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

newflesh

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

Quote from: tibor on October 03, 2014, 03:47:10 PM

Quote from: newflesh on October 03, 2014, 04:11:31 AM

Quote from: My Name Was Taken on October 02, 2014, 06:45:11 PM

The problem with fighting anyone in the Middle East generally:

How to fight them? We should instead be asking how not to create them instead.

Same applies to all the drone attacks that Obama's sanctioned since he took office. There was a case study in the ME where a village was fairly neutral towards the US until a drone strike killed a group of civilians and the entire region became insanely anti-US. Dropping bombs now just creates more enemies in the future.

We don't need case study to understand this things. All we need is common sense.

For example if one country bomb your city and one of your love ones died. What would you do? Smile and shake hands with the killers?

Exactly, problem is that nobody in government (especially in the military) has any common sense, the only way people get to that level of power is by being a ruthless psychopath. One major problem is that war has become a collosal money making industry. You've got the military industrial complex making $billions on hardware and then there's the bottom feeding oil corporations sniffing around for more resources to plunder.

My Name Was Taken

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Countries always get pissed when another country tries to meddle with their internal affairs. Look how it turned out for the Germans before the US entered WWI when they sent a secret telegram to Mexico offering Mexico parts of Texas and other areas of the Southwest if Mexico declared war on the US to keep us too busy to fight the Germans. (Google the Zimmerman telegram if you don't know what I'm talking about.) You'd think we'd learn from history, but it seems we never do!

tibor

full member

Activity: 518

Merit: 101

Quote from: newflesh on October 03, 2014, 04:11:31 AM

Quote from: My Name Was Taken on October 02, 2014, 06:45:11 PM

The problem with fighting anyone in the Middle East generally:

How to fight them? We should instead be asking how not to create them instead.

Same applies to all the drone attacks that Obama's sanctioned since he took office. There was a case study in the ME where a village was fairly neutral towards the US until a drone strike killed a group of civilians and the entire region became insanely anti-US. Dropping bombs now just creates more enemies in the future.

We don't need case study to understand this things. All we need is common sense.

For example if one country bomb your city and one of your love ones died. What would you do? Smile and shake hands with the killers?

My Name Was Taken

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: Lethn on October 03, 2014, 04:14:44 AM

The problem is we're having to state the obvious to a bunch of violent psychopaths who think dropping bombs is the only solution, simple answer is we need to talk about how to fight these guys instead.

The point I was making is trying to fight them creates more of them. They are radicalized by our intervention. Our current problem was caused by our interventions to solve previous 'current problems,' which arose because of our interventions in trying to solve the 'current problems' before that. This is a predictable never-ending cycle. The solution it seems to me, is to break the cycle, not perpetuate it.

I suppose in a way, our biggest problem is that war is profitable, and very rich and powerful entities have influence in Washington. If war wasn't profitable, you wouldn't see us engaging in so much of it. But the uncomfortable truth about the American middle class is that a chunk of it is made possible by the high tech arms and defense industry, which employs many people and whose functions support many other not-necessarily arms-related businesses that employ many more people.

Lethn

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1000

The problem is we're having to state the obvious to a bunch of violent psychopaths who think dropping bombs is the only solution, simple answer is we need to talk about how to fight these guys instead.

newflesh

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

Quote from: My Name Was Taken on October 02, 2014, 06:45:11 PM

The problem with fighting anyone in the Middle East generally:

How to fight them? We should instead be asking how not to create them instead.

Same applies to all the drone attacks that Obama's sanctioned since he took office. There was a case study in the ME where a village was fairly neutral towards the US until a drone strike killed a group of civilians and the entire region became insanely anti-US. Dropping bombs now just creates more enemies in the future.

samaricanin

hero member

Activity: 697

Merit: 500

Quote

and stop backing Saudi Arabia and others in the region

Not only Saudi Arabia, Israel is key

Gronthaing

legendary

Activity: 1135

Merit: 1001

Quote from: My Name Was Taken on October 02, 2014, 06:45:11 PM

The problem with fighting anyone in the Middle East generally:

How to fight them? We should instead be asking how not to create them instead.

That's not just in the middle east. Anywhere you start killing innocent people that might be near someone you don't like, you're going to create a lot of pissed off people.

In order to stop this, you probably have to stop arming every crazy extremist group out there just because they will do what the west wants them to (until they turn on us), and stop backing Saudi Arabia and others in the region, that love these types of groups.

My Name Was Taken

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

The problem with fighting anyone in the Middle East generally:

How to fight them? We should instead be asking how not to create them instead.

PeanutCoins

full member

Activity: 141

Merit: 100

What about boots underground ?

Say ye tunnelled under ISIS with big boring machines allowing tens of thousands of troops to pop up at any point anywhere (say Baghdad) in no time at all.

Of course it might take 10 or 20 years to bore some decent holes ?

May as well plan for the future.

izanagi narukami

legendary

Activity: 2030

Merit: 1028

ISIS but be fight together.
We must protect from ourself then our family.

If our people still believing ISIS
that will lead more ISIS fighter (just like this analogy : die one thousand will grow )

Mr.Bitty

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

The path is to have Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt and others who have a much bigger stake in that region to take up the fight against ISIS with us giving them air support.

Yeah, like that's going to happen.

Rigon

sr. member

Activity: 994

Merit: 441

Quote from: umair127 on September 28, 2014, 12:51:22 PM

Quote from: zolace on September 27, 2014, 10:37:39 AM

Quote from: umair127 on September 27, 2014, 10:25:11 AM

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.

You have a really good point at the end there.

Basically, yes that's what I'm saying. As an example, slavery was a "bad thing", and it was doomed to fail at some point. Now a proper solution would have been to find a way to end it peacefully, and a worse way was to end it by civil war, but if you're dealing with a collapsed society with shifting alliances such as the middle east as a whole, sometimes the best answer is to watch from a distance.

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.

We can't really watch from a distance. We are worried that ISIS will produce another 9/11-style attack. That is why we are so much more involved in the Middle East than before.

samaricanin

hero member

Activity: 697

Merit: 500

Quote

Because the USA have the biggest Ground Troops army.., simple

Russia and China have stronger ground forces

http://www.globalfirepower.com

Lady_Cake

newbie

Activity: 27

Merit: 0

I think without the U.S. Ground Troops is impossible defeat ISIS.
Why? Because the USA have the biggest Ground Troops army.., simple

Barnikle

newbie

Activity: 37

Merit: 0

We can offer to bomb mecca.
We can reveal the truth that the Muslim quran teaches that infidels are to be converted or put to the sword.
Therefore Muslims are no different then Nazi's.
Muslims that are NOT cutting peoples heads off are not truly following Muslim Law
and are no different than Mormons who practice safe sex, drink, or smoke.

Yes I am saying that Muslims and Mormons are silly fools, only normal when they do NOT follow their faith to a T.

ISIS is what happens when Muslims start following ALL the teachings of the quran.
Freedom of religion and political correctness will make this post taboo.

You cannot stop ISIS when we cannot be free to say "the Quran teaches terrorism to convert"
Hey even the Bible threatens that you will burn in hell and be in pain and suffering FOREVER unless you are a slave servant of "God".
But most Bible followers are super laid back so it is easy to tolerate them, as they are not crusading currently.

Muslims are crusading.
Cant stop ISIS when people don't know how to identify them as Nazi Muslims, or confuse them as "Ice-L"
I am just glad they are in the desert.
Too bad they killed Sadam, he wouldn't have let that shit happen.

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: Zanywing on September 29, 2014, 07:01:12 PM

I believe that the US should put boots on the ground, because airstrikes simply won't take care of the problem.

So long as this matter is "the problem," there shall prove no panacea about it.

Zanywing

newbie

Activity: 3

Merit: 0

I believe that the US should put boots on the ground, because airstrikes simply won't take care of the problem.

BRE

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1014

Lucky.lat | Marketing Solutions & Implementations

USA will not use ground troops again on this , they learn from before.
its hard to war on city that ISIS fighter can hide behind civillian.
war will be the same like before , IED and suicide bomber.

let drones attack them all and after they weak , support local soldier / Iraq and Syria soldiers to finish them .

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: orsotheysaid on September 28, 2014, 10:41:15 AM

Quote from: samaricanin on September 23, 2014, 11:20:03 AM

ISIS 'Flames Of War' HOAX: The Road To WW3 - DON'T BE FOOLED!

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.

Were they as "crazy" as you claim, they would not be able to organize as it is said they have, for they would retreat from even each other into their own selves for that unrighteousness they hold universal among all others.

Nemo1024

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1014

A Syrian Perspective information source:
http://www.syrianperspective.com/2014/09/u-s-coordinating-with-syria-on-air-strikes-maybe.html

nothing2seeHere

member

Activity: 110

Merit: 10

Quote from: Balthazar on September 28, 2014, 08:47:50 AM

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)

umair127

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: zolace on September 27, 2014, 10:37:39 AM

Quote from: umair127 on September 27, 2014, 10:25:11 AM

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.

You have a really good point at the end there.

Basically, yes that's what I'm saying. As an example, slavery was a "bad thing", and it was doomed to fail at some point. Now a proper solution would have been to find a way to end it peacefully, and a worse way was to end it by civil war, but if you're dealing with a collapsed society with shifting alliances such as the middle east as a whole, sometimes the best answer is to watch from a distance.

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.

Balthazar

legendary

Activity: 3108

Merit: 1359

Quote from: QuantumLeap on September 28, 2014, 10:14:14 AM

Quote from: Balthazar on September 28, 2014, 08:47:50 AM

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.

Quote from: QuantumLeap on September 28, 2014, 10:14:14 AM

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.

orsotheysaid

full member

Activity: 153

Merit: 100

Quote from: samaricanin on September 23, 2014, 11:20:03 AM

ISIS 'Flames Of War' HOAX: The Road To WW3 - DON'T BE FOOLED!

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.

Ekaros

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Give them a few decades to do their crap.

QuantumLeap

full member

Activity: 136

Merit: 100

Quote from: Balthazar on September 28, 2014, 08:47:50 AM

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.

bitcoin4eva

sr. member

Activity: 328

Merit: 250

Quote from: Balthazar on September 28, 2014, 08:47:50 AM

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..

Balthazar

legendary

Activity: 3108

Merit: 1359

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.

Daniel91

legendary

Activity: 3374

Merit: 1824

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.

btcrising

newbie

Activity: 122

Merit: 0

Use other countries ground troops in coalition.

zolace

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: umair127 on September 27, 2014, 10:25:11 AM

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.

You have a really good point at the end there.

umair127

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

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.

umair127

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: zolace on September 27, 2014, 09:43:33 AM

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.

zolace

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

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.

PeanutCoins

full member

Activity: 141

Merit: 100

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?

cryptodevil

legendary

Activity: 2240

Merit: 1254

Thread-puller extraordinaire

Quote from: Snail2 on September 25, 2014, 08:09:18 AM

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.

newflesh

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

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.

Snail2

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cryptodevil on September 24, 2014, 10:09:44 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

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.

Grand_Voyageur

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

https://dadice.com | Click my signature to join!

Quote from: Mr.Bitty on September 23, 2014, 10:13:51 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?

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..

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: spooderman on September 24, 2014, 07:26:29 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: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: nidhish on September 25, 2014, 03:02:16 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, 11:59:04 AM

Quote from: sana8410 on September 24, 2014, 11:53:58 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on September 23, 2014, 12:54:56 PM

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, 12:03:07 PM

Quote from: sana8410 on September 24, 2014, 11:53:58 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on September 23, 2014, 12:54:56 PM

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, 11:53:58 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on September 23, 2014, 12:54:56 PM

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, 11:53:58 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on September 23, 2014, 12:54:56 PM

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, 12:54:56 PM

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: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: cryptodevil on September 24, 2014, 10:09:44 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: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: cryptodevil on September 24, 2014, 07:33:30 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, 11:07:36 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, 11:07:36 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, 10:13:51 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: 2156

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: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: noviapriani on September 23, 2014, 12:28:21 PM

Quote from: Rigon on September 23, 2014, 12:23:15 PM

Quote from: noviapriani on September 23, 2014, 12:19:11 PM

Quote from: Rigon on September 23, 2014, 11:58:03 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on September 23, 2014, 11:46:00 AM

Quote from: Rigon on September 23, 2014, 11:31:17 AM

Quote from: Mr.Bitty on September 23, 2014, 10:13:51 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

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

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.

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: Rigon on September 23, 2014, 12:23:15 PM

Quote from: noviapriani on September 23, 2014, 12:19:11 PM

Quote from: Rigon on September 23, 2014, 11:58:03 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on September 23, 2014, 11:46:00 AM

Quote from: Rigon on September 23, 2014, 11:31:17 AM

Quote from: Mr.Bitty on September 23, 2014, 10:13:51 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.

Rigon

sr. member

Activity: 994

Merit: 441

Quote from: noviapriani on September 23, 2014, 12:19:11 PM

Quote from: Rigon on September 23, 2014, 11:58:03 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on September 23, 2014, 11:46:00 AM

Quote from: Rigon on September 23, 2014, 11:31:17 AM

Quote from: Mr.Bitty on September 23, 2014, 10:13:51 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.

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: Rigon on September 23, 2014, 11:58:03 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on September 23, 2014, 11:46:00 AM

Quote from: Rigon on September 23, 2014, 11:31:17 AM

Quote from: Mr.Bitty on September 23, 2014, 10:13:51 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).

Rigon

sr. member

Activity: 994

Merit: 441

Quote from: noviapriani on September 23, 2014, 11:46:00 AM

Quote from: Rigon on September 23, 2014, 11:31:17 AM

Quote from: Mr.Bitty on September 23, 2014, 10:13:51 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.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: Rigon on September 23, 2014, 11:47:59 AM

Quote from: BADecker on September 23, 2014, 11:42:20 AM

Quote from: Rigon on September 23, 2014, 11:31:17 AM

Quote from: Mr.Bitty on September 23, 2014, 10:13:51 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.

Stop paying income taxes in the U.S.

If we do that then you will find uncle sam knoking at your door.

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.

Rigon

sr. member

Activity: 994

Merit: 441

Quote from: BADecker on September 23, 2014, 11:42:20 AM

Quote from: Rigon on September 23, 2014, 11:31:17 AM

Quote from: Mr.Bitty on September 23, 2014, 10:13:51 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.

Stop paying income taxes in the U.S.

If we do that then you will find uncle sam knoking at your door.

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: Rigon on September 23, 2014, 11:31:17 AM

Quote from: Mr.Bitty on September 23, 2014, 10:13:51 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.

cryptodevil

legendary

Activity: 2240

Merit: 1254

Thread-puller extraordinaire

Quote from: Snail2 on September 23, 2014, 11:25:50 AM

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.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: Rigon on September 23, 2014, 11:31:17 AM

Quote from: Mr.Bitty on September 23, 2014, 10:13:51 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.

Stop paying income taxes in the U.S.

Rigon

sr. member

Activity: 994

Merit: 441

Quote from: Mr.Bitty on September 23, 2014, 10:13:51 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.

Snail2

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cryptodevil on September 23, 2014, 11:16:55 AM

Quote from: Snail2 on September 23, 2014, 11:07:36 AM

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.

samaricanin

hero member

Activity: 697

Merit: 500

ISIS 'Flames Of War' HOAX: The Road To WW3 - DON'T BE FOOLED!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULsW_pkPAe0

cryptodevil

legendary

Activity: 2240

Merit: 1254

Thread-puller extraordinaire

Quote from: Snail2 on September 23, 2014, 11:07:36 AM

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.

Snail2

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cryptodevil on September 23, 2014, 10:41:13 AM

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 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.

cryptodevil

legendary

Activity: 2240

Merit: 1254

Thread-puller extraordinaire

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.

WhatTheGox

legendary

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

We used ground troops already vs al qaeda it doesnt solve the problem.

Mr.Bitty

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

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?

Topic: How do we defeat ISIS without U.S. Ground Troops? (Read 3184 times)