Obliterating Islamic State (ISIS)

We need SA and its repressive domestic policy:without SA, the whole of the ME would be in chaos .

And those who are complaining about the role of SA concerning ISIS should consider this : the whole point of no return started when Obama (always him) was giving Iran carte blanche to dominate the ME ,Iran used this to send forces to Iraq and Syria to meddle in the fighting,NOT to defeat ISIS: because why is ISIS not defeated ? reason : as long as ISIS is fighting, Iran has a reason to be in Syria and Iraq .Iran needs ISIS. And the presence of Iran in that region triggered the answer of SA =to support ISIS against Iran .

The main responsible for this mess is,as usual, Obama .

He created chaos in Libya by intervening in the civil war, he tried to do the same in Egypt but failed, he is responsible for ISIS by intriguing against Assad .

The man is a total disaster and Europe is the victim of his policy .
 
lljadw said:
We need SA and its repressive domestic policy:without SA, the whole of the ME would be in chaos .

And those who are complaining about the role of SA concerning ISIS should consider this : the whole point of no return started when Obama (always him) was giving Iran carte blanche to dominate the ME ,Iran used this to send forces to Iraq and Syria to meddle in the fighting,NOT to defeat ISIS: because why is ISIS not defeated ? reason : as long as ISIS is fighting, Iran has a reason to be in Syria and Iraq .Iran needs ISIS. And the presence of Iran in that region triggered the answer of SA =to support ISIS against Iran .

The main responsible for this mess is,as usual, Obama .

He created chaos in Libya by intervening in the civil war, he tried to do the same in Egypt but failed, he is responsible for ISIS by intriguing against Assad .

The man is a total disaster and Europe is the victim of his policy .
Click to expand...

Please, Obama did not create this situation. This all started when Idiot American Neoconservatives opened Pandora's box and decided to play kingmaker in Iraq. Everyone knew that by removing Saddam the Sunnis and Shiites would go at it, they have hated each other for 900 years it was folly to think "democracy" was going to change that.

The US Role in Libya was minimal, France and the UK played a much greater part, and Libya is still a very long ways away from Syria and Iraq.

Obama was just handed the bill for someone else's stupidity, a situation with no easy fix. Starting wars is very easy, the challenge is stopping them.

And what would you do? Invade? With the last US expedition into Iraq still a very fresh memory its not surprising you are not finding many volunteers. The French certainly remembers the war in Algeria and the British in Palestine. Look what happened with Putin, The Russians tried to get involved and 10 days later one of their airliners was blown out of the sky as a result.

Nor is this the first time Europe has had to deal with Islamic Fundamentalists. France has been fighting them since the 1950's in northern and Central Africa. My own father in law fought them in Lebanon during the 1980's when he was in the French Paras.

This is simply a new chapter in a very long book.

I am mixed on Obama overall, but it simply not accurate to blame him for this.
 
Getting rid of terrorism, ISIS are terrorists in my opinion, is virtually impossible. Britain has never beaten the IRA and its still going on today, despite what the media tells you. The hatred runs so deep in Northern Ireland, I can foresee problems there in 100 years time. The same with ISIS. Things might quieten down for a while, but as sure as God made little green apples its all going to blow up again.
 
BritinAfrica said:
Getting rid of terrorism, ISIS are terrorists in my opinion, is virtually impossible. Britain has never beaten the IRA and its still going on today, despite what the media tells you. The hatred runs so deep in Northern Ireland, I can foresee problems there in 100 years time. The same with ISIS. Things might quieten down for a while, but as sure as God made little green apples its all going to blow up again.
Click to expand...

I agree, what I don't understand is why the West is so Gung-ho to get rid of Assad.

Its exactly like Saddam, Assad is a butcher and a tyrant, no question about that, but he's not an irrational religious nutcase ******s like Daesh is. Assad wants to stay in power and he's not going to deliberate cheese off NATO by shooting up a Paris music club.

If Assad is really so bad, why not have one of his advisers arrange a "tragic accident" establish a few ground rules with him and Russia and let him carry on.
 
mmarsh said:
I agree, what I don't understand is why the West is so Gung-ho to get rid of Assad.

Its exactly like Saddam, Assad is a butcher and a tyrant, no question about that, but he's not an irrational religious nutcase ******s like Daesh is. Assad wants to stay in power and he's not going to deliberate cheese off NATO by shooting up a Paris music club.

If Assad is really so bad, why not have one of his advisers arrange a "tragic accident" establish a few ground rules with him and Russia and let him carry on.
Click to expand...

My opinion is; the West would support Assad, he is the one that can create stability in Syria. The West supports multiple different groups that can never create a stable government in Syria. When ISIS is gone, I don't want to see another power vacuum and we might end up with something even worse than ISIS. Assad can be dealt with later and he deserves to be punished for what he did and still does.
 
Last edited:
BritinAfrica said:
Getting rid of terrorism, ISIS are terrorists in my opinion, is virtually impossible. Britain has never beaten the IRA and its still going on today, despite what the media tells you. The hatred runs so deep in Northern Ireland, I can foresee problems there in 100 years time. The same with ISIS. Things might quieten down for a while, but as sure as God made little green apples its all going to blow up again.
Click to expand...

No Brit but they can be beaten back. I for one think that there is merit in airstrikes as it takes out their heavy equipment and can eliminate pockets of fighters when grouped together. The US is using only very limited airstrikes from carrier based planes based way out in the Persian Gulf. This could be stepped up with improved results as it did with the NVA. Bottom line the fewer terrorist and the lesser their capabilities the better. However the west cannot solve this issue just reduce ISIS.

mmarsh said:
I agree, what I don't understand is why the West is so Gung-ho to get rid of Assad.

Its exactly like Saddam, Assad is a butcher and a tyrant, no question about that, but he's not an irrational religious nutcase ******s like Daesh is. Assad wants to stay in power and he's not going to deliberate cheese off NATO by shooting up a Paris music club.

If Assad is really so bad, why not have one of his advisers arrange a "tragic accident" establish a few ground rules with him and Russia and let him carry on.
Click to expand...

The Assad thing is completely political. The Assad dynasty has been an enemy of the US for decades, long before ISIS. Even though he is by far the lesser of the 2 evils when compared to ISIS, Washington has long had their sights on him. Ideally we want the rebels to win unfortunately they are not faring so well.
The whole thing is a bloody mess: With Iran poking their nose in just dying to be the great regional power. Assad trying to hold on to the remain of his dictatorship, the Kurds trying to establish a nation of their own, the relatively ineffective Iraqi military still fighting, the relatively ineffective Syrian rebels still fighting, The murderous terrorists ISIS ready to kill anyone, SA and Jordan caught in the middle. Only in the ME could such a conundrum develop. The solution and strategy is up to greater military minds than mine.
 
JOC said:
No Brit but they can be beaten back. I for one think that there is merit in airstrikes as it takes out their heavy equipment and can eliminate pockets of fighters when grouped together. The US is using only very limited airstrikes from carrier based planes based way out in the Persian Gulf. This could be stepped up with improved results as it did with the NVA. Bottom line the fewer terrorist and the lesser their capabilities the better. However the west cannot solve this issue just reduce ISIS.
Click to expand...

I disagree JOC, because bombing ISIS in the past five years or so didn't degrade them, rather it exacerbate the situation, in my opinion; so is this reporter:

Bombing terrorists feeds their ideology
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/18/opinions/kohn-paris-attacks/

If we think it's irrational, immoral or plainly reckless for ordinary Arab citizens to respond to violence with violence, then we should stop doing so ourselves.

I'm not saying the scope and severity of the violence from the two sides are the same. And I'm not drawing a moral equivalency between the actions of one side versus the other. Instead, I think it's futile to respond to terrorist violence with more violence in a way that creates more terrorists.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Tuan said:
I disagree JOC, because bombing ISIS in the past five years or so didn't degrade them, rather it exacerbate the situation, in my opinion; so is this reporter:

Bombing terrorists feeds their ideology
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/18/opinions/kohn-paris-attacks/
Click to expand...

Yeah, but in this case they have made so many enemies in the muslim world they have a popularity of stomach flu.

I think everyone is agreed that the world needs to be rid of Daesh its just everyone wants someone else to actually do the work.
 
Tuan said:
I disagree JOC, because bombing ISIS in the past five years or so didn't degrade them, rather it exacerbate the situation, in my opinion; so is this reporter:

Bombing terrorists feeds their ideology
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/18/opinions/kohn-paris-attacks/
Click to expand...

I personally believe this is a bit idealistic. But that's me. Doing nothing at all will encourage them, no deterrent. Every dead terrorists is one less murdering bugger in my opinion. This will be viewed as a weakness.

I do not however support our getting bogged down in a ground war. This would best be fought by non radical area powers. However prime candidates such as Egypt or Turkey are likely to stay out of the ground war unfortunately since they could easily defeat ISIS.
 
mmarsh said:
Please, Obama did not create this situation. This all started when Idiot American Neoconservatives opened Pandora's box and decided to play kingmaker in Iraq. Everyone knew that by removing Saddam the Sunnis and Shiites would go at it, they have hated each other for 900 years it was folly to think "democracy" was going to change that.

The US Role in Libya was minimal, France and the UK played a much greater part, and Libya is still a very long ways away from Syria and Iraq.

Obama was just handed the bill for someone else's stupidity, a situation with no easy fix. Starting wars is very easy, the challenge is stopping them.

And what would you do? Invade? With the last US expedition into Iraq still a very fresh memory its not surprising you are not finding many volunteers. The French certainly remembers the war in Algeria and the British in Palestine. Look what happened with Putin, The Russians tried to get involved and 10 days later one of their airliners was blown out of the sky as a result.

Nor is this the first time Europe has had to deal with Islamic Fundamentalists. France has been fighting them since the 1950's in northern and Central Africa. My own father in law fought them in Lebanon during the 1980's when he was in the French Paras.

This is simply a new chapter in a very long book.

I am mixed on Obama overall, but it simply not accurate to blame him for this.
Click to expand...

No :you don't get it .

For Iran ,ISIS is a tool to dominate the ME :the longer the war with ISIS, thebetter for Iran : it can increase its power in Iraq and Syria. If tomorrow ISIS would collaps, Iranian forces would have no excuse to remain in Iraq and Syria .That's why Iran wil not fight against ISIS .

For SA, ISIS is an obstacle to a Iranian domination of the ME .

For Syria and Europe , ISIS is a mortal danger

As the US are following Iran inconditionally, it is obvious that they have no interest to eliminate ISIS, but Assad must disappear,because he is an obstacle to the Iranian domination .If Syria falls, SA in encircled and doomed .That this will result in a nuclear war in the ME with millions of victims is no problem for the would-be macchiavelli in Washington DC .

Never heard of the 10 Liberal commandments ?

1) Thou shall never question Obama

2) Europe must become as the US

3) Putin is bad

4) Assad is bad

5)Netanyahu is bad

6) Iran is good

7) US must become as the ME .

8)Everyone who disagrees is a fascist .

9) The constitution does not apply to the opponents of Liberalism .

10) Germany must become a second Libanon .
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
My opinion is; the West would support Assad, he is the one that can create stability in Syria. The West supports multiple different groups that can never create a stable government in Syria. When ISIS is gone, I don't want to see another power vacuum and we might end up with something even worse than ISIS. Assad can be dealt with later and he deserves to be punished for what he did and still does.
Click to expand...

Assad does not deserve to be punished : what he did and is doing is the problem of the Syrians . We have no right to judge Assad : judging Assad is neo-colonialism .
 
It was not the fault of the neo-conservatives : it was the fault of those in the US who always guided by an arrogant provincialism,try to impose democracy made in the US on the world : the Liberals (and there are a lot of them in the GOP) .

The solution was very simple after the fall of Saddam :

1)Kill him: NO TRIAL

2) replace him by another one:general Mohammed

3) summon the Kurds and tell them : you can have autonomy but not independence : if you move, we will release chemical ali.

4) get out as the devil from Iraq .

5) if something as ISIS appears,release chemical ali and close your eyes .
 
JOC said:
I personally believe this is a bit idealistic. But that's me. Doing nothing at all will encourage them, no deterrent. Every dead terrorists is one less murdering bugger in my opinion. This will be viewed as a weakness.

I do not however support our getting bogged down in a ground war. This would best be fought by non radical area powers. However prime candidates such as Egypt or Turkey are likely to stay out of the ground war unfortunately since they could easily defeat ISIS.
Click to expand...

I am not saying we do nothing, but not just keep bombing and bombing and bombing; it isn't necessary. Of course, when we have a real-time intelligence about a high value target we can act on it but just keep bombing like what Russia and France are doing right now, will not work.:confused:

Instead, we have to study, collect, analyse and identify on which the terrorist's survival depends on: the Lifeline of ISIS; such as weapons and munitions supply, local and foreign recruitment base, communication, propaganda, and publicity avenues, food and water supply, oil and power resources, financial, trade, transport and banking resources., etc..

What western intelligence need to do is collect, analyse, assess and disseminate real-time tactical intelligence. I feel that the international intelligence agencies have a bigger role to play, than just being the eyes and ears of any nation, with feet of clay, when faced with an enemy of many different faces. Recommendations for an appropriate "tradecraft" to achieve such a role are the need of the day!

It is easier said than done!
 
Last edited:
Tuan said:
I am not saying we do nothing, but not just keep bombing and bombing and bombing; it isn't necessary. Of course, when we have a real-time intelligence about a high value target we can act on it but just keep bombing like what Russia and France are doing right now, will not work.:confused:

Instead, we have to study, collect, analyse and identify on which the terrorist's survival depends on: the Lifeline of ISIS; such as weapons and munitions supply, local and foreign recruitment base, communication, propaganda, and publicity avenues, food and water supply, oil and power resources, financial, trade, transport and banking resources., etc..

What western intelligence need to do is collect, analyse, assess and disseminate real-time tactical intelligence. I feel that the international intelligence agencies have a bigger role to play, than just being the eyes and ears of any nation, with feet of clay, when faced with an enemy of many different faces. Recommendations for an appropriate "tradecraft" to achieve such a role are the need of the day!

It is easier said than done!
Click to expand...

I agree with the air campaign will probably not work. The air forces can create a mess on the ground, but there is a need for ground forces to control the ground, but who gonna do it? Any volunteers? Yes, hitting their infrastructure will reduce their fighting capabilities, but ISIS will probably "disappear" if and when they realize they are defeated. They will blend in with the civilian communities and everything is back to square one.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
I agree with the air campaign will probably not work. The air forces can create a mess on the ground, but there is a need for ground forces to control the ground, but who gonna do it? Any volunteers? Yes, hitting their infrastructure will reduce their fighting capabilities, but ISIS will probably "disappear" if and when they realize they are defeated. They will blend in with the civilian communities and everything is back to square one.
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that Obama won't commit US ground troops, I have no idea if David Cameron would. However, ISIS might blend into the background for a while, then as sure as God made little green apples, it will all kick off again. Terrorism cannot be defeated 100%
 
BritinAfrica said:
I read somewhere that Obama won't commit US ground troops, I have no idea if David Cameron would. However, ISIS might blend into the background for a while, then as sure as God made little green apples, it will all kick off again. Terrorism cannot be defeated 100%
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that the leadership of ISIS would sneak off and hide but the dead enders would stay and die for a cause and these are the people that need to be taken down as they are the ones that happily strap a suicide belt on.

If the major western nations will not commit troops to taking down ISIS then it is only going to strengthen Russia's hand in the region.
 
For the moment ISIS is winning : 2 prominent Liberals (Feinstein and Amanpour) are abandoning Obama (the rats are leaving the sinking ship) : they said that ISIS was growing,while Obama said it was contained .

Why is it not contained ? Because only Assad and the Kurds are fighting against ISIS .
 
lljadw said:
It was not the fault of the neo-conservatives : it was the fault of those in the US who always guided by an arrogant provincialism,try to impose democracy made in the US on the world : the Liberals (and there are a lot of them in the GOP) .

The solution was very simple after the fall of Saddam :

1)Kill him: NO TRIAL

2) replace him by another one:general Mohammed

3) summon the Kurds and tell them : you can have autonomy but not independence : if you move, we will release chemical ali.

4) get out as the devil from Iraq .


5) if something as ISIS appears,release chemical ali and close your eyes .
Click to expand...

You just defined precisely the ideology of neo-conservatism. Liberals didn't want to go into Iraq, we were categorically against it because we knew Washington would be unable to prevent a regional civil war. Its the neo-conservatives that go around the world planting the flag of "Democracy" via cannon fire.

Not to say "I told you so", but I was one of the few people here at the time at milforum that opposed the war (and took a lot of crap about it) and I am very sorry to say that I was right about it. So we (liberals) refuse to be assigned any responsibility about what happened. We (Kennedy/LBJ) learned that lesson from Vietnam.

As to your solution...

1. Exactly what they did to Ghadaffi, result was the same, country went to hell.

2. They tried to do that with Ahmed Chalabi, and not surprisingly the Sunni Iraqis made it clear they would never follow a Shiite who was a US puppet.

3. And the Kurds (our only real friend in the area) never would have helped us again, not to mention the fact that the Turks and Iranians would have been annoyed as well, and they are more powerful than the Kurds.

4. That's where the term "bogged down" comes from. Once you enter a bog (a swamp) you can never leave, you just slowly sink in deeper. There is only one way to escape war like Iraq, and Vietnam and thats never go in the first place.
 
No : the liberals are responsible : they are responsible for what happened in Libya, for what happened in Egypt, for what happens in Iraq and Syria : their chief (Obama) is openly shouting that Assad must go,something that would be a catastrophe.

And why ? Because they do not like the domestic policy of Assad, Kahadaffi,etc:the domestic policy of Assad,etc,is not their business , and their atacks are considered in the ME as colonialist,racist and imperialist . Not unjustifiedly .

The Liberals want to impose their form of democracy on the ME,but,all experts know that there is no place for democracy in the ME .

Obama is only a 21th century version of Kipling : take up the liberal burden : always lecturing in the ME,in Africa, in Europe, in the US .

The problem in the ME is that Iran is attempting to dominate the region and that it is supported unconditionally by the liberals in the US .It is not ISIS : if Turkey wanted, if Iran wanted, if Obama wanted,ISIS would be destroyed in a few weeks .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top