|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Sept 3, 2014 13:22:03 GMT -8
I laid out my plan before it was nuked by another, what would you tell the President to do about ISIS? He admittedly doesn't have a plan. Hagel says we'll have to destroy them. How? Not one on the left offered anything of substance. Well, technically, doing nothing is a plan so you all get credit for that. Here's your shot!  What would you do? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecFemBone on Sept 3, 2014 14:59:48 GMT -8
Keep on topic please, folks. Ain't nobody got time for clean-up.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Sept 3, 2014 15:10:55 GMT -8
The right hasn't offered anything of substance that I've read. All the Pubs want to do is to denigrate the President for anything he either does or doesn't do.
In the past, I've said that the Arabs should take care of it since they are the ones directly threatened.
|
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Sept 3, 2014 15:18:56 GMT -8
Okay, back "on-topic". Obama isn't a legal citizen, so no action he takes can be considered legal as Commander in Chief.
|
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Sept 3, 2014 15:38:16 GMT -8
The right hasn't offered anything of substance that I've read. All the Pubs want to do is to denigrate the President for anything he either does or doesn't do. In the past, I've said that the Arabs should take care of it since they are the ones directly threatened. I think I did, sorry the thread got hijacked and nuked. I can't take the time to rewrite it all. Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards |
|
|
|
Post by azson on Sept 3, 2014 15:41:13 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Sept 3, 2014 16:40:38 GMT -8
Certainly a topic for a separate thread. The question is, what do we do now? Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Sept 4, 2014 10:18:52 GMT -8
The right hasn't offered anything of substance that I've read. All the Pubs want to do is to denigrate the President for anything he either does or doesn't do. In the past, I've said that the Arabs should take care of it since they are the ones directly threatened. I think I did, sorry the thread got hijacked and nuked. I can't take the time to rewrite it all. Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards I understand about the rewrite. However, if I remember even partially, didn't you propose more 'boots on the ground'? Why should we continue to be the hired guns for the Saudi's? We aren't the >> Hessians <<I agree we should provide support, intelligence, etc. But it is time they fought their own fight. If we get into the middle then we will be seen as supporting the Sunni against the Shia. Just the opposite of what was perceived after the second gulf war. They need to fight their own sectarian battles. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 4, 2014 14:02:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Sept 4, 2014 16:53:58 GMT -8
At least they are equal opportunity terrorists. |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Sept 4, 2014 16:54:45 GMT -8
I think I did, sorry the thread got hijacked and nuked. I can't take the time to rewrite it all. Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards I understand about the rewrite. However, if I remember even partially, didn't you propose more 'boots on the ground'? Why should we continue to be the hired guns for the Saudi's? We aren't the >> Hessians <<I agree we should provide support, intelligence, etc. But it is time they fought their own fight. If we get into the middle then we will be seen as supporting the Sunni against the Shia. Just the opposite of what was perceived after the second gulf war. They need to fight their own sectarian battles. I think this is our fight, better there than on our home soil. I am not advocating any substantive ground troops, unfortunately my concept was nuked that laid it out but the message lost in the hijacking. I suggested a return to the level of persuasive arm twisting we did with Maliki to keep the Iraqi government a pseudo tripartite government. The Anbar Sunnis are fighting the ISIS Sunnis still, the Kurds are as well. None are fighting together and will not succeed separately. With our support, mostly in command and control, air power, and encouraging the Iraqi government to give them back their share of power, however minimal. If the Shi'a government doesn't they won't hold Baghdad and ISIS will be a true international sponsor of terror much worse than the Taliban before 9-11. My concept means we are behind a tripartite situation, not in the middle of the sectarian violence. We proved the concept that good Sunnis will fight bad Sunnis when we were in Al Anbar. The Marines developed the Sons of Iraq concept that has remained anti-thug to this day in many Anbar tribes. Time is running out, it is almost too late. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Sept 4, 2014 17:01:33 GMT -8
I understand about the rewrite. However, if I remember even partially, didn't you propose more 'boots on the ground'? Why should we continue to be the hired guns for the Saudi's? We aren't the >> Hessians <<I agree we should provide support, intelligence, etc. But it is time they fought their own fight. If we get into the middle then we will be seen as supporting the Sunni against the Shia. Just the opposite of what was perceived after the second gulf war. They need to fight their own sectarian battles. I think this is our fight, better there than on our home soil. I am not advocating any substantive ground troops, unfortunately my concept was nuked that laid it out but the message lost in the hijacking. I suggested a return to the level of persuasive arm twisting we did with Maliki to keep the Iraqi government a pseudo tripartite government. The Anbar Sunnis are fighting the ISIS Sunnis still, the Kurds are as well. None are fighting together and will not succeed separately. With our support, mostly in command and control, air power, and encouraging the Iraqi government to give them back their share of power, however minimal. If the Shi'a government doesn't they won't hold Baghdad and ISIS will be a true international sponsor of terror much worse than the Taliban before 9-11. My concept means we are behind a tripartite situation, not in the middle of the sectarian violence. We proved the concept that good Sunnis will fight bad Sunnis when we were in Al Anbar. The Marines developed the Sons of Iraq concept that has remained anti-thug to this day in many Anbar tribes. Time is running out, it is almost too late. Can't say that I disagree with what you have written. However, if outside forces are required to eliminate ISIS let it be Saudi's, Egyptians, or Turks. |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Sept 4, 2014 17:15:59 GMT -8
I think this is our fight, better there than on our home soil. I am not advocating any substantive ground troops, unfortunately my concept was nuked that laid it out but the message lost in the hijacking. I suggested a return to the level of persuasive arm twisting we did with Maliki to keep the Iraqi government a pseudo tripartite government. The Anbar Sunnis are fighting the ISIS Sunnis still, the Kurds are as well. None are fighting together and will not succeed separately. With our support, mostly in command and control, air power, and encouraging the Iraqi government to give them back their share of power, however minimal. If the Shi'a government doesn't they won't hold Baghdad and ISIS will be a true international sponsor of terror much worse than the Taliban before 9-11. My concept means we are behind a tripartite situation, not in the middle of the sectarian violence. We proved the concept that good Sunnis will fight bad Sunnis when we were in Al Anbar. The Marines developed the Sons of Iraq concept that has remained anti-thug to this day in many Anbar tribes. Time is running out, it is almost too late. Can't say that I disagree with what you have written. However, if outside forces are required to eliminate ISIS let it be Saudi's, Egyptians, or Turks. In the end, it has to be done before it moves to Europe and America. Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards |
|
|
|
Post by azson on Sept 5, 2014 10:41:05 GMT -8
Can't say that I disagree with what you have written. However, if outside forces are required to eliminate ISIS let it be Saudi's, Egyptians, or Turks. In the end, it has to be done before it moves to Europe and America. Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards Sounds eerily like Domino Theory fear-mongering from a generation ago, only "communism" has been replaced by "terrorism". |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Sept 5, 2014 12:11:55 GMT -8
Bookmark this then.
Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 5, 2014 13:06:50 GMT -8
Bookmark this then. Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards Has anyone other than you made a try at potential advice for The President? It has been a couple days. What I would do is work toward at least letting the Kurds govern themselves. I am not sure the Sunni and Shia can ever work it out. I would think put Very well supported Special Forces on the ground to help call in Air Strikes or conduct small scale operations themselves. I would not worry about any collateral damage except in Kurd territory. If we were to once again secure the country for the most part I would leave a hefty residual force in place as motivation for whoever ends up leading the non Kurd portion of the country to power and resource share. I am sure others have ideas that have holes in them just like this does. But, I think that what is going on now was predicable and can be pinned on leaving a void. No heavy forces on the ground. |
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Sept 5, 2014 14:28:53 GMT -8
Right now I applaud Obama for getting Europe and NATO to agree to a joint effort. But they have to act quickly and crush them before they expand some more. I also wish he would fortify our borders because these folks from ISIS scare the hell out of me.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Sept 7, 2014 8:04:01 GMT -8
It's going to take boots on the ground to destroy ISIS. Period.
If they aren't destroyed soon they will spread out to other countries and become unstoppable. And they have publicly stated that their goal is to attack us here in the worst ways possible. They've got a couple hundred American citizens with American passports in their ranks, so they can easily attack us here if they're smart.
Boots on the ground mopping up after overwhelming air attacks. That's what we need, followed up by special forces tracking down the stragglers who get away.
Short of that? We lose containment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2014 10:08:50 GMT -8
Right now I applaud Obama for getting Europe and NATO to agree to a joint effort. But they have to act quickly and crush them before they expand some more. I also wish he would fortify our borders because these folks from ISIS scare the hell out of me. For the record, there's no such thing as a joint NATO effort. There's only the US and UK committing blood and treasure with, or without carping,backstabbing or out and out obstruction by the rest of the NATO dwarves. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2014 10:23:22 GMT -8
Oddly, Barry The Stoner following his "let's do a bong and sit on the couch" ethos has stumbled into an approximation of the correct strategy. I can see no outcome in that region that is a net benefit to us or the west in general except that all parties come out of the conflict as either vanquished or spent forces. As soon as one force, in this case ISIS begins to gain the upper hand, we go in with the purpose of degrading their capability through bombing in order to level the playing field. This has the net effect of prolonging the conflict, which is to the benefit of the west. If the Kurds need weapons, provide them but not enough for them to gain territory, only enough to defend themselves. If Assad starts to gain the upper hand, help the "moderates". All to the same end and that is to keep things going. Continuous was as a proxy for total war.
|
|
