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.

 Frazzled wrote:

I'd say this has already hit slavic lands. Russia has been dealing with the most recent version of it for decades in Chechnya. People forget the hundreds of people who died in the Beslan school siege and Moscow Ballet terrorist attack

Valid points. I agree, in a sense. I think its fair to say that Russia has done a far better job of crushing, suppressing, and coopting the Chechnyan jihadi's than anyone has done against ISIS. Not that I have any special fondness for the heavy hand of the Red Army.

There's terrorism writ large, muslim extremist terrorism (ex: Chechnyan jihadi's), and then there is ISIS "caliphate" territory expansion and colonialism. TBH, the latter bears as much in common with Fascism (and I don't mean the word that leftists throw around to mean "stuff we don't like") as it does with islam. Then again, fascistic islam isn't a new thing, see Saudi Arabia.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I've been asking conservatives this question and receiving no answer in return since ISIL's eminence last year.

Is there any pro-boots-on-the-ground individual on this site who can provide an answer to this question? Anyone?

Maybe your problem is asking conservatives who don't necessarily think everything has a 'Only the M in DIME' solution and are instead critical of using boots on the ground without any real national interest and strategy to justify it. Try asking neocon types instead.

 CptJake wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I've been asking conservatives this question and receiving no answer in return since ISIL's eminence last year.

Is there any pro-boots-on-the-ground individual on this site who can provide an answer to this question? Anyone?

Maybe your problem is asking conservatives who don't necessarily think everything has a 'Only the M in DIME' solution and are instead critical of using boots on the ground without any real national interest and strategy to justify it. Try asking neocon types instead.

^This.

While I'm not opposed to engaging ISIS.... but, we damn well better have a fething plan and end-game.

 CptJake wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I've been asking conservatives this question and receiving no answer in return since ISIL's eminence last year.

Is there any pro-boots-on-the-ground individual on this site who can provide an answer to this question? Anyone?

Maybe your problem is asking conservatives who don't necessarily think everything has a 'Only the M in DIME' solution and are instead critical of using boots on the ground without any real national interest and strategy to justify it. Try asking neocon types instead.

I ask it only as a response to "why hasn't Obama sent in the marines yet?!" and "muh cowardly lib'ruls!".

One would think that the individuals who suggest war as the solution would have at least some kind of outline for achieving victory. The past year and a half would imply otherwise, however.

Um...

The criticism is squared solely on Obama.

The Pentagon can't do gak w/o his explicit approval.

There is no logical basis in criticizing Obama for not unleashing the US military on ISIS unless you genuinely believe that a military solution is viable, in which case:

 Frazzled wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33984006

They've murdered one of the leading archaeologists working at Palmyra, an 81 year old academic.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that ISIS should not be reasoned with on any level, that all nations should aim to wipe them out. We haven't got the stomach for what is needed I think. Instead we attack with drones from afar and let them claim victimhood. They need to be eradicated before the lives and history of the people's of the Middle East are destroyed. I can see that if this isn't addressed now, in years to come they could become a significant power that will mass sponsor attacks in our countries. These are people who wouldn't hesitate to use nuclear weapons if they captured them, and there are a lot unaccounted for in the world.

The West doesn't have the stomach for it because of the political Left and the 'Mushy Middle'... War is stupid and mindlessly destructive. But there comes a time that if you truly want peace 'in our time', then your only option is to prepare for war in order to defend that peace and make it happen.

You go. I'll hold your coat.

Who are you going to fight? How are you going to identify them? What happens when a continuous stream of volunteers joins them? What happens when you start firebombing villages to save the village?

 whembly wrote:
Um...

The criticism is squared solely on Obama.

The Pentagon can't do gak w/o his explicit approval.

And what they are currently doing is VERY wasteful and not accomplishing anything close to achieving or even moving towards national (or even strategic or operational) objectives.

Seriously. I know of a LOC interdiction that saw a road cratered to interrupt DaEsh supply lines. Their response was to drive around the craters. We wasted fuel, munitions, and put flight crews in danger for nothing, and we do so every day.

