• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Marines being surrounded in Iraq?

What should President do about Marines surrounded at Al-Asad Air Base?

  • Order those US Marine flee like in Yemen

    Votes: 6 14.6%

  • Have those Marines surrender to ISIS forces

    Votes: 1 2.4%

  • Have those Marines stay and fight it out on their own

    Votes: 1 2.4%

  • Send reinforcements and stand their ground

    Votes: 7 17.1%

  • Send reinforcements and attack ISIS

    Votes: 26 63.4%
  • Total voters
    41
apdst said:
Or, they'll be retreating and we'll chase them down and kill them.
Click to expand...

Sorry, this genies not going back in the bottle, unfortunately.
 
Montecresto said:
True, because all the remaining Islamic State fighters will gather on the battle field to fight them.
Click to expand...

Maybe you are being sarcastic, but I would expect that they would blend into the local population, and live to fight another day.
 
imagep said:
Maybe you are being sarcastic, but I would expect that they would blend into the local population, and live to fight another day.
Click to expand...

I was, you're right. What you said is what I believe and what apdst thinks will happen is a fantasy.
 
Van Basten said:
If they can, they should retreat. Yes, they should flee.

If they can't do that, I have no doubt they can hold their own until reinforcements arrive. After that, they should leave.
Click to expand...

We have 300+ American troops with air support, plus hundreds or maybe even thousands of Iraqi troops at that base. The reports that I read indicate there were less than 400 ISIS fighters who took over that neighboring town. So even if all the ISIS fighters in that down attacked the base, ISIS would be pathetically outnumbered and outgunned. And I don't see them abandoning the town at all.
 
Montecresto said:
I was, you're right. What you said is what I believe and what apdst thinks will happen is a fantasy.
Click to expand...

ISIS pisses me off just as much as it pissed people like apdst off, but American ground forces will not be particularly effective against an enemy that we can't identify, and which doesn't conduct themselves by any particular rules of engagement, and which may or may not even be in uniform. No point in fighting a war we can't win.

I totally get the emotional response to ISIS, but I really don't get those who insist that it's the responsibility of the US to fight someone else's battle. I suspect for some reason, people like adpst can't imagine the scenario that our ground troops would be in. Do they really thing that ISIS will just amass in a large formation that we can wipe out? Or do they think we can go door to door asking people: "are you ISIS"?
 
imagep said:
ISIS pisses me off just as much as it pissed people like apdst off, but American ground forces will not be particularly effective against an enemy that we can't identify, and which doesn't conduct themselves by any particular rules of engagement, and which may or may not even be in uniform. No point in fighting a war we can't win.

I totally get the emotional response to ISIS, but I really don't get those who insist that it's the responsibility of the US to fight someone else's battle. I suspect for some reason, people like adpst can't imagine the scenario that our ground troops would be in. Do they really thing that ISIS will just amass in a large formation that we can wipe out? Or do they think we can go door to door asking people: "are you ISIS"?
Click to expand...

Agreed, and I think its safe to say that were all pissed at the Islamic State. But I'm more pissed at the stupid policies to remove Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad who contained these miscreants.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
 
Montecresto said:
Sorry, this genies not going back in the bottle, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Its possible to put any genie back in the bottle. In Japan's history, she's only been conquered one time. Want to guess who did it and when?
 
apdst said:
Its possible to put any genie back in the bottle. In Japan's history, she's only been conquered one time. Want to guess who did it and when?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this genies not going back in the bottle.
 
Montecresto said:
Agreed, and I think its safe to say that were all pissed at the Islamic State. But I'm more pissed at the stupid policies to remove Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad who contained these miscreants.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Click to expand...

That'd be Obama's and Hillary's foreign policies and actions in action, at least partially, wouldn't it?

Didn't have to force Gaddafi out of power, he was already giving up all the chemical weapons at the time, wasn't he?
Didn't have to 'draw a red line' in the sand with Syria, did he?
Didn't achieve a SoF with Iraq now, did he?

First not so much caused ISIS to raise, but the second and third for sure.
 
So these 320 Marines that are now facing repeated perimeter incursions in miss-uniformed ISIS fighters, suicide bombers, and nightly mortar shelling, are effectively under siege. Repeat of Ka-san anyone?

Is the administration going to support these Marines and their defense? Or is the administration going to leave them to hang out to dry?
(I guess the real question here is what's the most politically expedient to the administration - guess they don't think that Marines count for much)

Some are asserting that there should be a continuous A-10 CAP during daylight hours, killing anything that moves in a 3 mile radius of the perimeter, and nightly AC-130 gunships during nighttime hours doing the same.
 
Van Basten said:
If they can, they should retreat. Yes, they should flee.

If they can't do that, I have no doubt they can hold their own until reinforcements arrive. After that, they should leave.
Click to expand...
We are discussion our Marines here , NOT you and I .. The Marines are special, and merit more support....
"Never give up... !"
 
American said:
Check your spell checker.
Click to expand...

2d2.jpg
 
CRUE CAB said:
Not if we are smart. It time we turned our back on that part of the world. We have done all we can. All we should.
Click to expand...

There are few things I can imagine more foolish than turning your back on someone who has vowed to kill you anyway they possibly can.

The doctrine of kill or be killed - pick one - is what now applies. They are not restricting themselves from murder anywhere in the world now - and their stated reasoning now is as simple as you are not submissive and one of them.
 
Van Basten said:
If they can, they should retreat. Yes, they should flee.

If they can't do that, I have no doubt they can hold their own until reinforcements arrive. After that, they should leave.
Click to expand...

Or do we have another Benghazi in the making?
 
eohrnberger said:
That'd be Obama's and Hillary's foreign policies and actions in action, at least partially, wouldn't it?

Didn't have to force Gaddafi out of power, he was already giving up all the chemical weapons at the time, wasn't he?
Didn't have to 'draw a red line' in the sand with Syria, did he?
Didn't achieve a SoF with Iraq now, did he?

First not so much caused ISIS to raise, but the second and third for sure.
Click to expand...

Well no. Check the date of that NIE. But if you want to point out that the Obama administration has taken a problem created by Bush policy, and made it fantastically worse, then sure, we would agree. Btw, do you have selective reading? Why have all my protestations about the removal of Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad escaped you. Why have you ignored it when I've pointed out that the US should be doing nothing in Syria, that US policy in the ME should be neither to perpetuate or remove regional governments. I don't give a damn what party a president is from, I don't want him advancing a policy of military intervention, exploitation, nation building and the general chaos that we've seen these last dozen years.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
There are few things I can imagine more foolish than turning your back on someone who has vowed to kill you anyway they possibly can.

The doctrine of kill or be killed - pick one - is what now applies. They are not restricting themselves from murder anywhere in the world now - and their stated reasoning now is as simple as you are not submissive and one of them.
Click to expand...
Really? I didn't know this was a street or bar fight. Get on planes, leave. Pretty simple. Secure our borders...........oh wait we cant do that.
 
Grant said:
Or do we have another Benghazi in the making?
Click to expand...

I don't think we have anything "in the making". The news report that the OP mentioned was days ago, and it is as fake today as it was then.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
What should the president do?

Like a good little lamb, Obama needs to shut the **** up and step back and let people who are vested in our military efforts and know a thing or two about it make decisions. The less he does, the better. He's a spineless fish of a dickweed who spites our men in uniform and never considers that maybe making decisions about military tactics is above his paygrade.

Give him a camera - let him take some more selfies and just get the **** out of the way if he's not going to be impeached like he should be.
Click to expand...

um.... damn.... :lol:
 
Montecresto said:
Well no. Check the date of that NIE. But if you want to point out that the Obama administration has taken a problem created by Bush policy, and made it fantastically worse, then sure, we would agree. Btw, do you have selective reading? Why have all my protestations about the removal of Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad escaped you. Why have you ignored it when I've pointed out that the US should be doing nothing in Syria, that US policy in the ME should be neither to perpetuate or remove regional governments. I don't give a damn what party a president is from, I don't want him advancing a policy of military intervention, exploitation, nation building and the general chaos that we've seen these last dozen years.
Click to expand...

Well, I have to admit, you've given me something more to consider, and, as you can tell from the post above, at least some of it is sticking, eh? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom