A Syrian Perspective information source:
http://www.syrianperspective.com/2014/09/u-s-coordinating-with-syria-on-air-strikes-maybe.html
Topic: How do we defeat ISIS without U.S. Ground Troops? - page 2. (Read 3196 times)
Just use 1.6 MT warheads. It will resolve all issues quickly enough. By the way, you can stop ebola outbreak in the same way.
Millions of innocent people would be killed if this "strategy" was used. It would also not deal with either ISIS nor ebola. ISIS is a terrorist organization that has "representatives" throughout several countries, including the US. They are not concentrated enough for this to potentially work (and ignoring the fact that civilians would be around where the bomb would go off)
Then like locust storms, repeat the same manoeuvre at all other none christian religious gatherings, even down at the ganges river where the religious bathing festival occurs, stuff like that. Should be able to shoot a few dozen million here and there ? It would lessen the none authorised religiousness going on in the world and send a message out, that you don't need either drones or jet power from the skies or troops on the ground, just flying Mohameds with machine guns.
A second wave of firepower could be in the form of 5 million really fit women in bathing suits toting rocket launchers, again with jetpacks, to go after ISIS directly, hiding in their odd small enclaves.
If I get what you're saying...essentially, it might not be a bad thing to let a bad thing fail, then I certainly understand where you're coming from even if I personally don't like the idea of letting something fail.A second wave of firepower could be in the form of 5 million really fit women in bathing suits toting rocket launchers, again with jetpacks, to go after ISIS directly, hiding in their odd small enclaves.
You have a really good point at the end there.
I don't like the results any better than you do in the short/medium term. I'm just not sold a better answer exists in the real world.
Just use 1.6 MT warheads. It will resolve all issues quickly enough. By the way, you can stop ebola outbreak in the same way.
One 1.6 Megaton warhead will not eliminate ISIS. You need at least a hundreds of warheads.
And don't forget about psychological effect. It's easy to brainwash shocked and demoralized people to make them believe that explosions were performed by ISIS, using weapons made by Saddam Hussein. See what happens in japan, half of young population believes that their country was nuked by the Soviet Union.
Other problems will be the radiation and nuclear winter that will affect neighboring countries.
1) There were thousands of nuclear explosions done in the 20 century, and some of these explosions were very "dirty". Radioactive contamination is not a big problem in case of high altitude explosions. 2) This region is mainly presented by deserts. There is not enough forests or other combustible material to generate amount of ashes which would be sufficient for notable climate changes. ISIS 'Flames Of War' HOAX: The Road To WW3 - DON'T BE FOOLED!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULsW_pkPAe0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULsW_pkPAe0
So why this has to be a hoax? why this has to be funded by the gov? anyone could make that video. How is it so unbeliable? why everything has to be a conspiracy? it's the idea of crazy towelheads that want to push their delusional beliefs all over the world with violence too unbeliable? is the gov conspiracy theory more beliable? give me a break.
Give them a few decades to do their crap.
Just use 1.6 MT warheads. It will resolve all issues quickly enough. By the way, you can stop ebola outbreak in the same way.
One 1.6 Megaton warhead will not eliminate ISIS. You need at least a hundreds of warheads. Because ISIS members are distributed in many villages across 2 vast countries. Some moderate muslims will be frightened but many moderate will also become extremist. Other problems will be the radiation and nuclear winter that will affect neighboring countries.
Just use 1.6 MT warheads. It will resolve all issues quickly enough. By the way, you can stop ebola outbreak in the same way.
+1 BTC4Eva approves.
Yea if you really would like to do it without ground troops; helicopters (easy to defend against with right weapons), shitton of bombings (civilian casualties) and at 1.6MT warhead (again shitload of civilian casualties). But atleast you would've got the ISIS troops..
Just use 1.6 MT warheads. It will resolve all issues quickly enough. By the way, you can stop ebola outbreak in the same way.
It's impossible just with air strikes.
Either USA and NATO should send their soldiers on the ground to figt with ISIS or prepare and armed local people in Iraq and Syria to fight against ISIS.
Either USA and NATO should send their soldiers on the ground to figt with ISIS or prepare and armed local people in Iraq and Syria to fight against ISIS.
Use other countries ground troops in coalition.
Then like locust storms, repeat the same manoeuvre at all other none christian religious gatherings, even down at the ganges river where the religious bathing festival occurs, stuff like that. Should be able to shoot a few dozen million here and there ? It would lessen the none authorised religiousness going on in the world and send a message out, that you don't need either drones or jet power from the skies or troops on the ground, just flying Mohameds with machine guns.
A second wave of firepower could be in the form of 5 million really fit women in bathing suits toting rocket launchers, again with jetpacks, to go after ISIS directly, hiding in their odd small enclaves.
If I get what you're saying...essentially, it might not be a bad thing to let a bad thing fail, then I certainly understand where you're coming from even if I personally don't like the idea of letting something fail.A second wave of firepower could be in the form of 5 million really fit women in bathing suits toting rocket launchers, again with jetpacks, to go after ISIS directly, hiding in their odd small enclaves.
You have a really good point at the end there.
Then like locust storms, repeat the same manoeuvre at all other none christian religious gatherings, even down at the ganges river where the religious bathing festival occurs, stuff like that. Should be able to shoot a few dozen million here and there ? It would lessen the none authorised religiousness going on in the world and send a message out, that you don't need either drones or jet power from the skies or troops on the ground, just flying Mohameds with machine guns.
A second wave of firepower could be in the form of 5 million really fit women in bathing suits toting rocket launchers, again with jetpacks, to go after ISIS directly, hiding in their odd small enclaves.
A second wave of firepower could be in the form of 5 million really fit women in bathing suits toting rocket launchers, again with jetpacks, to go after ISIS directly, hiding in their odd small enclaves.
Invent time travel and kill the prophet Mohammed in his infancy.But in all seriousness, I'm amazed that people think we can win a war against radical Islam. It's a belief; you cannot win a war against something intangible.
What about getting 5 million troops trained up to fly jet packs and then send them to Mecca to the ramadan pilgrimage dressed up as Mohamed with the jetpacks disguised as backpacks, then finally when they get to the big shrine, get them to let loose with the jetpacks and fly over all the Meccan pilgrims with machine guns at full blaze, killing every last one of them.
Invent time travel and kill the prophet Mohammed in his infancy.But in all seriousness, I'm amazed that people think we can win a war against radical Islam. It's a belief; you cannot win a war against something intangible.
Why the fuck should we bleed for the country for a third time? If they aren't willing to settle their tribal BS and defeat an army that only started out with 10,000 why should we have to spearhead this alone?
The assyrians, romans, mongols actually proved that you can defeat violence with more violence indeed.
Sure, as long as you're fighting an enemy and not an ideology.
US troops on the ground in Iraq would be a disaster, you only need to look at the carnage from the previous invasion to see that. Americans aren't exactly flavor of the month amongst Iraqi society, certainly don't think there are many who would support a ground invasion.
Yes, because that is exactly what I was saying.
The assertion that you can't defeat violence with more violence must, of course, mean I am proposing we keep funding the violence.
/sarcasm
The assertion that you can't defeat violence with more violence must, of course, mean I am proposing we keep funding the violence.
/sarcasm
The assyrians, romans, mongols actually proved that you can defeat violence with more violence indeed. Just nowadays ppl do not have the stomach to get things done the same way. That's why "that approach" not working very well.
The only people able to stand against ISIS right now are the Kurds, and they are only succeeding because of U.S. Airstrikes. But the Kurds only defend their own territory. It is unlikely they will go further south to fight ISIS. Most of the rest of the Iraqi Army is turning and fleeing at the first sight of ISIS.
My question is: If airstrikes can only do so much against ISIS, how can we defeat ISIS in Iraq without U.S. Ground Troops if most of the Iraqi Army does not want to fight?
My question is: If airstrikes can only do so much against ISIS, how can we defeat ISIS in Iraq without U.S. Ground Troops if most of the Iraqi Army does not want to fight?
With other countries & groups troops. How Bosnian Serbs have been defeated? With US Ground Troops? No! They were defeated thanks to Croatian troops receiving aerial support, intelligence & training from US-NATO countries. The fight against IS would be a similar pattern with the US&Arab countries supporting Kurdish Peshmerga, Iraqi Army & maybe unofficially/secretly even Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
Same old stories running again..
Jump to: