Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 137

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

  1. #41
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,925

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    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).
    We wont be dragged into a conflict between the Kurds and the Turks, if the Turks and the Kurds are smart about it. If we send troops in again, then leave again, ISIS will probably pop back up like a demonic weed. If they take care of ISIS themselves, ISIS is mostly likely not coming back. They have to be able to handle the likes of ISIS. Its better to know now if they can. As far as the Kurds I bet they will settle for their little piece of Iraq and call it good. If they are smart. Turkey and the Kurds would benefit from that arraignment.
    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.

  2. #42
    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
    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.
    You are correct in that the Firebombing of Tokyo, which was more deadly as a singular event than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. And perhaps one could argue that Hirohito thought back to Tokyo and destruction that had been wrought there. But even though it was a deadlier attack, the psychological effect that so much of the cities had been wiped out in a single instant was far more of an impact, and what ultimately lead to Hirohito surrender declaration. Even in that case though, had Hirohito been stopped on the night of his radio address (there's an attempted coup that occurred on that night by the way, fortunately it failed) it's doubtful that the military or the people would of yielded.

  3. #43
    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 wont be dragged into a conflict between the Kurds and the Turks, if the Turks and the Kurds are smart about it. If we send troops in again, then leave again, ISIS will probably pop back up like a demonic weed. If they take care of ISIS themselves, ISIS is mostly likely not coming back. They have to be able to handle the likes of ISIS. Its better to know now if they can. As far as the Kurds I bet they will settle for their little piece of Iraq and call it good. If they are smart. Turkey and the Kurds would benefit from that arraignment.
    You've obviously not talked to some of the Turks on this forum (especially Sut). There's many in Turkey that see the Kurds as only terrorist, and could never tolerate a Kurdistan. It be like AQ setting up a small country in Mexico on our border.

  4. #44
    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 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.
    This radical option has a few problems-one is that there is no evidence that Obama is willing to do a thing-the second is the same for Assad.
    For this administration to now suddenly stop demonizing Assad and then actively help him is going to be hard for Obama to do-even if he has the political capital to do so and I dont know that he does.

    And Assad while certainly stuck in conflict does not appear to be going anywhere-especially with Iranian backing. Our strikes in Syria were not done with his permission, we struck where we wanted to. I dont know that he will feel any desire to hurt one enemy by helping another.

  5. #45
    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 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.
    Lets say we dont intervene and ISIS takes all of Iraq (or at least what Iran does not). Then we have an established ISIS state that is openly at war with the US and any other nation that stands in its way of establishing a caliphate across the ME-we know this because they have said as much.
    What then? We have an emboldened and more powerful enemy and we have a strategic geopolical adversary in Iran with an expanded presence. Thats lose all around for the US.

    What happens when we then have to go back in? We will have traded lives for political expediency. Beyond that-we will have established to any of our future enemies that when we commit its only until a date on the calendar, not until the war is won. What do you think that will result in?

    Im not happy about whats happening but the fact remains that our absence is what caused this. Isolationism wont improve our situation, it will make it worse.

  6. #46
    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 Hamster Buddha View Post
    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).
    This is another issue-and dont forget Iran as well. I can even see Russia and China backing Iran to weaken our influence in the region.

  7. #47
    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 PirateMk1 View Post
    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.
    We need to oblige these terrorists as well. Send em to allah in style. This enemy is no less radical, probably more so.
    And also remember that while we did indeed target civilian population centers, they were not the primary target-Japan had less capability to separate its civilians from its industry-and civilians had to work the factories. So while we did indeed kill many civilians-they were not the primary target (generally), rather it was the infrastructure that they tragically decided to live around.

  8. #48
    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 Hamster Buddha View Post
    You are correct in that the Firebombing of Tokyo, which was more deadly as a singular event than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. And perhaps one could argue that Hirohito thought back to Tokyo and destruction that had been wrought there. But even though it was a deadlier attack, the psychological effect that so much of the cities had been wiped out in a single instant was far more of an impact, and what ultimately lead to Hirohito surrender declaration. Even in that case though, had Hirohito been stopped on the night of his radio address (there's an attempted coup that occurred on that night by the way, fortunately it failed) it's doubtful that the military or the people would of yielded.
    There was a movie a few years back with Tommy Lee Jones that depicted that coup, it was close. But the fear at the time was that they would not surrender, and would fight on at any point. Even after the bombs.

  9. #49
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,925

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

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Lets say we dont intervene and ISIS takes all of Iraq (or at least what Iran does not). Then we have an established ISIS state that is openly at war with the US and any other nation that stands in its way of establishing a caliphate across the ME-we know this because they have said as much.
    What then? We have an emboldened and more powerful enemy and we have a strategic geopolical adversary in Iran with an expanded presence. Thats lose all around for the US.

    What happens when we then have to go back in? We will have traded lives for political expediency. Beyond that-we will have established to any of our future enemies that when we commit its only until a date on the calendar, not until the war is won. What do you think that will result in?

    Im not happy about whats happening but the fact remains that our absence is what caused this. Isolationism wont improve our situation, it will make it worse.
    Iran and ISIS will go at it. Let them. ISIS is Sunni and Iran is Shia. We have no business putting boots on the ground period. If Iraq and the Kurds cant handle it now they wont be able to handle it latter either. Providing material support to the Kurds Iraq and Syria if necessary is a better way to do things. We get in there and we will be hounded by all sides we have help that is fleeting at best. There is no real win for here. Just damage control. I am not advocating isolationism, I advocating either a more mercantile approach or a limited support approach. Either way our approach should be one that keeps our military presence to an absolute minimum just trainers advisers and technical help. These people must win the day themselves with their blood, their grit. If the situation goes to ISIS so be it, we let the Iranians and Saudi's deal with them and offer the two arms deals and we profit off the situation. ISIS will have to go through those 2 countries and I guarantee they aint going down easy to ISIS, especially the Iranians. If we take the radical step and support Syria (Bashar) as well then ISIS fights a two front war. Its definitely in our interests to stay out militarily and keep our presence minimal and mercantile.
    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.

  10. #50
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,925

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

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    We need to oblige these terrorists as well. Send em to allah in style. This enemy is no less radical, probably more so.
    And also remember that while we did indeed target civilian population centers, they were not the primary target-Japan had less capability to separate its civilians from its industry-and civilians had to work the factories. So while we did indeed kill many civilians-they were not the primary target (generally), rather it was the infrastructure that they tragically decided to live around.
    Curtis Le May specifically targeted civilian cities in Japan. And did so in Germany as well. That's why we developed firebombs. We even built replicas of German and Japanese cities to determine the optimum method to achieve the greatest destruction. Make no mistake we were ruthless bastards and no targets were taboo. We considered civilians as legitimate targets because they were part of the war efforts manufacturing materials and assisting enemy fighting forces. If they were dead or homeless and hungry they would then detract from the war effort. Like I said we were ruthless pitiless calculating bastards.
    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 5 of 14 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... 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
  •