US Defending / Protecting ISIS, Making 'War' Harder

easyt65

Diamond Member
Aug 4, 2015
90,307
61,157
2,645
The United States refuses to LEAD in a war against ISIS, but it is simultaneously making it harder for anyone else to do so!



Thus a CIA veteran with long experience hunting Osama bin Laden and trying to outmaneuver ISIS, speaking privately, tells The Daily Beast, “Everybody is going to respond to this thing with solidarity, tying little ribbons on trees and that sort of bullshit,” when what’s needed, in his opinion, is “to drive a stake in their heart.”

How do you do that?

“Put together a force of 6,000 or 7,000 airborne soldiers and just take Raqqa. Don’t issue warnings. Don’t assemble tank columns. Train the force, then use it,” said this gentleman, a veteran of the clandestine services, but not of the military. “They have made Raqqa the capital of their state. Take it and you have changed the ground immediately. You can’t fight ISIS with baby steps, and what happened in Paris gives you the immediate rationale to do something strategic. Otherwise ... THEY ARE WINNING!"

Alain Bauer, a leading terrorism analyst and adviser to officials in Paris about counter-terror strategies, said, "“If we really want to do something, we need to erase Raqqa.”

What keeps this from happening?

"In Bauer's opinion, the United States. “Every bombing is a nightmare to negotiate,” he said. “Here’s a target. ‘Oops, there’s a garden there. Oops, there’s a family there. Oops, you cannot destroy this, you cannot destroy that.’”
(To hell with esthetics, gardens, parks, libraries ISIS is using as a headquarters.)

While ISIS is fighting a barbaric war without mercy - beheading and burning civilians while wiping out historic world monuments and history, the Obama administration is trying to fight a 'Gentleman's War with ISIS using pin-prick drone strikes.

France declared after the attacks there, 'No Mercy' and proceeded to strike at the heart of ISIS in Syria - RAQQA! It is beginning to be the opinion of many inFrance and other nations that such a barbaric enemy must be fought with ferocity and determination, a will to DEFEAT and DESTROY this evil enemy.

If Obama and the US aren't going to do it FINE....just get the hell out of the way so those who have that will to do it get on with it.


LINK: After Paris, Is It Time to Roll on Raqqa, the ISIS Capital?
 
Why should we lead?

I'm tired if these macho meatheads getting all mad that we don't have troops coming home in body bags . We've done our time in the Mid East.

Let the countries over there take the lead and we"ll help them. They have far more to lose than us .
 
u8d3x.jpg
 
Why should we lead?.

Frances point is clear - 'We don't give a damn if you lead or not...JUST GET THE FRICK OUT OF THE WAY!

As the old saying goes, 'Lead, Follow, or get out of the way. Obama's got the DNC 'ass' sitting right in the middle of the road, blocking everyone else.
 
Arm, train, supply, and use our AF and Navy to help the ME get rid of the crazies.

But no more American armies will be sent.
 
Arm, train, supply, and use our AF and Navy to help the ME get rid of the crazies.

But no more American armies will be sent.

THAT failed policy, along with preventing other nations from mercilessly bomb ISIS, is what is allowing ISIS to win. Don't want to fight to win, great - just get the hell out of the way.
 
Why can't we cordon off areas held by ISIS and only let in carefully inspected food and supplies? Wouldn't adding no-fly zones and electronic blackouts effectively quarantine them?

(Please spare me the "no boots on the ground" mantra.)
 
Arm, train, supply, and use our AF and Navy to help the ME get rid of the crazies.

But no more American armies will be sent.

THAT failed policy, along with preventing other nations from mercilessly bomb ISIS, is what is allowing ISIS to win. Don't want to fight to win, great - just get the hell out of the way.
Yes, that American policy of sending armies failed.

Arm and train the Arabs and Muslims who will fight ISIS.
 
LOL!!! France and Russia just recently join us in bombing ISIS and they're the heroes?!?! The wingnuts apparently care more about bashing Democrats than they do about truth and their country.
 
Sort of like we did in Afghanistan so they could fight Russia, that I always hear was a mistake?
Arm, train, supply, and use our AF and Navy to help the ME get rid of the crazies.

But no more American armies will be sent.

THAT failed policy, along with preventing other nations from mercilessly bomb ISIS, is what is allowing ISIS to win. Don't want to fight to win, great - just get the hell out of the way.
Yes, that American policy of sending armies failed.

Arm and train the Arabs and Muslims who will fight ISIS.
 
What France is doing is bombing. What we did was for show, only. No real effort.
LOL!!! France and Russia just recently join us in bombing ISIS and they're the heroes?!?! The wingnuts apparently care more about bashing Democrats than they do about truth and their country.
 
Sort of like we did in Afghanistan so they could fight Russia, that I always hear was a mistake?
Arm, train, supply, and use our AF and Navy to help the ME get rid of the crazies.

But no more American armies will be sent.

THAT failed policy, along with preventing other nations from mercilessly bomb ISIS, is what is allowing ISIS to win. Don't want to fight to win, great - just get the hell out of the way.
Yes, that American policy of sending armies failed.

