and now are affiliated with Al Qaeda. They grew out of Al Qaeda in Iraq which spent years blowing up our soldiers.

          Anyone who thinks they are going to take over large amounts of territory and not attack us is kind of naive.

          1. Isis hasn’t been affiliated with al Qaeda for months.

            1. al-Qaeda is like original sin for terrorists.

              1. And those who would use your treasure to make nasty on them!

          2. Brochettaward|9.20.14 @ 8:16PM|#
            “they were and now are affiliated with Al Qaeda. They grew out of Al Qaeda in Iraq which spent years blowing up our soldiers.”
            Our sojers were a long way from home; if we don’t put them there, there is little threat.

            “Anyone who thinks they are going to take over large amounts of territory and not attack us is kind of naive.”
            Well, you sort of poisoned the well there, didn’t you?
            “Large amounts of territory”? WIH does that mean? Does it include northern Virginia?

            1. I am not sure that mass beheadings in NV and an adjacent district would necessarily be a bad thing.

        2. Q: Suppose we define the US’ legitimate defense of US citizens to exclude any acts taken against our citizens, so long as they are conducted outside our borders. (Personally, I am not willing to do that but let’s entertain this notion for the moment.)

          If someone does undertake such an action outside our borders, and then promises later attacks within our borders — is the former not evidence of a credible threat of the latter being realized? To use an illustration, if I’m mugged by a guy on the street and he threatens to find out where I live and kill me there, would the courts not take this threat seriously?

          1. The Immaculate Trouser|9.21.14 @ 2:56AM|#
            “Q: Suppose we define the US’ legitimate defense of US citizens to exclude any acts taken against our citizens, so long as they are conducted outside our borders. (Personally, I am not willing to do that but let’s entertain this notion for the moment.)”

            Suppose we don’t SEND (at gov’t direction) US citizens where we know they are at risk.
            That sounds a lot better than sending some guys over there, presuming at least one will become a casualty, and then screaming ‘SEE WHAT THEY DID?!’

    2. “why should their relative strength be of importance in the context of asymmetrical threats to US power?”

      I think one answer is this, if you think we should only intervene when there are serious threats to our nation, their relative weakness shows they are not such. Maybe they will reach the level where they are a serious threat, but more likely they will ‘peter out’ without our having to lift a finger. That saves our nation’s blood and treasure.

      As to the second, if all the Barbary
      Pirates had done was to execute two American scribes who had gone into their territory to write about them, I doubt Jefferson would have authorized any major response.

      1. if you think we should only intervene when there are serious threats to our nation, their relative weakness shows they are not such. Maybe they will reach the level where they are a serious threat, but more likely they will ‘peter out’ without our having to lift a finger. That saves our nation’s blood and treasure.

        This reads to me like a cost-benefit argument, which is why I say that the only argument of importance presented thus far is point #3: if the plan is ineffective or has costs in excess to what we see as the damage avoidance, then of course we should not engage in the military action. However, the idea that only “serious threats” count is both arbitrary (what counts as a “serious threat” is a matter of opinion, not definition), and not based in NAP (under which any legitimate violation of individual rights justly allows for action on behalf of the aggrieved) — it is not a principles-based objection to war, and thus need not be treated categorically. Moreover, it is not like this type of violation is a common one which can be invoked to attack any nation — the number of governments which go out of their way to hunt down American citizens is essentially the same as the number of governments who are at war with us — even hostile governments like Iran know better than to engage in such brazen actions against our citizens. All of the above considered, the idea that we should prefer a strong adversary to a weak one is baffling.

        1. …”it is not a principles-based objection to war, and thus need not be treated categorically.”…

          How about a “principles-based” reason *for* war?
          I don’t have to object to something that has no reason to exist.

          1. How about a “principles-based” reason *for* war?

            Defense of the citizenry from active threats and belligerence.

            1. “Defense of the citizenry from active threats and belligerence.”

              Nice. Now show it applies.

            2. I have no fear of an attack from ISISLX. Mostly because I’m not stupid enough to travel to Iraq or Syria.

      1. Francisco d’Anconia|9.20.14 @ 10:03PM|#
        “derp”

        Frank, ya gotta help me here; how about a pull quote so I know which comment didn’t meet your approval?

        1. TIT’s original.

          It is so full of complete and utter bullshit it would take me an hour to respond to it, and I’m way too tired and way too drunk to get into it.

          So we’ll need to settle for derp and fuck off war monger.

