Navy Pride
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 39,883
- Reaction score
- 3,070
- Location
- Pacific NW
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
What say you?
I'm not in favor of combatting the.
So youi would rather fight them here.
or bomb them into oblivion without having to use ground troops
I don't know what a the fight would look like.
What say you?
or bomb them into oblivion without having to use ground troops
What say you?
If the threat is here, why send the troops there?
A plane ticket to Mexico, and the terrorist threat can just walk over, if they get caught, they will join the Mexicans in getting a bus ticket wherever they want to go in the country.
Certainly not before the Europeans have dedicated the equal number.
Support the regional powers in their fight against ISIL.
It is in their vested interest to eradicate the group. Let them bear the primary burden.
What say you?
Favor it?
Of course I don't FAVOR it - but if that's what it takes then so be it. Nevermind the painful irony that our initial involvement furthered this present situation.
But please - not while Obama's the one calling the shots. :roll: He's an idiot of epic proportions and would much sooner have our armed forced sucks his **** and dribble his basketballs than work up an organized plan without telling the world about it. After 6 years you'd think he would have figured out how presidency works but he's still on day 1.
And, forget action in Ukraine. No European country will go up against Russia as long as the current Administration is in power. They can't rely that we would stick it out, much less do all that is required in the mean time. .
I don't want to derail this thread, but what do you think the USA is required to do in the Ukraine?
The Europeans are worried about their economies being damaged by sanctions.
If the Euros aren't willing to take something as insignificant as a hit to their pocketbook, why should we make any sacrifices?
Yeah.
And why is it that they haven't seemed to have done so, yet?
You have a good point. However, when in history has Europe come to our aid like that. The Britts came close in Iraq, but then backed out quick. Germany and especially France will never do so. Australia (although not European) would be there but not in the numbers we would need because of their local politics.
NATO action would be the only chance of getting a large number of other nations to participate, but... Turkey is neck deep in subterfuge in the ISIS mess already, and would potentially destabilize a NATO mission to the ME. And, forget action in Ukraine. No European country will go up against Russia as long as the current Administration is in power. They can't rely that we would stick it out, much less do all that is required in the mean time. Red lines mean nothing. Withdrawal dates published to the enemy are incongruent with winning a war. I could go on, but you get my meaning.
The governments in that region are so unstable that the soldiers can't trust that the next guy in power tomorrow won't be one of the enemy that they're fighting today. That's why they turn and run. Not because they are cowards, but because one day they're fighting Sunni's and the next day they may be saluting them.. or if that happens, being beheaded by them. Many of those folks are fierce warriors, but they can't trust that the guy they are taing orders from will be their tomorrow to protect their families.
We can't rely on them either. If we are going to do anything, we have to do as we did at that dam, and use them as perimeter defense, not direct attack.
The only exception to this would be the Kurds, but every other power in that region - Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian, Russian, Turkish, etc. - hates the Kurds. It's just a matter of time before they are attacked by other powers as well.
The only soldiers that I know turned and ran were the Iraqis military. Still, there are a number of militias within Iraq fighting ISIL, most formidably the Kurds.
Iraq is literally surrounded by Iran, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. Again, none of those countries like ISIL one bit. And, aside from Syria, they are stable. Not to mention Israel would be threatened by ISIL if they were able to fly through Syria or Jordan.
ISIL will be a threat to those countries long before they are a threat to us, that is, on a real scale. (We need to secure our borders so a small team does not sneak into our country.) I suspect they will clamp down before long. If you scan the news, you will see these countries are growing more and more concerned. As crazy as ISIL is, they simply don't have the numbers to fight off powerful nations on all sides and militias from within.
So what we need to do is encourage those nations to jump into the fray. We need to arm and supply the Kurds, as well as support their independence and let them sell oil. And finally we need to take out the ISIL supply lines and oil supplies.
You are certainly right on the European score card. The largest European country has never paid its dues. That has meant that the others have be loath to pay in full, especially as they are in head on competition with Germany within the EU and cannot afford to spend much, because that money reduces their competitiveness economically.
But There we are running into a problem. The US cannot go on this way. Sure, it could do the boots in Kiev and Damascus and Mosul thing and beat the Islamists with relative ease. But it would cost 5.000 lives, 20.000 wounded, 30.000 temporarily deranged and $ 3 Trillion. Sure, it can still pay that. But we are nearing the end of that method of installing security. We will need a global approach and architecture and until then, we should keep as much powder dry as possible.
So, if we want to clean that field, we should think no troops but mean weapons. The war crimes stuff is going to go down the drain anyway, if we do not sort out the global security issue, because in the growing wars to come that dam will break, when one or another nation, dictator or warlord thinks it can save it self from the engorging flames. But to do this, we will have to be very clear on the point that the emerging multipolar system need stopping and that the UN or some other Organization had better deal with everyone's security or everyone will be dealing with what he considers dangers to his national security with whatever means he has.
This pressure on the international community is important and hopefully it is a wake-up call to the populations and their leaders. Because time is running low for a deal of the type necessary. As a matter of fact, it may very easily be too late already. The upside on that would be that it will then have made no difference, what we did.