Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 137

Thread: War against Isis: US strategy in tatters as militants march on

  1. #31
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    4,881

    Re: War against Isis: US strategy in tatters as militants march on

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    Your post... just so much wrong... just... just

    If only this effect of my posts worked on the Progressive-Fascists...

    You state that it is wrong, but do not state why, or substantiate your claims.

    Sorry, but that is a political forums cop-out and cheap shot tactic.

    Please point out any single statement I made that is in error?

    Did we not greatly cut military budgets? Over the Obama years, hasn't the President been largely setting spending priorities, since Congress hasn't been passing a budget? Haven't the Democrats had control over all or most of Congress during the Obama years?

    Over the Obama years, have we not greatly increase social program spending? and also programs to send money to minority groups?

    Won't a ground War Cost more than just an Air War?

    So far, hasn't ISIS fighters shown themselves to be much more determined, brutal and effective at combat, than any resistance shown by the Iraqi - Husein forces?

    Haven't we done round after round of Quantitative Easing? Hasn't the American dollar lost considerable value against other currencies over the Obama years.

    Haven't we been having trouble getting our foreign creditors to advance our broke government even more credit and difficulty raising the debt ceiling?

    Hasn't the Obama years seen 40 cents or more of every dollar spent by the federal government come from borrowing, and deficit spending.

    Isn't continuing to spend in deficit at our current levels a form of financial national suicide?


    Just what did I say that is NOT TRUE!

    -

  2. #32
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    4,881

    Re: War against Isis: US strategy in tatters as militants march on

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Its going to get much more expensive when we have an actual terrorist state well established and better armed than they are now. And in the mean time many will die and a very bad message will be sent to our enemies-wait us out and the coast is clear.

    As for budgetary concerns-they are significant-but Obama's myopia for his personal political benefit is the problem. The war on terror isn't over, it never was, and we aren't going to stop fighting it because a weak president decides he's left a "stable" Iraq behind. This is a long term war-and its not going away.
    If we allow the formation of an ISIS Radical, Terrorist (Beheading at every turn), Islamic State, and then Iran completes and slips them Nukes, what will be the price?

    I am not saying we don't need to counter ISIS.

    With ISIS, you can pay now, or you can pay later, but the longer you wait, the more blood it will cost!

    I am saying that it cannot be financed by the current, crippled, American Economy. With the Greens pushing hard at further economy crippling shut down of coal power plants, and further restrictions, costs and regulations on American Industry, it is not going to get any better.

    If we want to finance a major war, we need to put the entire country on a war footing, like we did in WWII, not just the few, brave American Souls who have been fighting our middle eastern conflicts for the last two decades.

    And putting the country on a war footing, means cutting out the damn Liberal Social Program Spending CRAP!

    -

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: War against Isis: US strategy in tatters as militants march on

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurmugeon View Post
    If we allow the formation of an ISIS Radical, Terrorist (Beheading at every turn), Islamic State, and then Iran completes and slips them Nukes, what will be the price?

    I am not saying we don't need to counter ISIS.

    With ISIS, you can pay now, or you can pay later, but the longer you wait, the more blood it will cost!

    I am saying that it cannot be financed by the current, crippled, American Economy. With the Greens pushing hard at further economy crippling shut down of coal power plants, and further restrictions, costs and regulations on American Industry, it is not going to get any better.

    If we want to finance a major war, we need to put the entire country on a war footing, like we did in WWII, not just the few, brave American Souls who have been fighting our middle eastern conflicts for the last two decades.

    And putting the country on a war footing, means cutting out the damn Liberal Social Program Spending CRAP!

    -
    When you mention Iran slipping them nukes what do you mean? Iran is certainly not friendly to, and rather worried by ISIS.

    I agree with the rest, but this wont be total war, ISIS is new to the scene, and not as well entrenched. It will be a bloody war, though.

    As bad, Obama wants to do the same in Afghanistan-the terrorists there will just wait us out.

  4. #34
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    4,881

    Re: War against Isis: US strategy in tatters as militants march on

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    When you mention Iran slipping them nukes what do you mean? Iran is certainly not friendly to, and rather worried by ISIS.

    I agree with the rest, but this wont be total war, ISIS is new to the scene, and not as well entrenched. It will be a bloody war, though.

    As bad, Obama wants to do the same in Afghanistan-the terrorists there will just wait us out.

    If nothing else, Iran's leadership, for many decades, has been unpredictable and unstable.