          1. Got it.
            I’m still willing to respond (I’ll pour a shot a bit later).

    3. Yes, there are threats which are “asymmetrical”. If we’re willing to stipulate to asymmetry in terms of a threat, then you must concede that “force” must be broad enough to include “asymmetrical” responses. History, among other things, teaches us that the success of “asymmetrical” warfare lies in the defender’s tendency to respond in conventional terms, i.e. conventional military force. Terrorist organizations that don’t seek to hold territory can’t be defeated by a traditional military response; terrorist organizations that do try to hold territory are conventional armies, and cease to be asymmetrical in nature. If ISIS is the former, “boots on the ground” don’t help; if the latter, they have yet to demonstrate an ability to project force beyond the immediate vicinity, making them a regional problem. Talk to me about counterterrorism, diplomatic efforts, cointel, etc. before you tell me that the best response is to send Marines in to kick in doors.

      Aggression must needs entail both intent and capability. Again, ISIS doesn’t have the capability to project force. Can they send a guy on a plane with a bomb? Sure, but that’s nothing new, that’s not specific to ISIS, and that’s something we’ve been addressing for the past thirteen years. By your logic, we should be bombing the shit out of Al Shabaab, something which even John McCain doesn’t seem interested in doing.

      1. Terrorist organizations that don’t seek to hold territory can’t be defeated by a traditional military response; terrorist organizations that do try to hold territory are conventional armies, and cease to be asymmetrical in nature.

        Terrorism is a tactic which, like piracy and other hostile acts, has been engaged in by both non-state and state actors. The dichotomy you propose is simply not one which exists in reality; there are all sorts of states which employed asymmetric warfare to achieve their objectives. In the case of state actors who do so, there’s a relatively easy way to put an end to it: apply force to destroy their conventional capacity, so that they don’t have the resources and apparatus of a state to fund said warfare.

        Aggression must needs entail both intent and capability. Can they send a guy on a plane with a bomb? Sure, but that’s nothing new, that’s not specific to ISIS, and that’s something we’ve been addressing for the past thirteen years.

        Sending a guy with a bomb to a foreign country without provocation isn’t aggression? I’m pretty sure I’ve heard otherwise many times on this forum when we’re the ones doing it (and I’m inclined to agree with that).

        Trying to stamp terrorism out using conventional forces in the case of a non-state actor has not worked, I would agree. In the case of state actors? Conventional response works pretty damn well; see Gaddafi’s volte face after we bombed Libya.

    4. If you are concerned about an asymmetrical threat, there is little benefit to airstrikes or boots on the ground, because the actual threat won’t likely be based in ISISland carved out of Syria and Iraq. The 9/11 attacks weren’t plotted in Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Pakistan; they were planned in an apartment in Hamburg. Do we blow up every apartment in Germany to keep us safe? Or if we had blown up bin Laden before 9/11, would that have stopped the hijackings? Likely not.

      You can “respond” to asymmetical warfare with force, but you can’t respond to an attack that hasn’t happened. If you’re considering the killings of the two journalists to be asymmetrical attacks that we can respond to, we might also remember that those killings were themselves in response to our earlier airstrikes, which were in response to actions by ISIS in the region, not against us.

  4. “3. What counts as victory?”

    Every time some bozo pitches the WOD, s/he should have to answer *this* question before any other comment.

    1. Except that doesn’t work, because we war against other things which are ultimately unbeatable, such as crime & disease, and strive against many other things in ways we don’t call war, such as against unhappiness, even though we know such things will always be with us.

      1. Robert|9.20.14 @ 11:04PM|#
        “Except that doesn’t work, because we war against other things which are ultimately unbeatable, such as crime & disease, and strive against many other things in ways we don’t call war, such as against unhappiness, even though we know such things will always be with us.”

        Which is *exactly* the reason we don’t use the term “war”.

  5. Sharing (with the government) Economy news: Airbnb to start paying 14% Hotel Tax in SF.

    I blame Sevo.

    1. Dances-with-Trolls|9.20.14 @ 8:27PM|#
      “Sharing (with the government) Economy news: Airbnb to start paying 14% Hotel Tax in SF.
      I blame Sevo.”

      I saw that earlier and thought it was a good move on their part.
      You aren’t gonna rent a place in SF without getting the gov’t involved, and Airbnb just made it a whole lot easier for folks to bail from providing long-term rentals to vacation rentals; the company took the clerical and filing frictional costs off the supplier!

