Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 137

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

  1. #61
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,182

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

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    But its going to be the same old story-Arab armies will fight poorly, the UN and Nato will not grow a pair-and we will be left with another tyrannical force unless someone steps in.
    Then that's the Middle East we will have to live with for the next few decades or so. A conventional army cannot combat unaligned and unidentified enemies that simply fade back into the population when confronted. Like cockroaches, they will run from the light and wait for darkness to come again, as it always does, and then they will come out again. A foreign force cannot defeat a cultural battle in another country. The US could not defeat the Chechiens for Russia or the Basque separatists in Spain. These are internal battles that must be solved internally if they are to be solved at all.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  2. #62
    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 CanadaJohn View Post
    Then that's the Middle East we will have to live with for the next few decades or so. A conventional army cannot combat unaligned and unidentified enemies that simply fade back into the population when confronted. Like cockroaches, they will run from the light and wait for darkness to come again, as it always does, and then they will come out again. A foreign force cannot defeat a cultural battle in another country. The US could not defeat the Chechiens for Russia or the Basque separatists in Spain. These are internal battles that must be solved internally if they are to be solved at all.
    So in other words, the US should follow the worlds example and do nothing. The same old story.

  3. #63
    Professor
    Derp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Dunedin, Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    1,290

    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
    No way!

    In Syria, one strike northwest of Al Mayadin destroyed an ISIL bulldozer
    U.S. Central Command | Oct. 5: U.S. Military Conducts Airstrikes Against ISIL in Syria and Iraq


    We got em on the run!

  4. #64
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,182

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

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    So in other words, the US should follow the worlds example and do nothing. The same old story.
    As I said previously, I'd like to see the Kurds supported because they have proven to be a people willing to bravely defend themselves and to fight for what they believe in. I would support assisting the Kurds in defense of their region. I would also support defending strong western allies like Israel and Jordan, and some of the smaller Gulf States, should they come under attack. But I do not support the west being a substitute army for countries who cause problems and then expect America to clean things up.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  5. #65
    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

    Yeah but it was probably a hella mean bulldozer!

  6. #66
    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 CanadaJohn View Post
    As I said previously, I'd like to see the Kurds supported because they have proven to be a people willing to bravely defend themselves and to fight for what they believe in. I would support assisting the Kurds in defense of their region. I would also support defending strong western allies like Israel and Jordan, and some of the smaller Gulf States, should they come under attack. But I do not support the west being a substitute army for countries who cause problems and then expect America to clean things up.
    I read your prior comments but lets cut to the chase. In the end-if nobody else will act, it will fall on the US yet again-or nothing will get done and a terror state will be established in the heard of the ME.

    You appear resigned to that-but thats not good enough for me. If Americans supported strikes based on what ISIS has done to this point, they will support it when they see how much worse things become as ISIS expands. It would also completely undermine the war on terror-sending the message that the US wont act, wont honor its obligations, and will run after a few beheadings. Thats not good enough.

    This is the song that never ends-fight evil or let it consume everyone.

  7. #67
    Guru

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In a Blue State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,732

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

    Our air strikes need to turn into an air campaign if they want any chance of success. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't, so make a decision, take the medicine. If the decision is to not go to war, then let's not pretend to help. If we are going to war, let's do it right and use our might. This sitting in the grey area is political and how you lose a war.
    We went from sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me to safe spaces.

  8. #68
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,317

    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.
    Air, alone, has never defeated an enemy. Not Japan, Germany, not even the Iraqi Army during Desert Storm.

    The, "they're ready to die for their god", logic is flawed, because nobody ever won a war by dieing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  9. #69
    Whoa, daddy!
    MadLib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,224

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    I have a suggestion. There is already a capable military force, on the ground, with YEARS of experience fighting this organization that we could cooperate with to finish the ISIS threat; Assad and the Syrian Military. Also, since it is still Syria, then Assad could be responsible for residual force to secure the area. His family has a history of taking care of business...

    Would you both be okay with this?
    That's actually a terrible idea, for the following reasons:

    1. The Assad regime is what's really the root cause behind the rise of ISIS. His pro-Alawi dictatorship is what spawned the grievances of the Syrian Sunni population, many of whom have joined ISIS. Even if Assad can be the ground force against ISIS (which it can't, and likely doesn't want to be), we have not solved the actual issue at hand.

    2. Everyone in the coalition we have assembled against ISIS is anti-Assad. If we side with Assad, we can kiss any Turkish support goodbye, and Saudi Arabia and the UAE will likely ditch the anti-ISIS effort.

    3. We have already posited ourselves as against the Assad regime and pro-opposition. Switching sides for no reason will seriously undermine our credibility both as an ally and as a rival.

    4. Assad's never been the friendliest to US interests. Despite the constant bleating from those who either hate Obama and therefore love anyone who opposes him, or from those who worship at the feet of anti-American dictators, Assad is most emphatically not a moderating force: he's how Hezbollah grew to be so powerful, he occupied and destabilized Lebanon, and he allowed al-Qaeda in Iraq (now known as ISIS) to be funneled into Iraq through Syria. Assisting him will strengthen Iranian hegemony while doing nothing to benefit us.

    5. Needless to say, he's awful. We can anticipate indiscriminate bombings and massacres not only against ISIS-held towns, but also against areas held by the more moderate Syrian opposition.
    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Hah. If someone put me in their sig, I'd never know. I have sigs off.

  10. #70
    Whoa, daddy!
    MadLib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,224

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    What do you propose to be the solution?
    Open up both sides in the Syrian conflict to peace talks, and push for a unity government. Absent that, make it clear that we are still supportive of the Syrian opposition's efforts to overthrow Assad. Support Turkey's plan for a buffer zone, and implement a no-fly zone over all of Syria. Since we've now satisfied all of Ankara's (admittedly, slightly unreasonable) demands, we'll now have the Turkish army as ground troops against ISIS. The Turks will kick more ass than we can expect out of any other actor in the Syrian civil war, and will function as the professional land army that is needed to degrade ISIS.
    Last edited by MadLib; 10-12-14 at 12:10 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Hah. If someone put me in their sig, I'd never know. I have sigs off.

Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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
  •