1) American tax payer funded missiles are being used to destroy stuff that American taxes paid for (equipment captured by ISIL) The last time America destroyed its own stuff was the civil war
2) Assad, the greatest threat to the world , is now not the greatest threat to the world. Technically, we're on his side.
3) The rebel groups that we supported, are now the bad guys
I'll address a few of these.
1: I really don't think there's anything really confusing about this one. If our own stuff falls into the hands of our enemies, I think it's better to destroy our own stuff then just let our enemies have it and use it. It's not like, "Oh, our enemies have stolen some of our stuff, but we shouldn't destroy it now because it's our stuff!" Especially when the stuff we are talking about it military vehicles and weapons.
2: We're only on his side in the sense that we're both fighting ISIS. There are more than two sides here though.
3: This isn't really true. Although I believe McCain made a comment about wanting to arm ISIS, there are quite a few other more moderate, secular militias such as the Free Syrian Army that some Americans wanted to support. These militias still exist and still oppose both Assad and ISIS. We've still been discussing arming the FSA, who are not our enemies. Some people keep acting like ISIS is the only group opposing Assad, which isn't correct and never has been.
From what I've been reading, the FSA is down to its last 3 men, and 2 of those have got leg injuries! I exaggerate, of course, but they really have hit rock bottom, and can't be relied on as a serious fighting force.
That may be true, and if it is, that's unfortunate. They were making some pretty serious gains and could have been our best hope for an ally in the region.
I've heard that they're not in the fighting shape they were awhile back, but last I knew they were still holding some territory, they had just stopped gaining it. I guess we'll see what happens with them.
Let the Arabs sort it out themselves. It's not our problem. They aren't a national threat to us or the US. Tighten up home security, like we did in the IRA years. If you're a Western who feels the morale need to go out and help the innocents, that is a noble choice, but it is your choice. You know what could happen.
Sir Simon Jenkins pointed out on Channel 4 news last night that the Saudis have around about 700 jets that the West sold them, but are hardly contributing any to this conflict. They are happy to let the Western forces take the risks. We should stay out of it and say, you're mess, you sort it out. It's easy to say that West is to blame, but the Muslims of that region have never liked each other, all that his happened is that the masses now have access to tech & weapons that they never had before.
Jihadin wrote: HQ unit from the 1st Infantry Division are moving into place CentCom and Iraq..frame work for a GLOC and ALOC to move combat troops in
Ground Logistical Operation Center
Aviation Logistical Operation Center
Having 1st I.D. HQ heading over there we are told not to put much stock into it. They are right now just going to assist the Iraqi Army in doing there job. 1st I.D. has been working in the region for a minute now so it wasn't that surprising. Obviously having something in place just in case is a pretty sound strategy. I don't feel like I'm going to be taking an all expenses paid vacation to Iraqistan so nobody else should either. The President is pretty adamant on the no boots on ground.
I also thought this was a big secret until it showed up all over my damn facebook feed. WAY to go Army... -___-
The topic was they were discussing was a female fighter pilot, not "bewbs"; at least until he reduced her and her accomplishments to a set of tits. No, it's not OK.
Ouze wrote: The topic was a female fighter pilot, not "bewbs"; at least until he reduced her and her accomplishments to a set of tits. No, it's not OK.
I wasn't defending him. He did apologize as he should've, especially since it shows in that segment of the world, women can be fighter pilots. (even tho her own family disowned her?).
"The government has said it would seek separate Parliamentary approval for the extension of air strikes to Syria but reserved the right to act without consulting MPs in the event of a humanitarian emergency."
"Even though what he said was incredibly racist he preceded it with 'I'm not racist but...' so it's totally ok." If it had been a male fighter pilot there would have been zero jokes and no need for an apology to begin with.
"Even though what he said was incredibly racist he preceded it with 'I'm not racist but...' so it's totally ok." If it had been a male fighter pilot there would have been zero jokes and no need for an apology to begin with.
Racist or sexist?
Want to be sure here because it sounded "sexist" to me. There is now a price on her head.
No, but we still stuck our big British Empire oar in, and have continued to do so ever since, so we do have a moral obligation to help sort out the mess rather than walk away. Wether or not we are helping in the right way is a different matter, but we can't just walk away from the shitstorm we started and have continued to be involved in ever since.
No, it's that we owe a responsibility to the innocent civilians of Iraq to do what we can to help protect them from the mess we started and continued every time we stuck our oar in for our own gain.
Also it's amazing how annoyed we are at IS in Iraq considering we destabilised the country and let Sunni Muslims face discrimination which allowed IS to garner support.
Last time I checked the intent was to bomb IS positions, not randomly bombing the whole country. Prior to that it was stable, but not exactly safe given Sadams thing for bombing and gassing Shias, marsh Arabs and any other group he didn't like. We can't just walk away and say "oh well. Sort it out yourselves"
Also it's amazing how annoyed we are at IS in Iraq considering we destabilised the country and let Sunni Muslims face discrimination which allowed IS to garner support.
Lets not pretend this is a humanitarian effort.
I'm sure the Nazi Empire would have been quite a stable place if they had won WW2. Totalitarian governments tend to be stable.
Doesn't mean we were wrong to rip the Nazi's a new one and that seeing the Iraq war through till the affair is actually done isn't a good idea. Its leaving early that really causes destabilization.
"Even though what he said was incredibly racist he preceded it with 'I'm not racist but...' so it's totally ok." If it had been a male fighter pilot there would have been zero jokes and no need for an apology to begin with.
Racist or sexist?
Want to be sure here because it sounded "sexist" to me. There is now a price on her head.
That was the first thing I thought. She has a lot of courage to be willing to take that much risk, since she is more highlighted than her male counterparts.
Steve steveson wrote:Last time I checked the intent was to bomb IS positions, not randomly bombing the whole country. Prior to that it was stable, but not exactly safe given Sadams thing for bombing and gassing Shias, marsh Arabs and any other group he didn't like. We can't just walk away and say "oh well. Sort it out yourselves"
Assuming that they're just standing out in the desert with big "drop bomb here" signs then we'll be fine. You're also forgetting that we already walked away. Why walk back in and stoke future hatred? I see value in offering humanitarian aid, rather than nothing at all.
Grey Templar wrote:
I'm sure the Nazi Empire would have been quite a stable place if they had won WW2. Totalitarian governments tend to be stable.
Doesn't mean we were wrong to rip the Nazi's a new one and that seeing the Iraq war through till the affair is actually done isn't a good idea. Its leaving early that really causes destabilization.
He did apologize as he should've, especially since it shows in that segment of the world, women can be fighter pilots. (even tho her own family disowned her?).
Do you honestly think that the dismissal of the actions of a female fighter pilot by anyone is a good response to the actions of a female fighter pilot? Especially when it is done by two male news agents, in the face of a female peer attempting to make a legitimate point?
Steve steveson wrote:Last time I checked the intent was to bomb IS positions, not randomly bombing the whole country. Prior to that it was stable, but not exactly safe given Sadams thing for bombing and gassing Shias, marsh Arabs and any other group he didn't like. We can't just walk away and say "oh well. Sort it out yourselves"
Assuming that they're just standing out in the desert with big "drop bomb here" signs then we'll be fine. You're also forgetting that we already walked away. Why walk back in and stoke future hatred? I see value in offering humanitarian aid, rather than nothing at all.
Robert Mugabe agrees with this sort of strategy. His bank account has been so swelled with humanitarian aid over the years, that it's enabled him to keep his foot firmly on the throat of the rest of the population and retain his wonderful lifestyle. He'd now like to endorse Middle-Eastern based murdering dictators for that selfsame opportunity, and thank Medium of Death for his kind considerations, advocations, & donations to that end.
dogma wrote: As to the apology? Sincerity abounds:
Ah, the classic "I am sorry you were offended" apology. Well done, and extra points for essentially throwing your wife under the bus. I guess she's a woman, and women are emotional, though, right? Well, anyway. Back to ISIL.
This military action get my goat, and I'll tell you why.
Just been reading the local newspaper - the usual story of hospital low on funds being refused money by local government on the grounds we're in a recession blah blah blah
And yet, RAF jets, with million dollar missiles are about to blow up some camels in the desert, for what, the 1,077th time?
If the Middle East didn't exist, Britain would have to invent it.
We've fought Nazi Germany, Jewish settlers, Turks, Italians, the French, Egyptians, Iraqis, every Arab tribe that's ever existed, Sudanese, Ethiopians...am I missing any
And here we are, Britain Vs The Middle East part 1,077th
No wonder I'm mad. Doesn't anybody read a book in Whitehall?
Me
"Just 4-5 insurgents in that mud hut up the hill..the one with the red thatch roof with the big boulder left of it"
Pilot
"No friendlies or civie's in area?"
Me
"Negative. We've been hitting it with small arms, 50 cal and two Jave's."
Pilot
"Wait one.....the hut what look like a RPG came out of?"
Me
"YES YES YES YES"
Pilot
"God has heard your prayer. Coming south of your position"
Me
"CEASE FIRE CEASE FIRE!!!!! A10 coming in!!!!"
Steve steveson wrote:Last time I checked the intent was to bomb IS positions, not randomly bombing the whole country. Prior to that it was stable, but not exactly safe given Sadams thing for bombing and gassing Shias, marsh Arabs and any other group he didn't like. We can't just walk away and say "oh well. Sort it out yourselves"
Assuming that they're just standing out in the desert with big "drop bomb here" signs then we'll be fine. You're also forgetting that we already walked away. Why walk back in and stoke future hatred? I see value in offering humanitarian aid, rather than nothing at all.
Did we? I thought we withdrew over a number of years, when we felt the country had a strong enough armed forces and the Iraqi govenment asked us to leave, and continued to provide ongoing training and equipment. I don think we walked away, at least not in any of the recent wars. Humanitatian aid is not what the Iraqi govenment asked for, and wouldn't help. In fact in many conflicts like this it just makes things worse as it feeds and supports just the people we are fighting against.
The oil wells we know are controlled and run by IS are a pritty big "drop bomb here" sign...
Just been reading the local newspaper - the usual story of hospital low on funds being refused money by local government on the grounds we're in a recession blah blah blah
And yet, RAF jets, with million dollar missiles are about to blow up some camels in the desert, for what, the 1,077th time?
If the Middle East didn't exist, Britain would have to invent it.
We've fought Nazi Germany, Jewish settlers, Turks, Italians, the French, Egyptians, Iraqis, every Arab tribe that's ever existed, Sudanese, Ethiopians...am I missing any
And here we are, Britain Vs The Middle East part 1,077th
No wonder I'm mad. Doesn't anybody read a book in Whitehall?
This is too true. There is nothing that the West can do to fix this. It's a regional / religious issue. Unless the different offshoots of Islam can learn to at least "agree to disagree" and stop slaughtering each other, then it ain't going to happen. We need to stay well out of it so they can finally see that all these dead bodies aren't being caused by the Crusaders of the West, but actually it is Muslim killing Muslim.
whembly wrote: Evidently, we're sending some A-10s to provide supports to troops that are not on the ground.
Well, when it absolutely, positively must be destroyed RIGHT fething NOW I can't think of too many things that are better, and most of the ones I can would also flatten the entire surrounding countryside.
Just been reading the local newspaper - the usual story of hospital low on funds being refused money by local government on the grounds we're in a recession blah blah blah
And yet, RAF jets, with million dollar missiles are about to blow up some camels in the desert, for what, the 1,077th time?
If the Middle East didn't exist, Britain would have to invent it.
We've fought Nazi Germany, Jewish settlers, Turks, Italians, the French, Egyptians, Iraqis, every Arab tribe that's ever existed, Sudanese, Ethiopians...am I missing any
And here we are, Britain Vs The Middle East part 1,077th
No wonder I'm mad. Doesn't anybody read a book in Whitehall?
This is too true. There is nothing that the West can do to fix this. It's a regional / religious issue. Unless the different offshoots of Islam can learn to at least "agree to disagree" and stop slaughtering each other, then it ain't going to happen. We need to stay well out of it so they can finally see that all these dead bodies aren't being caused by the Crusaders of the West, but actually it is Muslim killing Muslim.
It's war without end. As bad as British imperialism was in the Middle East, at least there was a rational: control the Suez Canal to safeguard India, or control Iraq because you needed the oil fields for the Royal Navy's new oil powered engines, but this is just bombing for the sake of it.
I don't care if you support the bombings or not, but either way this isn't really true.
Technically it's true, at least to me, anyway.
Politicians are talking of the struggle lasting for years, ISIS are getting talked up as though they are Nazi Germany!
Not attacking you, personally, but strategy has gone out of the window.
We have a president (Obama) who'd rather be doing something else. We have ISIS, who are blending back into civilian disguise. We have neighbouring states like Turkey reluctant to get involved, and we have a US public, which is understandably reluctant to support a ground campaign, which is the only way to bring this to a conclusion.
Politicians are talking of the struggle lasting for years, ISIS are getting talked up as though they are Nazi Germany!
Not attacking you, personally, but strategy has gone out of the window.
We have a president (Obama) who'd rather be doing something else. We have ISIS, who are blending back into civilian disguise. We have neighbouring states like Turkey reluctant to get involved, and we have a US public, which is understandably reluctant to support a ground campaign, which is the only way to bring this to a conclusion.
Air power alone never wins wars.
I agree with all this completely, particularly the part about air power not winning wars. That's not the same thing as the bombings being just for their own sake. They have a purpose. Whether they will be able to accomplish that purpose is another story, of course. I'm just curious how long it will take for the mission creep to happen (it seems inevitable, if they're serious about combating ISIS).
Politicians are talking of the struggle lasting for years, ISIS are getting talked up as though they are Nazi Germany!
Not attacking you, personally, but strategy has gone out of the window.
We have a president (Obama) who'd rather be doing something else. We have ISIS, who are blending back into civilian disguise. We have neighbouring states like Turkey reluctant to get involved, and we have a US public, which is understandably reluctant to support a ground campaign, which is the only way to bring this to a conclusion.
Air power alone never wins wars.
I agree with all this completely, particularly the part about air power not winning wars. That's not the same thing as the bombings being just for their own sake. They have a purpose. Whether they will be able to accomplish that purpose is another story, of course. I'm just curious how long it will take for the mission creep to happen (it seems inevitable, if they're serious about combating ISIS).
Mission creep has almost crept up on us!
Jihadin mentioned something earlier about the HQ section of the 1st Infantry division being spotted in the area. Now, I may be wrong, but it's my understanding that a standard US infantry division is about 10,000 men. If the HQ part of that is in the area, something is going down, and it's not my bank balance!
I predict that come 2016, US presidential candidates will be using the struggle to boost their popularity, by pushing for expansion or pushing for withdrawal. Either way, this topic is not going away and will impact greatly on the 2016 Presidential campaign.
Hordini wrote: Yeah, I read something about that too. Just because they send the HQ though, doesn't necessarily mean they'll deploy the rest of the division.
If it were any other part of the world I'd agree with you and say they're taking their wives/girlfriends on a nice holiday
But the ME at this time of crisis? Reminds me of thousands of Germans on holiday in Spain during the civil war, or pre-Russian invasion of Afghanistan when thousands of paratroopers just so happened to be on leave in the area
Totally unrelated, but all this talk of the big red one makes me what to dig out the DVD (Lee Marvin/Mark Hamill) and watch it. I haven't seen that film in years
A HQ element pretty much sets up the frame work to deploy the entire division on the word go. Everything is already planned out and set up on Power Point. One of the Element is a Transportation Team who pretty much plugs it all in according to a "Movement Plan"
Jihadin wrote: A HQ element pretty much sets up the frame work to deploy the entire division on the word go. Everything is already planned out and set up on Power Point. One of the Element is a Transportation Team who pretty much plugs it all in according to a "Movement Plan"
Jihadin wrote: A HQ element pretty much sets up the frame work to deploy the entire division on the word go. Everything is already planned out and set up on Power Point. One of the Element is a Transportation Team who pretty much plugs it all in according to a "Movement Plan"
Jeez... what can't Power Point™ do?
You can never claim the title Power Point Ranger.....never......ever....ever
dogma wrote: As to the apology? Sincerity abounds:
Ah, the classic "I am sorry you were offended" apology. Well done, and extra points for essentially throwing your wife under the bus. I guess she's a woman, and women are emotional, though, right? Well, anyway. Back to ISIL.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Why are the bombs so expensive? Surely there are cheaper options.
Bullets!
Actually bombs would be a lot cheaper if we dispensed with ridiculously expensive guidance systems.
I think it would be a good economic measure to start using unguided bombs. They should only be used against specific targets of importance which have to be destroyed. Use the unguided bombs against targets of lower priority. Its simply not worth the cost. And heck, we can be pretty accurate with unguided bombs too. Its just math!
Don't send a Ferrari when a Ford will get the job done.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Why are the bombs so expensive? Surely there are cheaper options.
We have many much cheaper weapons, but the rationale to use what we are using are political ones in addition to tactical considerations.
The expensive weaponry is also the safest to our own forces: The only pilots in danger are a few, or none, if it's a Reaper.
Naval artillery has limited range - like 25ish miles or so? and requires vessels that are very expensive to operate even if the shells are cheap.
Ground-based artillery requires troops on the ground, their support and supply lines and all the danger to the troops and the politics that entails.
Hellfires are precise so they does less collateral damage to non-targets, which again is a political consideration.
They are able to be fit onto a wide number of deployment platforms: drones, Apaches, Humvees, whatever.
A lot of the cost of the weapon is the R&D that went into designing it.
We have tons of them. We recently put in an order for 11,000 Hellfires, and have been dropping about 4,500 of them a year. When your best tool is a hammer, all your problems start to look like nails, yes?
Weapon manufacturers tend to locate themselves in key congressional districts, making it hard to cancel programs even if they are not worth the money.
It's modern corporate welfare, which is America's only popular form of welfare.
Pick any combination of those you like.
That being said, we do use some less-expensive stuff. Quite a few JDAMS fell out of B-52s in our modern foreign adventures, for a mere $30,000 a pop.
Greg Gutfeld's response (because it wasn't an apology) was horrible.
The real joke is that he doesn't have a driver's license? Something the vast majority of people wouldn't know? If that was the "real joke" it was a gak joke.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Why are the bombs so expensive? Surely there are cheaper options.
We have many much cheaper weapons, but the rationale to use what we are using are political ones in addition to tactical considerations.
The expensive weaponry is also the safest to our own forces: The only pilots in danger are a few, or none, if it's a Reaper.
Naval artillery has limited range - like 25ish miles or so? and requires vessels that are very expensive to operate even if the shells are cheap.
Ground-based artillery requires troops on the ground, their support and supply lines and all the danger to the troops and the politics that entails.
Hellfires are precise so they does less collateral damage to non-targets, which again is a political consideration.
They are able to be fit onto a wide number of deployment platforms: drones, Apaches, Humvees, whatever.
A lot of the cost of the weapon is the R&D that went into designing it.
We have tons of them. We recently put in an order for 11,000 Hellfires, and have been dropping about 4,500 of them a year. When your best tool is a hammer, all your problems start to look like nails, yes?
Weapon manufacturers tend to locate themselves in key congressional districts, making it hard to cancel programs even if they are not worth the money.
It's modern corporate welfare, which is America's only popular form of welfare.
Pick any combination of those you like.
That being said, we do use some less-expensive stuff. Quite a few JDAMS fell out of B-52s in our modern foreign adventures, for a mere $30,000 a pop.
You may have omitted one;
- if we use dumb munitions that result in collateral damage we'll have to deal with the backlash over not using guided munitions
Co'tor Shas wrote: Why are the bombs so expensive? Surely there are cheaper options.
We have many much cheaper weapons, but the rationale to use what we are using are political ones in addition to tactical considerations.
The expensive weaponry is also the safest to our own forces: The only pilots in danger are a few, or none, if it's a Reaper.
Naval artillery has limited range - like 25ish miles or so? and requires vessels that are very expensive to operate even if the shells are cheap.
Ground-based artillery requires troops on the ground, their support and supply lines and all the danger to the troops and the politics that entails.
Hellfires are precise so they does less collateral damage to non-targets, which again is a political consideration.
They are able to be fit onto a wide number of deployment platforms: drones, Apaches, Humvees, whatever.
A lot of the cost of the weapon is the R&D that went into designing it.
We have tons of them. We recently put in an order for 11,000 Hellfires, and have been dropping about 4,500 of them a year. When your best tool is a hammer, all your problems start to look like nails, yes?
Weapon manufacturers tend to locate themselves in key congressional districts, making it hard to cancel programs even if they are not worth the money.
It's modern corporate welfare, which is America's only popular form of welfare.
Pick any combination of those you like.
That being said, we do use some less-expensive stuff. Quite a few JDAMS fell out of B-52s in our modern foreign adventures, for a mere $30,000 a pop.
You may have omitted one;
- if we use dumb munitions that result in collateral damage we'll have to deal with the backlash over not using guided munitions
There'll be backlash over collateral damage whether guided or not.
You may have omitted one;
- if we use dumb munitions that result in collateral damage we'll have to deal with the backlash over not using guided munitions
One of the common things in certain countries in the Middle East. Is the discharge of weapons into the air after the Groom and Bride are officially wedded. So when a bunch of gunfire (tracer rounds to) heard and spotted then something might say danger area
You may have omitted one;
- if we use dumb munitions that result in collateral damage we'll have to deal with the backlash over not using guided munitions
It was my 4th bullet point.
Fair point, I thought you were specifically talking about munitions fired from drones. My mistake
Toyotas or not, it's still a colossal waste of money, and I feel sorry for the average joe, US taxpayer on this forum.
If the pentagon bought and posted out a toupee for every household in America, it'd probably represent better value for money
The way my hairline's going, I could use one myself.
I was looking at the map showing territory conquered by ISIS. It's like some weird, spidery, LSD, construct, that's been run over by a tank, and super-imposed on a map of the middle east. Have these people never heard of secure supply lines?
Dang it..I was waiting for a No Go with the SOFA (Agreement for Ouze) in Afghanistan so I can use this but since we denied another country going down the freaking pits....
Jihadin wrote: One of the common things in certain countries in the Middle East. Is the discharge of weapons into the air after the Groom and Bride are officially wedded. So when a bunch of gunfire (tracer rounds to) heard and spotted then something might say danger area
I've always wondered what happens to the bullets, do they aim them to arc into the next village that they don't like.
Jihadin wrote: One of the common things in certain countries in the Middle East. Is the discharge of weapons into the air after the Groom and Bride are officially wedded. So when a bunch of gunfire (tracer rounds to) heard and spotted then something might say danger area
I've always wondered what happens to the bullets, do they aim them to arc into the next village that they don't like.
Jihadin wrote: One of the common things in certain countries in the Middle East. Is the discharge of weapons into the air after the Groom and Bride are officially wedded. So when a bunch of gunfire (tracer rounds to) heard and spotted then something might say danger area
I've always wondered what happens to the bullets, do they aim them to arc into the next village that they don't like.
They don't care. Its a wedding and feast
If the bullets hit something, that is Allah's will and there is nothing you can do about it. If the bullets don't hit anything that is Allah's will and there is nothing you can do about it.
Its pretty simple really, they want to provoke the West into a ground war so that they can use the conflict to pull in more recruits.
ISIS is really the most perfect example of a right wing fascist group, just of the islamic persuasion. Their doctorinal viewpoints on legitimization of political violence and expansionist viewpoint on territory are enough to warrant that label, the ethno-religious atrocities just seal the deal.
Hordini wrote: It's kind of like why a lot of taxi drivers in Egypt don't wear seat belts.
I've done that
I think just about any US service-member who's been in the Sand Box for any period of time (that includes any time outside the wire) has done that
Jihadin wrote:Well......seem the next American to be executed is a former Army Ranger. This might not work in ISIS best interest
Yeah... I've the feeling that either Obama will be forced to do something with boots on the ground (at the least, probably some SOF groups to go in and just light whole gridsquares up) or some of these SOF types, or former SOF types will take serious offense and put in a DA-31 for a religious "pilgrimage" to "East Jerusalem"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peter Wiggin wrote: Its pretty simple really, they want to provoke the West into a ground war so that they can use the conflict to pull in more recruits.
That plan will probably back fire... badly. If they get what they "want" we won't be going in there the same way we did with Iraq the second time. This will be an old fashioned ass-whoopin' and nothing more.
Right now, ISIS/ISIL is pulling in some decent numbers of recruits, but aside from some limited areas, aren't facing any true resistance. And as things tend to go, everyone wants to join the army in peace time... not quite as many people want to join when there's some real fighting going on.
That plan will probably back fire... badly. If they get what they "want" we won't be going in there the same way we did with Iraq the second time. This will be an old fashioned ass-whoopin' and nothing more.
Right now, ISIS/ISIL is pulling in some decent numbers of recruits, but aside from some limited areas, aren't facing any true resistance. And as things tend to go, everyone wants to join the army in peace time... not quite as many people want to join when there's some real fighting going on.
We'll see. I believe they're a serious threat, however, and not just to civilians. Early on, they were a threat few took seriously (achem), but now the fact is they're winning. This isn't just bringing fighters, it brings them foreign backers, and intel in the region.
Looks like Canada is finally getting in on the fight & is going to be sending 6 CF-18's, a refueling jet and a large transport plane to join the fight, along with roughly 600 personal for at least a 6 month mission.
Parliament votes on Monday, but as the Conservatives have a house majority, the bill will pass easily.
It's just embarrassing as feth the stance of the Liberal party... (basically mocking the entire situation as Harper just wanting to "whip out our CF-18's and show off how big they are.") Apparently Tru-durp missed the memos about ISIS beheading children or burying them alive for kicks & giggles.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. has begun using Apache AH-64 attack helicopters to strike at ISIS targets inside Iraq, the first time the aircraft have been used for offensive strikes since arriving in Baghdad in early July.
Their use opens up a new capability in the airstrike campaign against ISIS in Iraq, but one that also comes with risks, as they could be vulnerable to ground fire.
A defense official confirms that Apache helicopters were used this weekend as part of four airstrikes on a large ISIS force northeast of Fallujah. The attack was conducted in coordination with Air Force fighter aircraft that supported the operation.
A press release by U.S. Central Command said the air strikes near Fallujah “struck two mortar teams, a large ISIL [ISIS] unit and two small ISIL units.”
The official confirmed that the strikes were the first use of the Apache helicopters that were deployed to Iraq in early July.
Several Apache helicopters were included in an additional deployment of several hundred U.S. military personnel sent to Baghdad o reinforce security at U.S. embassy facilities and access to the Baghdad Airport.
The deployment of the attack helicopters was intended to be defensive nature, but their offensive capabilities are now being used against ISIS. Any restrictions on their use for offensive purposes were presumably lifted in early September when President Obama announced that offensive air strikes could be used against ISIS targets.
Apache helicopters can be used to provide close air support for ground troops, but can also fire Hellfire missiles at enemy targets from several miles away. The use of long-distance sensors and missiles lessens the potential exposure to small arms fire the helicopters could face in a ground combat situation. The aircraft are still vulnerable to small arms and missile fire, however, and during the war in Iraq several were shot down by enemy fire.
The defense official said the strikes northeast of Fallujah were coordinated with Iraqi security forces to support their operations.
“It’s a capability we have, that they asked for, and that could contribute to their operations” the official said.
In recent weeks Iraqi security forces have struggled against ISIS forces that have attacked several cities in Anbar Province west of Baghdad. ISIS victories there could pose an even greater security threat to Iraq’s capital.
As of Friday the Pentagon said it had conducted 334 airstrikes against ISIS — 248 in Iraq and 86 airstrikes in Syria.
Iraq has used a limited number of Russian-made attack helicopters against ISIS and has long sought to acquire Apache helicopters. In January the Pentagon announced the potential sale to Iraq of 24 of the aircraft for $4.8 billion, but so far Iraq has not indicated it will purchase the aircraft.
The Hind was a pretty hard copter, and there were quite a few of them shot down by the Mujahideen. So sending in Apaches is a bit dangerous where CSAR is politically and tactically difficult. I'm not sure how much political will America has for losing $35 million dollar helicopters and, presumably, the the 2 crew beheaded.
The limitations of a drone-only offensive seem to have revealed themselves pretty quickly.
We'll see. I believe they're a serious threat, however, and not just to civilians. Early on, they were a threat few took seriously (achem), but now the fact is they're winning. This isn't just bringing fighters, it brings them foreign backers, and intel in the region.
I agree that they are more of a threat than had been earlier afforded them.... Ultimately, I don't think it'll matter much if the US send legit ground forces in to take out ISIS/ISIL, because many of the fighters that are a part of the ISIS army (or whatever you want to call it) are the same kind of idiots that we were dealing with in Iraq. As in, once someone with real fighting knowledge shows up, they kind of go prairie dog on us, as opposed to actually standing up to the very people they call weak.
(CNN) -- A Marine lost at sea after bailing out of a MV-22 Osprey when it appeared it might crash in the Persian Gulf is believed to be the first American military casualty in support of U.S. operations against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
Cpl. Jordan L. Spears, 21, was declared dead after search and rescue efforts to locate him were unsuccessful, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command said in a statement released Saturday.
Asked how Spears death will be classified, Pentagon spokesman Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby told reporters the question was still being decided.
"Clearly, that squadron and that ship were in the Gulf, supporting Central Command operations. Some of those operations included operations in Iraq and Syria, at least tangentially, through at least some tangential way, support to those missions," Kirby said, according to a transcript.
White House condemns Henning's killing What will be ISIS' downfall? Sen. doesn't want U.S. leading ISIS fight
"So there's no question that -- that this Marine's death is related to the operations that are going on, in some form or fashion."
Even so, he said he did not know whether the Marine's death would be formally classified as such. The branch of service typically determines how a service member's death is classified.
The military has not detailed the Osprey's mission at the time of the incident, which remains under investigation.
The Osprey, a tilt-rotor aircraft, was deployed as part of the Makin Island Amphibious Ready Group "supporting operations in Iraq and Syria and throughout the region," the statement said.
Spears, a crew chief, went missing Wednesday when the Osprey lost power shortly after takeoff from the USS Makin Island and dropped toward the water, according to the Navy.
Spears and another crew member went into the water when it appeared the Osprey was about to crash, the Navy said.
The pilots managed to get control of the Osprey and land it safely, according to the statement.
Search and rescue crews found one crew member in the water, but were unable to locate Spears of Memphis, Indiana, it said.
"U.S. forces in the North Persian Gulf suspended a search and rescue operation for Spears Oct. 2, after efforts to locate him were unsuccessful," according to the statement.
Spears was assigned to Marine Tiltrotor Squadron 163, Aircraft Group 16, 3rd Aircraft Wing with the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, California.
Well, see.... that doesn't really work. I'm something of a heathen, and as such running, or otherwise going away from a battle goes completely against any of my beliefs.
Apparently some of these guys think that hiding from the US military will a) save them, and b) still get them their 72 virgins.
We'll see. I believe they're a serious threat, however, and not just to civilians. Early on, they were a threat few took seriously (achem), but now the fact is they're winning. This isn't just bringing fighters, it brings them foreign backers, and intel in the region.
I agree that they are more of a threat than had been earlier afforded them.... Ultimately, I don't think it'll matter much if the US send legit ground forces in to take out ISIS/ISIL, because many of the fighters that are a part of the ISIS army (or whatever you want to call it) are the same kind of idiots that we were dealing with in Iraq. As in, once someone with real fighting knowledge shows up, they kind of go prairie dog on us, as opposed to actually standing up to the very people they call weak.
There really isn't a way to deter individuals from doing crap by using individual retaliation when they really don't care about themselves.
There isn't an effective way to combat the sort of radicalized violence we've been seeing, really, without becoming more 'barbaric' than we are willing to in either the short or the long term.
We'll see. I believe they're a serious threat, however, and not just to civilians. Early on, they were a threat few took seriously (achem), but now the fact is they're winning. This isn't just bringing fighters, it brings them foreign backers, and intel in the region.
I agree that they are more of a threat than had been earlier afforded them.... Ultimately, I don't think it'll matter much if the US send legit ground forces in to take out ISIS/ISIL, because many of the fighters that are a part of the ISIS army (or whatever you want to call it) are the same kind of idiots that we were dealing with in Iraq. As in, once someone with real fighting knowledge shows up, they kind of go prairie dog on us, as opposed to actually standing up to the very people they call weak.
You know what you do with Prairie Dogs? Or rats? Dump some gasoline down their holes and toss in a match.
I agree that they are more of a threat than had been earlier afforded them.... Ultimately, I don't think it'll matter much if the US send legit ground forces in to take out ISIS/ISIL, because many of the fighters that are a part of the ISIS army (or whatever you want to call it) are the same kind of idiots that we were dealing with in Iraq. As in, once someone with real fighting knowledge shows up, they kind of go prairie dog on us, as opposed to actually standing up to the very people they call weak.
Depends. I think that they're moving to more 'army' and less 'insurgency'. The Syrians and Iraqis both have had a lot of US and Russian armor captured, and most of it has yet to be accounted for. Call me paranoid, but I suspect ISIS high command has been showing us what we expect to see. They seem a lot better organized and led than the Iraqi insurgency or, and Jihadin might dispute this, the Taliban. Their blitz into Iraq as well timed and well planned, and swelled their ranks with US trained soldiers officers and US made gear to supplement the already sizable assets they seized from Assad. There are two items on the list of missing that deeply disturb me, Iraqi copies of the US M687 binary chemical dispersal shells and a few US M109A5s plus some M198s. That gives them a sarin dispersal system, but not the binary agents.
They used an interesting combination of insurgent and US tactics as they did so. I liked the fact they rigged Mosul dam, and am glad they did not have time to use that hole card, it would have caused horrendous damage all down the Tigris, like the Johnstown flood on Steroids.