    Their leaderships recent denial of the Jewish Holocaust is just one sign of many that their hatred of Israel exceeds their good sense and decorum.

    Many times in the past, Iran has done things against its long term self-interest, to strike at Israel, and passing Nukes to ISIS would be a great way for them to lash out at Israel, without being held accountable for the Nuking of a few major Israeli cities.

    They can always claim that internal traitors, converts to ISIS, aided in the theft of the Nukes.



    ----------------------------------------------------------


    You are right, if we let the Lefties have their way, they will make this into another long drawn out war of attrition.

    And why shouldn't they?

    At no time in American History did the Left gain so much ground Politically, or popular support, as the Anti-War protests of the Vietnam War years. It worked last time.

    The only way a ground war against ISIS will be any other than a total disaster is a very fast, brutal, massive ground war of over powering strength, and we don't take ANY prisoners, we kill every combatant found on the battle field.

    Allot of the people we are fighting now, came from our captivity not long ago.

    No Prisoners! It is the ONLY way we can win against ISIS.

    Additionally, we will need to go into, with massive force, any country they flee into, and damn the international borders.

    If that means we invade Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, so be it.

    We cannot WIN a war against ISIS unless we go at it as a form of Total WAR we have never seen, not even in WWII.

    ISIS is already fighting in Total WAR mode. We cannot hope to defeat them with less.

    Since I doubt we have the resolve to do any such thing, we cannot hope to WIN against ISIS. So don't even start the fight, get out now, and wait until the rest of the world BEGS (and PAYS) for U.S. to come back in force.

    If we're not going to fight ISIS to WIN, we shouldn't get involved at all!

    -
    Last edited by Kurmugeon; 10-12-14 at 01:41 AM.

  5. #35
    Guru
    Hamster Buddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 06:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,675

    Re: War against Isis: US strategy in tatters as militants march on

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    How exactly will "recognizing" the Syrians help? And the kurds are getting plenty of weapons.
    What Dem is talking about is how Obama is still pushing Regime Change with Assad. Same thing we've been discussing.

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Its going to be a huge adjustment "working" with the Syrians-Obama demonized Assad (who is actually who I prefer in power in Syria-he's been a moderating influence) and wont lose face further by taking substantive action-and all of this would depend on Assads agreement-what does he get and are the strings attached to our presence acceptable to him? There has also never been a US presence in Syria (even historically, we have had very little contact) and cooperation would be difficult-but fine by all means I'd be open to trying it.

    Beyond that-this would be more than Obama is even willing to do in Iraq-he'd need boots on the ground and wont do that until political winds demand so (leading from behind yet again). Now, arab armies are notorious for being poor fighters-even from the Kurds its relative-so what happens when and if they fail?

    Obama will drag this out forever, because he has no desire to fight let alone win. Recent airstrikes have only been symbolic-if they hadn't been would we really need to have this discussion now?
    I agree, it's certainly a radical option, but I think this situation demands one and I'm not just talking about ISIS but in dealing with the ME as a whole. Obama would have a huge foreign policy success with the destruction of ISIS, and Assad would finally be back in control of all of Syria. Both sides would win in that case. It all depends on what Obama could stomach in terms of deciding the fates of the Syrian Opposition. And in regards to your concerns with Arab Armies performing poorly in the field, whatever inadequacies that they may have can be countered with Allied Air Power. I don't recall the Northern Alliance being an elite fighting force, and with a little air power, we drove the Taliban out of their positions of power.

    But I think there's a bigger gain to be had than just in dealing with ISIS. The US has been missing an overall strategy ever since the Iraqi Government began to fail. In the past, our doctrine had been focused on making the ME more democratic, the theory is that democracies would be less likely to cause a lot a mess and in general, the idea of a more open society does sound appealing. However, by going this route, (supporting Maliki in Iraq, and Assad in Syria) we will be committing to a new course in the ME and that is that we will be fine with dictators as long as they can keep the rabble in line and not let it spill over to where it concerns either the US or the Europeans. I think the ME will begin to calm down once we start to see clear and strong leadership in these Arab Countries. And in the long run, it will also serve to drive a wedge between Iran and Iraq, or at least show Iraq that we can provide far more than Iran ever could hope for, and thus curbing their ambitions in the region. At the end of the day, what would be ideal is stable Iraq to serve as a counterpoint to Iran's ambitions, much as Saddam did prior to the first Gulf War.

    Lastly, there is a reason why the FSA will only cause more problems, and you eluded to it yourself. It's one thing to push out ISIS, but it's a whole 'nother matter to be able to secure those lands, especially against the next enemy that would come up to bat, and that's Assad and the SAA. If we continue on the present course, all we're setting ourselves up for when ISIS is defeated, is getting involved in the Syrian Civil War. Best case scenario and the FSA could defeat the SAA, there's no way that force would be able to secure all of Syria, let alone get their act together. It took the US Military three or four years to figure out how to fight insurgents, you think the FSA is going to do any better. No, Assad and the SAA is the only viable solution to dealing with the ISIS crisis now, and keeping the peace afterwards.

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    The US bombing campaigns, when relieved from the constraints of a tight ROE did very well in vietnam. But Im not saying carpet bombing will be effective here-this is a low intensity asymmetrical conflict, and ISIS will just put on civilian clothing and slip across the nearest border if they need to.

    Its become a lightning rod to terrorists, much like Iraq post invasion-we should kill them there, and that will require boots on the ground. Once they are out we should transition control responsibly (not like our weak president) and then maintain a limited presence there.

    Losing the peace because of a desire to meet a deadline for votes instead of accomplishing the mission is what got us here.
    They did very well in terms of hitting strategic targets, but not in breaking the will of the Vietnamese, and that's what I was more alluding to. I've no doubt that we could easily take out ISIS C3 capabilities, but that alone won't defeat ISIS.

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    You didn't even read my post, did you?
    Sure I did, you want to inflict massive causalities, no doubt to try and break their spirit. And I'm telling you that one, many of these people are ready to die in the name of their god and two, only once in the history of strategic bombing has an enemy's will been broken and that was Japan in WW2.

  6. #36
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,922

    Re: War against Isis: US strategy in tatters as militants march on

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    World View: American-led air attacks are failing. Jihadis are close to taking Kobani, in Syria and in Iraq western Baghdad is now under serious threat

    America's plans to fight Islamic State are in ruins as the militant group's fighters come close to capturing Kobani and have inflicted a heavy defeat on the Iraqi army west of Baghdad.

    The US-led air attacks launched against Islamic State (also known as Isis) on 8 August in Iraq and 23 September in Syria have not worked. President Obama's plan to "degrade and destroy" Islamic State has not even begun to achieve success. In both Syria and Iraq, Isis is expanding its control rather than contracting.

    Cont... War against Isis: US strategy in tatters as militants march on - Comment - Voices - The Independent
    We should not be putting any boots on the ground. If the Kurds need heavy weapons then give the heavy weapons or sell them the heavy weapons. This aint our fight. We give the Kurds and the Iraqis the arms its up to them to have the balls to use them against ISIS. If they cant prevail against ISIS on their own it wouldn't matter if we won the ground battle because as soon as we leave they would move in. IF the Kurds and the Iraqi win their own fight ISIS is not coming back anytime soon after getting their butts kicked. So everyone is benefited to see if the actors in this mess have the right stuff to deal with ISIS. Better to know now than find out latter they are wanting.
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  7. #37
    Guru
    Hamster Buddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 06:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,675

    Re: War against Isis: US strategy in tatters as militants march on

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurmugeon View Post
    If only this effect of my posts worked on the Progressive-Fascists...

    You state that it is wrong, but do not state why, or substantiate your claims.

    Sorry, but that is a political forums cop-out and cheap shot tactic.

    Please point out any single statement I made that is in error?

    Did we not greatly cut military budgets? Over the Obama years, hasn't the President been largely setting spending priorities, since Congress hasn't been passing a budget? Haven't the Democrats had control over all or most of Congress during the Obama years?

    Over the Obama years, have we not greatly increase social program spending? and also programs to send money to minority groups?

    Won't a ground War Cost more than just an Air War?

    So far, hasn't ISIS fighters shown themselves to be much more determined, brutal and effective at combat, than any resistance shown by the Iraqi - Husein forces?

    Haven't we done round after round of Quantitative Easing? Hasn't the American dollar lost considerable value against other currencies over the Obama years.

    Haven't we been having trouble getting our foreign creditors to advance our broke government even more credit and difficulty raising the debt ceiling?

    Hasn't the Obama years seen 40 cents or more of every dollar spent by the federal government come from borrowing, and deficit spending.

    Isn't continuing to spend in deficit at our current levels a form of financial national suicide?


    Just what did I say that is NOT TRUE!

    -
    It's just that, I have hard time following/understanding your text, it's broken up and a bit jumbled is why I just put the picture. You can call it a cop out and you'd probably be right, cause I'd rather do that then try and follow your text.

