• 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!

US Airstrikes Under Way in Syria[W:354]

Re: US Airstrikes Under Way in Syria

annata said:
one would think columns in open desert flying black flags would have been targeted..
Click to expand...

Oh, hell no! We crapped on the chance a long time ago. That was before Obama's numbers really went in the crapper.
 
Re: US Airstrikes Under Way in Syria

annata said:
thanks for clarity. how about this?
are we not nation building in Syria picking sides -whom to train arm who to not?
Bad enough we tried very hard very long to do "regime change" with the 'Assad must go' meme.


All l I can think of now is degrade/desroy ISIL,and hope the ground forces - whomever they are - can do the job.
Counter-terrorism. counter insurgency.
Click to expand...

I think the best policy is to force ISIS into a position of stalemate.
 
Re: US Airstrikes Under Way in Syria

Unitedwestand13 said:
I think the best policy is to force ISIS into a position of stalemate.
Click to expand...
I'm a chess player - much appreciate the term/idea. Stalemate means no caliphate, but partitioning of Iraq. I'm good with that.

Just "check" these guys like perpetual check on the chessboard
 
Re: US Airstrikes Under Way in Syria

apdst said:
Syria has been subsidizing Hamas and Hezbollah for years.
Click to expand...

The middle east is one crazy place where little makes sense. But at this moment in time, defeating ISIS should be the number one priority. In a way it is like WWII, we made nice with Uncle Joe Stalin in order to defeat what was then our number one priority, Hitler. We have made nice with numerous scumbags over the years. But if the strategy the president laid forth is to work, we do needs boots on the ground. Air Strikes are nice, but we need a force to follow them up. Much like when Afghanistan when we first went in. The Northern Alliance on the ground providing the combat troops and pushing home the advantage our Air Power gave them. Soon the Taliban was driven out of Afghanistan with the Afghani doing the fighting.

I think ISIS could be handled this way if we had credible boots on the ground. A force willing to fight to take advantage of what our air strikes do. Now it is plain that President Obama is not going to use American forces, so those boots on the ground will have to come from other sources. Assad is sitting on a force of approximately 250,000 men. Now they are all conscript, but conscript armies can fight if given the right leadership and incentive which our air power could supply. Iraqi military isn't about to fight, the kurds will but won't venture far from their homeland. Iraq as a country means nothing to them. So what or whom is left?

Sometimes in situations like this, one must choose the lesser of two evils, the least evil bad guy. What is our number one priority and how given the restrictions placed upon us, can we accomplish the mission. The only way I see at the moment is to make nice with Assad and use his ground forces. My opinion anyway.
 
Re: US Airstrikes Under Way in Syria

Perotista said:
The middle east is one crazy place where little makes sense. But at this moment in time, defeating ISIS should be the number one priority. In a way it is like WWII, we made nice with Uncle Joe Stalin in order to defeat what was then our number one priority, Hitler. We have made nice with numerous scumbags over the years. But if the strategy the president laid forth is to work, we do needs boots on the ground. Air Strikes are nice, but we need a force to follow them up. Much like when Afghanistan when we first went in. The Northern Alliance on the ground providing the combat troops and pushing home the advantage our Air Power gave them. Soon the Taliban was driven out of Afghanistan with the Afghani doing the fighting.

I think ISIS could be handled this way if we had credible boots on the ground. A force willing to fight to take advantage of what our air strikes do. Now it is plain that President Obama is not going to use American forces, so those boots on the ground will have to come from other sources. Assad is sitting on a force of approximately 250,000 men. Now they are all conscript, but conscript armies can fight if given the right leadership and incentive which our air power could supply. Iraqi military isn't about to fight, the kurds will but won't venture far from their homeland. Iraq as a country means nothing to them. So what or whom is left?

Sometimes in situations like this, one must choose the lesser of two evils, the least evil bad guy. What is our number one priority and how given the restrictions placed upon us, can we accomplish the mission. The only way I see at the moment is to make nice with Assad and use his ground forces. My opinion anyway.
Click to expand...

Turkish regulars would stand a better chance IMO against ISIS and would probably find an unlikely ally in the Iraqi Kurds......
 
Re: US Airstrikes Under Way in Syria

Perotista said:
The middle east is one crazy place where little makes sense. But at this moment in time, defeating ISIS should be the number one priority. In a way it is like WWII, we made nice with Uncle Joe Stalin in order to defeat what was then our number one priority, Hitler. We have made nice with numerous scumbags over the years. But if the strategy the president laid forth is to work, we do needs boots on the ground. Air Strikes are nice, but we need a force to follow them up. Much like when Afghanistan when we first went in. The Northern Alliance on the ground providing the combat troops and pushing home the advantage our Air Power gave them. Soon the Taliban was driven out of Afghanistan with the Afghani doing the fighting.

I think ISIS could be handled this way if we had credible boots on the ground. A force willing to fight to take advantage of what our air strikes do. Now it is plain that President Obama is not going to use American forces, so those boots on the ground will have to come from other sources. Assad is sitting on a force of approximately 250,000 men. Now they are all conscript, but conscript armies can fight if given the right leadership and incentive which our air power could supply. Iraqi military isn't about to fight, the kurds will but won't venture far from their homeland. Iraq as a country means nothing to them. So what or whom is left?

Sometimes in situations like this, one must choose the lesser of two evils, the least evil bad guy. What is our number one priority and how given the restrictions placed upon us, can we accomplish the mission. The only way I see at the moment is to make nice with Assad and use his ground forces. My opinion anyway.
Click to expand...
don't think Assad can project forces that far from Damascus. The Kurds will do their part - they are finally getting heavy weapons.
I still think it comes down to the Sunni's though -in Iraq for sure -Assad is Alawite (Shi'a). we need Sunni's to stand up, even if we were to put boots in.
 
Re: US Airstrikes Under Way in Syria

Perotista said:
The middle east is one crazy place where little makes sense. But at this moment in time, defeating ISIS should be the number one priority. In a way it is like WWII, we made nice with Uncle Joe Stalin in order to defeat what was then our number one priority, Hitler. We have made nice with numerous scumbags over the years. But if the strategy the president laid forth is to work, we do needs boots on the ground. Air Strikes are nice, but we need a force to follow them up. Much like when Afghanistan when we first went in. The Northern Alliance on the ground providing the combat troops and pushing home the advantage our Air Power gave them. Soon the Taliban was driven out of Afghanistan with the Afghani doing the fighting.

I think ISIS could be handled this way if we had credible boots on the ground. A force willing to fight to take advantage of what our air strikes do. Now it is plain that President Obama is not going to use American forces, so those boots on the ground will have to come from other sources. Assad is sitting on a force of approximately 250,000 men. Now they are all conscript, but conscript armies can fight if given the right leadership and incentive which our air power could supply. Iraqi military isn't about to fight, the kurds will but won't venture far from their homeland. Iraq as a country means nothing to them. So what or whom is left?

Sometimes in situations like this, one must choose the lesser of two evils, the least evil bad guy. What is our number one priority and how given the restrictions placed upon us, can we accomplish the mission. The only way I see at the moment is to make nice with Assad and use his ground forces. My opinion anyway.
Click to expand...

I agree that ISIS is a priority target, but I was responding to you claim that Syria isn't involved in hostile activity toward Israel.
 
Re: US Airstrikes Under Way in Syria

annata said:
I'm a chess player - much appreciate the term/idea. Stalemate means no caliphate, but partitioning of Iraq. I'm good with that.

Just "check" these guys like perpetual check on the chessboard
Click to expand...

By blocking Isis's every move, we will force it to stagnate.
 
Re: US Airstrikes Under Way in Syria

MMC said:
Oh I served and shed blood for this Country. Which you were already given a clue. Yet couldn't figure it out. So save all the BS about what you think you know about Combat then.

Oh and I don't know need to make anything up about where.....I was. I'm the one that came out missing pieces.
Click to expand...

Clue? Why didn't you just say so?
 
Re: US Airstrikes Under Way in Syria

annata said:
thanks for clarity. how about this?
are we not nation building in Syria picking sides -whom to train arm who to not?
Bad enough we tried very hard very long to do "regime change" with the 'Assad must go' meme.

All l I can think of now is degrade/desroy ISIL,and hope the ground forces - whomever they are - can do the job.
Counter-terrorism. Not counter insurgency.
Click to expand...

The problem is we are now starting to arm what is known or what we have been told is moderate secular Islamic rebels. Some 5,000 of them which will not be available for at least a year. But even if they were, the numbers do not add up. 5,000 against ISIS's 30,000 and growing along with our moderate secular Islamic force taking on Assad's 250,000 man force and some other rebel groups all at the same time.

Perhaps we can get the Iraqi Army reconstituted, but if they are like what we seen so far...

Who does that really leave? NATO isn't going to commit troops, not Turkey. The Kurds will fight, but not far from their homeland. Iraq as a nation means nothing to them, they want their own homeland, country. But our NATO ally Turkey says no way. Other Arab nations, will they provide troops? I think not.

Perhaps we are in a corner here, where do we turn to for those troops that can push home the advantage our air strikes will give them? I see only one source at the moment. Perhaps not a nice source, perhaps even a force that would keep a tyrant in power. Perhaps we must decide which of the two evils present, ISIS and Assad we want left standing at the end of the day. I think reality with Putin and Iran backing Assad, he isn't going anywhere unless ISIS is successful in overthrowing him. It will not be our 5,000 strong moderate secular Islamic rebels.

There are way too many questions here, way too many bad choices, way too many dictators and tyrants. But it does seem, like it or not, that is whom has to be in charge for that region to remain stable. Kings, dictators, princes, tyrants. I wonder if there is really an answer to all of this.
 
Re: US Airstrikes Under Way in Syria

Captain America said:
When Iraq denied our troops amnesty, thus forcing them to abide by their barbaric and archaic laws and punishments, I would have pulled them out too.

Screw Iraq.
Click to expand...

And don't forget they WANTED us out.
 
Re: US Airstrikes Under Way in Syria

AlabamaPaul said:
Turkish regulars would stand a better chance IMO against ISIS and would probably find an unlikely ally in the Iraqi Kurds......
Click to expand...

Howdy AP, it has been awhile. I would agree the Turks would be the best ground forces. But Turkey does not want anything to do with the Kurds and their push for their own homeland/country.
 
Re: US Airstrikes Under Way in Syria

Unitedwestand13 said:
By blocking Isis's every move, we will force it to stagnate.
Click to expand...
they stagnate in place then , which is unacceptable.
They are self sufficient. they can't be allowed to hold territory forever .
The danger is the region begins to accept the idea that parts of it are firmly the Islamic State.
 
Re: US Airstrikes Under Way in Syria

EnigmaO01 said:
And don't forget they WANTED us out.
Click to expand...

No, the President wanted to leave no one there, so the offer was 3,000 troops which Maliki wasn't willing to fight with the opposition to secure. Had it been 20,000, it would have been a different story...
 
Last edited:
Re: US Airstrikes Under Way in Syria

Perotista said:
Howdy AP, it has been awhile. I would agree the Turks would be the best ground forces. But Turkey does not want anything to do with the Kurds and their push for their own homeland/country.
Click to expand...

Good evening pero, war makes for strange bedfellows...
 
Re: US Airstrikes Under Way in Syria

annata said:
don't think Assad can project forces that far from Damascus. The Kurds will do their part - they are finally getting heavy weapons.
I still think it comes down to the Sunni's though -in Iraq for sure -Assad is Alawite (Shi'a). we need Sunni's to stand up, even if we were to put boots in.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I understand that. Perhaps that is why the 5 Arab countries that joined us in the strikes last night were all Sunni. Yes, the Kurds will fight. I am not sure about the Iraqi though. But from what I am hearing the Kurds do not want to roam far from their homeland. They will protect their own little portion of Iraq, but not the rest of the country. I could be wrong about that, but I doubt it. The country of Iraq means little or nothing to them. Their quest is their own country. That is what they have wanted all along.
 
Re: US Airstrikes Under Way in Syria

apdst said:
I agree that ISIS is a priority target, but I was responding to you claim that Syria isn't involved in hostile activity toward Israel.
Click to expand...

Okay, guess I misunderstood or perhaps spaced right over it. Not overtly they are not. Did Syria ever sign a peace treaty with Israel? There was quite a lot of talk about that years ago.
 
Re: US Airstrikes Under Way in Syria

AlabamaPaul said:
Good evening pero, war makes for strange bedfellows...
Click to expand...

That it does. Who would have thought when it comes to ISIS the U.S., Iraq, Iran, Syria, and even Putin are pretty much all on the same side.
 
Re: US Airstrikes Under Way in Syria

Perotista said:
The problem is we are now starting to arm what is known or what we have been told is moderate secular Islamic rebels. Some 5,000 of them which will not be available for at least a year. But even if they were, the numbers do not add up. 5,000 against ISIS's 30,000 and growing along with our moderate secular Islamic force taking on Assad's 250,000 man force and some other rebel groups all at the same time.

Perhaps we can get the Iraqi Army reconstituted, but if they are like what we seen so far...

Who does that really leave? NATO isn't going to commit troops, not Turkey. The Kurds will fight, but not far from their homeland. Iraq as a nation means nothing to them, they want their own homeland, country. But our NATO ally Turkey says no way. Other Arab nations, will they provide troops? I think not.

Perhaps we are in a corner here, where do we turn to for those troops that can push home the advantage our air strikes will give them? I see only one source at the moment. Perhaps not a nice source, perhaps even a force that would keep a tyrant in power. Perhaps we must decide which of the two evils present, ISIS and Assad we want left standing at the end of the day. I think reality with Putin and Iran backing Assad, he isn't going anywhere unless ISIS is successful in overthrowing him. It will not be our 5,000 strong moderate secular Islamic rebels.

There are way too many questions here, way too many bad choices, way too many dictators and tyrants. But it does seem, like it or not, that is whom has to be in charge for that region to remain stable. Kings, dictators, princes, tyrants. I wonder if there is really an answer to all of this.
Click to expand...
you summed it all up -just for Iraq it has to be moe the Shi'a militias, or even a Shi'a army - they did go on a limited offensive the other day. Fallujah,Tikrit, I think. That's a long way to go to dislodging ISIL -even if they take those towns.

Syria: this group is a big swing one way or the other, see what happens, but there aren't permanent allainces
Syrian rebels deny truce deal with Islamic State - Al-Monitor: the Pulse of the Middle East

News emerged Sept. 12 that Syrian rebel factions, including the Syrian Revolutionary Front (SRF), had signed a nonaggression pact with the Islamic State (IS). The claim, originally published by Agence France-Presse (AFP) and citing the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, has been strenuously denied by Ibrahim Barakat, an SRF spokesman, in an interview with Al-Monitor.
Click to expand...
I wonder the same thing..
 
Re: US Airstrikes Under Way in Syria

vesper said:
The number being produced for 2015 are 100. The Navy's budget was slashed severely. Even with the stockpile on hand they aren't going to last long. The Navy used 47 last night. At that rate according to your number, we have enough to last 74 1/2 days. Each missile costs over a million to produce and they don't just fly off the assembly line like boxes of Junior Mints.
Click to expand...

You guys talk like that's all we have in the tool box. The tomahawks are mostly used in the first phase to take out C & C to allow aircraft to be used later when it's safer.
 
Re: US Airstrikes Under Way in Syria

rcart76 said:
I didn't say they didn't want democracy. They just didn't want us occupying their country.

U.S. Troops Are Leaving Because Iraq Doesn't Want Them There - The Atlantic

Iraqi Prime Minister Says U.S. Forces Must Leave On Time - WSJ

And for those who are piling on Obama for withdrawing. You do realize that A 2008 (Pre Obama) security deal between Washington and Baghdad called for all American forces to leave Iraq by 2011?

If anything Obama extended our stay there.
Click to expand...

My nephew who was wounded twice in Iraq was told more than once, "Go home we don't want you here."
 
Re: US Airstrikes Under Way in Syria

AlabamaPaul said:
No, the President wanted to leave no one there, so the offer was 3,000 troops which Maliki wasn't willing to fight with the opposition to secure. Had it been 20,000, it would have been a different story...
Click to expand...

Wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom