• 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!

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

US Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm resigned to the US and its allies, like Canada, not fighting other country's battles if they're not willing to fight them as well themselves. Let's see Saudi Arabian boots on the ground. Let's see Iraqi boots on the ground, and not running shoes. Let's see Turkish boots on the ground, and not just on their side of the Turkish border watching a slaughter. These are the large countries in the direct vicinity that need to step up and put their own men and women in the line of fire before US and allied troops hit the ground. If these countries are okay with ISIS taking over, let them live with the fallout.

ISIS will never come to North America as a force, only as lone bad actors and those lone bad actors will come here whether or not the US and their allies enter into a ground war against ISIS.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So yes. It means sending troops to actively fight ISIS? Is this correct?
Click to expand...

Yes. And it doesn't mean just US boots on the ground. It is the only way. If there is another... let's hear it. History is clear. You need boots to clear out the menace street by street.

The Europeans and Arabs have to put boots on the ground too... to squash this menace into a red pulp.

Unfortunately we lack a leader and leadership.

This is what happens when the real world faces evil and the Libs are in charge. You get deeper chaos.
 
MadLib said:
Our wars in Kosovo and Libya were won through airstrikes :shrug:

Contrary to what the ODS people are saying, our airstrikes have been effective against ISIS - when they're happening. Gains made by the Kurds and FSA in Kobani have correlated with our airstrikes against the terrorists. That's why the strikes need to be around-the-clock, not just a few every day or two.
Click to expand...

Kobani, it appears-was a distraction as ISIS struck towards Baghdad.

We aren't exactly bombing the hell out of them.

If you approach this mess with the assumption that Obama does not aim to win nor provide substantive actions everything will be illuminated.
 
apdst said:
That won't work, either. One, because Obama isn't ready to commit the support they'll need and two, because there is no Syrian force that can take on ISIS.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, its been 3 years since hostilities in Syria began, and the only change is ISIS is getting stronger.
 
US Conservative said:
So Obama's pathetic response isn't working, ISIS is expanding, some believe that the siege on Kobani was a distraction for ISIS to attack cities just west of Baghdad.

This problem isn't going to go away by looking the other way, or a few airstrikes for votes in an upcoming election. Obama needs to step up now.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ. I believe he needs to step down now.
 
Kobie said:
:roll:

He's been droning the **** out of these people for six years; now he's "afraid to offend" them. You guys believe some really weird stuff, man.
Click to expand...
I suppose it is too much to ask the Islamofascist supporter on the golf course for a war winning, effective strategy.

Killing a few people here and there is not an effective way to win. But it keeps the low information voters appeased.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'm resigned to the US and its allies, like Canada, not fighting other country's battles if they're not willing to fight them as well themselves. Let's see Saudi Arabian boots on the ground. Let's see Iraqi boots on the ground, and not running shoes. Let's see Turkish boots on the ground, and not just on their side of the Turkish border watching a slaughter. These are the large countries in the direct vicinity that need to step up and put their own men and women in the line of fire before US and allied troops hit the ground. If these countries are okay with ISIS taking over, let them live with the fallout.

ISIS will never come to North America as a force, only as lone bad actors and those lone bad actors will come here whether or not the US and their allies enter into a ground war against ISIS.
Click to expand...

The question isn't who should intervene-how often does that turn out well? The question is if its in our best interest to act or not. Giving islamic terrorists a sizable territory from which to metastasize to the rest of the world just isnt good enough.

If you'd like to think an endless stream of "lone wolfs" will get caught and thats good enough fine-but I disagree. If you think it wont send a stunningly clear message-that the US has no conviction and will do nothing that required a commitment (to islamists to are very immersed in history) fine-but thats not good enough.

You fight evil, or it gets worse.
 
zimmer said:
Yes. And it doesn't mean just US boots on the ground. It is the only way. If there is another... let's hear it. History is clear. You need boots to clear out the menace street by street.

The Europeans and Arabs have to put boots on the ground too... to squash this menace into a red pulp.

Unfortunately we lack a leader and leadership.

This is what happens when the real world faces evil and the Libs are in charge. You get deeper chaos.
Click to expand...

Its stunningly clear. Evil is emboldened by liberalism-because liberals dont understand how things work.
 
US Conservative said:
Kobani, it appears-was a distraction as ISIS struck towards Baghdad.

We aren't exactly bombing the hell out of them.
Click to expand...
I agree that we should focus on Iraq as well, but the circumstances seem to be different - the Iraqis and Peshmerga are doing a better job of holding off ISIS than any of the Syrian factions, and Kobani is facing a potential massacre. Also, if our airstrikes can help to prevent an ISIS takeover of Kobani, that will be a symbolic victory of coalition air power over ISIS' mad jihad.

On a side note, although I am opposed to a US ground invasion of ISIS, I would support sending SF to fight with Peshmerga and the Iraqi Army.
If you approach this mess with the assumption that Obama does not aim to win nor provide substantive actions everything will be illuminated.
Click to expand...

That is not the correct assumption. A ground invasion without local partnership won't work - otherwise, we would have been successful in our first occupation of Iraq - and is the last thing this country needs. Syria is perhaps the most complicated geopolitical issue that we've had to navigate our way through since 1979 Afghanistan, since there are no forces that we can say without a doubt won't damage our interests. Say what you want about Obama, he's dealing with a particularly nasty overseas crisis while presiding over a divided public that's apprehensive to war, no matter how justified it may be.
 