    No offense.

  8. #38
    Guru
    Hamster Buddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 06:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,675

    Re: War against Isis: US strategy in tatters as militants march on

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateMk1 View Post
    We should not be putting any boots on the ground. If the Kurds need heavy weapons then give the heavy weapons or sell them the heavy weapons. This aint our fight. We give the Kurds and the Iraqis the arms its up to them to have the balls to use them against ISIS. If they cant prevail against ISIS on their own it wouldn't matter if we won the ground battle because as soon as we leave they would move in. IF the Kurds and the Iraqi win their own fight ISIS is not coming back anytime soon after getting their butts kicked. So everyone is benefited to see if the actors in this mess have the right stuff to deal with ISIS. Better to know now than find out latter they are wanting.
    What other tests do you see them facing? Also, I find it interesting that you separate the Kurds from Iraq. Is it inevitable at this point that there will be a Kurdistan, and thus a war between the Kurds and the Turks that we'll be dragged into (at least politically).

  9. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Last Seen
    05-09-15 @ 08:15 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,023

    Re: War against Isis: US strategy in tatters as militants march on

    Saddam Hussein is looking better and better by the day.......be careful what you **** with

  10. #40
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,922

    Re: War against Isis: US strategy in tatters as militants march on

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    What Dem is talking about is how Obama is still pushing Regime Change with Assad. Same thing we've been discussing.



    I agree, it's certainly a radical option, but I think this situation demands one and I'm not just talking about ISIS but in dealing with the ME as a whole. Obama would have a huge foreign policy success with the destruction of ISIS, and Assad would finally be back in control of all of Syria. Both sides would win in that case. It all depends on what Obama could stomach in terms of deciding the fates of the Syrian Opposition. And in regards to your concerns with Arab Armies performing poorly in the field, whatever inadequacies that they may have can be countered with Allied Air Power. I don't recall the Northern Alliance being an elite fighting force, and with a little air power, we drove the Taliban out of their positions of power.

    But I think there's a bigger gain to be had than just in dealing with ISIS. The US has been missing an overall strategy ever since the Iraqi Government began to fail. In the past, our doctrine had been focused on making the ME more democratic, the theory is that democracies would be less likely to cause a lot a mess and in general, the idea of a more open society does sound appealing. However, by going this route, (supporting Maliki in Iraq, and Assad in Syria) we will be committing to a new course in the ME and that is that we will be fine with dictators as long as they can keep the rabble in line and not let it spill over to where it concerns either the US or the Europeans. I think the ME will begin to calm down once we start to see clear and strong leadership in these Arab Countries. And in the long run, it will also serve to drive a wedge between Iran and Iraq, or at least show Iraq that we can provide far more than Iran ever could hope for, and thus curbing their ambitions in the region. At the end of the day, what would be ideal is stable Iraq to serve as a counterpoint to Iran's ambitions, much as Saddam did prior to the first Gulf War.

    Lastly, there is a reason why the FSA will only cause more problems, and you eluded to it yourself. It's one thing to push out ISIS, but it's a whole 'nother matter to be able to secure those lands, especially against the next enemy that would come up to bat, and that's Assad and the SAA. If we continue on the present course, all we're setting ourselves up for when ISIS is defeated, is getting involved in the Syrian Civil War. Best case scenario and the FSA could defeat the SAA, there's no way that force would be able to secure all of Syria, let alone get their act together. It took the US Military three or four years to figure out how to fight insurgents, you think the FSA is going to do any better. No, Assad and the SAA is the only viable solution to dealing with the ISIS crisis now, and keeping the peace afterwards.



    They did very well in terms of hitting strategic targets, but not in breaking the will of the Vietnamese, and that's what I was more alluding to. I've no doubt that we could easily take out ISIS C3 capabilities, but that alone won't defeat ISIS.



    Sure I did, you want to inflict massive causalities, no doubt to try and break their spirit. And I'm telling you that one, many of these people are ready to die in the name of their god and two, only once in the history of strategic bombing has an enemy's will been broken and that was Japan in WW2.
    The reason it worked with Japan was we were willing to oblige their need to die, and they realized we would. Its not very pleasant when your world is literally burning down around your ears. We didn't start till late in World War 2 to do concerted strategic civilian bombing raids and they were effective we did. We literally obliterated dozens of cities in Asia and Europe. Our bombings of Tokyo and Dresden were more devastating the two nukes we dropped.
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •