How do we defeat ISIS without U.S. Ground Troops? - page 3.

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: spooderman on September 24, 2014, 06:26:29 AM

How do we defeat ISIS ~~without~~ with U.S. Ground Troops?

FTFY

You don't stop terrorism by killing loads of people (i.e committing acts of terror yourself). All that does is anger people and bring repercussions on yourself.

Fighting fire with fire leads to....guess what.....

A larger fire.

One way of stomping out a blaze is by eradicating its fuel.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: nidhish on September 25, 2014, 02:02:16 AM

I think if US stops funding these terrorists & stops supplying them weapons ..ISIS will break into pieces . Lips sealed

This is true. This is what would happen. However, the United States Government is here to break Americans, particularly American common law. That's why they will keep on funding ISIS.

ISIS is already here in America. Don't be alarmed. Rather, stand up and stand firm, and be watchful of your surroundings. The U.S. military, and even your local police can't help you against them. You need to arm yourself for your own protection.

nidhish

newbie

Activity: 13

Merit: 0

I think if US stops funding these terrorists & stops supplying them weapons ..ISIS will break into pieces . Lips sealed

Sindelar1938

hero member

Activity: 490

Merit: 500

Bring on robot armies supported by unmanned drones from the air
Logical course given the west's sensitivity to losing soldiers in overseas wars

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

I'm not necessarily opposed to it depending on what the intended result was. I'm not overly keen on installing puppet governments any more than incompetent ones. I think Maliki was intended to be a puppet, but ended up being incompetent. I think it's a critical error trying to install western style democracies in places that have no interest and no philosophical basis for the concept. I think the world is best off to leave people to fight their own battles, while offering support for groups that have rational, humanitarian objectives. By support, I mean trade support. I don't mean military support.

I also recognize the problem of others offering military support. But there aren't easy answers to that when the US changes foreign policy concepts every 4-8 years.

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: Mr.Bitty on September 24, 2014, 10:59:04 AM

Quote from: sana8410 on September 24, 2014, 10:53:58 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on September 23, 2014, 11:54:56 AM

Maliki initially refused to go because he knew, in the end, we would protect him no matter how much we disapproved of him. When that protection left and we made our return help conditional upon his stepping down, only then did he leave office. We saw this before with the Habre administration in Chad with France. Pretty similar situation. Sometimes having physical presences and guaranteeing the safety of the central government prevents the reform necessary for the country to evolve its political institutions or seek better governance / a compromise that will help promote peace and inclusiveness in the long run.

Sometimes, unfortunately, there is very little that one can constructively do when it comes to intervention in foreign domestic disputes.

This is the part I take issue with. I believe Obama let the situation deteriorate intentionally. I'm not necessarily opposed to him doing that, by the way.

Via inaction, poor action, or both?

I'm also curious what you mean by 'intentionally', but most of all I want know why you wouldn't be opposed to that.

Thanks in advance for answering my silly questions.

Inaction mostly. Possibly because he was trying to change the government there, but I can't say for sure. I say intentionally, because he always seems to have an agenda for what he does. So I give the benefit of the doubt.

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Motivation? There are too many possibilities. I doubt the intent was specifically what happened, but the long term probability is that something would overthrow the essentially unstable government that Bush created. I learned long ago not to try and assign motivations to people with much more inside information than I have.

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: noviapriani on September 24, 2014, 11:03:07 AM

Quote from: sana8410 on September 24, 2014, 10:53:58 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on September 23, 2014, 11:54:56 AM

Maliki initially refused to go because he knew, in the end, we would protect him no matter how much we disapproved of him. When that protection left and we made our return help conditional upon his stepping down, only then did he leave office. We saw this before with the Habre administration in Chad with France. Pretty similar situation. Sometimes having physical presences and guaranteeing the safety of the central government prevents the reform necessary for the country to evolve its political institutions or seek better governance / a compromise that will help promote peace and inclusiveness in the long run.

Sometimes, unfortunately, there is very little that one can constructively do when it comes to intervention in foreign domestic disputes.

This is the part I take issue with. I believe Obama let the situation deteriorate intentionally. I'm not necessarily opposed to him doing that, by the way.

What makes you believe that and what motivation would you see in that?

Because it seems pretty obvious that the results of not keeping a significant force in Iraq would eventually lead to collapse one way or the other. The only thing that is surprising is the speed, not the result. To tell Maliki that he would keep a couple thousand troops made it impossible to get the agreement required. It would have been suicide for him, so he made his bed with Iran.

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: sana8410 on September 24, 2014, 10:53:58 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on September 23, 2014, 11:54:56 AM

Maliki initially refused to go because he knew, in the end, we would protect him no matter how much we disapproved of him. When that protection left and we made our return help conditional upon his stepping down, only then did he leave office. We saw this before with the Habre administration in Chad with France. Pretty similar situation. Sometimes having physical presences and guaranteeing the safety of the central government prevents the reform necessary for the country to evolve its political institutions or seek better governance / a compromise that will help promote peace and inclusiveness in the long run.

Sometimes, unfortunately, there is very little that one can constructively do when it comes to intervention in foreign domestic disputes.

This is the part I take issue with. I believe Obama let the situation deteriorate intentionally. I'm not necessarily opposed to him doing that, by the way.

What makes you believe that and what motivation would you see in that?

Mr.Bitty

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: sana8410 on September 24, 2014, 10:53:58 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on September 23, 2014, 11:54:56 AM

Maliki initially refused to go because he knew, in the end, we would protect him no matter how much we disapproved of him. When that protection left and we made our return help conditional upon his stepping down, only then did he leave office. We saw this before with the Habre administration in Chad with France. Pretty similar situation. Sometimes having physical presences and guaranteeing the safety of the central government prevents the reform necessary for the country to evolve its political institutions or seek better governance / a compromise that will help promote peace and inclusiveness in the long run.

Sometimes, unfortunately, there is very little that one can constructively do when it comes to intervention in foreign domestic disputes.

This is the part I take issue with. I believe Obama let the situation deteriorate intentionally. I'm not necessarily opposed to him doing that, by the way.

Via inaction, poor action, or both?

I'm also curious what you mean by 'intentionally', but most of all I want know why you wouldn't be opposed to that.

Thanks in advance for answering my silly questions.

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: noviapriani on September 23, 2014, 11:54:56 AM

Maliki initially refused to go because he knew, in the end, we would protect him no matter how much we disapproved of him. When that protection left and we made our return help conditional upon his stepping down, only then did he leave office. We saw this before with the Habre administration in Chad with France. Pretty similar situation. Sometimes having physical presences and guaranteeing the safety of the central government prevents the reform necessary for the country to evolve its political institutions or seek better governance / a compromise that will help promote peace and inclusiveness in the long run.

Sometimes, unfortunately, there is very little that one can constructively do when it comes to intervention in foreign domestic disputes.

This is the part I take issue with. I believe Obama let the situation deteriorate intentionally. I'm not necessarily opposed to him doing that, by the way.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: cryptodevil on September 24, 2014, 09:09:44 AM

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

cryptodevil

legendary

Activity: 2240

Merit: 1254

Thread-puller extraordinaire

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

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: cryptodevil on September 24, 2014, 06:33:30 AM

Careful Spoods, it seems the general consensus is that any suggestion other than violence when faced with a violent dysfunctional people is to be dismissed with, you guessed it, hopes of more violence.

Quote from: Snail2 on September 23, 2014, 10:07:36 AM

hopefully they will cut off the heads of the "intellectually honest" left/lib/tree hugging losers.
By doing this they may save the western civilization.

Not one hint of recognition at the sickening absurdity of it. Not one.

What??? You want to keep on paying income taxes, so that we can keep on funding ISIS under the table? Huh

cryptodevil

legendary

Activity: 2240

Merit: 1254

Thread-puller extraordinaire

Careful Spoods, it seems the general consensus is that any suggestion other than violence when faced with a violent dysfunctional people is to be dismissed with, you guessed it, hopes of more violence.

Quote from: Snail2 on September 23, 2014, 10:07:36 AM

hopefully they will cut off the heads of the "intellectually honest" left/lib/tree hugging losers.
By doing this they may save the western civilization.

Not one hint of recognition at the sickening absurdity of it. Not one.

spooderman

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1029

How do we defeat ISIS ~~without~~ with U.S. Ground Troops?

FTFY

You don't stop terrorism by killing loads of people (i.e committing acts of terror yourself). All that does is anger people and bring repercussions on yourself.

Fighting fire with fire leads to....guess what.....

A larger fire.

Paya

sr. member

Activity: 334

Merit: 250

US can permanently defeat ISIS only with the help of well established local powers with strong leadership and effective armed forces. Like ex-Saddam's Iraq (wait, where did it go?), or current Assad's Syria. Trying to create yet another pathetic puppet regime such as those in Baghdad or Kabul, and chasing guerilla with cruise missiles and Raptors can only end up with more failures.

WhatTheGox

legendary

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Mr.Bitty on September 23, 2014, 09:13:51 AM

how can we defeat ISIS in Iraq without U.S. Ground Troops if most of the Iraqi Army does not want to fight?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_zMTykfK0Q

Tzupy

legendary

Activity: 2170

Merit: 1094

F-22 takes first shot at ISIS:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-22-s-takes-first-shot-against-ground-not-air-target

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: noviapriani on September 23, 2014, 11:28:21 AM

Quote from: Rigon on September 23, 2014, 11:23:15 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on September 23, 2014, 11:19:11 AM

Quote from: Rigon on September 23, 2014, 10:58:03 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on September 23, 2014, 10:46:00 AM

Quote from: Rigon on September 23, 2014, 10:31:17 AM

Quote from: Mr.Bitty on September 23, 2014, 09:13:51 AM

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?

US arm them. Maybe not intentionally, but it has everything to do with unintentional consequences of poorly executed foreign policy. As far as funding, there's no real doubt Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Syria, and many other countries have given them funding for all kinds of reasons.....so lets stop funding and arming them.

And what foreign policy would that be? Invading Iraq? I agree, that was pure idiocy.

We agree on this.
But the next incident of pure idiocy was leaving no troops behind to stop groups like ISIS, because that is the situation that Obama inherited. He just made a bad scenario much worse.

We lost Iraq long before Obama was in office. Banning the Baathists dismantling Iraq's army and civil service wasn't a very good start, ignoring the lessons learned from the Gulf War was another poor start. Iraq was pretty much doomed. We had a chance, but the Maliki administration destroyed it and would have even if we had stayed (and it is likely he would still be in power if we had stayed which might have made long run change even worse off).

I can't say I agree with that conclusion, but it's easy to blame Bush.

It's easy to blame Bush simply because the Bush Administration messed it up so badly (let's not forget that it was the invasion of Iraq that allowed AQI, the predecessor of ISIS, to be heavily established in the first place). The conclusion, is based both on internal sentiment expressed by Petraeus, current stated reasons for Sunni Tribal and militia support for the ISIS movement which said movement depends on, and on general lessons from history from other countries in similar situations.

None of the more recent administrations messed anything up. Just because we can't see what their bosses, the Power Elite, are ordering them to do.

Huh

Topic: How do we defeat ISIS without U.S. Ground Troops? - page 3. (Read 3216 times)