I don't think we can have any realistic discussion about US forces defeating ISIS without also assuming that we're willing to then have a permanent force there for 30 years or so. Are we willing to do that? My guess is "no".

On the flip side, not sure what else they can do without a major increase in BOOM BOOM. Frankly if it were a real threat the local powers would be doing something about it.

This is an opportunity to become more neutral (see Iran relations, would you like to know more?) and exit. The Obama admin realizes and thats why its doing what its doing.

To be fair, Jordan and the Saudis are doing 'something' as are other countries. Betwen bombing/attack sorties, handling a TON of refugees (Jordan especially) and putting troops into Yemen, cracking down on DaIsh and associated groups within their own borders and so on.

It may not be enough, nor what we would like them to do, but they are not just sitting idly.

Sorry what is SA doing again? Oh yea, what they do best. Nothing.

Yemen is conflict with shiites/Iran. They are effectively on the ISIL side in that conflict.

Jordan, yea, Jordan is swamped by refugees and they are not a major regional power.

Saudis have flown (are flying) sorties against DaIsh targets in Syria. They crapped out half a billion towards Iraqi refugees. They are also hosting/training Syrian fighters.

Jordan has flown sorties against targets in Syria. Egypt has flown anti-DaIsh sorties in Libya and is doing more that is being kept quiet. Bahrain has flown missions against targets in Syria.

Qatar has flown humanitarian flights.

 CptJake wrote:
Saudis have flown (are flying) sorties against DaIsh targets in Syria. They crapped out half a billion towards Iraqi refugees. They are also hosting/training Syrian fighters.

Alrighty, then.

No one WANTS to fight a war. No one.

My question to anyone who is opposed to involvement is this: when will it become your problem?

ISIS is committing genocide, building slavery, and enshrining rape as part of its culture. It forces indoctrination at gunpoint. It is growing. By not getting involved, we condemn an ever growing number of people to be at the mercy of this treatment.

It is hard for me to read so many opinions that are effectively "meh let locals fix it." They can't fix it. If they could, ISIS wouldn't be growing.

All nations have a responsibility to defend people who cannot defend themselves. The world needs to make it clear there is no room for people like this.

Instead, we allow them to grow. We allow this treatment through passivity. This is unnacceptable.

 zgort wrote:
No one WANTS to fight a war. No one.

My question to anyone who is opposed to involvement is this: when will it become your problem?

When they directly attack a western nation on its own soil. Meaning when they commit an actual act of war against that nation.

 zgort wrote:

ISIS is committing genocide, building slavery, and enshrining rape as part of its culture. It forces indoctrination at gunpoint. It is growing. By not getting involved, we condemn an ever growing number of people to be at the mercy of this treatment.

So was China, the USSR, Cambodia, North Korea and countless other nations all over the world since the end of WWII. None of that is the west's problem.

 zgort wrote:

It is hard for me to read so many opinions that are effectively "meh let locals fix it." They can't fix it. If they could, ISIS wouldn't be growing.

No, the "locals" don't want to fix it, because it is not in their interests to fix it. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran... All of those nations have the power to annihilate ISIS but this conflict serves their interests in one way or the other.

If they don't wan't to get more involved, why should the West?

 zgort wrote:

All nations have a responsibility to defend people who cannot defend themselves. The world needs to make it clear there is no room for people like this.

Instead, we allow them to grow. We allow this treatment through passivity. This is unnacceptable.

No, they certainly do not have any such responsibility! A country has the responsibility to do what is in their own citizens best interests and to protect them. I would argue that not sending its soldiers to die in some hell hole for no particular reason falls into that protection part...

 CptJake wrote:
Saudis have flown (are flying) sorties against DaIsh targets in Syria. They crapped out half a billion towards Iraqi refugees. They are also hosting/training Syrian fighters.

Jordan has flown sorties against targets in Syria. Egypt has flown anti-DaIsh sorties in Libya and is doing more that is being kept quiet. Bahrain has flown missions against targets in Syria.

Qatar has flown humanitarian flights.

How many. Last we saw SA was running like A mission. Their commitment is nothing to ours and they live there.
feth those guys.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

No one WANTS to fight a war. No one.

Lots of people do. They scream about it a lot. ISIL wants one.

My question to anyone who is opposed to involvement is this: when will it become your problem?

When its our problem, and we should deal with it in how it is a problem to us.

ISIS is committing genocide, building slavery, and enshrining rape as part of its culture.

Read a history book. And?

It forces indoctrination at gunpoint.

And? To fight it you have to fight a religion. To fight a religion hundreds of millions of people could die. No thanks.

It is growing. By not getting involved, we condemn an ever growing number of people to be at the mercy of this treatment.

People who support it. If they didn’t have their support they wouldn’t exist.

It is hard for me to read so many opinions that are effectively "meh let locals fix it." They can't fix it. If they could, ISIS wouldn't be growing.

Then why are you talking and not shooting an AK in Kurdestan? Talk is cheap. Trying to send other people to die to make you feel better is even cheaper.

All nations have a responsibility to defend people who cannot defend themselves.
Not at all hippie tree hugger. We have a responsibility only to US citizens. All other considerations rescinded.

The world needs to make it clear there is no room for people like this.

They are light weights. Turkey could curb stomp them. However Turkey effectively supports them. Iran could beat them if it went to war.

 CptJake wrote:
Saudis have flown (are flying) sorties against DaIsh targets in Syria. They crapped out half a billion towards Iraqi refugees. They are also hosting/training Syrian fighters.

Jordan has flown sorties against targets in Syria. Egypt has flown anti-DaIsh sorties in Libya and is doing more that is being kept quiet. Bahrain has flown missions against targets in Syria.

Qatar has flown humanitarian flights.

Token gestures.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Saudis have flown (are flying) sorties against DaIsh targets in Syria. They crapped out half a billion towards Iraqi refugees. They are also hosting/training Syrian fighters.

Jordan has flown sorties against targets in Syria. Egypt has flown anti-DaIsh sorties in Libya and is doing more that is being kept quiet. Bahrain has flown missions against targets in Syria.

Qatar has flown humanitarian flights.

Token gestures.

I guess the US, comparatively, isn't even giving a token gesture then. When you compare capability to what is being done, we aren't doing squat. And there are a few countries asking for certain munitions or ISR assets ti use against DaIsh who we are telling to go feth off.

 CptJake wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Saudis have flown (are flying) sorties against DaIsh targets in Syria. They crapped out half a billion towards Iraqi refugees. They are also hosting/training Syrian fighters.

Jordan has flown sorties against targets in Syria. Egypt has flown anti-DaIsh sorties in Libya and is doing more that is being kept quiet. Bahrain has flown missions against targets in Syria.

Qatar has flown humanitarian flights.

Token gestures.

I guess the US, comparatively, isn't even giving a token gesture then. When you compare capability to what is being done, we aren't doing squat. And there are a few countries asking for certain munitions or ISR assets ti use against DaIsh who we are telling to go feth off.

nonsense. by that logic anything we do less than a 1,000 megaton MERV strike is a token gesture.
Are our pilots lives in danger? Yes.
Is our country in the region? No
anything we do is less than token. Especially when we are running 10x - 20x the missions they are.

 zgort wrote:
No one WANTS to fight a war. No one.

My question to anyone who is opposed to involvement is this: when will it become your problem?

ISIS is committing genocide, building slavery, and enshrining rape as part of its culture. It forces indoctrination at gunpoint.

No one disputes they are terrible. The problem is that, at least from a US perspective, this isn't really a problem we can fix. Every single time we intervene there, we create a power vacuum that just makes things worse. Our efforts to aid the mujahideen empowered the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Our efforts to aid the Sons of Iraq wound up empowering ISIL. If we destroy ISIL, we just empower Assad, or some other horrible person.

What specifically do you think we should do? How do you think we can solve this problem?