      1. You aren’t gonna rent a place in SF without getting the gov’t involved

        Truly. We here in Portland actually beat you guys to the punch in this particular variant of commercial extortion. It reminds me of the Ayn Rand line “when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors.” It’s about as clear an example of it that you could imagine.

        I suppose it’s better than nothing, but it still sucks.

        1. Dances-with-Trolls|9.20.14 @ 9:03PM|#
          …”We here in Portland actually beat you guys to the punch in this particular variant of commercial extortion”…

          I cheer the removal of even more long-term rental stock as it continues to drive up the costs of the remaining units.
          For good reason, shall we say.

      2. City officials have long claimed that Airbnb, through a regulatory loophole, has dodged the hotel tax applied to short-term rentals, costing San Francisco millions of dollars in lost tax revenue.

        Some business concept we’d never heard of until twenty minutes ago is costing the city gajillions of dollars! Costing us! Our bank account is dwindling!

    2. “Our community members in San Francisco have told us they want to pay their fair share and the overwhelming majority have asked us to help,” David Owen, Airbnb’s regional head of public policy, wrote in a blog post Wednesday. “This has been a complicated issue and we’re happy to be taking action to help simplify the collection process for hosts, guests and for the City.”

      Welcome to the “sharing economy”.

    3. Earlier this year, Airbnb agreed to apply an 11.5 percent occupancy tax on all listings in Portland, and has discussed adding a similar tax in New York City.

      Like dominoes they fall..

  6. http://www.salon.com/2014/09/2…..socialflow

    Salon Salons harder than Salon has ever Saloned before

    1. After a career in cosmetics, I’m tired of telling women they’re not good enough exactly the way they are

      While researching my new book Ancient Prayer: Channeling Your Faith 365 Days of the Year, I became intrigued with the customs and grooming habits of the women of biblical times. While beauty was still an ideal, the descriptors were entirely different. Biblical women from Esther to Naomi to Yael were praised for their leadership qualities, cunning, loyalty, and wit. And when their beauty was described, the terms were frequently more esoteric and focusing on the strength exhibited and natural charm. Beautiful skin, hair, and eyes existed, but those weren’t the basis of their beauty. How is it possible that texts dating back thousands of years could have a more modern approach to a woman’s beauty ideal?

      Yes, I wish we could return to the less patriarchal times of ancient Palestine. There was nothing sexist about Hebrews circa 4000 BC

      1. Does she think the Old Testament was like an ancient version of Cosmopolitan or what? It was their historical/religious fucking record, not a Bronze Age “These 20 Things Will Keep Him From Ever Touching a Sheep Again!”

        1. The Old Testament didn’t mention supple buttocks and large breasts, therefore men must not have cared about those things back then.

          1. Song of Songs would like a word with you.

            I [am] a wall, and my breasts like towers: then was I in his eyes as one that found favour

        2. ha! I award you 1 banana sticker for that.

      2. …”my new book Ancient Prayer: Channeling Your Faith 365 Days of the Year”…

        Just guessing it’s not NYT Best Seller material.

  7. I say we jsut NUKE ME and NUKE EM good!

    http://www.Crypt-Tools.tk

    1. In which Anon-bot goes Full Skynet.

      1. Well…you gotta nuke somethin’, right?

        1. The Scots think so!

          1. It’s the only way, to be sure.

          2. Some things don’t react too well to nukes.

  8. So for any tech people interested in Tor and the FBI’s explanation of how it tracked down Silk Road this is for you.

    Way over my head.

    1. I’ve just skimmed the first part with interest.

      In order for the IP address of a computer to be fully hidden on Tor, however, the applications running on the computer must be properly configured for that purpose. Otherwise, the computer’s IP address may “leak” through the traffic sent from the computer.

      What this essentially sounds like is if a single packet is sent from the server outside of the TOR stream, that the packed (like any packet) can be sourced to the originating IP.

      It almost sounds like the FBI found a weakness in the configuration and were able to get some OOB (out of band) packets to be transmitted by the hosting server.

  9. I don’t mind the lack of criteria for victory. You can battle crime, disease, etc. without hope of ever ending in a victory.

    What I would ask, though, is what there is to gain. If there’s nothing to gain, then whether “victory” can be assessed or not, it’s a lost cause.

    1. Robert|9.20.14 @ 10:34PM|#
      “You can battle crime, disease, etc. without hope of ever ending in a victory.”

      ‘Battling’ you might do; declaring war needs an end-point.

    2. I dunno, I think keeping the Yezdis in existence is a good thing.

      Yeah, yeah, I know true libertarians will not only watch a genocide happen, they’ll be happy to sell them the gas and weapons to do it with. But frankly, count me out.

      1. JeremyR|9.20.14 @ 11:29PM|#
        “Yeah, yeah, I know true libertarians will not only watch a genocide happen, they’ll be happy to sell them the gas and weapons to do it with”

        Gov’t’s, OTOH will contract to have it made and deliver it to one side first and then the other as they claim ‘market failure!’, cheered on by true statists!
        Did you have a point?

      2. Current ongoing genocides, FYI.

        So, which of these countries do you believe we should send troops to? How many? How do you propose we stop these other genocides?

        I know that you’re using a strawman, but I’m going to engage anyway and pretend that you’re arguing in good faith. I’m a Libertarian, and while it’s difficult to speak for others, I think it’s safe to say that none of us advocate genocide any more than we advocate for poverty, cancer, death, or anything else. We just don’t happen to think that we can solve every one else’s problems with our military, nor do we think that it’s an appropriate use of what should be a defensive force to begin with. I’d like to think that ten years of adventures in the sandbox has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that military force isn’t very good at doing things like establishing healthy political cultures or societies with respect for human rights. If you’ve noticed, this is happening in the country we just left after doing what you’re advocating we do yet again.

        Oh, incidentally, who do you think ISIS got the weapons from, genius? Last I checked, there has never been a Libertarian president. I’m not sure what a “true libertarian” president might do, but I know that a “true” Democratic president shipped ISIS the guns they’re using against the Yazadis.

  10. You Know Who Else engaged in a regional conflict in the Middle East with no clear endgame?

  11. You Know Who Else intervened in Iraq and Syria?

  12. You Know Who Else opposed intervention in Iraq and Syria?

    1. You know who else used the You know who else joke way too freaking much?

  13. OT, but worth it to those tired of hearing the NFL is the cause of domestic violence:

    “Does Hope Solo case exhibit double standard in domestic violence cases?”
    http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/20…..#6489101=0

    Yes, it does, and I wish those found guilty of beating on others, regardless of whether they are ‘domestics’, ‘partners’, ‘spice’ (plural) or not, pay the price.
    Other than that, please put a sock in it; I don’t care who they work for.

    1. 1) That woman is hot
      2) That woman is absolutely fucking nuts
      3) I understand that sports is entertainment and that image is a big part of that, but I wish as a society we could hold off on calls for punishment before guilt is proven. A pipe-dream maybe, but I think it would be a lot better if the teams just said “We are watching the situation closely and if X is found to have broken the law we will take appropriate action.”

    2. comment

      This is such a ridiculous argument. Let’s please not call it “domestic violence.” The issue, of course, is men beating women. So let’s call it woman-beating. There, see. No double standard. It’s a specious, moronic argument very much like the gun nuts who comment every time someone dies by something other than a gun: “Hehe. Yeah. We should ban cars cause one killed a person.” Mental midgets all around.

      ugh

      1. It’s like I always say. All the wrong people have cancer.

  14. Here’s an additional reason:

    By the definition of success the neocons have laid down, we can never succeed. Ever.

    If the point of this exercise is to make it certain that 9/11 never happens again, “success” would require a military plan that degraded our enemy to the point where they no longer could deploy 19 guys with improvised knives in pursuit of any goal.

    19 guys. With improvised knives.

    We’ve been at this for 13 years now. We’ve spent money into the ten figures. We’ve lost thousands of men and had thousands more maimed.

    And we’re absolutely NO FUCKING CLOSER than we were when we started to having degraded the enemy to the point where they can no longer deploy 19 guys with improvised knives in pursuit of a goal. Not one fucking little baby step.

    You know why? Because it’s a stupid and impossible goal.

    That level of success can not be achieved.

    Every campaign you guys have undertaken has done nothing but move pins around on a map and change the names of the organizations and leadership cells that “could possibly” launch another 9/11 operation. Nothing.

    So now it’s 2014 and there’s yet another group of guys you think are the most dangerous guys yet. You know what? I’m not impressed.

    1. Best summary of post 9/11 US foreign policy I’ve seen.

    2. I say Fluffy in 2016

    3. Bravo! I wish I could have expressed that so clearly and concisely. And now I don’t have to.

    4. 9/11 can never happen again already, and it has nothing to do with the government.

      If terrorists try to take over a plane now the passengers will fight back, United 93 style. We know now the policy is not to cower and do what the terrorists tell us, but the fight back. No US passenger plane will ever be hijacked again. Ever. We’ve already defeated that strategy.

  15. I don’t know what to think about this until Reason Rupe polls Millenials? on this topic and publishes the results.

    1. My unscientific poll of Millenials says they aren’t listening to you, and that is a good thing. ( or something like that).
      Oh, and beards ……..

  16. Why limit it to 3 reasons? Shouldn’t we add:

    It won’t cost us trillions of dollars
    It won’t result in the deaths of thousands of US soldier’s lives
    It won’t result in the tens of thousands of injuries to our soldiers

    And:

    We won’t make more enemies (that we always create when we take sides)
    Citizens over there will have to determine their own government and won’t be able to blame the US for who’s in power and who is likely abusing that power as well.
    US weapons won’t be ending up in the hands of those who shouldn’t have them

    Or how about:

    We endanger more US citizen lives by getting involved in these conflicts than by staying out.

    After all, isn’t one of the purposes of government to protect us?

  17. If ISIS had 300,000 fighters and enough arms to pose a threat to their region, then everyone would actually wonder why no one did anything from growing in power.

    ISIS obviously isn’t “powerful” enough to beat nations with advanced military state. But they’re a terrorist organization that apparently has several regiments worth of fighters. Since the numerical Iraqi army hasn’t vaporized their existence yet, I’m going to guess that there are complications involved.

    Al Qaida didn’t (or wasn’t able to) touch the USA after 9/11. Maybe ISIS will do the same. Or, one of these knuckleheads will finally see that the nation’s soft underbelly is the lax immigration system and deranged anti-establishment individuals who can be manipulated. All you need a handful of agents to sneak in here, and after that, taking out 20 people with a gun is just a matter of time.

    If the government is absolutely certain they pose NO DIRECT threat to us, then they can do nothing. But if they missed a plot or two, then who pays?

    1. You know, the terrorist horde crossing our southern border must be carrying a lot of explosives, because they’re moving really slowly. In three years, the kids born on 9/11/01 will be getting driver’s licenses, and we still haven’t seen ONE of these terrorists sneak in and do something. Don’t you think this particular bit of fearmongering getting old? Maybe the borders are better secured than we think. Maybe they get here, and discover that we have ham sandwiches, cable TV, strip clubs and rock and roll–and no camel spiders!– and lose interest in dying for the cause. But for whatever reason, the imminent threat of terrorists coming in from Mexico is ringing pretty hollow.

      Lots of bad things could happen, including this. But I think thirteen years is a bit long to lose sleep over it.

  18. my best friend’s mother makes $63 /hour on the internet . She has been without a job for six months but last month her payment was $20363 just working on the internet for a few hours. Look At This…

    ???????? http://www.netjob70.com

  19. How about a program for more precise kill-bots programmed to splat ISIS (and whatever spins off from it) every time it tries to apply its “principles”. Just give the Yazidis and other endangered communities the equivalent of the batsignal for whenever the bad guys peek their heads out. When a gun/knife-waving “Allahu Akbar!” is swiftly followed by gibification, eventually they run out of guys willing to do that.

    If we can’t undertake the proven-effective “extinctify the system that made them” tactic, then making it impossible to act to the point where they can’t do anything but sit in caves and mutter is an acceptable alternative.

  20. Beware SUNDAY threads:

    Dances-with-Trolls|9.20.14 @ 11:22PM|#
    1) That woman is hot…”

  21. Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I’ve started averaging 15k a month… The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start… This is where to start…

    ?????? http://www.payinsider.com

  22. I disagree with the reasoning of the author on his three points. Firstly, ISIS’s strength doesn’t come so much from its military power but its ability to create chaos in the already unstable region of the Middle East. Which brings us to the point that ISIS is only a regional problem. ISIS has already shown signs of broadening its base beyond the greater Middle East and with their expansion poses the threat of increased instability in the international order. The author’s third point is, in my opinion, his most reasonable point. However, I believe that it would be difficult for the US government to easily set limits on any possible intervention given the political climate.

  23. The world is changing fast. people are also being transformed.day by day we are becoming more dependant on degital system.you are making me think of this really.You have a great method of sharing your thoughts, Obat Untuk Diabetes, Obat Diabetes

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.