blah the Prussian

First you invade Russia, now you contemplate going to war with France over Poland. Are you sure you don't belong to the NSDAP?

Saudi Arabia does not wage wars of aggression against their neighbors. They also don't execute foreign non believers. I'm not saying they aren't the best argument against monarchy ever, but they're no ISIS.

Question 1: What exactly makes you think that ISIS aims to drag America into a conflict? You have provided no evidence to that effect. Question 2: Your guess is as good as mine. It's actually Qatar that is doing most of the supplying. And IS is a threat to Israel as long as they continue their advance. And no, as bad as SA is, it is nowhere near as bad as ISIS. ISIS openly has sex slave markets. And Turkey is pretty much just your generic dictatorship.

Well, Iraq and Syria would probably have something to say about nuclear weapons being deployed on their soil. I would recommend deploying nukes if Iraq and/or Syria fall entirely. Until then, a combination of ground troops and air strikes would work.

Apparently Qatar is funding them covertly. At this point though, they are starting to actually form a governmental cabinet, and have the resources of a nation state. In all honesty, it doesn't surprise me at this point that they have an air force, although it is actually beneficial; I highly doubt they'll beat the Jordanian air force, so its just a waste of resources.

I see what you're saying. The problem is I can't see the leaders of ISIS ever being reasonable, or reasonable ones coming to power. I suppose that's a matter of perspective, though.

But what will happen then? Will we recognize the Islamic State as a sovereign nation? Will the people in ISIS be the ones who's opinions matter? I still maintain that even if we give them a ceasefire it will only lead to another war. We shouldn't stop with anything less with the total destruction of ISIS, or future generations will suffer in future wars.

The problem is that what ISIS wants is unacceptable. They desire an Islamic State stretching across the entire Middle East. We cannot allow this to happen. If we negotiate a truce, it will merely give them time to rearm. ISIS would benefit from a truce far more than we would. It is also important to note that ISIS isn't really a terrorist organization anymore. They are able to fight to great effect a conventional war against the armies of Iraq, Syria, and Iran at the same time. There are even reports that they are building up an air force. They have the war making capabilities of a nation state. It is important to recognize this.

Why does bombing them not work? The problem is that we don't treat this problem with the gravity it deserves. We are fighting a nation, legitimate or no. It is important to acknowledge that they are willing and able to fight a conventional war. We need to stop being afraid of killing civilians, because if we remain so, we will be at a serious disadvantage. Ah, I see.

Based on both this and your story submission, you seem to have quite the knowledge of the initial Ottoman conquest of southern Europe. In any case, Vlad was certainly the closest thing Christianity had to ISIS. Well, it would be a toss up between him and Ivan the Terrible. Or Leopold II. Okay, so maybe Christianity had plenty of figures comparable to ISIS.

Then again, the writing in Gen 1 and 2 wasn't exactly Hemingway either.

Here's the issue: This isn't about the common Muslim, this is about ISIS. In the majority of countries, the common Muslim is not required by law or any such nonsense to pay for what their fundamentalist brethren are doing. They are NOT the real victims. The real victims are innocent people living in a war zone, Muslim and Christian alike, who are being slaughtered by the First Nation state in the world to be run fully by terrorists. And, the Koran does not specify whether to use violence or not, so ISIS is merely interpreting it in one way. I would still say that Islam is at fault here, even if ordinary Muslims most definitely are not. Now, lets talk about historical context. After the Prophet Muhammad died, his descendants, the Caliphs, waged war on the Sassanids and the Byzantines. They then proceeded to conquer all of North Africa, and Iberia. Eventually, they would go on to conquer India and the Byzantines, and it was only the Polish who stopped them from taking all of Europe at Vienna. So I'd say that if anything ISIS is following the historical example, even if they are conquering more brutally than the old Caliphates.

I would say that it is possible to act rationally and believe in God at the same time, even if being religious is not all that rational. Couldn't have said it better myself. Let me add to the pile with Joseph II, Bismarck, and Alexander II.

I was mercifully unaware of SJWs when I first played Awakening. It deeply saddened me when I found out people like Sully actually exist. The main issue I have with this is that no one is saying she doesn't have this, yet she still acts defensive around people who have proven time and time again that they are good, supportive friends. The really maddening thing is that we are supposed to sympathize with her. And I forgot about Kjelle. I wish it had stayed that way.RE Kamui: If he is a self insert, I want full control over his personality. Awakenings Avatar was pretty much an established character who you could tweak a bit; that shouldn't happen here. I point to KOTOR as how dialogue should be handled. The personality doesn't even need to drastically change the story; as long as I call the shots on what Kamui says Ill be happy.

The problem is that there is no longer a fundamentalist Christian theocracy that is not literally a single palace. Islam, meanwhile, has not moved past the Middle Ages in some places. I do not deny that Christianity and Judaism are just as despicable as Islam if taken literally. There is not, however, a nation that takes everything said in the Bible or the Torah literally, while ISIS aims to establish a state that seeks to do just this.

I HATE it when a game pretends to be strategy. A good example is Clash of Clans and it's legion of rip offs. All you do is build stuff, but you can have everything. In games like Hearts of Iron, one of my favorite strategy games, what you build and research helps stylize your playstyl. For example, as Germany you'd research things that improve tanks, while as Beitain you'd focus on navy. There's nothing like that in Clash of Clans, and it really pisses me off when people consider it strategy.

Well, the Koran says that the Caliph is a descendent of Muhammad, so I would say it would be part of Sharia to follow them. I think it is important to note that fundamentalists are not misinterpreting a religion. This argument does seem pointless, however. We seem to agree in General.

Snowy hit the nail on the head with Democracy. Democracy that was forced on people led to monsters like Hitler, Stalin, Robespierre, and now ISIS coming to power. Democracy, if it exists at all, must be,thoroughly moderated in regions of great instability, like the Middle East. Of course, I'd suggest Constitutional Monarchy as the best solution for the region.

It wasn't really twisting the words of a higher power. The Ottoman Caliph Abdulmejid ordered the genocide. To the Ottomans, the Caliph was the descendent of the Prophet Muhammed, and thus they might of well have been following Allahs orders.

It was a counter offensive, but so what? That still did an excellent job of invading Russia. They reached the borders of modern day Russia itself, and would probably have taken Petrograd too, if they didn't send Lenin. They were able to win by exploiting internal divisions within the country, which the Nazis SHOULD have done, but didn't due to their insane views of race. Also, the Kievan Rus was arguably more powerful economically than the Mongols, but I'll agree that they had them totally outmatched militarily.

About ridding the Middle East of the ISIS ideology: in my mind, the region is not ready for democracy. Every attempt at democracy has ended with dictators like Saddam in power. I think that the most important thing that we can do now after we defeat ISIS is to installation a strong dictator, not a democracy. Democracies are weak and unable to handle radical organizations. It really is a similar problem to Juche; there can be no peace until it has been eradicated from the minds of every North Korean. To that end, I think it would be appropriate to set up a program similar to denazification, where the occupying authorities try and imprison or execute anyone suspected of having connection to ISIS. It worked pretty well for us in Germany. Moving on, people seem to be saying that Islam wasn't always this bad, pointing to the Ottoman Empire. Yesterday marked the 100 year anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, where the Ottomans killed 1.5 million Armenians in arguably the first organized genocide. Then again, Christianity definitely had its own "being assholes" period, so what do I know? My interpretation is that the Middle East is experiencing its own Dark Ages. If you think about it, we have brutal dictatorships and religious fundamentalism. What we need is an Islamic Renaissance.

I mean to be fair the Laguz are basically arguing that military dictatorship is a good system, which is problematic, but I don't see it brought up much.

Well, to be fair, you didn't grow up with the Hoshidans. It honestly makes sense Ryouma is quick to attack, as to him you are just another enemy soldier. I would be inclined to agree if Marx did the same, but he doesn't; these reactions make sense to me, in all honesty.

First, it's not about obligation, it's that ISIS wants to commit genocide in Israel, so I really can't see why Israel isn't contributing troops' as they have the most to lose in the event of an ISIS victory. Secondly, Iran has committed a large ground force against ISIS, and Jordan's Air Force is handling the bulk of strategic bombing, though I agree that they should commit ground forces. If Israel does not fight ISIS due to foolish pride, sooner or later they are going to have to, if ISIS reaches their borders. ISIS have essentially declared war on the entire Middle East by claiming it. Meanwhile, Iran and Saudi Arabia are busy squabbling over who gets a puppet state in Yemen. This isn't just about Israel's rivalries. Lastly, if anything Israel is closer to Iran than Saudi Arabia; Israel has been at war with the Saudis since 1948. I generally agree with point 2, but point 1 is an oversimplification. Firstly, Saddam staying in power would butterfly away a lot of stuff that happened after his death. Second, I'd argue that the rise of ISIS was mostly due to the Arab Spring; environments of suffering are excellent breeding grounds for demagogues, as Wiemar Germany and Tsarist Russia have shown, and a lengthily civil war with the West supporting people whose platform they have no comprehension of does not help matters. The Syrian and Yemen Civil Wars are where the problem lies. The former directly led to the rise of ISIS, while the latter is distracting the two regional powers.

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that America contribute ground troops against ISIS. The Middle Eastern nations, particularly Israel, should be doing the actual fighting. As it stands, Israel is too busy using one of the largest armies in the world to not fight the brutal totalitarian fundamentalist organization at its doorstep who have opinions regarding Jews that would make Hitler smile. And yes, I think ISIS can legitimately be compared to Nazi Germany. And I am, in fact, suggesting carpet bombing an entire city. It's time we accepted that we are no longer fighting a counterinsurgency, we are fighting a total war with an intensity not seen since Yugoslavia. Basically, we need to stop being scared of civilian casualties. If we were scared of civilian casualties in the Second World War, the country I live in would no longer exist. ISIS is treating this war with the respect it deserves, and we need to do the same thing if we want to win.