Thread: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS[W:452]

Originally Posted by Helix

ok. and i posted an article that outlined the instability of the region during the time period which your are claiming that the region was stable.

You were referring to 2011? That was when it was declared to be "stable" by Barack Obama. And it was as "stable" as at any time in its lengthy history.

so, you're not for retaking and occupying the region? if that's the case, we agree.

Although ISIS must be stopped I do not agree that Americans should do it alone. Australian, British and Canadian Forces are involved in air strikes with the Canadians, as far as I know, the only ones with "boots on the ground".

Main article: Operation Impact

The Canadian contribution has been codenamed Operation Impact by the Canadian Department of National Defence.[309][310] Canadian aircraft left for the Middle East to join in airstrikes on 21 October. In total, six CF-18 fighter jets, an Airbus CC-150 Polaris air-to-air refueling tanker and two CP-140 Aurora surveillance aircraft were sent, along with 700 military personnel.

Canadian CF-18 fighter jets completed their first operational flights departing from Kuwait on 31 October.[311] The first Canadian airstrikes began on 2 November.[312] Canada also flew an extra CF-18 to Kuwait to be used as a spare if the need arises, however a maximum of six are authorized to fly with the coalition missions.[313]

On 4 November 2014, Canadian Air Force CF-18s successfully destroyed ISIL construction equipment using GBU-12 bombs. The construction equipment was being used to divert the Euphrates River to deny villages water, and to flood roads, diverting traffic to areas with IEDs.[314]

On 12 November 2014, Canadian jets destroyed ISIL artillery just outside the Northern Iraqi town of Baiji.[315] Airstrikes continued throughout December and into January 2015 totaling 28 strike missions.[316] It was then reported that Canadian special forces troops, which had been highlighting targets for airstrikes, had engaged in fighting after coming under attack.[316][317]

On 19 January 2015, Canadian special operations forces came under ISIL attack for the first time in Iraq over the last week, and returned sniper fire to “neutralize” the threat. Canadians are “enabling airstrikes from the ground,” meaning they are actively finding targets for jets flying overhead.[318]

On 29 January 2015, Canadian special forces in Iraq came under fire from ISIL forces, causing the Canadian troops to return fire, killing some ISIL militants.[319] On 6 March, a Canadian soldier was killed in a friendly fire incident by Kurdish forces while returning to an observation post.[192]

On 8 April 2015, two CF-18s carried out their first airstrike against ISIL in Syria, hitting one of the groups garrisons.[320]

From 2 Nov 2014 to 13 May 2015 the Canadian armed forces struck 80 ISIS fighting positions, 19 ISIS Vehicles, and 10 storage facilities.Military intervention against ISIL - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i was just curious to see if you had really thought about the details of these policies. if you are for more interventionism, then all of these issues are relevant.

There already is 'intervention'. The question is one of size and will.

Originally Posted by Grant

You were referring to 2011? That was when it was declared to be "stable" by Barack Obama. And it was as "stable" as at any time in its lengthy history.

Although ISIS must be stopped I do not agree that Americans should do it alone. Australian, British and Canadian Forces are involved in air strikes with the Canadians, as far as I know, the only ones with "boots on the ground".



There already is 'intervention'. The question is one of size and will.

The Canadians are fine warriors and actually step up to a challenge.

Americans would do the same-but we have a weak leader.

Originally Posted by Montecresto

Saddam hussein provided a level of security in Iraq absent since 2003. Under his leadership there was no terrorist groups in Iraq, AQ followed the U.S. into Iraq from Afghanistan, growing in stature until they organized as the Islamic State in Iraq in 2006 (ISI). Ironically the same year that the U.S. NIE concluded that the invasion and occupation of Iraq caused a rise in terrorism globally, and made America less safe. Again, even the GOP congress now considers that war a mistake.

"Level of security"??? He had an 8 year war with Iran in which over a million people died with many thousands more injured, used mustard gas and WMD during this period, invaded Kuwait later, committed genocide against the Kurds, murdered any and all opposition on suspicions alone, allowed "Rape Rooms" for his degenerate sons, had mass graves everywhere, committed long term ecological damage, and you claim there was a "level of security"?? The question is "For Whom"??

Who was secure when Saddam Hussein was Dictator?? Are you unaware of how he was tried and judged by his own people??

Iran

Originally Posted by Grant

So Saddam Hussein has now been re-invented as a good and benevolent leader responsive to all versions of Islam?

Lindsey Graham (as the only candidate ready to be POTUS on Day One!) tells John Roberts of Fox News why he says Saddam "needed to go."

Originally Posted by Montecresto

Obama has been proven wrong on Iraq though. Which means your God gave you faulty insight!

Obama was certainly proved wrong in leaving Iraq. That should be general knowledge in a couple of years.

Originally Posted by Montecresto

Obama has been proven wrong on Iraq though. Which means your God gave you faulty insight!

Typically, Muslims think like that.

Kafirs, not so much.

Originally Posted by JANFU

That is one ugly sig line.Hateful to say the least

I can understand how popular culture and the LW media would lead you to that belief.

But it is off topic.

Best regards.

Taz