So far the Peshmerga have made some gains, but to isolate ISIS and cut off their lines of supply we're going to need something more substantial. The Kurds have their own armor and artillery, but they''re struggling to make progress.
I'm in Istanbul at the moment on work/pleasure and all the talk here is about ISIL taking control of a town on the Syria/Turkey border. Apparently the Kurds are pissed because the Turkish govt, although sending tanks and choppers to the area, have so far done Jack to help them fight ISIL..
Seems they are just waiting for the ISIL footsloggers to set foot on Turkish soil before invoking article 5 and going in full bore....
We shall see. It's strange to be in a country that's seemingly about to go to war, but physically so far away from it that even watching it on the news makes it seem further away than it really is. (Around 20 hours by car...)
sarpedons-right-hand wrote: I'm in Istanbul at the moment on work/pleasure and all the talk here is about ISIL taking control of a town on the Syria/Turkey border. Apparently the Kurds are pissed because the Turkish govt, although sending tanks and choppers to the area, have so far done Jack to help them fight ISIL..
Seems they are just waiting for the ISIL footsloggers to set foot on Turkish soil before invoking article 5 and going in full bore....
We shall see. It's strange to be in a country that's seemingly about to go to war, but physically so far away from it that even watching it on the news makes it seem further away than it really is. (Around 20 hours by car...)
Been watching this on Al Jazeera as well. Some key points:
1) Turkey reluctant to help Kurds for historical reasons.
2) Iraqi city of Hit, was subject to air-strikes and at least 30 civilians killed.
3) Reports coming in that ISIL possess some decent AA assets. Unconfirmed to what these are, but with US helicopters getting involved, we may find out sooner or later.
4) As usual, Britain commits to action, and then days later, we're warned that we're running out of missiles/ammo for the jets. Same old story there
The Turks are waiting because there's no reason for them to do anything.
Any evidence at all that ANY of the strikes hav been by non US/European aircraft since Day 1? The usual suspsect countries have gone back to their usual suspect ways of doing nothing. Its a sad day when the ones doing anything are the freaking Iranians.
3) Reports coming in that ISIL possess some decent AA assets. Unconfirmed to what these are, but with US helicopters getting involved, we may find out sooner or later.
I know the Syrians are supposedly missing a few BUKs, which we saw so recently in the Ukraine. They're old school, but effective enough against helos. US jets might not have a problem, but they could mess up an A-10 with a close enough hit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: The Turks are waiting because there's no reason for them to do anything.
Any evidence at all that ANY of the strikes hav been by non US/European aircraft since Day 1? The usual suspsect countries have gone back to their usual suspect ways of doing nothing. Its a sad day when the ones doing anything are the freaking Iranians.
Arm the Kurds and stay out of it.
UAE has been. The Turks are sitting back because a few in authority are making money selling oil from ISIS controlled areas in Syria to the US. The old label swap shell game.
I know the Syrians are supposedly missing a few BUKs, which we saw so recently in the Ukraine. They're old school, but effective enough against helos. US jets might not have a problem, but they could mess up an A-10 with a close enough hit.
That's what I like about Al-Jazeera - old school journalism that actually asks questions, and the questions being asked are: what exactly did ISIL get their hands on?
That's pretty disturbing what you've written about the A-10, I thought those things were near invincible.
Frazzled wrote: Who trained them. BUKs can't fire themselves (right?)
How many ISIS are former Hussein, or even better, former IRaqi Army that we trained?
According to what I've read, quite a few are either Saddam, Assad, or trained by the coalition in the new Iraq army.
Let's not forget that experience of warfare is a great trainer, and as these ISIL troops are both fanatical, and battle hardened, they won't be a push over.
Been watching rolling Al-Jazeera reports all day. The Kurds in Kobane are putting up a good fight, but the lack of heavy weapons is hamstringing them. Air-strikes seem to be ineffective due to it being a built up area, and the Turkish army is sitting on its ass!
ISIL's forces on the other hand, have the heavy weapons, and to the surprise of observers, have been calling down disciplined artillery strikes...
I'm no military expert and I'm sure other people could help me out, but wouldn't targeting ISIL's artillery support be a priority, unless it's mobile and sneaky at hiding.
Frazzled wrote: Who trained them. BUKs can't fire themselves (right?)
How many ISIS are former Hussein, or even better, former IRaqi Army that we trained?
According to what I've read, quite a few are either Saddam, Assad, or trained by the coalition in the new Iraq army.
Let's not forget that experience of warfare is a great trainer, and as these ISIL troops are both fanatical, and battle hardened, they won't be a push over.
Been watching rolling Al-Jazeera reports all day. The Kurds in Kobane are putting up a good fight, but the lack of heavy weapons is hamstringing them. Air-strikes seem to be ineffective due to it being a built up area, and the Turkish army is sitting on its ass!
ISIL's forces on the other hand, have the heavy weapons, and to the surprise of observers, have been calling down disciplined artillery strikes...
I'm no military expert and I'm sure other people could help me out, but wouldn't targeting ISIL's artillery support be a priority, unless it's mobile and sneaky at hiding.
I'm not sure why anyone is surprised they are capably of calling down artillery strikes. It's not that difficult to do. The only reason they couldn't really do it well in Iraq and Afghanistan outside of small mortar strikes is because we have very effective counter-battery and CAS capability. Their artillery assets I'm certain are a priority in terms of targets, and judging from the YouTube videos we've already blown up some, but it's difficult to get them all with limited air strikes, especially considering you can hide them in garages.
Frazzled wrote: Who trained them. BUKs can't fire themselves (right?)
How many ISIS are former Hussein, or even better, former IRaqi Army that we trained?
BUK's modular. You can have one launcher, or several launchers slaved to one command unit, and several command units meshed together into a larger network. The button can be pressed at any level of command. It just takes a target being designated as hostile by IFF. Then it's SAM city.
BUK can pack a punch, depending on what missiles are loaded into it.. The Russians thoughtfully just passed out their latest and greatest SAMs and ASM to their pal Assad, who promptly lost them, so we could be talking about equivalent to being hit by the RIM-66 that's part of the armament of the Ticonderoga class cruiser. They have a 95% Kill probability with just one SAM. They also handed off Onyx, making Syria one of the few countries to have that particular toy. It's a heavy ASM designed to take out US fleet carriers. The Syrians took delivery of 72 of them, but the Israelis took out some of the launchers. If any are in the hands of Isis, God only knows.
I'm not sure why anyone is surprised they are capably of calling down artillery strikes. It's not that difficult to do. The only reason they couldn't really do it well in Iraq and Afghanistan outside of small mortar strikes is because we have very effective counter-battery and CAS capability. Their artillery assets I'm certain are a priority in terms of targets, and judging from the YouTube videos we've already blown up some, but it's difficult to get them all with limited air strikes, especially considering you can hide them in garages.
I think the issue was them calling down the strikes in real time, as opposed to planned barrages. This suggests advanced communications gear is in use with a solid command and control structure. Further, and more worrying, they may have that same capability now as well, since they're using a lot of US gear, with US trained gunners and commanders.
I'm not sure why anyone is surprised they are capably of calling down artillery strikes. It's not that difficult to do. The only reason they couldn't really do it well in Iraq and Afghanistan outside of small mortar strikes is because we have very effective counter-battery and CAS capability. Their artillery assets I'm certain are a priority in terms of targets, and judging from the YouTube videos we've already blown up some, but it's difficult to get them all with limited air strikes, especially considering you can hide them in garages.
I think the issue was them calling down the strikes in real time, as opposed to planned barrages. This suggests advanced communications gear is in use with a solid command and control structure. Further, and more worrying, they may have that same capability now as well, since they're using a lot of US gear, with US trained gunners and commanders.
You don't need advanced communications gear to call for fire, either pre-planned strikes or on the fly, unless you consider radios to be advanced communications gear. You do have to know what you're doing, but it's not that difficult, particularly when (as you note), you have US-trained personnel and your opponent lacks effective counter-battery/CAS capabilities. And of course, any US equipment that they have stolen from Iraqi arsenals only makes it worse.
Experiment 626 wrote: Looks like Canada is finally getting in on the fight & is going to be sending 6 CF-18's, a refueling jet and a large transport plane to join the fight, along with roughly 600 personal for at least a 6 month mission.
Parliament votes on Monday, but as the Conservatives have a house majority, the bill will pass easily.
It's just embarrassing as feth the stance of the Liberal party... (basically mocking the entire situation as Harper just wanting to "whip out our CF-18's and show off how big they are.") Apparently Tru-durp missed the memos about ISIS beheading children or burying them alive for kicks & giggles.
Experiment 626 wrote: Looks like Canada is finally getting in on the fight & is going to be sending 6 CF-18's, a refueling jet and a large transport plane to join the fight, along with roughly 600 personal for at least a 6 month mission.
Parliament votes on Monday, but as the Conservatives have a house majority, the bill will pass easily.
It's just embarrassing as feth the stance of the Liberal party... (basically mocking the entire situation as Harper just wanting to "whip out our CF-18's and show off how big they are.") Apparently Tru-durp missed the memos about ISIS beheading children or burying them alive for kicks & giggles.
Yup, bill just passed as I am typing this.
Wait. I thought the Liberals' argument was that airstrikes would be that airstrikes would be insufficient? Or was that the NDP?
Frazzled wrote: Who trained them. BUKs can't fire themselves (right?)
How many ISIS are former Hussein, or even better, former IRaqi Army that we trained?
BUK's modular. You can have one launcher, or several launchers slaved to one command unit, and several command units meshed together into a larger network. The button can be pressed at any level of command. It just takes a target being designated as hostile by IFF. Then it's SAM city.
BUK can pack a punch, depending on what missiles are loaded into it.. The Russians thoughtfully just passed out their latest and greatest SAMs and ASM to their pal Assad, who promptly lost them, so we could be talking about equivalent to being hit by the RIM-66 that's part of the armament of the Ticonderoga class cruiser. They have a 95% Kill probability with just one SAM. They also handed off Onyx, making Syria one of the few countries to have that particular toy. It's a heavy ASM designed to take out US fleet carriers. The Syrians took delivery of 72 of them, but the Israelis took out some of the launchers. If any are in the hands of Isis, God only knows.
I'm not sure why anyone is surprised they are capably of calling down artillery strikes. It's not that difficult to do. The only reason they couldn't really do it well in Iraq and Afghanistan outside of small mortar strikes is because we have very effective counter-battery and CAS capability. Their artillery assets I'm certain are a priority in terms of targets, and judging from the YouTube videos we've already blown up some, but it's difficult to get them all with limited air strikes, especially considering you can hide them in garages.
I think the issue was them calling down the strikes in real time, as opposed to planned barrages. This suggests advanced communications gear is in use with a solid command and control structure. Further, and more worrying, they may have that same capability now as well, since they're using a lot of US gear, with US trained gunners and commanders.
I must admit that my jaw did this when I read your sentence about ISIL possibly having anti-ship missiles. Scary stuff.
Events took an interesting turn today. ISIL shot down an Iraqi army helicopter. Did they bring it down with small arms fire or was it something more big hitting? Nobody's sure yet.
Seems they are using an American in the latest propaganda video which the FBI is asking for the public help identifying the individual by his voice. Seems a dozen American are currently fighting for ISIL.
Jihadin wrote: Seems they are using an American in the latest propaganda video which the FBI is asking for the public help identifying the individual by his voice. Seems a dozen American are currently fighting for ISIL.
Yeah, and they're using American equipment to boot!
Question: If Americans are fighting other Americans with US equipment, is this a re-run of the civil war?
Jokes aside, the Kobane situation is still in the balance - it's a coin toss to who will capture it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Update: Iraqi helicopters were brought down by SAM
Question to those in the know: if American Apaches are getting involved (the helicopter, not the Native American tribe ) then should they be worried by this?
Or will their high level of training and modern equipment see them through? Is this an occupational hazard that's manageable?
According to what I've read, they made off with the following US gear:
a large but unknown number of Humvees.
At least one M1 Abrams
An unknown number of Stingers
An unknown (but large) number of US 155mm artillery platforms, both towed and self propelled.
Enough body armor and M16s that they could outfit triple their estimated numbers.
Some MRAPS that have since been found destroyed.
Communications gear, (type not specified)
Man portable anti tank missiles (type not specified)
Mind you, this is all from unofficial sources, as the US and Iraqis have been tight lipped about what all was lost, but the main depots and HQ for several brigades, including mechanized and armored were overrun without much of a fight. So assume they can outfit maybe three brigades to US standards.
My money is they outfit veteran troops with this gear and hold them in reserve until the Us or another serious force commits.
If you think a massive budget deficit is not a very real problem then I really don't know what else to say here. But if you want to completely bankrupt the country at least do so for a decent cause. Not to shore up AQ militias, or a largely incompetent rabble
Yes, well, if we had supplied them and sent military advisers when it would have had an impact, they wouldn't be AQ or a largely incompetent rabble. 'We can't become involved because they might embrace an Islamist agenda'. Yeah,well, now look, we didn't and they are anyway. So rather than deal with the problem before it became one, the US now gets to invade them at some later date when they start attacking Americans after they become a thoroughly entrenched military force, or a much larger international movement like is already happening in several neighboring countries.
BaronIveagh wrote: However, the problem is that people have been referring to a blanket 'the rebels' which is wildly misleading, as there are dozens of factions involved. The United States favors certain factions but not others.
*snip*
They can practice horrors not seen in a century on everyone else all the livelong day, but the moment it happens to an American (as an example) it's time to rain righteous flaming death down on them for their barbarity.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Have I just woken up in some strange parallel universe or did somebody post a link to Jimmy Carter criticising Obama on Middle East policy?
Andrew1975 wrote: Carter? His handling of the middle east, specifically Iran is one of the reasons we are in this whole situation.
Blaming Carter for the actions of the political bodies of the 1914-1920 era is quite wrong as well.
Sure, Carter may not have handled his Iran situation (in particular) very well, but to say that it's his fault we're in the ME isn't anywhere near correct.
Experiment 626 wrote: Looks like Canada is finally getting in on the fight & is going to be sending 6 CF-18's, a refueling jet and a large transport plane to join the fight, along with roughly 600 personal for at least a 6 month mission.
Parliament votes on Monday, but as the Conservatives have a house majority, the bill will pass easily.
It's just embarrassing as feth the stance of the Liberal party... (basically mocking the entire situation as Harper just wanting to "whip out our CF-18's and show off how big they are.") Apparently Tru-durp missed the memos about ISIS beheading children or burying them alive for kicks & giggles.
Yup, bill just passed as I am typing this.
Wait. I thought the Liberals' argument was that airstrikes would be that airstrikes would be insufficient? Or was that the NDP?
Nope, the Libs argument against supporting our joining in is that we should instead focus entirely on just providing humanitarian aid, because there's already more than enough other countries doing the heavy lifting & dirty work.
The NDP didn't support on the grounds that the Conservs are;
- lying about how long this mission will last, because wars of course are always highly organised affairs with strict 'start' & 'end' dates.
- lying about the cost of the mission, because obviously the government should know ahead of time precisely the exact number & type of bombs they'll be dropping.
- using the 2003 US led invasion as strawman to claim that this mission will of course bog us down in a ground war that'll last 8-10+ years with no plan of how to get the hell out of it.
As well as the fact that standard NDP procedure is to hide in the corner like a sniveling coward and let every other allied nation do the actual fighting for us... because "reasons"
According to Judicial Watch, it has been confirmed by Homeland Security sources that four Islamic terrorists have been apprehended in the last 36 hours by federal authorities and the Texas Department of Public Safety in McAllen and Pharr. California Congressman Duncan Hunter, a former Marine Corp Major and member of the House Armed Services Committee, disclosed on national television that at least ten Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) fighters have been caught crossing the Mexican border in Texas.
Hunter believes, “If you really want to protect Americans from ISIS, you secure the southern border.” He went on to point out that, "ISIS doesn’t have a navy, they don’t have an air force, they don’t have nuclear weapons. The only way that ISIS is going to harm Americans is by coming in through the southern border – which they already have.”
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Republican from Utah, said four alleged terror suspects were captured on Sept. 10 in Texas. In an interview with BuzzFeedNews on Wednesday, Chaffetz said the men flew from a Middle Eastern country to Mexico City, where they paid a smuggler to take them to and across the border. From there, the men ended up in a safe house for immigrants. They were en route to New York City, Chaffetz said, when they were captured.
Although Chaffetz would not reveal his source of the information, he said he confirmed it with government officials. “I had an informant tell me about it and then I questioned the Secretary of Homeland Security,” he said. “I have no doubt about its authenticity.”
CBS reported on Wednesday that the Department of Homeland Security released a statement that claims alleging Islamic State militants have been apprehended at the Mexican border are “categorically false.” The DHS insists they have no credible intelligence that suggests terrorist organizations are actively plotting to cross the southwest border. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson says that Islamic State militants are not entering the U.S. through the southern border. Johnson was responding to a claim made by Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., that at least 10 Islamic State operatives were detained trying to come in from Mexico.
Congressman Hunter, however, isn't buying that explanation. His spokesman told BuzzFeed News Wednesday that they have evidence from reliable sources about “foreign nationals” being captured along the border. Kasper said those foreign nationals may not technically be ISIS fighters, but do have suspected terror group affiliations. Kasper did not identify his sources but said that Hunter’s office remains convinced that the lawmaker was correct.
Our worst fears may already be realized because despite the recent surge of immigrants from Central America and other parts of the world at the southern border, the Obama administration has been unwilling to deploy the National Guard or other military assets to back up the Border Patrol. With the Border Patrol overwhelmed by a massive influx, illegal immigrants have been walking across the southern border into Texas from at least 75 different countries, and not just from Central America. Many of those apprehended in the Rio Grande area and elsewhere are released into the country after being initially detained by Border Patrol agents.
Is it plausible that ISIS is already in America after crossing the U.S.-Mexican border?
Is it plausible that ISIS is already in America after crossing the U.S.-Mexican border?
This story bacame more and more slowed.
ISIS don't need to cross any borders - each day of this idiotic campaign with no results creates fighters all around the world by propoganda means alone.
Our prior interventions in the middle east have not worked out so hot.
Solution:
Intervene in the middle east.
if that doesnt work,
try intervening in the middle east.
(only half serious, I know its not quuuite that simple, but it almost is)
If anything we should be pulling out, and preparing to protect our own lands as the west is uniquely vulnerable to attack due to being free, democratic societies that welcome immigration.
At least if we were not actively bombing the ME, we stop throwing fuel on the martyr fire to a degree... we are damned if we do, damned if we dont, dont costs less.
I mean, if thousands of ISIS people are jihading all the way over to the ME, how many are jihading here, or are already here?
Only takes a few dozen people to do some crazy stuff.
Whoa. Last time I was on DakkaDakka, this was at 5ish pages. Anyway, I think that the US is superserious, considering how they deployed a F-22 for the first time.
Our prior interventions in the middle east have not worked out so hot.
Solution:
Intervene in the middle east.
if that doesnt work,
try intervening in the middle east.
(only half serious, I know its not quuuite that simple, but it almost is)
All we need to do is go in, conquer them militarily, then we'll draw the map of what their countries should look like... what could possibly go wrong??
Well, my wife and I are still in Istanbul. Kobane does indeed look like a coin toss. During the day it's perfectly safe here, at night though.... the Kurdish Turks are protesting more vociferously and we had a close run thing a few nights ago. We were in Taksim Square doing the whole tourist thing and on the tram ride back we noticed a large amount of Turkish Riot Police gathering in side streets. Seemed we missed the protest by around an hour...
However, because of why we are here we can't leave yet. Our flight leaves on the 27th October, so there is plenty of time for things to develop....yay.
sarpedons-right-hand wrote: Well, my wife and I are still in Istanbul. Kobane does indeed look like a coin toss. During the day it's perfectly safe here, at night though.... the Kurdish Turks are protesting more vociferously and we had a close run thing a few nights ago. We were in Taksim Square doing the whole tourist thing and on the tram ride back we noticed a large amount of Turkish Riot Police gathering in side streets. Seemed we missed the protest by around an hour...
However, because of why we are here we can't leave yet. Our flight leaves on the 27th October, so there is plenty of time for things to develop....yay.
Here's wishing you good luck. You might need it.
On the ISIS in the US thing: I hate to point this out, but they don't need to. the US has plenty of idiots....errr....people self radicalizing to cause chaos as is. Only a matter of time before someone blows something up.
less than a handful of airstrikes a day arent cutting it. WHo is the US trying to kid? We need to carpet bomb the entire region sough of Kobane and use our fighter jets for strafing runs.
But then again, all that costs money and money is more important than shaping world history.
Our prior interventions in the middle east have not worked out so hot.
Solution:
Intervene in the middle east.
if that doesnt work,
try intervening in the middle east.
(only half serious, I know its not quuuite that simple, but it almost is)
If anything we should be pulling out, and preparing to protect our own lands as the west is uniquely vulnerable to attack due to being free, democratic societies that welcome immigration.
At least if we were not actively bombing the ME, we stop throwing fuel on the martyr fire to a degree... we are damned if we do, damned if we dont, dont costs less.
Past mistakes aside, there is no option for simply ignoring the ME and letting it 'sort itself out' this time as the threat is much greater now...
This isn't simply a case of which sect should dominate the others this decade, but rather a well-organised group who's only aims are to quite literally burn the entire world to ash and build one of history's most barbaric & savage societies atop the ruins of human civilization.
The problem we have is that no government has the balls to step up and fight this war it needs to be fought. (ie: by showing these whack jobs what a sustained WWII carpet bombing campaign looks like.)
Yes there will be collateral damage and loss of life, but it's impossible to fight a war and not have collateral costs. However in this case, a majority of the innocents have already been forced to flee from ISIS held territories by the extremists.
easysauce wrote: I mean, if thousands of ISIS people are jihading all the way over to the ME, how many are jihading here, or are already here?
Only takes a few dozen people to do some crazy stuff.
CSIS & the RCMP went before a commons committee within the past couple days to admit that they're currently tracking roughly 80 known jihadists who've returned from overseas fighting.
But then doing nothing and pulling out entirely would only encourage radicalisation of those groups we've effectively turned our collective backs on... So "doing nothing" is probably even more dangerous than dropping bombs on the gakkers and risking a smaller select minority of young idiots to join the crazies' cause.
Look at how the Turkish stance of "do nothing because we don't like the Kurds" is working out for them...
ISIS seems to be stepping up its process to draw the US into "boot's on ground"...though five miles from BIAP and they have MANPADS......is now getting dicey on not involving US troops
Jihadin wrote: ISIS seems to be stepping up its process to draw the US into "boot's on ground"...though five miles from BIAP and they have MANPADS......is now getting dicey on not involving US troops
The sad part is that I'm willing to bet the President throws US ground forces at them piecemeal to begin with before committing a larger force.
I think I'll file this under "Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!"
Chris Perez wrote:Pregnant Austrian teens in ISIS: We’ve made a huge mistake
The two teens are believed to be married, pregnant and living in the Islamic State-controlled city of Raqqa.
The teenage girls who abandoned their families in Austria to become jihadis for ISIS feel they’ve made a terrible mistake by joining the barbaric lifestyle and they want to come home.
Samra Kesinovic, 17, and Sabina Selimovic, 15, are believed to be married, pregnant and living in the Islamic State-controlled city of Raqqa in northern Syria, Central European News reports.
Dubbed by Austrian media as the poster girls for jihad, the young friends now believe their lives have been turned upside down by their new lifestyles.
The change of heart is a much different tune than the note they left behind for their parents when they fled back in April, which read: “Don’t look for us. We will serve Allah — and we will die for him.”
Kesinovic and Selimovic grew up in Vienna, where they became accustomed to talking to whomever they wanted, saying whatever they pleased and wearing whatever clothes they liked. They did not have to live a life being controlled by people telling them what they can and cannot do.
But Kesinovic and Selimovic decided to leave all that behind and shack up with the same people they’ve now grown to hate.
For weeks, social media accounts believed to belong to the girls have been posting pictures and information leading many to feel they enjoyed living a life of terror.
Authorities in Austria say this was all an elaborate plan set up by ISIS in order to get people to think the two wanted to be the poster girls for jihad in Syria.
Now Austrian media are reporting that Kesinovic and Selimovic have said enough is enough and want to return to their families, according to CEN.
They have contacted their loved ones and told them they are sick of living with the Islamic State jihadis, but they also said they don’t feel they can flee from their unwanted new life because too many people now associate them with ISIS.
“The main problem is about people coming back to Austria,” said Austrian Interior Ministry spokesman Karl-Heinz Grundboeck. “Once they leave, it is almost impossible.”
Both very young who made an incredibly bad mistake probably based on unrealistic propaganda spouted by pro ISIS members, and were "certain" everything told to them about ISIS by other sources was a lie.
In their push to completely wipe out the national government of Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, terrorist members of the al-Qaeda allied Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) Islamic Jihadist organization have made their way to the westernmost suburbs of Baghdad, as reported by CBS News on Oct. 10, 2014. CBS is also reporting that between the furthest advance of the ISIS column and the center of the nation's capital sits Baghdad International Airport (BGW) where at least 300 American troops assigned as perimeter security, as reported by the McClatchy News Service on June 30, 2014.
With the outlying suburb of Abu Ghraib teetering on completely falling to ISIS, if the area comes under complete control of the Islamists, the Americans will be within easy range of ISIS artillery. Abu Gharib is a mere 8 miles from the runway perimeter, while the distance from BGW to the US Embassy in Baghdad's Green Zone is roughly 9.5 miles. The Washington Times reported earlier this summer that ISIS captured upwards of 52 American made M198mm howitzer heavy artillery pieces, capable of hitting targets 14-20 miles away.
The captured M198's reportedly cost $500,000 per piece. To add insult to injury, the Islamists have also seized 1,500 up-armored Humvees which cost the American taxpayer $220,000 each.
Despite the oft-quoted promise of Barack Obama to never deploy American so-called "boots on the ground," he's personally ordered approximately 1,600 US troops in-country since the Iraqi National Army essentially dropped their weapons and ran away from ISIS militants last spring. Despite the pin-prick US airstrikes on ISIS forces throughout Iraq, the terrorists now surround Baghdad on three sides, with the roads leading east the only ones still in government control.
“We won’t say ISIS anymore, and the only visual representation of it will be that sign rolling off the show,” said exec producer Thompson. “It’s just the most awful thing, and we didn’t want to have anything to do with it. There were people online saying that we should address it and say, ‘Oh, I can’t believe these guys have co-opted our name.’ That’s the way South Park would do it, coming after them and saying, ‘These donkey-caves stole our name,’ but that’s not the way the Archer universe works, where it’s all our own creations. In our universe, they don’t exist.”
While the Archer team erased the ISIS name from the Season 6 premiere, they didn’t retroactively remove it from all other seasons of the show, so the signage and name will still appear in Seasons 1-5. Also, FX created a bunch of ISIS merchandise that they now need to figure out what to do with.
“I’m one of the few people that has the white ISIS cup and it’s mixed in with all my other cups,” Walter said. “The other day, I was looking at it and thought, ‘Should I throw it out? But it reminds me of Archer.’”
“I gave my Dad one of the ISIS hats and he said, ‘You know son, I’m not going to be able to wear the hat anymore,’” said Reed is his genial southern accent. “I’m gettin’ looks at the hardware store.’”
First Danger 5 is put on indefinite hold now this.
Anbar seems in trouble, and several MORE Iraqi army bases have fallen to ISIS. Hopefully this time they thought to put grenades in the breech before taking off....
Anbar seems in trouble, and several MORE Iraqi army bases have fallen to ISIS. Hopefully this time they thought to put grenades in the breech before taking off....
You must be bloody annoyed that your tax money is equipping ISIS?
On a separate note, I'm still waiting for the semblance of a strategy. Beyond a few airstrikes, every western leader seems to have their head up their ass, and are hoping that ISIL will go away...
In their push to completely wipe out the national government of Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, terrorist members of the al-Qaeda allied Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) Islamic Jihadist organization have made their way to the westernmost suburbs of Baghdad, as reported by CBS News on Oct. 10, 2014. CBS is also reporting that between the furthest advance of the ISIS column and the center of the nation's capital sits Baghdad International Airport (BGW) where at least 300 American troops assigned as perimeter security, as reported by the McClatchy News Service on June 30, 2014.
With the outlying suburb of Abu Ghraib teetering on completely falling to ISIS, if the area comes under complete control of the Islamists, the Americans will be within easy range of ISIS artillery. Abu Gharib is a mere 8 miles from the runway perimeter, while the distance from BGW to the US Embassy in Baghdad's Green Zone is roughly 9.5 miles. The Washington Times reported earlier this summer that ISIS captured upwards of 52 American made M198mm howitzer heavy artillery pieces, capable of hitting targets 14-20 miles away.
The captured M198's reportedly cost $500,000 per piece. To add insult to injury, the Islamists have also seized 1,500 up-armored Humvees which cost the American taxpayer $220,000 each.
Despite the oft-quoted promise of Barack Obama to never deploy American so-called "boots on the ground," he's personally ordered approximately 1,600 US troops in-country since the Iraqi National Army essentially dropped their weapons and ran away from ISIS militants last spring. Despite the pin-prick US airstrikes on ISIS forces throughout Iraq, the terrorists now surround Baghdad on three sides, with the roads leading east the only ones still in government control.
ROE better not be politically driven
I thought you said the 1st infantry division were ready to roll in?
According to the local news here in Istanbul, ISIS are streaming in reinforcements to Kobane. And still the Turkish Govt sit on their hands. Why can't they just forget the Kurdish problem and unite against a common enemy?
MrDwhitey wrote:Both very young who made an incredibly bad mistake probably based on unrealistic propaganda spouted by pro ISIS members, and were "certain" everything told to them about ISIS by other sources was a lie.
Now they know how it really is, and I pity them.
It sounds absolutely horrific. I hope they get out of there alive and well.
Anbar seems in trouble, and several MORE Iraqi army bases have fallen to ISIS. Hopefully this time they thought to put grenades in the breech before taking off....
You must be bloody annoyed that your tax money is equipping ISIS?
On a separate note, I'm still waiting for the semblance of a strategy. Beyond a few airstrikes, every western leader seems to have their head up their ass, and are hoping that ISIL will go away...
In their push to completely wipe out the national government of Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, terrorist members of the al-Qaeda allied Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) Islamic Jihadist organization have made their way to the westernmost suburbs of Baghdad, as reported by CBS News on Oct. 10, 2014. CBS is also reporting that between the furthest advance of the ISIS column and the center of the nation's capital sits Baghdad International Airport (BGW) where at least 300 American troops assigned as perimeter security, as reported by the McClatchy News Service on June 30, 2014.
With the outlying suburb of Abu Ghraib teetering on completely falling to ISIS, if the area comes under complete control of the Islamists, the Americans will be within easy range of ISIS artillery. Abu Gharib is a mere 8 miles from the runway perimeter, while the distance from BGW to the US Embassy in Baghdad's Green Zone is roughly 9.5 miles. The Washington Times reported earlier this summer that ISIS captured upwards of 52 American made M198mm howitzer heavy artillery pieces, capable of hitting targets 14-20 miles away.
The captured M198's reportedly cost $500,000 per piece. To add insult to injury, the Islamists have also seized 1,500 up-armored Humvees which cost the American taxpayer $220,000 each.
Despite the oft-quoted promise of Barack Obama to never deploy American so-called "boots on the ground," he's personally ordered approximately 1,600 US troops in-country since the Iraqi National Army essentially dropped their weapons and ran away from ISIS militants last spring. Despite the pin-prick US airstrikes on ISIS forces throughout Iraq, the terrorists now surround Baghdad on three sides, with the roads leading east the only ones still in government control.
ROE better not be politically driven
I thought you said the 1st infantry division were ready to roll in?
That's up to POTUS to decide. If not and they take the fight into city then either we're popping smoke out or going in force. Since Obama does not want to be considered a war time President.....
Hmm... Looking at the resources and numbers Isis is pouring in...
I propose Operation: Roach Motel
Hold as long as possible, and have the turks and kurds extract civvies to minimum safe distance, leaving behind a volunteer force to keep Isis fixed on the city.
Then burn their shadows into the pavement. It's already been largely emptied out by the fighting, so civilian casualties would be at a minimum, while maximizing the impact on Isis.
They want to rise to God in a pillar of fire? That can be arraigned.
Sir Arun wrote: Anybody already seen with what arrogance these bastards destroy holy shrines in Iraq?
Old news.
I'll say this, destroying (or even looting) a church is bad karma. Doesn't matter if it's a Islamic mosque, Buddhist temple, or christian cathedral, it comes back on you one day.
Anbar seems in trouble, and several MORE Iraqi army bases have fallen to ISIS. Hopefully this time they thought to put grenades in the breech before taking off....
You must be bloody annoyed that your tax money is equipping ISIS?
Personally, I don't give a gak about the money. That seems to be one of your primary concerns, since you keep bringing it up. Why is that?
The solid argument is to avoid the rise of a nation state bound and determined to cast the already strained relationship between the middle east and the west as a full on religious conflict. I want you to stop, and consider the Crusades for a moment, and picture that going on, Now, with all the horrors of modern war.
The solid argument is to avoid the rise of a nation state bound and determined to cast the already strained relationship between the middle east and the west as a full on religious conflict.
The solid argument is to avoid the rise of a nation state bound and determined to cast the already strained relationship between the middle east and the west as a full on religious conflict. I want you to stop, and consider the Crusades for a moment, and picture that going on, Now, with all the horrors of modern war.
\
'Nightmare' does not begin to cover it.
If muslim extremists were smart they would realize that a constant low intensity brush war with the west is the best situation for them. They have a constant string of incidents to aid recruitment and they can tout whatever minor victories they achieve. However, I don't think most muslim extremists are smart. If and when they actually do something bad enough to shift the moral attitude of the west into a 'crusading' mindset, it will be a nightmare. Mostly for them. And it will be a short nightmare.
"Personally, I don't give a gak about the money. That seems to be one of your primary concerns, since you keep bringing it up. Why is that?"
I'm interested in politics and history, especially American politics and history, and it's a shame to see money down the drain, when the poor of America are struggling with food/heating/bills/staying alive etc etc
I'm a man of the people
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sir Arun wrote: Anybody already seen with what arrogance these bastards destroy holy shrines in Iraq?
Shia shrines are not holy to Sunni fundamentalists. They probably think they're doing the world a favour by blowing them up.
If muslim extremists were smart they would realize that a constant low intensity brush war with the west is the best situation for them. They have a constant string of incidents to aid recruitment and they can tout whatever minor victories they achieve. However, I don't think most muslim extremists are smart. If and when they actually do something bad enough to shift the moral attitude of the west into a 'crusading' mindset, it will be a nightmare. Mostly for them. And it will be a short nightmare.
I wasn't talking about Christians and the West Crusading. It's happened where it went the other way (Suleiman's European campaigns spring to mind), as well, and was long, and bloody. If ISIS can gain a critical mass, it IS possible.
And, no, here's the 'best situation' (for them): a US defeat in Syria would consolidate their position as not only a power, but as a movement internationally. And, before you even start, yes such a thing IS possible. Committing insufficient forces on the ground to stop them would end in a US defeat. The mentality of their troops might be something out of the dark ages, but their officers are competent and educated by the US in how the US makes war. Their men are now trained and equipped to, if not US standards, close enough to make even a relatively minor numbers disparity an actual issue. They're disciplined enough that they're not breaking under airstrikes, and have on occasion actually made advances despite them. And there have been aircraft losses due to the fact that they managed to steal several means to counter air power.
I want you stop and consider US public reaction if, for example, the US were to lose a carrier to ISIS. Even factoring in the few launchers that Israel was able to take out, it's well within the realm of possibility considering they have possession of Russian made Onyx anti ship missiles.
Not pretty, is it? Political gridlock would take on whole new dimensions as blue states demanded an immediate withdrawal and red states demanded bloody vengeance. Bad when a country is already tearing itself apart politically as one side tries to score points on the other while neither achieves anything.
BaronIveagh wrote: Hmm... Looking at the resources and numbers Isis is pouring in...
I propose Operation: Roach Motel
Hold as long as possible, and have the turks and kurds extract civvies to minimum safe distance, leaving behind a volunteer force to keep Isis fixed on the city.
Then burn their shadows into the pavement. It's already been largely emptied out by the fighting, so civilian casualties would be at a minimum, while maximizing the impact on Isis.
They want to rise to God in a pillar of fire? That can be arraigned.
I vote we re-enact the bombing of Dresden on *%$!#! gakkers. I'm pretty sure with today's incendiaries we could actually turn the desert to glass, especially with say 4-5 strait days of 24/7 sustained bombing.
Experiment 626 wrote: [
I vote we re-enact the bombing of Dresden on *%$!#! gakkers. I'm pretty sure with today's incendiaries we could actually turn the desert to glass, especially with say 4-5 strait days of 24/7 sustained bombing.
Sadly, even the US lacks the heavy bombing capacity to perform such a feat in this day and age. That and using incendiaries to annihilate a city is a war crime. Using a nuke to do the same thing is a little murkier, due to the influence of certain parties in writing international laws.
1413034195030.cached
It was done so quietly in the sixth season premiere that some fans didn’t even notice two guys pulling down and rolling away the large circular blue ISIS sign. Archer and company, for the past five years have been working for ISIS, International Secret Intelligence Service. In light of recent world events in the middle east it’s easy to see why the creator of Archer, Adam Reed and the show’s producers Matt Thompson and Casey Willis decided to make this change to the show.
Reed recently talked with The Daily Beast saying:
We quietly did. We were waiting for it to go away—at least I was. Back in Season 5, FX said, ‘This might be a thing,’ and I thought, ‘Maybe it won’t be? Maybe it’ll be the mole that I’m gonna ignore and nothing will happen.’
We got sort of lucky and could organically make a merger with the CIA, so we went back and retroactively painted out the ISIS logos in parts of the show, and we just don’t talk about it in dialogue.
It’s just the most awful thing, and we didn’t want to have anything to do with it.
Although a different version was shown at SDCC 2014, the decision was made to go back and insert the moving scene to put the troubling ISIS acronym to rest. Now Archer and the rest work for the CIA.
Thompson addressed why and their reasoning behind how they made the change saying:
We won’t say ISIS anymore, and the only visual representation of it will be that sign rolling off the show. It’s just the most awful thing, and we didn’t want to have anything to do with it. There were people online saying that we should address it and say, ‘Oh, I can’t believe these guys have co-opted our name.’ That’s the way South Park would do it, coming after them and saying, ‘These donkey-caves stole our name,’ but that’s not the way the Archer universe works, where it’s all our own creations. In our universe, they don’t exist.
There are no plans to go back and change anything in the first five season, and most fans have already bought DVDs of those seasons anyways. FX is stuck with a crap-load of ISIS merchandise that will gather dust until most likely getting destroyed and written off as a tax deduction.
Jessica Walter, who plays Malory Archer, the spy master and crazy as hell mother of our hero Archer had this to say:
I’m one of the few people that have the white ISIS cup and it’s mixed in with all my other cups. The other day, I was looking at it and thought, ‘Should I throw it out? But it reminds me of Archer.’
Creator Adam Reed related a funny story about a conversation he had with his father the other day:
I gave my Dad one of the ISIS hats and he said, ‘You know son, I’m not going to be able to wear the hat anymore. I’m gettin’ looks at the hardware store.’
Reed also discussed the meeting with FX in which they discussed all that ISIS merchandise:
I was at a meeting with the FX execs and I said, ‘You know, with all this extra ISIS merchandise, you should just make the bad guys buy it.’ Dead silence. And then they said, ‘We have a lot of ISIS merchandise.’ So I guess that’s all going to a landfill somewhere.
I’m guessing that as soon as this news makes the Internet rounds any Archer ISIS stuff might get a quick spike in price as collectors try to make a quick buck.
Thousands of jihadi fighters from the murderous ISIS terrorist group surrounded Baghdad Sunday and were prepared to mount an assault.
More than 10,000 of the fanatical barbarians had gathered outside the Iraqi capital, poised to take it by force, an Iraqi official told Britain’s Telegraph newspaper.
Sabah al-Karhout, president of the provisional council of Anbar Province, told the paper that the fighters had advanced as far as Abu Ghraib, a suburb.
He said Iraq needed US aid because the western part of the country had fallen largely under the control of ISIS.
In response, the United States called in Apache helicopters to keep Iraqi forces from being overrun by ISIS savages near Baghdad’s airport.
Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the militants had come within 15 miles of the airport and had overrun the Iraqis.
“It was a straight shot to the airport,” he told ABC’s “This Week.” “So we’re not going to allow that to happen.”
Also on Sunday, three suicide bombings killed 58 people, many of them Kurdish security forces, in Qara Tappah, northeast of Baghdad. And a roadside bomb killed Anbar Province’s police chief and six civilians.
Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday that while US-led strikes would weaken ISIS, it was ultimately up to the Iraqis to fight the group off.
“It is Iraqis who will have to take back Iraq. It is Iraqis in Anbar who will have to fight for Anbar,” he said.
Later Sunday, Turkey offered support to the campaign against ISIS by finally granting the US access to its air bases.
Sen. John McCain, however, said the US was failing to stop the jihadist onslaught and needed to ramp up airstrikes as the militants battled to seize the Syrian border city of Kobani.
“They’re winning, and we’re not,” he told CNN’s “State of the Union.” “There has to be a fundamental re-evaluation of what we’re doing because we are not degrading and ultimately destroying ISIS.”
ISIS’s advance on the largely Kurdish city of Kobani has sent 200,000 residents fleeing.
Kerry said the US-led coalition must act to stop it.
With Post Wire Services
Going to predict US involvement at the 10 mile marker from the BIAP. If not we need to unass everything in the Green Zone
I seriously do not understand what the hell the Iraqi army is doing.
I mean what the actual gak? According to Global Firewpoer the Iraqi army has like 241,000 active military personell, 212 aircraft, 137 helicopters, 357 tanks, over four thousand IFVs....
even if several dozen of those were lost when the army retreated - scratch that - fled the North, they should technically have a much bigger force concentration in the south now.
Why the hell arent they launching a major offensive? I get the feeling everyone has retreated to Baghdad and is hiding behind the city's walls.
It's like the Iraqis actually dont care about their own country being overrun - not even the Shia majority in the South seem to care apart from holding onto Baghdad.
Sir Arun wrote: I seriously do not understand what the hell the Iraqi army is doing.
I mean what the actual gak? According to Global Firewpoer the Iraqi army has like 241,000 active military personell, 212 aircraft, 137 helicopters, 357 tanks, over four thousand IFVs....
even if several dozen of those were lost when the army retreated - scratch that - fled the North, they should technically have a much bigger force concentration in the south now.
Why the hell arent they launching a major offensive? I get the feeling everyone has retreated to Baghdad and is hiding behind the city's walls.
It's like the Iraqis actually dont care about their own country being overrun - not even the Shia majority in the South seem to care apart from holding onto Baghdad.
At Mosul ISIS won despite being outnumbered 40:1. Because the Iraqi army's morale is THAT low. Thirty THOUSAND troops rabbited from 800 ISIS fighters attack.
How'd you feel about an Army that makes you give half your paycheck to officers who regularly flee, or worse, take the money, then defect to ISIS?
From what I've heard, everyone in the Iraqi military started grabbing what they can and running. This has led to a very through collapse of the officer corps and the troops faith in their officers. That and a sizable number of that 241k troops may now be fighting for ISIS, taking their gear with them as the Iraqi army splits along sectarian lines. A good deal of the rest of it was seized when various military bases fell in the confusion. Sadly, not one soldier was so creative as to, say, put a grenade in the breech before rabbiting. So US made M1 tanks, helos, AFVs, and so on and so forth, are now in ISIS hands.
We don't know how many fighters ISIS actually has, but we do know that number is getting larger rather than smaller. It's probably higher than the usual 50k that gets bandied about.
Going to predict US involvement at the 10 mile marker from the BIAP. If not we need to unass everything in the Green Zone
I'll say they get to five miles, at least, if they managed another push like the last one. It reminded me too much of something I remember hearing about from WW2 where the marines captured the airfield and were doing attack runs off it at targets 200 yards from the end of the runway.
Experiment 626 wrote: [
I vote we re-enact the bombing of Dresden on *%$!#! gakkers. I'm pretty sure with today's incendiaries we could actually turn the desert to glass, especially with say 4-5 strait days of 24/7 sustained bombing.
Sadly, even the US lacks the heavy bombing capacity to perform such a feat in this day and age. That and using incendiaries to annihilate a city is a war crime. Using a nuke to do the same thing is a little murkier, due to the influence of certain parties in writing international laws.
This would be a good argument if we were fighting a conventional enemy on the typical basis of geo-political grounds, such as say a spat between the US and China/Russia or such.
Against a group that is neither recognised as a legitimate government/state AND who's only stated goal is the complete eradication of human civilization, the political leadership here in the west needs to wake up and realise that our rules need to be considered 'guidelines' at times.
Sometimes you need to throw your morals out the window when dealing with something as downright barbaric & evil as ISIS. These guys make the Nazi's look like wannabe's!
Granted nuking territories or resorting to chemical/bio weapons is absolutely out of the question, but I still say we should glass ISIS strongholds and burn them out. There are times when the ends truly do justify the means.
Well, it looks like the Turks have made a move...they've launched attacks against the Kurds!
Or more specifically, the Kurdish workers' party, for supposed violations of their peace treaty.
As I said in an area post, this whole situation is bordering on farcical.
Al Jazeera are reporting that Coalition airstrikes are widely ineffective. I don't blame the pilots, but when you've got an American president who's marking time until 2016, it's no wonder this half assed attitude is leading to an air of gloom.
I've been going through my copy of Sun Tzu's art of war and checking which side fulfils Tzu's victory conditions the best. I'm afraid it's a victory for ISIL, as things stand.
No. No they're not. Come back when they're setting up extermination camps on an industrial scale.
The only reason why they haven't done that is because they don't have the capacity to do it. Their ideologies are pretty similar even if one was based on racism and the other is based on religious extremism.
According to Judicial Watch, it has been confirmed by Homeland Security sources that four Islamic terrorists have been apprehended in the last 36 hours by federal authorities and the Texas Department of Public Safety in McAllen and Pharr. California Congressman Duncan Hunter, a former Marine Corp Major and member of the House Armed Services Committee, disclosed on national television that at least ten Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) fighters have been caught crossing the Mexican border in Texas.
Hunter believes, “If you really want to protect Americans from ISIS, you secure the southern border.” He went on to point out that, "ISIS doesn’t have a navy, they don’t have an air force, they don’t have nuclear weapons. The only way that ISIS is going to harm Americans is by coming in through the southern border – which they already have.”
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Republican from Utah, said four alleged terror suspects were captured on Sept. 10 in Texas. In an interview with BuzzFeedNews on Wednesday, Chaffetz said the men flew from a Middle Eastern country to Mexico City, where they paid a smuggler to take them to and across the border. From there, the men ended up in a safe house for immigrants. They were en route to New York City, Chaffetz said, when they were captured.
Although Chaffetz would not reveal his source of the information, he said he confirmed it with government officials. “I had an informant tell me about it and then I questioned the Secretary of Homeland Security,” he said. “I have no doubt about its authenticity.”
CBS reported on Wednesday that the Department of Homeland Security released a statement that claims alleging Islamic State militants have been apprehended at the Mexican border are “categorically false.” The DHS insists they have no credible intelligence that suggests terrorist organizations are actively plotting to cross the southwest border. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson says that Islamic State militants are not entering the U.S. through the southern border. Johnson was responding to a claim made by Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., that at least 10 Islamic State operatives were detained trying to come in from Mexico.
Congressman Hunter, however, isn't buying that explanation. His spokesman told BuzzFeed News Wednesday that they have evidence from reliable sources about “foreign nationals” being captured along the border. Kasper said those foreign nationals may not technically be ISIS fighters, but do have suspected terror group affiliations. Kasper did not identify his sources but said that Hunter’s office remains convinced that the lawmaker was correct.
Our worst fears may already be realized because despite the recent surge of immigrants from Central America and other parts of the world at the southern border, the Obama administration has been unwilling to deploy the National Guard or other military assets to back up the Border Patrol. With the Border Patrol overwhelmed by a massive influx, illegal immigrants have been walking across the southern border into Texas from at least 75 different countries, and not just from Central America. Many of those apprehended in the Rio Grande area and elsewhere are released into the country after being initially detained by Border Patrol agents.
Is it plausible that ISIS is already in America after crossing the U.S.-Mexican border?
The Obama Administration's head of HS admitted they had four persons but wouldn't admit to them being terrorists. I saw the interview...live. It was disconcerting.
Our prior interventions in the middle east have not worked out so hot.
Solution:
Intervene in the middle east.
if that doesnt work,
try intervening in the middle east.
(only half serious, I know its not quuuite that simple, but it almost is)
If anything we should be pulling out, and preparing to protect our own lands as the west is uniquely vulnerable to attack due to being free, democratic societies that welcome immigration.
At least if we were not actively bombing the ME, we stop throwing fuel on the martyr fire to a degree... we are damned if we do, damned if we dont, dont costs less.
I mean, if thousands of ISIS people are jihading all the way over to the ME, how many are jihading here, or are already here?
Only takes a few dozen people to do some crazy stuff.
Easy Sauce has the way of it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sarpedons-right-hand wrote: According to the local news here in Istanbul, ISIS are streaming in reinforcements to Kobane. And still the Turkish Govt sit on their hands. Why can't they just forget the Kurdish problem and unite against a common enemy?
Some of the pictures here are just astonishing...
Why do you think they think ISIS is a common enemy? Who do you think ISIS is selling oil to?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: Hmm... Looking at the resources and numbers Isis is pouring in...
I propose Operation: Roach Motel
Hold as long as possible, and have the turks and kurds extract civvies to minimum safe distance, leaving behind a volunteer force to keep Isis fixed on the city.
Then burn their shadows into the pavement. It's already been largely emptied out by the fighting, so civilian casualties would be at a minimum, while maximizing the impact on Isis.
They want to rise to God in a pillar of fire? That can be arraigned.
When I say stuff like that, people call me names and report me to the Mod Squad.
No. No they're not. Come back when they're setting up extermination camps on an industrial scale.
Remember that they didn't START with death factories. Originally they had more of a Cottage Industry approach to it, which is very much where ISIS is now, driving around, rounding up minorities and executing them. Muslim Einsatzgruppen
A better comparison might be Rwanda, what with the preference for beheading and all.
Edit: been thinking about this, and the US does have one ally that might not only be interested in fighting ISIS, but actually be pretty gung ho about it, and unlikely to have US made gear end up in the hands of terrorists (or, at least, terrorists according to the US).
Someone needs to get the ambassador in Ulan Bator on the phone.
The Hague (AFP) - The Dutch public prosecutor said on Tuesday that motorbike gang members who have reportedly joined Kurds battling the Islamic State group in Iraq are not necessarily committing any crime.
"Joining a foreign armed force was previously punishable, now it's no longer forbidden," public prosecutor spokesman Wim de Bruin told AFP.
"You just can't join a fight against the Netherlands," he told AFP after reports emerged that Dutch bikers from the No Surrender gang were fighting IS insurgents alongside Kurds in northern Iraq.
The head of No Surrender, Klaas Otto, told state broadcaster NOS that three members who travelled to near Mosul in northern Iraq were from Dutch cities Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Breda.
A photograph on a Dutch-Kurdish Twitter account shows a tattooed Dutchman called Ron in military garb, holding a Kalashnikov assault rifle while sat with a Kurdish comrade.
Video footage apparently from a Kurdish broadcaster shows an armed European man with Kurdish fighters saying in Dutch: "The Kurds have been under pressure for a long time."
Many countries including the Netherlands have been clamping down on their nationals trying to join IS jihadists who have taken over swathes of Iraq and Syria.
Measures include confiscating would-be jihadists' passports before travelling and threatening prosecution should they return.
"The big difference with IS is that it's listed as a terrorist group," said De Bruin.
"That means that even preparing to join IS is punishable."
Dutch citizens could not however join the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), as it is blacklisted as a terrorist organisation by Ankara and much of the international community, De Bruin said.
Dutch citizens fighting on the Kurdish side would of course be liable to prosecution if they committed crimes such as torture or rape, De Bruin said.
"But this is also happening a long way away and so it'll be very difficult to prove," said De Bruin.
I've said it before and I'm saying it again, if there's anybody from the US congress reading this, do the following:
1) Pass an act that gives me the rank of General of the Armies for 90 days
2) Give me 100,000 American troops.
3) Grant me permission to wear Stonewall Jackson's hat!
If the following happens, I'll end this ISIS business once and for all and have the troops back for Thanksgiving.
Sure, the Middle East would be a smoking ruin and I'd probably attempt an Alexander Hamilton style power grab back in Washington, but it's a small price to pay for peace and stability in the ME
The above happens every time I read a book about Napoleon - I get delusions of grandeur
Still, considering how crazy and complex the situation is, it probably makes more sense than most solutions.
Frazzled wrote: My level of respect just rose three notches.
I'd have to wear Grant's hat myself though. Pick the winning side!
Actually, my first choice would have been MacArthur's corn cob pipe, but then I remembered that would be unhygienic.
It has to be Jackson over Grant. We need bold moves striking at the enemy's heart - a Grant style war of attrition would break the promise of having the troops home by Thanksgiving
Frazzled wrote: My level of respect just rose three notches.
I'd have to wear Grant's hat myself though. Pick the winning side!
Actually, my first choice would have been MacArthur's corn cob pipe, but then I remembered that would be unhygienic.
It has to be Jackson over Grant. We need bold moves striking at the enemy's heart - a Grant style war of attrition would break the promise of having the troops home by Thanksgiving
Give me Patton's helmet and I'll take command of all the tanks Failing that, I want the same hat that Edward Teatch wore (or at least the same style)
Sure, the Middle East would be a smoking ruin and I'd probably attempt an Alexander Hamilton style power grab back in Washington, but it's a small price to pay for peace and stability in the ME
Posts like this are why I love Dakka.
I had a similar plan were we just bomb them into oblivion, but your plan would be legendary is implemented.
Yes Children, in 2014 the US appointed it's first and only '90 General' and gave him 100,000 troops to handle the terrrorist threat in what was once known as the middle east. You may know it as the fields of rememberance. A reminder to us all that Religous fantaticism, and the kind of power one gets when suddenly appointed 100,000 troops, corrupts the human soul and must not be tolerated.
Sure, the Middle East would be a smoking ruin and I'd probably attempt an Alexander Hamilton style power grab back in Washington, but it's a small price to pay for peace and stability in the ME
Posts like this are why I love Dakka.
I had a similar plan were we just bomb them into oblivion, but your plan would be legendary is implemented.
Yes Children, in 2014 the US appointed it's first and only '90 General' and gave him 100,000 troops to handle the terrrorist threat in what was once known as the middle east. You may know it as the fields of rememberance. A reminder to us all that Religous fantaticism, and the kind of power one gets when suddenly appointed 100,000 troops, corrupts the human soul and must not be tolerated.
From time to time, you have to joke about these subjects, because if you thought about them too hard, you'd go mad.
Politics, foreign affairs, and military history are keen interests of mine. Having followed this situation for weeks, I've came to one inescapable conclusion: NOBODY knows what the dakka they're doing!
Wheeling out Richard Nixon's corpse and asking it for advice would probably resolve the situation better than lame duck Obama.
In his heart America and Obama probably don't want to get involved, and I respect that and to be honest, support that choice, but this are we in or are we out approach, will result in the needless deaths of American service personnel or probably cause more damage to the region in the long run.
Frazzled wrote: My level of respect just rose three notches.
I'd have to wear Grant's hat myself though. Pick the winning side!
Actually, my first choice would have been MacArthur's corn cob pipe, but then I remembered that would be unhygienic.
It has to be Jackson over Grant. We need bold moves striking at the enemy's heart - a Grant style war of attrition would break the promise of having the troops home by Thanksgiving
Give me Patton's helmet and I'll take command of all the tanks Failing that, I want the same hat that Edward Teatch wore (or at least the same style)
Pretty sure that Teach's hat is in the British museum and thus property of the BRITISH crown. Keep your American paws off
Kill ratios don't win wars, true. But in this case it's a pretty good estimate of 'real' success. That and while the US has been hitting Kobane, four other towns along the boarder fell.
In the case of Kobane, the peshmerga held the town, but the casualties have made it a Pyrrhic victory. They have lost all their armor, ISIS has not lost all of its. The numbers disparity is big enough they could simply over run them with sheer numbers, it's still over 4 to 1.
So, why haven't they? They don't seem to be fully committing. I wonder if the whole point was to try and force the kurds over the boarder and into conflict with Turkey.
I've got to admit, not being versed in real world military stuff, why, considering all the airpower involved, it isn't just a matter of "oh, there is an Isis tank / large concentration to troops or vehicles" then boom.
Kill ratios don't win wars, true. But in this case it's a pretty good estimate of 'real' success. That and while the US has been hitting Kobane, four other towns along the boarder fell.
In the case of Kobane, the peshmerga held the town, but the casualties have made it a Pyrrhic victory. They have lost all their armor, ISIS has not lost all of its. The numbers disparity is big enough they could simply over run them with sheer numbers, it's still over 4 to 1.
So, why haven't they? They don't seem to be fully committing. I wonder if the whole point was to try and force the kurds over the boarder and into conflict with Turkey.
ISIS version of TRADOC posts. Only video I have seen them in any uniformity is training or propaganda marching.
Who is confirming Enemy Combatants" killed. Our intell by video or someone visual confirmation eh
Who is confirming Enemy Combatants" killed. Our intell by video or someone visual confirmation eh
Unknown. The US just issued a broad statement that they killed 'several hundred' with airstrikes. The peshmerga have (probably visually) confirmed about 375 ISIS dead grand total. I'm gonna say that the US most likely bagged vehicle and gun crews, but I don't see weeks of house to house fighting not being the balance of the casualties. Particularly with the sort of casualties that the kurds have been taking.
Compel wrote: I've got to admit, not being versed in real world military stuff, why, considering all the airpower involved, it isn't just a matter of "oh, there is an Isis tank / large concentration to troops or vehicles" then boom.
Number of planes vs number of tanks and troop concentrations would be my immediate answer. There simply aren't enough to hit everything. ISIS is not engaging in small groups, they're moving in brigade strength and greater in many areas.
I would think identifying targets would be difficult without assets on the ground to verify the targets. Also if they keep dispersed well enough it could be difficult finding targets worth sending air power after.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: I would think identifying targets would be difficult without assets on the ground to verify the targets. Also if they keep dispersed well enough it could be difficult finding targets worth sending air power after.
There's that too. ISIS controls a gigantic area.Another thing would be to move from hitting ISIS' wallet to their military. The US primary objective in Syria has been to try and cut off their funding. ISIS currently brings in about a million dollars a day in funding.
Isis brings in 1 million a day. Its not much in the grand scheme of things. How much do you think the US spends a day on ISIS, a fair bit more than a million Id say!
Andrew1975 wrote: Isis brings in 1 million a day. Its not much in the grand scheme of things. How much do you think the US spends a day on ISIS, a fair bit more than a million Id say!
A fair bit, I'd say, but not gaining a lot in tactical dividends on the ground. It's not how much you can spend, it's how you spend it. ISIS has gotten a lot more out of their million bucks a day than the US has gotten with however much they've spent.
Kobane now stands a ok chance, since Turkey is now allowing the Kurds to reenforce and the US has started dropping arms and medical supplies instead of just providing close air support.
Andrew1975 wrote: Isis brings in 1 million a day. Its not much in the grand scheme of things. How much do you think the US spends a day on ISIS, a fair bit more than a million Id say!
A fair bit, I'd say, but not gaining a lot in tactical dividends on the ground. It's not how much you can spend, it's how you spend it. ISIS has gotten a lot more out of their million bucks a day than the US has gotten with however much they've spent.
Kobane now stands a ok chance, since Turkey is now allowing the Kurds to reenforce and the US has started dropping arms and medical supplies instead of just providing close air support.
ISIS also doesn't have to actually buy everything either. Their "purchasing power" is probably much higher than a million a day because they can steal and loot some things from the local population (things like food, fuel, etc.).
I may have spoken too soon, ISIS has launched a major push to separate the Kurds from the Turkish boarder, effectively cutting them off from reinforcements in the city, if successful.
My stoopid-civvie question... if the US is airdropping these things... shouldn't there been "boots on the ground" to give intel to ensure that these drops go to the Kurds?
whembly wrote: [
My stoopid-civvie question... if the US is airdropping these things... shouldn't there been "boots on the ground" to give intel to ensure that these drops go to the Kurds?
Even with air-dropped supplies in Afghanistan, where we had entire bases where of US service members on the ground, supply drops sometimes go off course.
whembly wrote: [
My stoopid-civvie question... if the US is airdropping these things... shouldn't there been "boots on the ground" to give intel to ensure that these drops go to the Kurds?
Even with air-dropped supplies in Afghanistan, where we had entire bases where of US service members on the ground, supply drops sometimes go off course.
Okay... fair enough.
If the supplies were "important" enough. Shouldn't they GPS them so that if they were taken over by the enemy... at least we'd know where to send the tomohawk missiles.
If the supplies were "important" enough. Shouldn't they GPS them so that if they were taken over by the enemy... at least we'd know where to send the tomohawk missiles.
Because if the enemy is listening in, they know where to fire their own artillery to hit the men picking up the supplies.
Official story is that about 1 in 27 of the supply crates went off course. Looks like more, but could just be propaganda. Again, they also are claiming the peshmerga hold most of the city, and a quick look at a map and the locations of the front lines show what a pile that is. I'd say the eastern half of the city is still very much in ISIS hands. (Granted, front lines are a bit shaky on a good day with urban combat, but...)
If the supplies were "important" enough. Shouldn't they GPS them so that if they were taken over by the enemy... at least we'd know where to send the tomohawk missiles.
Because if the enemy is listening in, they know where to fire their own artillery to hit the men picking up the supplies.
Official story is that about 1 in 27 of the supply crates went off course. Looks like more, but could just be propaganda. Again, they also are claiming the peshmerga hold most of the city, and a quick look at a map and the locations of the front lines show what a pile that is. I'd say the eastern half of the city is still very much in ISIS hands. (Granted, front lines are a bit shaky on a good day with urban combat, but...)
I find it very unlikely that they'd be able to reliably listen in on us.
I find it very unlikely that they'd be able to reliably listen in on us.
Don't be. It's our comm gear we gave the Iraqis they use.
that said, the sort of transmitters that we're talking about here would be fairly simple little things by necessity. Just little beacons that missiles, etc, can home on. No information, just a little 'Here I am'. The problem is those are like tracer rounds, they're obvious to everyone in range.
They have a version of SINGARS. Frequency hop is unGodly, like three freq's a second so one has to be on the correct time frame and the right "fill"uploaded into the SINGARS.
Jihadin wrote: They have a version of SINGARS. Frequency hop is unGodly, like three freq's a second so one has to be on the correct time frame and the right "fill"uploaded into the SINGARS.
Yeah, but those would be easy for the bad guys to locate in the crate. SINGARs are generally backpack sized, iirc. If I was an opposing force, they wouldn't be hard to find in the box and leave at the drop site. This would have to be something you can actually hide in the box. It'd have to be a transmitter no bigger than a golf ball, but powerful enough to be picked up at range.
Recently, Al Jazeera were doing a rundown on the strength of ISIS, it's scary stuff.
They are estimated to have:
30,000-40,000 men (4 divisions) and we can call them divisions because many of them are former Iraq army/Saddam trained
A minimum of at least 80,000 non combatant supporters (spies, sympathisers, money men, doctors, middle men etc.) these on their own don't constitute a military threat but they are useful in other ways.
Thousands of small arms (and the millions of rounds of ammo to go with it) which is not unexpected for a country like Iraq
An abundance of heavy weaponry (mortars, artillery, RPGs)
Enough armoured vehicles to equip a mechanised brigade. Again, given the stuff they've captured, not surprising.
But it's the x factor, the unknown quantity, the unknown unknowns that are troubling the opposition the most.
As BaronlVeagh pointed out, they might have anti-ship missiles, and they almost certainly have a half decent anti-air capability.
I may be exaggerating, but ISIS seem to be resembling the Vietcong in the 1960s...
Sir Arun wrote: Except the only reason Americans lost the Vietnam War is because the public back at home pressured them into pulling out.
As long as the American public wont backstab the US military like that again, we can easily crush ISIS - not a matter of if, but when.
I think that, besides Viet Nam being somewhat unique in the social/political movements going on simultaneously, the US public has been much more against Iraq 2. But we have learned quite a bit, militarily in how to conduct long term operations as we did in 'Nam, Iraq, and even Afghanistan; As well as how to spin things for the public to keep them on "our" side, or at the very least, keep them in the realm of peaceful protest.
This will be a long operation of supporting local fighters and not a "US" engagement. Kind of like the beginning of Afghanistan where most of the heavy lifting was done by the Northern Alliance supported by US airpower.
After the election it will disappear from the news with occasional bombing. ISIS will win more territory but eventually halted when they hit heavy shiite areas. Kurds will hold onto a portion of their territory-maybe. On the ground the Turks seem fine with watching the Kurds get obliterated.
Syria will pound non ISIS guerrillas until there are no more then eventually turn on ISIS in Syria down the road. they want the population to have to choose between them and the crazies.
Meanwhile back at the Hall of Justice, Aquaman makes sandwiches for the other superheroes. Sandiwches made of Dolphin!
After the election it will disappear from the news with occasional bombing. ISIS will win more territory but eventually halted when they hit heavy shiite areas. Kurds will hold onto a portion of their territory-maybe. On the ground the Turks seem fine with watching the Kurds get obliterated.
Syria will pound non ISIS guerrillas until there are no more then eventually turn on ISIS in Syria down the road. they want the population to have to choose between them and the crazies.
The problem is when Syria loses, we're left with a large, hostile power, straddling major trade and oil production areas. Here's the thing, ISIS wants a fight with the US. The US options are to engage them in the middle east, or deal with attacks at home. I think we know which one that the US public prefers.
Sir Arun wrote: Except the only reason Americans lost the Vietnam War is because the public back at home pressured them into pulling out.
As long as the American public wont backstab the US military like that again, we can easily crush ISIS - not a matter of if, but when.
I would argue that the US was not fighting to win in Vietnam in the first place.
And, your line about the military being betrayed by the public has a certain uncomfortable feel to it. Like I should be hearing it in German.
The military was definitely betrayed by the public after the Vietnam war. They were literally demonized by an anti-war public, even though a huge portion of the military were drafted.
Grey Templar wrote: The military was definitely betrayed by the public after the Vietnam war. They were literally demonized by an anti-war public, even though a huge portion of the military were drafted.
The mods will be happier if we simply drop this line of discussion now. I'll say I find it disturbing that you view it in those terms, and we'll move along with the discussion of operations in Syria and Iraq.
Possibly one generation, after "cooling off" a bit, realized their anger was a bit misplaced, which is why we see the views on military personnel the way they are today.
Hmm... Seems Tal Shiar hill to the west of the town has fallen to IS again. That pretty much gives them the high ground around the town on the Syrian side of the boarder.
Also got some numbers on how many IS are KIA from US air strikes so far. Syrian Observatory for Human Rights in the UK is saying 464. Figuring Kurdish figures for how many killed and initial troop strengths and IS still out numbers the peshmerga about 2:1, assuming they haven't consolidated other forces in the area to reinforce.
Sadly, US also bagged 57 friendlies and 32 civvies. Not really that bad for airstrikes in an urban environment, but a waste all the same.
Edit: in other news, Turkey has authorized up to 200 kurds to reinforce Kobane. That doesn't even make up their losses by casualties.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Why doesn't Turkey just let all their Kurds who want to leave and fight ISIS go? Don't they want less Kurds in their country anyway?
They're trying to avoid ISIS having an actual excuse to cross the border and take some Turkish lands
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Why doesn't Turkey just let all their Kurds who want to leave and fight ISIS go? Don't they want less Kurds in their country anyway?
They're trying to avoid ISIS having an actual excuse to cross the border and take some Turkish lands
My best guess
I don't think even ISIS wants to tangle with Turkey. They have quite a large army.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Why doesn't Turkey just let all their Kurds who want to leave and fight ISIS go? Don't they want less Kurds in their country anyway?
They're trying to avoid ISIS having an actual excuse to cross the border and take some Turkish lands
My best guess
I don't think even ISIS wants to tangle with Turkey. They have quite a large army.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Why doesn't Turkey just let all their Kurds who want to leave and fight ISIS go? Don't they want less Kurds in their country anyway?
They're trying to avoid ISIS having an actual excuse to cross the border and take some Turkish lands
My best guess
I don't think even ISIS wants to tangle with Turkey. They have quite a large army.
Second largest in nato I believe.
And also....NATO. I would think everyone in NATO would be obligated to respond if ISIS actually invaded Turkey.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Why doesn't Turkey just let all their Kurds who want to leave and fight ISIS go? Don't they want less Kurds in their country anyway?
They're trying to avoid ISIS having an actual excuse to cross the border and take some Turkish lands
My best guess
I don't think even ISIS wants to tangle with Turkey. They have quite a large army.
Second largest in nato I believe.
And also....NATO. I would think everyone in NATO would be obligated to respond if ISIS actually invaded Turkey.
That's something I believe that ISIS well try once they consolidate. What better way to show how weak the western nations (NATO) is by not responding to it. Obama then would actually face a serious issue to deploy ground troops to assist Turkey
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Why doesn't Turkey just let all their Kurds who want to leave and fight ISIS go? Don't they want less Kurds in their country anyway?
They're trying to avoid ISIS having an actual excuse to cross the border and take some Turkish lands
My best guess
I don't think even ISIS wants to tangle with Turkey. They have quite a large army.
Second largest in nato I believe.
And also....NATO. I would think everyone in NATO would be obligated to respond if ISIS actually invaded Turkey.
That's something I believe that ISIS well try once they consolidate. What better way to show how weak the western nations (NATO) is by not responding to it. Obama then would actually face a serious issue to deploy ground troops to assist Turkey
I agree. I think the reason is because Turkey believes any Kurds they let go will become hardened vets who may then come back and start a rebellion in Turkey. They're probably right about that....
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Why doesn't Turkey just let all their Kurds who want to leave and fight ISIS go? Don't they want less Kurds in their country anyway?
They're trying to avoid ISIS having an actual excuse to cross the border and take some Turkish lands
My best guess
I don't think even ISIS wants to tangle with Turkey. They have quite a large army.
Second largest in nato I believe.
And also....NATO. I would think everyone in NATO would be obligated to respond if ISIS actually invaded Turkey.
That's something I believe that ISIS well try once they consolidate. What better way to show how weak the western nations (NATO) is by not responding to it. Obama then would actually face a serious issue to deploy ground troops to assist Turkey
I don't think ISIS will try to attack Turkey. I think the Turkish army is a bit out of their league, and they would probably face a NATO response of some kind. ISIS may be crazy, but they're not stupid.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Why doesn't Turkey just let all their Kurds who want to leave and fight ISIS go? Don't they want less Kurds in their country anyway?
They're trying to avoid ISIS having an actual excuse to cross the border and take some Turkish lands
My best guess
I don't think even ISIS wants to tangle with Turkey. They have quite a large army.
Second largest in nato I believe.
And also....NATO. I would think everyone in NATO would be obligated to respond if ISIS actually invaded Turkey.
That's something I believe that ISIS well try once they consolidate. What better way to show how weak the western nations (NATO) is by not responding to it. Obama then would actually face a serious issue to deploy ground troops to assist Turkey
In such a hypothetical scenario, could Obama not simply step-up both the naval & air assets, then deploy a limited number of "special operations advisors" as a means to get covert spec ops units involved?
It gives him effective 'boots on the ground', and by their very nature he doesn't have to go into any kind of details about exactly what these "advisors" are doing. (well, beyond 'advising' local forces of course...) Yet on the public face at home, he can safely just say that he's stepped up with added commitments & thus kept up the NATO pact, without going whole hog into another full blown invasion level of deployment.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Why doesn't Turkey just let all their Kurds who want to leave and fight ISIS go? Don't they want less Kurds in their country anyway?
They're trying to avoid ISIS having an actual excuse to cross the border and take some Turkish lands
My best guess
I don't think even ISIS wants to tangle with Turkey. They have quite a large army.
Second largest in nato I believe.
And also....NATO. I would think everyone in NATO would be obligated to respond if ISIS actually invaded Turkey.
That's something I believe that ISIS well try once they consolidate. What better way to show how weak the western nations (NATO) is by not responding to it. Obama then would actually face a serious issue to deploy ground troops to assist Turkey
In such a hypothetical scenario, could Obama not simply step-up both the naval & air assets, then deploy a limited number of "special operations advisors" as a means to get covert spec ops units involved?
It gives him effective 'boots on the ground', and by their very nature he doesn't have to go into any kind of details about exactly what these "advisors" are doing. (well, beyond 'advising' local forces of course...) Yet on the public face at home, he can safely just say that he's stepped up with added commitments & thus kept up the NATO pact, without going whole hog into another full blown invasion level of deployment.
.Sure... anything can happen...
BUt, I suspect that Obama will kick this issue to the next administration as much as he can.
I'm sick and tired of media outlets warping whats really happening out there to watered down, censored, cozy, family-friendly morsels aired during prime-time just so Joe Schmoe can watch the news with his wife and kids during dinner and then shrug his shoulders and be about his business as usual.
And this might just be a wild guess but the reason the US military (and President) are so lethargtic is that even they are only drip-fed false approximations of whats really happening in the ME. They still treat ISIS like some disorganized group of wannabe terrorists that can easily be dealt with, when in reality the territory they control is about the size of the UK, and huge parts of the civilian population actually supporting them.
No, ISIS is more like Nazi Germany, perhaps not on the technogicial or industrial level, but in the ideological and propaganda level with euphoric civilian support. They can only be really dealt with through full scale war. The world ignored Hitler from 1933 to 1939 and he could amass enough momentum to conquer most of europe...if the US continues to ignore the threat of ISIS, in fear of losing elections due to the american public being war weary (due to the media not really telling them what monster is in the Middle East right now and why it MUST be stopped), then ISIS will only become even harder to eradicate.
Frak, man that scene with the beheadings… Gruesome, that’s all I can say about it.
I knew stuff like this happens and would continue to happen for some time, but to think it would be carried out on such a massive scale?
Truly IS is the biggest blight on the earth and has come to symbolize humanity at its absolute cruelest.
They’re no more than a stone toss away from being as bad as the Nazis.
Grey Templar wrote: You know in WW2, when you looked up and saw hundreds of bombers overhead and sound of their engines shook the earth?
Thats what ISIS needs to look up and see.
Yah know, I kind of agree.
Since the US is the only power capable I would suggest that Obama goes in front of a camera and apologizes in advance for the feth ton of ordnance that civilians may get dropped on them. At the close of his speech the first cruise missiles should be hitting their targets, to be followed by waves of B-52s carrying iron bombs. Carpet bomb from the northern edge of Baghdad upwards to the borders of Iran and Turkey.
B1's and B2's to assist in the effort.
Strike jets should follow the first waves decimating anything that has been identified as ISIS that isn't destroyed by cruise or carpet bombing.
Chuck some more cruise missiles around for good measure.
Maybe have a breather to ask those supporting ISIS to reconsider their positions. Then resume again, again, and again.
Maybe we could chuck a few tornadoes and Typhoons into the air to help the effort.
Truly IS is the biggest blight on the earth and has come to symbolize humanity at its absolute cruelest.
They’re no more than a stone toss away from being as bad as the Nazis.
And yet, i was a terrible warmonger just trying to get Americans killed when i posted about just how far down the rabbit hole goes this time last year by many of the posters in this thread.
This has been dragged out now to the point there are only two ways it ends, US boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq, or ISIS boots on the ground in the US. Those are your choices now, when all is said and done.
I think we could simply start by bombing Raqqa. Bomb it to dust and take it from there. Lets first see if that will be enough to destroy most of ISIS command infrastructure and have them leaderless.
Do I have an ounce of sympathy for the civilians in Raqqa? Absolutely not. Not when they had plenty of time to pack up and flee and didnt. Not when they had ample chance to unite and refuse IS rule and didnt. Not when they admire heads mounted on the central square's railings like some bizarre museum goers and take pictures with their mobile phones. Not when they as a mob beat Safawi soldiers to death, tie their hands on the back railings of their motorbikes and drag their corpses through the city streets amidst cheers from bystanders.
No, ISIS is more like Nazi Germany, perhaps not on the technogicial or industrial level, but in the ideological and propaganda level with euphoric civilian support. They can only be really dealt with through full scale war. The world ignored Hitler from 1933 to 1939 and he could amass enough momentum to conquer most of europe...if the US continues to ignore the threat of ISIS, in fear of losing elections due to the american public being war weary (due to the media not really telling them what monster is in the Middle East right now and why it MUST be stopped), then ISIS will only become even harder to eradicate.
Sure the Nazis and ISIS share a massive propaganda machine, but neither have ever possessed "euphoric civilian support." The Nazi Party at the height of its popularity only ever pulled down a hot 44% of the vote, and needed to build a coalition to progress further. The majority of Sunnis in those places occupied by ISIS are people like you or I, who just want to go on and live their own lives and are fully aware of the radicalism of ISIS and don't particularly care for it. But they are stuck in a situation where they are repressed by Shi'a led regimes, or have to merely not interfere with extremists who share their own core beliefs. Not much of a choice is it?
Of course the United States and her military are war weary, we've spent the past 13 years overseas fighting two wars for questionable reasons and no demonstrable gains in areas of the world that don't share a language, culture and only the most basic values with the West. Now you want to send the fighting men and women back into a quagmire of our own creation against a fanatical enemy and with no clear goals?
No, I say. Absolutely not.
This is a Muslim issue, and it needs to be a multilateral effort lead by countries in the region to stabilize the situation, and sort out the issues within Islam itself. If they want some US air power or logistical support, fine, but I am vehemently against sending any more Americans to die in what will be a futile effort.
Mr. Burning wrote:
Since the US is the only power capable I would suggest that Obama goes in front of a camera and apologizes in advance for the feth ton of ordnance that civilians may get dropped on them. At the close of his speech the first cruise missiles should be hitting their targets, to be followed by waves of B-52s carrying iron bombs. Carpet bomb from the northern edge of Baghdad upwards to the borders of Iran and Turkey.
B1's and B2's to assist in the effort.
....
It won't happen, but it should. It should.
You're seriously advocating carpet bombing half a country? With no regard to the millions of civilians in the area?
BaronIveagh wrote:
And yet, i was a terrible warmonger just trying to get Americans killed when i posted about just how far down the rabbit hole goes this time last year by many of the posters in this thread.
This has been dragged out now to the point there are only two ways it ends, US boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq, or ISIS boots on the ground in the US. Those are your choices now, when all is said and done.
Way to appeal to the most basic 'us vs. them' sentiment. This isn't some titanic struggle between world superpowers that necessitates an overwhelming military response, this is a fringe group that has taken advantage of the chaotic political situation and the lack of true states in the Middle East. The most sensible way to deal with this is to let the region as a whole get sick of the situation, and then provide support for them when they decide to do something about it.
ISIS has no capability to project power in the United States, and I'm skeptical that they could put 'ISIS boots on the ground in the US.' This entire Salafi cauldron has finally boiled over, and it is up to the Muslim world as whole to decide what to do with it. Any intervention by the United States is a pointless waste of money, and more importantly, of American lives that will only be seen as an intrusion by the imperialist, Crusader West.
You're seriously advocating carpet bombing half a country? With no regard to the millions of civilians in the area?
Yes, yes I am.
I would further advocate a full scale invasion, not a peacekeeping mission, not hearts and minds. No token advisors. A full on boots on ground effort.
ISIS Are to all intents and purposes a hostile nation state set on conquering its neighbors. In the last thousand or so years war has not changed its nature with regards to defeating such a foe. Bring all your might to bear and make such a war that your enemy can no longer fight and will no longer have the will to do so in the future. Such an undertaking entails massive casualties.
Give you enemies pause for thought by their destruction and the destruction of their allies.
Salt the earth.
ISIS leadership needs destroying.
ISIS supporters need to be fought, and stopped.
The Muslim world will not stop this on their own.
The Muslim world may look upon a massive act of aggression as a means to promulgate Muslim cohesion against the western world.
But ISIS have to be stopped. And in such a way to give pause to any with similar ideals.
Unfortunately, previous actions fought with constraints and conceit have been met with public disdain and have exposed weaknesses to be exploited.
You're seriously advocating carpet bombing half a country? With no regard to the millions of civilians in the area?
Yes, yes I am.
I would further advocate a full scale invasion, not a peacekeeping mission, not hearts and minds. No token advisors. A full on boots on ground effort.
ISIS Are to all intents and purposes a hostile nation state set on conquering its neighbors. In the last thousand or so years war has not changed its nature with regards to defeating such a foe. Bring all your might to bear and make such a war that your enemy can no longer fight and will no longer have the will to do so in the future. Such an undertaking entails massive casualties.
Give you enemies pause for thought by their destruction and the destruction of their allies.
Salt the earth.
ISIS leadership needs destroying.
ISIS supporters need to be fought, and stopped.
The Muslim world will not stop this on their own.
The Muslim world may look upon a massive act of aggression as a means to promulgate Muslim cohesion against the western world.
But ISIS have to be stopped. And in such a way to give pause to any with similar ideals.
Unfortunately, previous actions fought with constraints and conceit have been met with public disdain and have exposed weaknesses to be exploited.
Thus we have the situation we all face now.
Why must they be stopped? What threat do they pose to us? You're advocating a very temporary solution to what has become an enduring problem. The United States and her allies stepping in once again is only going to fuel the fire of Islamic extremism, and as such this needs to be taken care of by the regional powers that adhere to the same creed, to show that they won't tolerate this sort of behavior.
ISIS is neither a nation, nor a state, and it has little in the way of resources and with the tides turning their support will dry up quickly. The United States failed to heed the lessons of the Soviet adventure in Afghanistan, and we are paying the price now, both in the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Islamic extremists aren't something that you can defeat with military force, because even military setbacks are an ideological tool. We need to stop playing the same game and try a new approach.
This isn't a nation we are making war on, but an ideology. The last several decades have exposed the folly of trying to make war on an ideal, with the War on Terror and the War on Drugs, and to try and do so again would be both a waste of blood and treasure. I find it appalling that you would even advocate such an extreme strategy, tied to the suffering of millions, to try and rid the world of what can be considered a minor problem.
As a soldier, I have one thing to say to you. Screw you. You want to send soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines to fight an avoidable war to sate your bloodlust? No, just no. And until you've seen the torn bodies of your friends, and of children that particular option has no place in this conversation. See the sort of horrors that have been visited upon the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the service members that have served there and then tell me that it's a viable option.
Well excluding that they have already killed people (including us) they are also disrupting the entire region which is bad for the region and bad for us. Even if you don't care about foriegn relations it makse us look weak to stand around and barely do anything. We can ignore them but that won't work out well.
They are trying to be become just that, and in many ways already see themselves as such.
IAmTheWalrus wrote: it has little in the way of resources and with the tides turning their support will dry up quickly.
They are the richest terror organization out there and have lots of resources, actually. You aren't seeing it from their view. They will keep taking areas and killing aid workers until they actually are stopped. How many more British/American/Australian/Iraqi/Syrians do they have to kill and displace to be taken seriously? I'm not saying we need to nuke them from orbit (though that is the only way to be sure) but we need to do something more than we are.
Not to be confrontational but, I wonder how many people on Dakka actually served. It is easy to comment from the leisure of an armchair. (I know some have though, probably reason some of the posts in this thread are so well informed.)
Either we fully commit with no bull ROEs that do more harm to us than good, have public backing (without the armed forces being more worried about warfare than stupid social issues like religious headware and dreadlocks being added to the regs,) and go house to house, street to street (I am refrencing Fallujah, US Marines, before one of you misinterpretates that,) we will not win. We need to /fully/ commit, or avoid it altogether. There are high stakes at play. If we go unto the breach again, our nation also must be prepared to properly treat our troops when they come home. ISIL is a threat though it is truly a mixed bag considering all of the politics and involvement in that area between rival factions. To be honest and to be OT, ISIL is going to be a thorn in many countries sides before it is over due to their ideology, manpower, and the funds they gather.
Grey Templar wrote: You know in WW2, when you looked up and saw hundreds of bombers overhead and sound of their engines shook the earth?
Thats what ISIS needs to look up and see.
Yah know, I kind of agree.
Since the US is the only power capable I would suggest that Obama goes in front of a camera and apologizes in advance for the feth ton of ordnance that civilians may get dropped on them. At the close of his speech the first cruise missiles should be hitting their targets, to be followed by waves of B-52s carrying iron bombs. Carpet bomb from the northern edge of Baghdad upwards to the borders of Iran and Turkey.
B1's and B2's to assist in the effort.
It seems odd to me that the best way to counter ISIS killing innocent people is for us to kill substantially more innocent people on a larger scale, which is exactly what both of you are describing.
We should do precisely nothing, because the US does not have the political will to stage a full on war with decades of occupation, and anything less then that is a waste of lives and resources.
ISIL has declared that Saudi Arabia is their next target: Well, Saudi Arabia is a rich country that spends a larger percentage of GDP on it's military than nearly any other country. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not super hot for my country go to another war to protect the guys who gave us Osama Bin Laden and 15 of the 9/11 hijackers.
Ouze wrote: We should do precisely nothing, because the US does not have the political will to stage a full on war with decades of occupation, and anything less then that is a waste of lives and resources.
While I don't necessarily disagree that doesn't mean it isn't frustrating to watch. I would like to see the powers in the area take a more proactive stance with our support, if anything. They need to be the ones doing the most direct handling, but that doesn't mean we should sit on our hands either. We are helping out a bit now, but I would like to see us do a bit more, but admittedly I think others need to step up more first or at the very least simultaneously.
Ahtman wrote: [While I don't necessarily disagree that doesn't mean it isn't frustrating to watch. .
No, I mean, I see Americans being beheaded, FFS, and I want justice - or at least blood - too. It's galling. All of those carriers, all of those fighter jets, all of those nuclear missiles in their silos and those submarines in the sea and the satellites in space and all of our might, and we can't do anything.
But - we can't really do anything. Not anything useful and productive in the long term. Neither this president nor an incoming president of any party is willing to commit on the level it would take to actually solve this problem, and for good reason, because the American people aren't going to support it, either.
I don't see a winning hand for us here. The best we can do, I think, is try to dissuade Americans from going to the region and continue to contribute the air power we do have the political will to commit. This talk of carpet-bombing is a little unrealistic, kind of a power fantasy that doesn't take much of a poke to fall apart.
Something that a lot of you are not getting is that even with US air support, an ISIL victory is a real possibility. This is not something that is just going to go away on it's own and thus far our allies seem to be able to manage a stalemate at best on ISIL's territory. They're factionalized, and some would rather shoot each other than fight ISIL.
I don't see this ending any way but with US boots on the ground. Either one our terms, or on ISILs.
Also, I love the idea that ISIL is a 'middle east problem'. Much in the same way that Germany was a 'European problem' in 1940.
It seems odd to me that the best way to counter ISIS killing innocent people is for us to kill substantially more innocent people on a larger scale, which is exactly what both of you are describing.
We should do precisely nothing, because the US does not have the political will to stage a full on war with decades of occupation, and anything less then that is a waste of lives and resources.
ISIL has declared that Saudi Arabia is their next target: Well, Saudi Arabia is a rich country that spends a larger percentage of GDP on it's military than nearly any other country. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not super hot for my country go to another war to protect the guys who gave us Osama Bin Laden and 15 of the 9/11 hijackers.
I agree with this. I am not in the US so it's not my country going to war en masse, but if you try to stomp around there indiscriminately you will only reinforce their ideas of 'evil westerners'.
If the middle east can't solve this on their own, eventually intervention -will- become necessary, but this situation may yet develop in different paths.
If the middle east can't solve this on their own, eventually intervention -will- become necessary, but this situation may yet develop in different paths.
Letting them take Saudi Arabia is quite possibly the worst idea in a long line of bad ideas in this thread. Sure, ISIL in charge of Medina and Mecca. While we're at it, how about we sell them plans for small, low yield nukes too. Something that will fit in a briefcase. They'd probably be able to do less damage with that;.
If the middle east can't solve this on their own, eventually intervention -will- become necessary, but this situation may yet develop in different paths.
Letting them take Saudi Arabia is quite possibly the worst idea in a long line of bad ideas in this thread. Sure, ISIL in charge of Medina and Mecca. While we're at it, how about we sell them plans for small, low yield nukes too. Something that will fit in a briefcase. They'd probably be able to do less damage with that;.
I doubt Saudi Arabia is going to let them. As previously stated, they have a big military and are a tough nut to crack.
Grey Templar wrote: You know in WW2, when you looked up and saw hundreds of bombers overhead and sound of their engines shook the earth?
Thats what ISIS needs to look up and see.
Yah know, I kind of agree.
Since the US is the only power capable I would suggest that Obama goes in front of a camera and apologizes in advance for the feth ton of ordnance that civilians may get dropped on them. At the close of his speech the first cruise missiles should be hitting their targets, to be followed by waves of B-52s carrying iron bombs. Carpet bomb from the northern edge of Baghdad upwards to the borders of Iran and Turkey.
B1's and B2's to assist in the effort.
Strike jets should follow the first waves decimating anything that has been identified as ISIS that isn't destroyed by cruise or carpet bombing.
Chuck some more cruise missiles around for good measure.
Maybe have a breather to ask those supporting ISIS to reconsider their positions. Then resume again, again, and again.
Maybe we could chuck a few tornadoes and Typhoons into the air to help the effort.
It won't happen, but it should. It should.
Congrats, you're now officially supporting a dictator we said had to go and are ostensively support rebels against. Oh, and yea, even more people will hate us.
Remember Libya? How has that turned out?
Couldn't the USA fall back on the old tried and tested CIA method of rounding up some exiles, sending them in with a ton of cash and weapons, and praying for a favourable result?
This has been dragged out now to the point there are only two ways it ends, US boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq, or ISIS boots on the ground in the US. Those are your choices
now, when all is said and done.
Thats fearmongering horse gak. We just need to control our borders better. Open borders with drugs, criminal cartels, human trafficking etc. are a substanitally greater ongoing threat RIGHT NOW.
I'd bet good money you didn't llike Bush when he was doing the same thing.
Lets assume you bomb them? Then what? Lets assume you put "boots on the ground" Then what? We did this twice already. How has that turned out?
indeed, how come none of these proposals to solve this problem with ordnance have covered the follow up of rebuilding the country? Or do you propose that we blow up the country, leave it in a ruined state, and hope that something worse doesn't sprout up even though historically that has always happened in that situation?
If the middle east can't solve this on their own, eventually intervention -will- become necessary, but this situation may yet develop in different paths.
Letting them take Saudi Arabia is quite possibly the worst idea in a long line of bad ideas in this thread. Sure, ISIL in charge of Medina and Mecca. While we're at it, how about we sell them plans for small, low yield nukes too. Something that will fit in a briefcase. They'd probably be able to do less damage with that;.
I am seriously doubting that will happen. ISIS is poking a sleeping giant with Saudi Arabia. You think the royal family over there is going to let their way of life be threatened?
I am honestly just waiting for Iran to say screw it and make their move. Only a matter of time.
Ouze wrote: indeed, how come none of these proposals to solve this problem with ordnance have covered the follow up of rebuilding the country? Or do you propose that we blow up the country, leave it in a ruined state, and hope that something worse doesn't sprout up even though historically that has always happened in that situation?
Admittedly carpet bombing is a bit OTT. Seriously though Limited intervention will not stop ISIL from their main aims. They will fester and continue to grow support.
Letting the arab nations sit on their hands while sitting on our hands is not really a credible option either.
There will be no peace unless we are able to do something credible viable and timely. Time is arguably running out....
Grey Templar wrote: You know in WW2, when you looked up and saw hundreds of bombers overhead and sound of their engines shook the earth?
Thats what ISIS needs to look up and see.
Yah know, I kind of agree.
Since the US is the only power capable I would suggest that Obama goes in front of a camera and apologizes in advance for the feth ton of ordnance that civilians may get dropped on them. At the close of his speech the first cruise missiles should be hitting their targets, to be followed by waves of B-52s carrying iron bombs. Carpet bomb from the northern edge of Baghdad upwards to the borders of Iran and Turkey.
B1's and B2's to assist in the effort.
It seems odd to me that the best way to counter ISIS killing innocent people is for us to kill substantially more innocent people on a larger scale, which is exactly what both of you are describing.
We should do precisely nothing, because the US does not have the political will to stage a full on war with decades of occupation, and anything less then that is a waste of lives and resources.
ISIL has declared that Saudi Arabia is their next target: Well, Saudi Arabia is a rich country that spends a larger percentage of GDP on it's military than nearly any other country. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not super hot for my country go to another war to protect the guys who gave us Osama Bin Laden and 15 of the 9/11 hijackers.
When Ouze and Frazzled agree, something is either epically right, or epically clusterfethed.
I doubt Saudi Arabia is going to let them. As previously stated, they have a big military and are a tough nut to crack.
The US spent a lot of money on the Iraqi military too. Hilariously a good portion of that hardware is now in ISIL hands. The Saudis are looking at the possibility of a three front war. Against ISIS/ISIL in Iraq and Egypt, and their own internal radicals who will be more than happy to aid ISIS. I doubt that the Saudis would find their army as dependable as they'd hope.
Frazzled wrote:[
Thats fearmongering horse gak. We just need to control our borders better. Open borders with drugs, criminal cartels, human trafficking etc. are a substanitally greater ongoing threat RIGHT NOW.
I'd bet good money you didn't Bush doing the same thing.
Lets assume you bomb them? Then what?
Lets assume you put "boots on the ground" Then what? We did this twice already. How has that turned out?
You said something similar when i said that the problems in Syria were going to spread to other countries in the region.
No, I didn't like Bush II doing it because Iraq wasn't a threat and invading it would destabilize the region. Which it did.
On the boarder thing: to make the US boarder sufficiently secure for purposes of keeping out terrorists, would require the US boarder patrol to outnumber all military branches combined. It might be possible to control the US/Mexico boarder, but the US/Canada boarder is beyond either the US or Canada's means to control. It's simply too large. It would require a force that outnumbers the entire militaries of Canada and the US combined to patrol it with any regularity, according to GAO.
My approach would be two pronged. First would be the use of overwhelming force to break ISIL. I'd call up every regular and every gaurdsman I could lay my hands on. My objective would be to put three million boots on the ground. Once they were driven out of Iraq I'd then push into west of Syria, using naval fire support in the cities and then pushing into the desert.
Then, I'd divide Syria into military districts, put a squad on every street corner, and occupy them for 20 years, with the US in absolute control over schools, public services, media, and hospitals. Any insurgents would be put to death. Cities, roads, and basic services would be rebuilt under the guidance of the Corps of Engineers. And then, once I had finished brainwashing a large enough cross section of the population by constantly reminding them of how ISIS murdered innocent women and children, then, and only then, would we allow them elections and then withdraw, leaving behind a large number of army, navy, and airforce bases which we'd continue to occupy.
Something that a lot of you are not getting is that even with US air support, an ISIL victory is a real possibility. This is not something that is just going to go away on it's own and thus far our allies seem to be able to manage a stalemate at best on ISIL's territory. They're factionalized, and some would rather shoot each other than fight ISIL.
I don't see this ending any way but with US boots on the ground. Either one our terms, or on ISILs.
Also, I love the idea that ISIL is a 'middle east problem'. Much in the same way that Germany was a 'European problem' in 1940.
Then if you're going to claim Godwin we need to immeidate give the launch codes to 500 megs of warheads and launch.
If you're going to do a thing, then do a thing.
Ouze wrote: indeed, how come none of these proposals to solve this problem with ordnance have covered the follow up of rebuilding the country? Or do you propose that we blow up the country, leave it in a ruined state, and hope that something worse doesn't sprout up even though historically that has always happened in that situation?
A history 101 class for you, Ouze, but you did that back in 2003!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Couldn't the USA fall back on the old tried and tested CIA method of rounding up some exiles, sending them in with a ton of cash and weapons, and praying for a favourable result?
Family history. Daddy Frazzled was one of the involuntary Marine "volunteers" providing support. He was so drunk he almost fell out of the airplane as it circled over Havana.
Ouze wrote: indeed, how come none of these proposals to solve this problem with ordnance have covered the follow up of rebuilding the country? Or do you propose that we blow up the country, leave it in a ruined state, and hope that something worse doesn't sprout up even though historically that has always happened in that situation?
Admittedly carpet bombing is a bit OTT. Seriously though Limited intervention will not stop ISIL from their main aims. They will fester and continue to grow support.
Letting the arab nations sit on their hands while sitting on our hands is not really a credible option either.
There will be no peace unless we are able to do something credible viable and timely. Time is arguably running out....
Running out for what? The Mideast has been a hotbed of violence since Cain and Able. It never got better.
Strong fences make good neighbors. We need strong fences now.
ISIS is neither a nation, nor a state, and it has little in the way of resources and with the tides turning their support will dry up quickly.
ISIS/ISIL is very much a nation, as they have a self-identified commonality, and a strong desire for statehood.
Now, whether they are a state is a whole different matter entirely. Because Iraq has lost sovereignty in areas where IS forces have gone in, as well as in Syria, the argument can be made that they have gone from simply being ultra-nationalists to having a state whether the UN or anyone else recognizes it.
The West, just once, needs to stretch forth it's arm in full might, no moderated and moral highground, but the full force of our technological might. We have been appearing weaker and weaker over the years and the blunders in the middle east have exacerbated the issue.
We should erase ISIS so utterly that even the thought of upsetting us fills the little tinpot dictators and the 'freedom fighters' with absolute terror.
One example to be carved into the minds of the rest of the world for centuries to come.
These people are enslaving women for sex, beheading children and erasing entire cultures. We should destroy them. Absolute and Entire massed force.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: The West, just once, needs to stretch forth it's arm in full might, no moderated and moral highground, but the full force of our technological might. We have been appearing weaker and weaker over the years and the blunders in the middle east have exacerbated the issue.
We should erase ISIS so utterly that even the thought of upsetting us fills the little tinpot dictators and the 'freedom fighters' with absolute terror.
One example to be carved into the minds of the rest of the world for centuries to come.
These people are enslaving women for sex, beheading children and erasing entire cultures. We should destroy them. Absolute and Entire massed force.
I bet we could convince all of the nuclear powers to launch a simultaneous nuke strike on one target.... that should send a message
MeanGreenStompa wrote: The West, just once, needs to stretch forth it's arm in full might, no moderated and moral highground, but the full force of our technological might. We have been appearing weaker and weaker over the years and the blunders in the middle east have exacerbated the issue.
We should erase ISIS so utterly that even the thought of upsetting us fills the little tinpot dictators and the 'freedom fighters' with absolute terror.
One example to be carved into the minds of the rest of the world for centuries to come.
These people are enslaving women for sex, beheading children and erasing entire cultures. We should destroy them. Absolute and Entire massed force.
Agreed.
It should be on scale that we still remember what Rome did to Carthage.
It should be on scale that we still remember what Rome did to Carthage.
The problem with a literal "salt the earth" policy, is that it sets up a "human rights" nightmare, of how are all the farmers going to grow? Good news is, Monstanto probably has some "Salted Earth" seeds that will grow with Monsanto pest/herbicides/fertilizer, and even some purified Monsanto water
They are crucifying Christians alive, they are beheading small children, they are burying people alive in massed graves, they are enslaving and turning women and children into sex slaves, they are massacring and defiling on a huge scale. This isn't some muddy waters ethical dilemma people, this is 'the bad guys'.
We must stop them utterly and without a shred of mercy, negotiation or reason.
They should be liquidated. Entirely.
They have old AKs and adherence to a lunatic cult, we have flying fething robots and smart missiles.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: They are crucifying Christians alive, they are beheading small children, they are burying people alive in massed graves, they are enslaving and turning women and children into sex slaves, they are massacring and defiling on a huge scale. This isn't some muddy waters ethical dilemma people, this is 'the bad guys'.
We must stop them utterly and without a shred of mercy, negotiation or reason.
They should be liquidated. Entirely.
They have old AKs and adherence to a lunatic cult, we have flying fething robots and smart missiles.
Erase them. Grind them into dust.
Precisely (despite some of my jokes to the contrary), when it comes to ISIS, I believe that old Starship Troopers line: "The only good bug is a dead bug" is extremely true in this case.
does that mean sir!
I exaggerate, of course, but they really have hit rock bottom, and can't be relied on as a serious fighting force. 
when I read your sentence about ISIL possibly having anti-ship missiles. Scary stuff.