MadLib said:
I agree that we should focus on Iraq as well, but the circumstances seem to be different - the Iraqis and Peshmerga are doing a better job of holding off ISIS than any of the Syrian factions, and Kobani is facing a potential massacre. Also, if our airstrikes can help to prevent an ISIS takeover of Kobani, that will be a symbolic victory of coalition air power over ISIS' mad jihad.

On a side note, although I am opposed to a US ground invasion of ISIS, I would support sending SF to fight with Peshmerga and the Iraqi Army.


That is not the correct assumption. A ground invasion without local partnership won't work - otherwise, we would have been successful in our first occupation of Iraq - and is the last thing this country needs. Syria is perhaps the most complicated geopolitical issue that we've had to navigate our way through since 1979 Afghanistan, since there are no forces that we can say without a doubt won't damage our interests. Say what you want about Obama, he's dealing with a particularly nasty overseas crisis while presiding over a divided public that's apprehensive to war, no matter how justified it may be.
Click to expand...

Our chump leader isn't leading, he's waiting for polls, to find how to minimize damage to his personal politics before an election. The longer we wait, and the more we delude ourselves with "symbolic" victory-the worse it will be.

This wont be like the insurgency because they dont have the infrastructure or time in country. But-it WILL be worse the longer we avoid the fact that we need to go in. Even Obama's current and former military staff are saying this.

Drop the politics-its time to go fight.
 
Misterveritis said:
I suppose it is too much to ask the Islamofascist supporter on the golf course for a war winning, effective strategy.

Killing a few people here and there is not an effective way to win. But it keeps the low information voters appeased.
Click to expand...

You lose any and all ability to be taken seriously when you post nonsense like this.
 
zimmer said:
Yes. And it doesn't mean just US boots on the ground. It is the only way. If there is another... let's hear it. History is clear. You need boots to clear out the menace street by street.

The Europeans and Arabs have to put boots on the ground too... to squash this menace into a red pulp.

Unfortunately we lack a leader and leadership.

This is what happens when the real world faces evil and the Libs are in charge. You get deeper chaos.
Click to expand...

The United States is the leader of the free world. We're expected to...lead. All those other countries are scared to do it without us. It's fantasy to expect our allies to go in without us.
 
US Conservative said:
Kobani, it appears-was a distraction as ISIS struck towards Baghdad.

We aren't exactly bombing the hell out of them.

If you approach this mess with the assumption that Obama does not aim to win nor provide substantive actions everything will be illuminated.
Click to expand...

Obama isn't much of a tactician, neither.

I bet it's like Pee Wee's Playhouse, working for Obama.
 
Kobie said:
You lose any and all ability to be taken seriously when you post nonsense like this.
Click to expand...
Did he support the overthrow of US ally Mubarak? Who took his place? Islamofascists.
Did he support the overthrow of Gaddafi? Who took his place? Islamofascists.
Did he fail to keep troops in Iraq? Who is in control of much of the country? Islamofascists.

You lose ability to be taken seriously when you do not see him for his results.
 
apdst said:
Obama isn't much of a tactician, neither.

I bet it's like Pee Wee's Playhouse, working for Obama.
Click to expand...

Through Obama's lack of attention and lack of prioritizing achieving the needed SOF agreements with Iraq and Afghanistan, this situation in the ME is the result. He was handed a fairly stable Iraq at the beginning of his administration, and this chaos is what he's allowed to happen.

He's once again proving that he's not as smart as he thinks he is, else wouldn't he have foreseen this? Set priorities appropriately? Achieved the needed SOF agreements?

Now that it's gone South on him, he doesn't even have to balls to admit he was wrong, that he screwed up, and go in and fix the problem. No, he throws Maliki under the bus (although he's not blameless in his either). Obama's so smart that he's cornered himself between the anti-war faction of his own party, and reality.

And since he values politics over all else, he'll not do what needs to be done to effectively combat ISIS / ISIL, but rather **** around with closing Gitmo, **** around increasing EPA regulations, and it's related economic retardation, **** around with yet another bogus war on women . . .

Anyone detecting a pattern here yet?

Where Obama gets his priorities is a mystery. By what measurable aspect of his administration's performance does he believe that he's the effective insightful trustworthy leader that he imagines himself to be? Of course, surrounded by hand picked sycophants who can only reinforce that self-image, isn't any of the above either.

:soap
 
TheDemSocialist said:
My support lies behind this option: We actively arm the Kurds, we continue arming the Iraqi military, we stop our idiotic strategy of not recognizing Assad, and stop backing the "moderate" FSA.
Click to expand...
still won't work. Nothing short of a massive and lengthy US intervension will solve the problems the middle east has.
 
Capster78 said:
still won't work. Nothing short of a massive and lengthy US intervension will solve the problems the middle east has.
Click to expand...

We have been told over and over again intervention will solve all our problems. Korea, it didnt solve anything, Vietnam it didnt, Iraq it didnt, know we need to repeat the same strategy over again. When will we learn?
We are not experiencing the boomerange effect.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
We have been told over and over again intervention will solve all our problems. Korea, it didnt solve anything, Vietnam it didnt, Iraq it didnt, know we need to repeat the same strategy over again. When will we learn?
We are not experiencing the boomerange effect.
Click to expand...
To win a war the right strategy is required.

When Islam is the problem we cannot win when we shadowbox. To defeat the monsters one must first defeat the monsters political-religion.
 
The US strategy is simple...bomb ISIS, ISIS uses this to greatly aid recruitment worldwide, America eventually forced to put 'boots on the ground', many Americans die, POTUS eventually states 'mission accomplished, American troops leave, situation ends up worse then when it started.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom