IS bellends in a right mess now as US calls its homeboys for a proper rumble - Polidicks

[t]http://imgkk.com/i/nsmb.jpg[/t] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29085248[/url] [quote]A coalition of Nato allies is ready to join the United States in military action against Islamic State (IS), US President Obama has announced. Speaking at the Nato summit in Wales, he said that a "core coalition" had been formed to tackle the threat. US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the group would be the US, Britain, Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Turkey. Islamic State has seized large areas in Iraq and Syria in recent months.[/quote]

That title. And hey, this is good! Time to bomb IS' asses.

The boys are back in town

Do it for Ponyboy. Come'on yah greasers! Get those Socs.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45908997]I'll believe it when I see it. With military action obama's been all bark and no bite.[/QUOTE] yeah, except for all those bombing campaigns in middle eastern countries killing tons of people, obama is easy on terrorists!!!

The badage boys are ba... oh. I mean The Obama Boys are in town I guess.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45909044]Had he actually followed his word with Syria, the IS probably would have never grown to the threat that it has today. So much for "lines in the sand"[/QUOTE] Pretty sure the exact opposite of what you just said would have happened.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45908997]I'll believe it when I see it. With military action obama's been all bark and no bite.[/QUOTE] Rofl do people not remember that Osama bin Laden was killed under Obama? [editline]6th September 2014[/editline] Late

[quote] US, Britain, Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Turkey[/quote] That is one hell of a team right there.

Bombing won't do shit if someone's boots aren't on the ground to push them back, whether they be Iraqi, American or European.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;45909090]Bombing won't do shit if someone's boots aren't on the ground to push them back, whether they be Iraqi, American or European.[/QUOTE] What are the Kurdish, Iraqi, and Syrian Armies?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45909142]What is international intervention to stop a growing threat? You can't just arm these guys and bomb the piss out of the IS and expect things to work out well. An international force would be substantially better at reducing civilian casualties and restoring (relative) peace to the region.[/QUOTE] International occupation has not proven itself in the past to restoring balance in the region, and these people were the same people the US was fighting for over a decade in Iraq, we didn't defeat them then. Unless you suggest the answer is unlimited occupation of a massive region of the middle east.

At least this time it's for a real threat, and one that can't be any more black and white

[QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;45909113]What are the Kurdish, Iraqi, and Syrian Armies?[/QUOTE] Let's see here: Kurds - They aren't going to conquer all of ISIS held territory, especially since much of that isn't Kurdish land. Iraq - Marred by sectarian friction itself, it has had very limited victory against ISIS. On top of that, Iraq does not want a independent Kurdish state, despite Kurdish autonomy in their northern area. Syria - Have been fighting since 2011 and has only yeilded very limited success against ISIS. In fact, this is where ISIS really grew into a de facto state itself. Despite this, they're probably the best ones to gain traction against ISIS due to their years of experience from the civil war. Unfortunately due to American and European backing of the rebels, don't expect a lot of cooperation against ISIS with Assad unless Russia decides to fight ISIS too - which they won't, being busy with Ukraine and all. In physically pushing back ISIS, the best geopolitical option is to strengthen Iraqi forces with allied European and American troops as reserve and logistical support. Doing so with the Kurds will anger the Iraqis who are the de jure government of the country whether it's right or not for the Kurds. That's just how it is. It's not great, it's not perfect, but it's the only solution I see. You can't win a war with air superiority alone. You can bomb the shit out of them all you want but it doesn't stop them from occupying a territory. Armies don't retreat because they're being bombed, they just dig in and take cover. Armies are what make armies retreat. [editline]6th September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;45909175]International occupation has not proven itself in the past to restoring balance in the region, and these people were the same people the US was fighting for over a decade in Iraq, we didn't defeat them then. Unless you suggest the answer is unlimited occupation of a massive region of the middle east.[/QUOTE] I think the best solution, at least in Iraqi territory, is to have European and American troops in reserve. Arm the Iraqis and have them fight at the front lines while the allies help logistically and occupy captured ISIS territory and putting it back together. I should say, though, that I do not support in any way American boots to be put on the ground. I would rather have Europeans do this work if they want to stop ISIS. But, the bottom line is, Europe and America can't go sweep in and "save the day" every damn time a Islamist extremist group starts to get some victories. Arab countries over there have to figure this thing out on their own else it'll just be another foreign group drawing fake lines in the sand and calling them borders again.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;45909253]I should say, though, that I do not support in any way American boots to be put on the ground. I would rather have Europeans do this work if they want to stop ISIS.[/QUOTE] What? Precisely why would you drag Euro-NATO members with you to war back in 2001 if you're not going to reciprocate in kind? The USA was the first-ever nation to invoke Article 5 and took half the world to war. We complied. Even tiny Estonia fought and bled in your war. I'm curious as to why do Americans find themselves above upholding the tenets of the charter they themselves have invoked previously. "Let the Europeans deal with this" seems to be trending heavily.

[QUOTE=just-a-boy;45911895]What? Precisely why would you drag Euro-NATO members with you to war back in 2001 if you're not going to reciprocate in kind? The USA was the first-ever nation to invoke Article 5 and took half the world to war. We complied. Even tiny Estonia fought and bled in your war. I'm curious as to why do Americans find themselves above upholding the tenets of the charter they themselves have invoked previously. "Let the Europeans deal with this" seems to be trending heavily.[/QUOTE] Because America is not the world police and while other countries participated, American troops were overwhelmingly the majority of military units over there.

[QUOTE=smurfy;45907966]IS bellends in a right mess now as US calls its homeboys for a proper rumble[/quote] This may be your best headline yet.

So... Are we going to see an actual military intervention by the end of this month? :v:

[quote]the group would be the US, Britain, Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Turkey[/quote] Glad to see a good amount of international support on this one.

GO CANADA

While this isnt a bad thing, I get the feeling that there could maybe be some ulterior motives? With the whole situation with russia it would make sense to show that NATO can still kick shit in.

Actual footage of Obama's speech on the matter: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95YdE89nTgI[/media]

In the end, IS is done for; just a matter of time, effort, and resources. There's no way they'll win unless Russia decides to convert to Islam.

[QUOTE=redBadger;45909088]That is one hell of a team right there.[/QUOTE] and denmark

this is probably the first aggression i've seen in my lifetime that i'm excited to see

[QUOTE=Medevila;45909039][t]http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/v2_article_large/public/2013/08/29/osama-bin-laden.jpg?itok=Yas5UCdx[/t][/QUOTE] hi osam