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.
Topic: How do we defeat ISIS without U.S. Ground Troops? - page 4. (Read 3216 times)
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.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?
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.
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.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?
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.
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.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?
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.
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.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?
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.
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.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?
Stop paying income taxes in the U.S.
Actually, no! Uncle Sap is words on paper. It might be people knocking at my door. And if any of them happen to be Uncle Sap, then I would have to ask him how I have personally harmed him or damaged his property. Otherwise, get off my property.
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.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?
Stop paying income taxes in the U.S.
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.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?
I would wipe them out of this world before I find them (or their followers) in my own backyard.
Sure, that approach has certainly worked well so far. I'm certain if only you had more bullets, or more bombs, or more broken bodies of your enemy laying around, it would bring rapid victory. Or victory, anyway.
Cos they're, like, totally not thinking the same thing.
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.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?
Stop paying income taxes in the U.S.
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. 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?
Listen mate, those guys are a mix of fanatics and retards led by a bunch of intelligent sociopaths and/or psychopaths
You don't get to tell people their intellectually dishonest delusions are wrong while your intellectually dishonest delusions are right.
Theism requires a persistent state of intellectual dishonesty and the more we attempt to tell people that their delusional conditioning isn't acceptable but other people's delusional conditioning is, the more they will ignore all you try and do to stop their madness.
How do you otherwise propose we defeat a people who think dying is a good way to impress their god?
The sooner we as a species recognise the insanity and dishonesty of theism, all theism, the sooner we'll be able to replace indoctrination with education.
I wouldn't tell them any honest or dishonest thing. I would wipe them out of this world before I find them (or their followers) in my own backyard.
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
Listen mate, those guys are a mix of fanatics and retards led by a bunch of intelligent sociopaths and/or psychopaths
You don't get to tell people their intellectually dishonest delusions are wrong while your intellectually dishonest delusions are right.
Theism requires a persistent state of intellectual dishonesty and the more we attempt to tell people that their delusional conditioning isn't acceptable but other people's delusional conditioning is, the more they will ignore all you try and do to stop their madness.
How do you otherwise propose we defeat a people who think dying is a good way to impress their god?
The sooner we as a species recognise the insanity and dishonesty of theism, all theism, the sooner we'll be able to replace indoctrination with education.
The question posed in the topic title is, "How do we defeat ISIS without U.S. Ground Troops?".
Do you want to know the *real* simple answer to that?
.
You're not going to like it.
.
It requires no bullets, bombs or broken bodies.
.
Still want to know?
.
Ready?
.
The answer to the question, "How do we defeat ISIS without U.S. Ground Troops?" is,
.
With intellectual honesty.
Do you want to know the *real* simple answer to that?
.
You're not going to like it.
.
It requires no bullets, bombs or broken bodies.
.
Still want to know?
.
Ready?
.
The answer to the question, "How do we defeat ISIS without U.S. Ground Troops?" is,
.
With intellectual honesty.
Do you want to know what the IS guys will do with your "intellectual honesty"?
".
You're not going to like it.
.
Still want to know?
.
Ready?"
They will wipe their ass with it, then 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.
Listen mate, those guys are a mix of fanatics and retards led by a bunch of intelligent sociopaths and/or psychopaths, but not some sort of "noble savages". They are in the middle of a conquest they have the momentum, so they will push forward as long as they can. That's their only chance.
The question posed in the topic title is, "How do we defeat ISIS without U.S. Ground Troops?".
Do you want to know the *real* simple answer to that?
.
.
.
.
.
You're not going to like it.
.
.
.
.
.
It requires no bullets, bombs or broken bodies.
.
.
.
.
.
Still want to know?
.
.
.
.
.
Ready?
.
.
.
.
.
The answer to the question, "How do we defeat ISIS without U.S. Ground Troops?" is,
.
.
.
.
.
With intellectual honesty.
Do you want to know the *real* simple answer to that?
.
.
.
.
.
You're not going to like it.
.
.
.
.
.
It requires no bullets, bombs or broken bodies.
.
.
.
.
.
Still want to know?
.
.
.
.
.
Ready?
.
.
.
.
.
The answer to the question, "How do we defeat ISIS without U.S. Ground Troops?" is,
.
.
.
.
.
With intellectual honesty.
We used ground troops already vs al qaeda it doesnt solve the problem.
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?
Jump to: