Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Wanna know what I would like to see?

I would like to see one of the reporters in the White House Press Pool ask:

If beheading folks and taking over territory in the Middle East and being well funded bad guys is such a threat to our national security that we must bomb them, then how come when certain Mexican cartels take over territory and behead people on our own border it is merely a LE issue?

 CptJake wrote:
Wanna know what I would like to see?

I would like to see one of the reporters in the White House Press Pool ask:

If beheading folks and taking over territory in the Middle East and being well funded bad guys is such a threat to our national security that we must bomb them, then how come when certain Mexican cartels take over territory and behead people on our own border it is merely a LE issue?

If the Cartels were driving around in T72 tanks and besieging cities to go with their beheadings, they probably would be on the radar too.

However, the cartels tanks look like something from Beyond Thunderdome, and therefore are less of a issue.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Wanna know what I would like to see?

I would like to see one of the reporters in the White House Press Pool ask:

If beheading folks and taking over territory in the Middle East and being well funded bad guys is such a threat to our national security that we must bomb them, then how come when certain Mexican cartels take over territory and behead people on our own border it is merely a LE issue?

If the Cartels were driving around in T72 tanks and besieging cities to go with their beheadings, they probably would be on the radar too.

However, the cartels tanks look like something from Beyond Thunderdome, and therefore are less of a issue.

Well, the cartels have planes and boats they regularly cross into our territory, as well as uparmored vehicles. Think ISIS can get a T72 into El Paso? And the cartels do control cities, their method of conquest may be different but their power in their territory is as complete.

I'm just saying I would like to see someone from the admin give a decent answer as to how one group is a threat to national security deserving nightly visits from a carrier air group plus an assortment of ground based attack wings, and the other doesn't even merit securing our borders. Cartels and their associated gangs are killing more US folks in the US than ISIS is...

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


Non-state actors can't be involved in a war? That surprises me.

Me too.

I suppose it's a case of 'reality vs law' under the law, they're not supposed to be able to. In reality, it happens pretty much every war.



Personal opinion:

This is one of those cases where 'nation building'; is going to be required for any meaningful victory. Neither Assad nor Isis should be allowed to stay, but it's going to take careful planning to do it in a way that does not make things even worse.

The Assad Regme is the only thing keeping ISIS and other extreme groups in check right now.

Remove Assad, and you'd have a repeat of Libya post revolution. Rival groups of extremists rampaging across Syria, fighting amongst themselves to fill the power vacuum left behind.

 CptJake wrote:

Well, the cartels have planes and boats they regularly cross into our territory, as well as uparmored vehicles. Think ISIS can get a T72 into El Paso? And the cartels do control cities, their method of conquest may be different but their power in their territory is as complete.

I'm just saying I would like to see someone from the admin give a decent answer as to how one group is a threat to national security deserving nightly visits from a carrier air group plus an assortment of ground based attack wings, and the other doesn't even merit securing our borders. Cartels and their associated gangs are killing more US folks in the US than ISIS is...

They're killing a lot more Mexicans than Isis is too. I notice you left them out.

The cartels have not proclaimed themselves a sovereign government, nor do they, compared to ISIS, really have an army. While they do have defacto control of a wide stretch of Mexico,

As to why they're not being visited by carrier groups:

One: the cartels operate in small groups and usually do not engage the Mexican army openly. This makes airstrikes a little trickier.

Two: Unlike ISIS, the cartels have not sworn to destroy the United States, they like the US right where it is, and to continue what it has been doing. Namely buying their coke and selling them guns.

Three: The cartels, unlike ISIS, work closely with the CIA. Very closely.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

The Assad Regme is the only thing keeping ISIS and other extreme groups in check right now.

