Stand and fight!

[Flopper]

I think the ideal would be a coalition of everyone excluding ISIS.
Ditch the idea of kicking out Assad but get him to agree to rules on governing in the future and the presence of a peacekeeping/ monitoring force.
Get him to invite the coalition in.

Once ISIS is sorted we can all go back to our normal bombing and terrorising...aaah, the good old days!

Probably pie-in-the-sky but that would be the ideal situation.

an interesting idea, it might bring Russia into a coalition seeking to exterminate iSIS.

I think our leaders should have learned, once a dictator is removed, the likely certainty is chaos.

I think Putin is far more interested in becoming a major player in the Middle East than becoming part of a coalition to destroy ISIS, particular if it's lead by NATO or the US.

You know if ISIS is defeated, the remains will morph into another terrorist group. Just as Al Qaeda became an offshoot of the Mujahideen and ISIS was formed from Al Qaeda, ISIS when defeated or seriously weaken will give rise to a new terrorist group.

I'd not bet against your analysis. Until the majority in Islam takes responsibility for the criminal element in their religion, we can expect continued violence against innocent civilians of all faiths.

Civilization has been confronted by pure evil, If civilized Muslims don't take action, they will become the victims of pure evil, and that includes the civilian population in Iran.

I had a conversation with a friend who happens to be a Muslim and is pretty devout. When asked the question that you pose, why don't you take action against these terrorist, I can't remember his exact reply but it went something like this. Why don't you do something? I'm a 3rd generation American who's family came from Iran. I've never been there. I can't speak language. I have a wife and 3 kids to support. If you want to wage war on terrorism in some shit hole have at it. Like you, I have my own life to live.

I understand why this individual might respond in that matter. I don't understand why Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan don't protect the image of Islam and fellow Muslims being murdered by ISIS,

We may think Middle Eastern countries having binding ties because their common faith but that's not the case. They distrust each other and can agree on very little. Yes, they would like to see ISIS gone because they are a threat to their existence, however they have other priorities. .

The problem is they can't agree on any strategy. For example, the Saudis believe ISIS cannot be defeated unless Syrian President Assad is removed from power. Turkey believes war against ISIS can only be won if Turkey’s traditional Kurdish opponents are neutralized first. Iran’s plan for defeating ISIS relies heavily on arming Shia groups, thus giving the impression that the war against ISIS is a Sunni-Shia conflict. Iran seeks to defeat ISIS by providing finances in lieu of troops. Israel’s blueprint is quite straightforward by comparison: ISIS can only be defeated after Iran, which is fighting ISIS.

America’s strategy is substantially different from everyone else’s. The US wants to defeat ISIS by not appearing to be the force defeating ISIS. This is a difficult task, particularly when your air force is the one carrying out most operations against ISIS targets.

The Kurds, meanwhile, believe the only way to defeat ISIS is to fight it, a far too simple strategy to be successful in the Middle East.

 

[Rambunctious]

Dieu bénisse la France

 

[Rambunctious]

 

[Carla_Danger]

"Stand and fight!"

Oh, brother.

The ridiculous right has never been more ridiculous.

Let's roll. lol

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Stand for what? Fight who? How? Where?

Tell us what it is that you think we should be doing. Be specific.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Stand for what? Fight who? How? Where?

Tell us what it is that you think we should be doing. Be specific.

Boots On The Ground, Or Not? | Page 6 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Stand for what? Fight who? How? Where?

Tell us what it is that you think we should be doing. Be specific.

Boots On The Ground, Or Not? | Page 6 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Yes. Pull the 10,000 out of Afghanistan and redeploy them in Syria and Iraq, that way you don't have to commit as much fresh blood to the fight from the home. Send 20,000 over to join them. If I were in a position of influence in military strategy, I would advise putting more stress on our bombing campaign. Ramp up the sorties from a mere 5 a day to at least 120-140 a day. Don't implement a no-fly zone.

In the meantime, have the joint chiefs devise an effective plan to go in, kick ass, and get out. No need for a protracted campaign. You don't commit troops to a war you have no strategy for.

A counter theory:

Let's say France decides to invade Syria and Iraq first, it then would be wise to follow in the lead with at least 5-10,000 supplementary troops of our own. It is most likely that other members of NATO would jump in from there. If this were the case, the US wouldn't need to commit as many troops as would be necessary for a single nation campaign.

Fair enough. You're saying we should hand Afghanistan back to the Taliban, and triple our current troop deployment in ground war against ISIS.

That could probably happen, in this political climate.

 

[strollingbones]

fresh blood? must be nice to sit in your granny's basement and call young men and women willing to fight....'fresh blood'.....wtf is wrong with you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You're saying we should hand Afghanistan back to the Taliban, and triple our current troop deployment in ground war against ISIS.

Right, though highly unlikely. Obama is planning to pull us out of Afghanistan soon anyhow, why not just recommit the troops elsewhere, say to fighting ISIS for example?

On the other hand, the only way we commit anything at all is if France invokes Article 5 of the NATO treaty, even then that's a stretch. But given how long most of them helped the US fight in Iraq, it will be hard to get all 28 nations to commit themselves again.

The best thing we can hope for is to ramp up our air campaign.

But then again, I'm not much of a strategist.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You're saying we should hand Afghanistan back to the Taliban, and triple our current troop deployment in ground war against ISIS.

Right, though highly unlikely. Obama is planning to pull us out of Afghanistan soon anyhow, why not just recommit the troops elsewhere, say to fighting ISIS for example?

On the other hand, the only way we commit anything at all is if France invokes Article 5 of the NATO treaty, even then that's a stretch. But given how long most of them helped the US fight in Iraq, it will be hard to get all 28 nations to commit themselves again.

The best thing we can hope for is to ramp up our air campaign.

But then again, I'm not much of a strategist.

As of last month, the last 10,000 US troops in Afghanistan are to remain there "indefinitely". There are no plans to "pull us out" soon.

I also think it's pretty unlikely that France will invoke Article 5.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You're saying we should hand Afghanistan back to the Taliban, and triple our current troop deployment in ground war against ISIS.

Right, though highly unlikely. Obama is planning to pull us out of Afghanistan soon anyhow, why not just recommit the troops elsewhere, say to fighting ISIS for example?

On the other hand, the only way we commit anything at all is if France invokes Article 5 of the NATO treaty, even then that's a stretch. But given how long most of them helped the US fight in Iraq, it will be hard to get all 28 nations to commit themselves again.

The best thing we can hope for is to ramp up our air campaign.

But then again, I'm not much of a strategist.

As of last month, the last 10,000 US troops in Afghanistan are to remain there "indefinitely". There are no plans to "pull us out" soon.

I also think it's pretty unlikely that France will invoke Article 5.

The troops will remain until 2017. As I said, it's unlikely. But that's what I would do. But as I once again said, I'm no strategist.

 

[JoeB131]

The troops will remain until 2017. As I said, it's unlikely. But that's what I would do. But as I once again said, I'm no strategist.

No, but you are awfully fast to sign up other people to come home in body bags.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Get off that couch! Toss aside those twinkies! Grab that game controller and FIGHT!!!!

Oh, don't forget to send your monthly donation to "Wounded Warriors".

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Republican Patriotism on Display...they do suck don't they ...