isis - Page 3

bobabode · #21 08-08-2014, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by icenine

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5663739.html

At least Baghdad and Kurdistan realize there is a common enemy.
I think we should bomb the ISIS control centers in Syria..that is where the command and control element is.

think about it...no one would really be upset about that except ISIS. Analysts say that is where the decisions about Iraq are being made. ISIS also has the Mosul Dam.

Time to roll out a few of those M.O.A.B.s, eh?

I hope the crazy mofos in IS don't blow the dam but they probably will try it.

bobabode · #22 08-09-2014, 12:16 PM

The 60 day clock mandated under the War Powers Act should be in play here.

icenine · #23 08-09-2014, 12:47 PM

I think Obama has to pull the chestnuts of the Bush debacle out of the fire. I think deep down he does not want Kurdistan to go under on his watch. There are probably two nations the USA will sort of go out of their way to protect because they have been such loyal allies (besides the UK and Japan): Poland and "Kurdistan".

He was totally correct in what he said about second thoughts on the pull out in 2011. I was there when we had 100,000 men and women in Iraq: the amount of troops had no impact on the increasing body count.

donquixote99 · #24 08-09-2014, 01:39 PM

Ice, when we had "100,000" troops in Iraq, how many were in combat maneuver batallions not committed to static defense? My bet is 5000 maybe, likely less.

Rajoo · #25 08-09-2014, 01:45 PM

An informative reading on current situation of ISIS.

A Rogue State Along Two Rivers
How ISIS Came to Control Large Portions of Syria and Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...wo-rivers.html

Dondilion · #26 08-09-2014, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeamOn

An informative reading on current situation of ISIS.

A Rogue State Along Two Rivers
How ISIS Came to Control Large Portions of Syria and Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...wo-rivers.html

Thanks especially for the geographical insight.

It was really disheartening to read about Fallujah.

icenine · #27 08-09-2014, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Ice, when we had "100,000" troops in Iraq, how many were in combat maneuver batallions not committed to static defense? My bet is 5000 maybe, likely less.

Well you maybe are missing a point. There were a lot of service members killed on convoys...those soldiers who would have been in the old days "in the rear with the gear". In other words getting killed by an IED or a mortar can happen to anyone in the theater. Of course those infantry at the front lines ("tip of the spear") had it dangerous too...especially in both Fallujah campains in 2004 and in the surge months of 2007.

And I was not thinking of only American deaths....during the war thousands of Iraqi civilians were getting killed by bombs, sectarian violence, etc. despite our presence. Iraq is about as big as California or Texas (as large as an American state in other words) and we had only about 100,000 troops there, most of which as you are correct in stating had static roles i.e. logistical or base security. However to say we controlled the country is not true...we only controlled the US bases we were on. Travel between bases was usually done by air since road travel was an invitation for an IED.

In 2004 an American could not travel unless in a helicopter or a military convoy armed to the teeth.

In 2014 getting rid of ISIS without troops on the ground would be a good objective. Do not know if that is possible or not. I would be for blowing them up in the open desert should the opportunity arise. This may be something that has to be dealt with whether we want to get involved or not. And our allies need to stop waiting for us to do everything.

icenine · #28 08-09-2014, 05:30 PM

I was stationed on Lake Habbaniyah not far from Ramadi.

Obviously much collusion between the former Sunni insurgents and Baathists with ISIS.

Dondilion · #29 08-09-2014, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by icenine

In 2014 getting rid of ISIS without troops on the ground would be a good objective. Do not know if that is possible or not. I would be for blowing them up in the open desert should the opportunity arise. This may be something that has to be dealt with whether we want to get involved or not. And our allies need to stop waiting for us to do everything.

Sometimes a video is significant in getting a better feel of what a person
is trying to communicate.

I believe the President is saying I will strive to protect the Kurds but the
rest can f--k off. I am not going to waste more American lives and material
in this hell hole. The problems are too deep seated...the people there have to find their own solutions.

Rajoo · #30 08-09-2014, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dondilion

Sometimes a video is significant in getting a better feel of what a person
is trying to communicate.

I believe the President is saying I will strive to protect the Kurds but the
rest can f--k off. I am not going to waste more American lives and material
in this hell hole. The problems are too deep seated...the people there have to find their own solutions.

I too read what you read. But......I am not sure the President will not be pushed into a deeper engagement by McCain & co. or engage ISIS without direct involvement of our Western Allies.