Arm and train the Arabs and Muslims who will fight ISIS.
It worked. Russia left. We tried to stay after the Northern Alliance defeated the Taliban. The Taliban control more than 70% of the country. Sounds like Vietnam in 1970.
 
What France is doing is bombing. What we did was for show, only. No real effort.
LOL!!! France and Russia just recently join us in bombing ISIS and they're the heroes?!?! The wingnuts apparently care more about bashing Democrats than they do about truth and their country.

France is putting on the show . 20 bombs over a target that one bomb can take care of .

But I don't blame them. They were personally attacked .
 
"What France is doing is bombing. What we did was for show, only. No real effort."

3,000 plus mission were not for show.

If get a declaration of war against ISIS, your post can be actionable.
 
So, suddenly it worked, even though al qaida eventually used that same training against us. Yeah, let's train those guys and give them weapons, like we did in Iraq & Afghanistan, that turned them on our own. And create a much greater isis, alqaida, whatever, that will find us here at home, once again. Great idea!
Sort of like we did in Afghanistan so they could fight Russia, that I always hear was a mistake?
Arm, train, supply, and use our AF and Navy to help the ME get rid of the crazies.

But no more American armies will be sent.

THAT failed policy, along with preventing other nations from mercilessly bomb ISIS, is what is allowing ISIS to win. Don't want to fight to win, great - just get the hell out of the way.
Yes, that American policy of sending armies failed.

Arm and train the Arabs and Muslims who will fight ISIS.
It worked. Russia left. We tried to stay after the Northern Alliance defeated the Taliban. The Taliban control more than 70% of the country. Sounds like Vietnam in 1970.
 
When has occupying a Mid East country ever worked !?

If we send in ground troops, what happens next ? Occupy Iraq again? Have our troops under constant attack by crazy ass suicide bombers ?
 
Your reasoning, depootoo, is stupid.

We are not going to send any more American armies, but we can arm and supply the Arabs and Muslims, along with the French, who want to kill ISIS.
 
Arm, train, supply, and use our AF and Navy to help the ME get rid of the crazies.

But no more American armies will be sent.

THAT failed policy, along with preventing other nations from mercilessly bomb ISIS, is what is allowing ISIS to win. Don't want to fight to win, great - just get the hell out of the way.
Yes, that American policy of sending armies failed.

Arm and train the Arabs and Muslims who will fight ISIS.

I agree. The Arabs must be held accountable for their own home-grown terrorists.

Why are we trillions in debt when the Arabs should be financially responsible? Why should our children be sent overseas to die or be maimed when the Arabs themselves should be fighting to wipe out the terrorists who are anchored in their countries?

I read that Kuwait handles ISIS's money. Why aren't we severely sanctioning Kuwait for its role in laundering money for terrorists?

If profits from the Arab oil fields are controlled by terrorists, then wipe out the oil fields.

The Arab nations need to confiscate the wealth from Arab nationals who are funneling money to the terrorists.

We need to identify and wipe out all sources of money that ISIS relies upon to finance its reign of terror.

Until we force the Arabs step up to the plate to locate and eradicate all the terrorists within their borders, I don't see any end to the terror they inflict upon the whole world.
 
Yes, that American policy of sending armies failed.

Arm and train the Arabs and Muslims who will fight ISIS.

Obama has spent millions to train 6 GUYS to fight ASSAD, not ISIS. 5 of them joined ISIS, the other was killed by Putin.

He has limited air strikes to those conducted by DRONES. Once his airbase was established in Syria Putin declared a No-Fly Zone over Syria so the US would/could not fly strike missions against Assad forces / HQs.

Ramadi was a CRITICAL city the US had to take during the war. It took a month to take it, but it had to be taken on the ground, house-to-house. It was the only way to defeat the enemy. When 1st asked what his policy / strategy was regarding ISIS Obama declared to the world that he DID NOT HAVE ONE but did know he would put no boots on the ground. In other words he just told the world (and the enemy) that he was clueless. He also declared to the enemy the timeline for our withdrawl....allowing them to plan accordingly. When asked recently why the US is not striking ISIS more aggressively he declared, "We cannot use force everywhere.”

Obama is a supreme commander who’s ignorant of effective military strategies and has no war-fighting credentials; yet, he continuously refuses the best advice of the world’s most competent field commanders. He fires commanders who disagree with him. He hires or retires his senior military officers based on zero experience. Before his presidency, he never hired or fired anybody, except petition-gatherers.

Our allies and enemies also know he does not have the resolve or courage fight, to back up what he threatens to do. His abandonment of Iraq, allowing ISIS to enter un-opposed and take over much of the country our military had liberated at great cost, and his backing down during his failed 'Red Line' demonstrated this.

His ability (or lack thereof) to make sound decisions is questionable at best. ISIS, for instance, ISIS warned they would infiltrate the 'Refugees' coming to Europe and the US and perpetrate terrorist attacks. Last Friday they did what they promised. Any intelligent person, concerned for their national security, would stop the plan to bring thousands of Syrian Refugees to the US, at least temporarily, to prevent the same thing that happened in Syria from happening in the US. NOT OBAMA, the experienced, sound tactician concerned 1st and foremost with protecting American lives....
 
Why won't the GOP approve the AUMF against ISIS for which Obama has been asking for over a year?
 

Forum List

Back
Top