What's the justification for attacking ISIL that doesn't apply to North Korea? It's a pretty selective morality, isn't it?

North Korea would be easier. There would be no vacuum as it would be subsumed by South Korea.

If you really wanted to play RealPolitik you would join with Iran, and Russia and support the local dictator (Assad). We would support Iran and Kurdestan in the artist formerly known as Iraq, and tell Syria to take Sunnistan. But we would be hated.

 Frazzled wrote:
North Korea would be easier. There would be no vacuum as it would be subsumed by South Korea.

I'm sure they'd be pretty excited about the prospect of taking on 25 million starving refugees (50% of the population of South Korea).

Excited, not really, but it beats a nuke strike. Its the West Germany East Germany thing writ large. It would take them out for awhile but they would come back stronger than before.

 CptJake wrote:
To be fair, Jordan and the Saudis are doing 'something' as are other countries. Betwen bombing/attack sorties, handling a TON of refugees (Jordan especially) and putting troops into Yemen, cracking down on DaIsh and associated groups within their own borders and so on.

It may not be enough, nor what we would like them to do, but they are not just sitting idly.

The Saudi's are busy fighting the Houthi's in Yemen. Houthi's are aligned with Iran, which is a shia state. Saudi Arabia is a sunni state. ISIS are hardline sunni.

The Saudi's are more worried about Iranian influence than ISIS terrorism, as they see more cultural similarities w/ISIS. They're putting some token troops on the shared Iraq border, but largely their fight is with Iran. We're talking about a country that practices public beheadings and only this week decided to allow women to vote in local elections. The Saudi's are NOT our friends, even if they've hoodwinked us (thanks oil money!) into calling them our allies.

I would in no way call them allies. Competitors yes on the oil stage. Allies, I'd trust the Russians more.

 Frazzled wrote:
I would in no way call them allies. Competitors yes on the oil stage. Allies, I'd trust the Russians more.

HA!

Agreed.

PhantomViper wrote:

...When they directly attack a western nation on its own soil. Meaning when they commit an actual act of war against that nation...

... A country has the responsibility to do what is in their own citizens best interests and to protect them...

The director of the FBI seems to think that ISIS is a larger threat to the homeland than Al Qaeda. We are at war with them. Does that qualify?

 Frazzled wrote:

Then why are you talking and not shooting an AK in Kurdestan? Talk is cheap. Trying to send other people to die to make you feel better is even cheaper.

Bit of a low-blow, Frazzled. Only those serving in the military are allowed to have an opinion on it? Come on, now. We might disagree - but calling me cheap or a hippie is not constructive to the discussion. That article did make me feel helpless and angry, it is fair to say that influences my opinion. However, I see a problem with waiting until ISIS attacks the west. I predict they will, given the time. Why wait until they are in a better position to do it? Imagine the bloodshed that would have been saved if 1930's Germany was stopped while re-militarizing the Rhine. It is classic head-in-the-sand mentality. It was nobody's problem...until it was. Additionally, the US helped ISIS along by leaving Iraq so rapidly. Do we have a responsibility to the current victims of ISIS in that sense? I would argue yes.

Ouze wrote:

What specifically do you think we should do? How do you think we can solve this problem?

What's the justification for attacking ISIL that doesn't apply to North Korea? It's a pretty selective morality, isn't it?

Good point, I suppose it is selective morality. I am not sure what the best thing to do is. You've got me.

You are correct. I apologize. I am just tired of the pundits on TV saying we should invade, should fight, when they have no skin in the game. I don't want my son to die for them. I do not want any father's son to die for them.

Enough dying in foreign lands. We have been at war for decades now and it has brought us NOTHING. NO MORE.

Obama could present a strategy that would make Creed weep with the brilliance of it, but the Republicans will refuse to support it, because they don't like Obama.

So getting out of working for the Fed's.
Its like if you follow the rules and regulation your a Republican
If you don't and tap dance around the rules and regulation your a Democrat
Going to be a major shake up in USCIS soon