• 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

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2013
Messages
33,522
Reaction score
10,826
Location
Between Athens and Jerusalem
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
World View: American-led air attacks are failing. Jihadis are close to taking Kobani, in Syria – and in Iraq western Baghdad is now under serious threat

America's plans to fight Islamic State are in ruins as the militant group's fighters come close to capturing Kobani and have inflicted a heavy defeat on the Iraqi army west of Baghdad.

The US-led air attacks launched against Islamic State (also known as Isis) on 8 August in Iraq and 23 September in Syria have not worked. President Obama's plan to "degrade and destroy" Islamic State has not even begun to achieve success. In both Syria and Iraq, Isis is expanding its control rather than contracting.

Cont... War against Isis: US strategy in tatters as militants march on - Comment - Voices - The Independent
 
What do you propose to be the solution?
 
So Obama's pathetic response isn't working, ISIS is expanding, some believe that the seige 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.
 
Clear, hold, build.

Substance over BS symbolic airstrikes. Commit to victory instead of appeasing evil for votes.

What does this mean? Troops on the ground in direct conflict with ISIS? Bombing unconditionally? A combination?
 
What does this mean? Troops on the ground in direct conflict with ISIS? Bombing unconditionally? A combination?

What it means is sending a force to clear out ISIS, followed by leaving a small force to hold and rebuild the nation. You can't win a war by airstrikes alone. Obama was drug kicking and screaming into the conflict, but poking them with a stick while not doing anything to substantively to win is the worst thing one could do. Hopefully thats not too hard for you to understand.
 
What it means is sending a force to clear out ISIS, followed by leaving a small force to hold and rebuild the nation. You can't win a war by airstrikes alone. Obama was drug kicking and screaming into the conflict, but poking them with a stick while not doing anything to substantively to win is the worst thing one could do. Hopefully thats not too hard for you to understand.
So yes. It means sending troops to actively fight ISIS? Is this correct?
 
What it means is sending a force to clear out ISIS, followed by leaving a small force to hold and rebuild the nation. You can't win a war by airstrikes alone. Obama was drug kicking and screaming into the conflict, but poking them with a stick while not doing anything to substantively to win is the worst thing one could do. Hopefully thats not too hard for you to understand.

So yes. It means sending troops to actively fight ISIS? Is this correct?

I have a suggestion. There is already a capable military force, on the ground, with YEARS of experience fighting this organization that we could cooperate with to finish the ISIS threat; Assad and the Syrian Military. Also, since it is still Syria, then Assad could be responsible for residual force to secure the area. His family has a history of taking care of business...

Would you both be okay with this?
 
World View: American-led air attacks are failing. Jihadis are close to taking Kobani, in Syria – and in Iraq western Baghdad is now under serious threat

America's plans to fight Islamic State are in ruins as the militant group's fighters come close to capturing Kobani and have inflicted a heavy defeat on the Iraqi army west of Baghdad.

The US-led air attacks launched against Islamic State (also known as Isis) on 8 August in Iraq and 23 September in Syria have not worked. President Obama's plan to "degrade and destroy" Islamic State has not even begun to achieve success. In both Syria and Iraq, Isis is expanding its control rather than contracting.

Cont... War against Isis: US strategy in tatters as militants march on - Comment - Voices - The Independent

The fact is we have no strategy...Obama even said so......He is afraid to offend radical Islam.
 
The fact is we have no strategy...Obama even said so......He is afraid to offend radical Islam.

: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.
 
I have a suggestion. There is already a capable military force, on the ground, with YEARS of experience fighting this organization that we could cooperate with to finish the ISIS threat; Assad and the Syrian Military. Also, since it is still Syria, then Assad could be responsible for residual force to secure the area. His family has a history of taking care of business...

Would you both be okay with this?

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.
 
I have a suggestion. There is already a capable military force, on the ground, with YEARS of experience fighting this organization that we could cooperate with to finish the ISIS threat; Assad and the Syrian Military. Also, since it is still Syria, then Assad could be responsible for residual force to secure the area. His family has a history of taking care of business...

Would you both be okay with this?

I dont disagree about the SAA, but they have demonstrated they are ineffective, and they are restricted to Syria. How many years do you think they need before they can even expel or kill ISIS even in western Syria?

I'd be fine with them trying, but the outcome of years of war suggests they aren't up to it. And then there's what to do about ISIS in Iraq.
 
The fact is we have no strategy...Obama even said so......He is afraid to offend radical Islam.

Indeed, and yet he speaks to the US as if he means to take care of the problem. What he actually means is he will do all that he can to benefit him politically without doing anything of import.
 
: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.

He's only carried out a few strikes a few times, and even if he was droning the **** out of them-that is no substitute to troops on the ground.
 
Ok, and we are doing that-what if its not enough, what then?

No we arent. We dont recognize the Syrian government, we are not arming the Kurds, and we continue to back the "moderates FSA"....
 
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.

It's even worse with the FSA. It'll be at least six months before the FSA is trained enough where they can actually contribute in the war effort.

I dont disagree about the SAA, but they have demonstrated they are ineffective, and they are restricted to Syria. How many years do you think they need before they can even expel or kill ISIS even in western Syria?

I'd be fine with them trying, but the outcome of years of war suggests they aren't up to it. And then there's what to do about ISIS in Iraq.

I'm not saying the SAA can do it alone, but I think if we ran a campaign with Allied Air Power backing up the SAA. with Special Forces embedded to call in close air support to keep the front lines moving, just like we did in Afghanistan with the Northern Alliance. Combine this with a Joint Operations Command based out of Doha, we could create a makeshift alliance between Iraq, Syria, US and other allied powers to form a joint strategy with a coordinated invasion. If this was done, we could have ISIS mopped up within a matter of weeks. There's no power on this planet that can stand up to a war on two fronts, (three if we got the Turks involved, but they want Assad out even more than the US does...)
 
What do you propose to be the solution?

The solution is to stop fiddle ****ing around and inflict massive casualties upon the enemy. I know it sounds crazy, but bombing empty buildings, in the middle of the night, isn't going to accomplish anything.
 
The solution is to stop fiddle ****ing around and inflict massive casualties upon the enemy. I know it sounds crazy, but bombing empty buildings, in the middle of the night, isn't going to accomplish anything.

I've said this elsewhere, but it's worth repeating, only one time in the history of Strategic Bombing, has a nation ever capitulated from being bombed.... and I don't think we're at the point we need to start nuking hut villages...
 
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.

Greetings, TDS. :2wave:

Totally agree! Assad is a college-educated man who wants to bring his country into the 21st century, fighting those savages who want to go back to the dark ages. He may be a bastard, but his people like him, and he is supporting and aiding the Kurds - the same brave Kurds who successfully rescued those villagers, including women and children, BTW, that were stranded on the mountain without food and water while ISIS waited to kill them! Also, it has been proven by inspectors from the UN that Assad was not behind the Sarin gas attacks on the Syrian people, but rather it was the rebels that want to topple his government - rebels we are apparently supporting! What's going on here? :thumbdown:
 
We cannot afford the cost to refight the Iraq War.

President Obama and the Dems have already slashed the Military Budget, to only turn around and spend the money on social program largess and Racial Pandering.

We cannot afford to continue the AirWar against ISIS, much less field a much more expensive ground war.

If we need to go onto a ground level military confrontation against ISIS, it must be done by greatly increasing the Military Budgets beyond the spending levels of the Dubya Iraq War, because ISIS is a much tougher opponent than Saddam Husein's forces ever were.

We are already spending at huge deficit levels, on Obama Social and Racial Largess, despite the cuts in the military budget. The deficit and huge nation debt increases have force the U.S.A to do round after round of Quantitative Easing, devaluing our currency at alarming rates.

If we fund the ISIS conflict at a level which would actually lead to victory, it would much, more more red ink and printing of dollars, devaluing the currency even further...


OR....


OR!... we could drastically cut off all of the new social program and racial pandering spending, to make room in a deficit, but at least not currency suicidal national budget.

So, What Programs to we cut first!

-
 
The solution is to stop fiddle ****ing around and inflict massive casualties upon the enemy. I know it sounds crazy, but bombing empty buildings, in the middle of the night, isn't going to accomplish anything.

Greetings, apdst. :2wave:

:agree: It seems strange that inspectors can know where every damn cow is in this country so they can fine every farmer who wants to sell raw milk to his customers that want to buy it for making cheese, but we don't know where ISIS is at any given time? :wow: Kind of difficult to believe they might be smarter than we are! :thumbdown:
 
We cannot afford the cost to refight the Iraq War.

President Obama and the Dems have already slashed the Military Budget, to only turn around and spend the money on social program largess and Racial Pandering.

We cannot afford to continue the AirWar against ISIS, much less field a much more expensive ground war.

If we need to go onto a ground level military confrontation against ISIS, it must be done by greatly increasing the Military Budgets beyond the spending levels of the Dubya Iraq War, because ISIS is a much tougher opponent than Saddam Husein's forces ever were.

We are already spending at huge deficit levels, on Obama Social and Racial Largess, despite the cuts in the military budget. The deficit and huge nation debt increases have force the U.S.A to do round after round of Quantitative Easing, devaluing our currency at alarming rates.

If we fund the ISIS conflict at a level which would actually lead to victory, it would much, more more red ink and printing of dollars, devaluing the currency even further...


OR....


OR!... we could drastically cut off all of the new social program and racial pandering spending, to make room in a deficit, but at least not currency suicidal national budget.

So, What Programs to we cut first!

-

Your post... just so much wrong... just... just

MartianHeadExplodes.gif
 
Greetings, TDS. :2wave:

Totally agree! Assad is a college-educated man who wants to bring his country into the 21st century, fighting those savages who want to go back to the dark ages. He may be a bastard, but his people like him, and he is supporting and aiding the Kurds - the same brave Kurds who successfully rescued those villagers, including women and children, BTW, that were stranded on the mountain without food and water while ISIS waited to kill them! Also, it has been proven by inspectors from the UN that Assad was not behind the Sarin gas attacks on the Syrian people, but rather it was the rebels that want to topple his government - rebels we are apparently supporting! What's going on here? :thumbdown:

First off, can we please not pretend like Assad isn't in part responsible for what's going down with the brutal way he reacted to protests? I mean, I agree that these people are barbarians and we don't need to be giving them political power, but that's not like I'm going to pretend that Assad or his Family hasn't committed some nasty atrocities.

Also do you have a link about the attacks being carried out by rebels?
 
Back
Top Bottom