Um, no. Until About mid August, Assad actually did nothing against Isis, and in fact, helped them against the few remaining secular rebels. Only when Isis began to threaten Assads own forces (and the US began bombing them) has he done a damn thing about them. Probably out of feat that if he did not look like he was doing something, the US would invade and depose him.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-conflict-president-assad-finally-turns-on-isis-as-government-steps-up-campaign-against-militant-strongholds-9679480.html

Why all the outrage now after some journalists were killed horrifically when it's been going on with Iraqis?

A 'lil Obama taking credit, but shifting blame. Business as usual.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-6TXGdfyKIs

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7DpBwmN66As

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Well, the cartels have planes and boats they regularly cross into our territory, as well as uparmored vehicles. Think ISIS can get a T72 into El Paso? And the cartels do control cities, their method of conquest may be different but their power in their territory is as complete.

I'm just saying I would like to see someone from the admin give a decent answer as to how one group is a threat to national security deserving nightly visits from a carrier air group plus an assortment of ground based attack wings, and the other doesn't even merit securing our borders. Cartels and their associated gangs are killing more US folks in the US than ISIS is...

They're killing a lot more Mexicans than Isis is too. I notice you left them out.

The cartels have not proclaimed themselves a sovereign government, nor do they, compared to ISIS, really have an army. While they do have defacto control of a wide stretch of Mexico,

As to why they're not being visited by carrier groups:

One: the cartels operate in small groups and usually do not engage the Mexican army openly. This makes airstrikes a little trickier.

Two: Unlike ISIS, the cartels have not sworn to destroy the United States, they like the US right where it is, and to continue what it has been doing. Namely buying their coke and selling them guns.

Three: The cartels, unlike ISIS, work closely with the CIA. Very closely.

One: I doubt you'll find I advocate air strikes against the cartels. Having said that, we have been using drone and other air strikes against small groups of insurgents in several places around the globe; operating is small groups does not equal inability to be hit by air power. But you know that.

Two: Cartels may not have sworn to destroy the US, but considering the costs we incur annually due to the 'War On Drugs' do you want to make the case the cartels do not in fact cause quite a bit of damage to the US and US interests? Would a stable Mexico as an adjacent nation be better for us than what is currently across the border?

Three: Whatever. Show some decent sources to back that up, then explain why it is even relevant seeing as the CIA has been training and providing other support to anti Assad forces which have now been co-opted by ISIS.

My point was and continues to be, we have organizations, that though they have not come out and declared themselves Sovereign States, do in fact own territory and provide gov't type services within the territory they control, organizations that are as brutal (if for a different motivation) as ISIS, and do in fact harm our national security, all in the state we share a border with. And yet the countless beheadings they perform, and the fact they've killed US LEOs and not just journalists covering a war zone, does not seem to merit our gov't or media making too much of a fuss. I honestly find it interesting and would love to hear the administration's take on it.

From a real threat perspective, what capability do we think ISIS has that can 'destroy the US' or even do real harm? Can they blow up some buildings in the region they operate in? Probably. Can they kidnap and kill a few folks in the region they operate in? Maybe. Can they perhaps influence/aid the self radicalization of some MAJ Hassan types which result in a couple dozen deaths in the US? Maybe. None of that equates to a real capability to 'destroy the US' regardless of intent. If we want to say they are destabilizing the region and making oil/energy too expensive and hurting our economy, we would also have to look at what is going on in the Ukraine and its effect on energy prices. If we want to say IS (which to be honest is pretty much a Sunni Uprising at this point) threatens allies in the region, then lets see what those allies are doing to combat the threat (Saudi, Qatar, Jordan, Kuwait and so on...)

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


Non-state actors can't be involved in a war? That surprises me.

Me too.

I suppose it's a case of 'reality vs law' under the law, they're not supposed to be able to. In reality, it happens pretty much every war.



Personal opinion:

This is one of those cases where 'nation building'; is going to be required for any meaningful victory. Neither Assad nor Isis should be allowed to stay, but it's going to take careful planning to do it in a way that does not make things even worse.

The Assad Regme is the only thing keeping ISIS and other extreme groups in check right now.

Remove Assad, and you'd have a repeat of Libya post revolution. Rival groups of extremists rampaging across Syria, fighting amongst themselves to fill the power vacuum left behind.

I think the problem is also that, there's legitimately no way to "nation build" in the ME region without the US, or whoever is there making things look like we're colonizing again.... And apparently Empires are bad, mkay?

 CptJake wrote:
Wanna know what I would like to see?

I would like to see one of the reporters in the White House Press Pool ask:

If beheading folks and taking over territory in the Middle East and being well funded bad guys is such a threat to our national security that we must bomb them, then how come when certain Mexican cartels take over territory and behead people on our own border it is merely a LE issue?

Ummmm, barrels and barrels of Oil?

Plus, no other nations are trying to meddle with Mexico's internal affairs. The Monroe Doctrine is still in effect.

Mexico has gobs of oil, hence the Frazzled vall for Manifest Destiny II "This Time its Vertical!"

 Easy E wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Wanna know what I would like to see?

I would like to see one of the reporters in the White House Press Pool ask:

If beheading folks and taking over territory in the Middle East and being well funded bad guys is such a threat to our national security that we must bomb them, then how come when certain Mexican cartels take over territory and behead people on our own border it is merely a LE issue?

Ummmm, barrels and barrels of Oil?

Plus, no other nations are trying to meddle with Mexico's internal affairs. The Monroe Doctrine is still in effect.

Yep, oil is an issue.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/oil-the-mexican-cartels-other-deadly-business/article581777/

 CptJake wrote:

One: I doubt you'll find I advocate air strikes against the cartels. Having said that, we have been using drone and other air strikes against small groups of insurgents in several places around the globe; operating is small groups does not equal inability to be hit by air power. But you know that.

No, it does not equate a immunity, but it does make things trickier. Hitting people with a drone in an open area is easy. Hitting people with a drone in a crowded urban environment is somewhat tougher if you're concerned about collateral damage.

 CptJake wrote:

Two: Cartels may not have sworn to destroy the US, but considering the costs we incur annually due to the 'War On Drugs' do you want to make the case the cartels do not in fact cause quite a bit of damage to the US and US interests? Would a stable Mexico as an adjacent nation be better for us than what is currently across the border?

The majority of the costs of the War on Drugs are not spent fighting the Mexican Cartels, but are instead spent in military aid to certain Central and South American countries and Prisons in the US. What military aid gets actually used on, frankly, varies wildly from country to country.

 CptJake wrote:

Three: Whatever. Show some decent sources to back that up, then explain why it is even relevant seeing as the CIA has been training and providing other support to anti Assad forces which have now been co-opted by ISIS.

Wikipedia wrote:The oldest Mexican Cartel, the Guadalajara cartel, was benefited by the CIA for having connections with the Honduran drug lord Juan Matta-Ballesteros, a CIA asset, who was the head of SETCO, an airline used for smuggling drugs into the US and also used to transport military supplies and personnel for the Honduran Contras, using funds from the accounts established by Oliver North.

It is also alleged that the DFS, the main Mexican intelligence agency, which is in part a CIA creation and later became the Mexican Center for Research and National Security(CISEN), had among its members the CIA's closest government allies in Mexico. DFS badges, "handed out to top-level Mexican drug-traffickers, have been labelled by DEA agents a virtual 'license to traffic.'

It is also known that the Guadalajara Cartel, Mexico's most powerful drug-trafficking network in the early 1980s, prospered largely, among other reasons, because it enjoyed the protection of the DFS, under its chief Miguel Nazar Haro, a CIA asset.

Miguel Ángel Félix Gallardo, known as the Godfather of the Mexican drug business and the first Mexican drug lord, provided a significant amount of funding, weapons, and other aid to the Contras in Nicaragua. His pilot, Werner Lotz stated that Gallardo once had him deliver $150,000 in cash to a Contra group, and Gallardo often boasted about smuggling arms to them. His activities were known to several U.S. federal agencies, including the CIA and DEA, but he was granted immunity due to his "charitable contributions to the Contras"

Vicente Zambada Niebla, the son of Ismael Zambada García one of the top drug lords in Mexico, claimed after his arrest to his attorneys that he and other top Sinaloa cartel members had received immunity by U.S. agents and a virtual licence to smuggle cocaine over the United States border, in exchange for intelligence about rival cartels engaged in the Mexican Drug War.

Also, most of the anti-Assad forces the US supported either were more or less wiped out, or continue to fight against both Assad and ISIS, something that has also escaped the attention of both the Media and members of this board. If the US was truly interested in hurting the Cartels, they could reduce their income by 1/5th simply by making pot fully legal in California. That's a crippling blow without even firing a shot.

 CptJake wrote:

From a real threat perspective, what capability do we think ISIS has that can 'destroy the US' or even do real harm? Can they blow up some buildings in the region they operate in? Probably. Can they kidnap and kill a few folks in the region they operate in? Maybe. Can they perhaps influence/aid the self radicalization of some MAJ Hassan types which result in a couple dozen deaths in the US? Maybe. None of that equates to a real capability to 'destroy the US' regardless of intent. If we want to say they are destabilizing the region and making oil/energy too expensive and hurting our economy, we would also have to look at what is going on in the Ukraine and its effect on energy prices. If we want to say IS (which to be honest is pretty much a Sunni Uprising at this point) threatens allies in the region, then lets see what those allies are doing to combat the threat (Saudi, Qatar, Jordan, Kuwait and so on...)

I think you grotesquely underestimate them, and absolutely nothing I say will change your preconceived notions. 'Destroy the United States'? probably not. Cause large scale havoc, possibly in the US? Yes. These guys are bigger, better funded, and more capably led, then AQ was when they killed 3k Americans. And we saw what the clever use of a handful of motivated competents managed there.

ISIS beheading video #2 was also incredibly strange...not sure what the deal is with these guys. Totally doesn't follow their usual MO of tackling the guy and sawing his head off, and filming the entire thing...This whole one guy standing behind the victim, shallow cutting motion back and forth across the throat, fade to black then a head on a body is incredibly strange...

Right or wrong about going into Iraq in the first place,Bush was pretty much dead on with this statement:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=brTm0mxez6k

Imagine that.

Might as well throw in Romney view of Putin/FDR

 Jihadin wrote:
Might as well throw in Romney view of Putin/FDR

Naw. The 80's called and they wanted their foreign policy back.

Apparently they called Russia also and Putin took the call.

Relapse wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Might as well throw in Romney view of Putin/FDR

Naw. The 80's called and they wanted their foreign policy back.

Apparently they called Russia also and Putin took the call.

Putin going back in time to call himself is believable. How can a man who's bare chested riding a stallion with worthy breeding rights (both man and horse in Russia) lie to himself

In other news....



http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29095356

Seems Assad has stepped up his game, bombing an mostly empty training camp and an ISIS owned bakery, following the loss of an entire province to ISIS last month.


Tell me how this guy is useful again? I keep forgetting.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
In other news....



http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29095356

Seems Assad has stepped up his game, bombing an mostly empty training camp and an ISIS owned bakery, following the loss of an entire province to ISIS last month.


Tell me how this guy is useful again? I keep forgetting.

That Bakery was funding terrorism. Totally a legit target.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

That Bakery was funding terrorism. Totally a legit target.

Regardless of it's legitimacy as a target, there's a sort of baby-candy-takey vibe to it.

"We blew up those ISIS bakers!"

"Good, now how about their militants?"

"But....but those are dangerous!... and just threw us out of three provinces!"



http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29135922

Seems ISIS is getting fewer enemies all the time.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29195689#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa


Looks like the troops from Oz are getting ready. Time to break out the beer and lock up your daughters.