Obama rules out Syria ground invasion, asks critics to explain what their next step would be after t

[Missing User]

[QUOTE=Pepsi-cola;49130385]They should at least share intel with the people actually fighting ISIS.[/QUOTE]

We couldnt share information internally to prevent Pam Am 103 bombing or 9/11... I can only imagine what clusterfuck it would be to try and share it between nations.

[Cutthecrap]

[QUOTE=OvB;49130518]I haven't said anything about an invasion? Doing more doesn't automatically mean total invasion. Though I can see how that's implied given the thread. I just don't believe the west is doing enough. It should've never gotten to this point in the first place because the response to ISIS should've been swift and united before they could gain so much control and influence. I'm hypercritical of our collective apathy for something we had a large part in creating. The Middle East as a whole requires global help and I'm not seeing it.[/QUOTE]

But when do you say inaction, what do you mean? Because as far as I can gather, the general consesus here is: Inaction means anything else other than boots on the ground or a full fledged invasion.

A seconday problem is, that in order to carry out the plan you have in mind (Now that I understand what you meant), half of Europe's goverments and the US would have to accept they fucked up VERY badly in the past and it's in part their fault (yes that includes Russia). And as far as dick waving in the international scene goes, that's something very unheard of.

[OvB]

I mean it as I don't think just bombing them now and then is enough. I think the solution is going to take a global response. I don't want to see that region just pushed off as a failed place where extremism flourishes while we relocate massive numbers of people to the west where they will no doubt face bitter xenophobia.

I don't know if the borders as they existed yesterday will exist tomorrow, but my ideal endgame is the destruction of isis, and a safe place where citizens of these countries can learn. I believe the only way to destroy extremism is through education. However, if the only way to achieve that is with ground troops securing city by city then so be it. Preferably though we could assist locals with that.

I just don't think we're doing as much as we could with just bombing them. It's complicated but I feel it's something that needs to be taken care of.

[Jaguar]

[QUOTE=OvB;49130368]I don't see how inaction is the moral right, here.

[editline]16th November 2015[/editline]

And I believe that for all humanitarian crisis around the world. Not trying to help those in need with humanitarian, diplomatic, and even military aid is the geopolitical equivalent of the bystander effect and watching a homeless man die of a stab wound on the streets.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying the U.S. shouldn't do anything, but they shouldn't be the one in charge of going after ISIS. America is too war weary to go back to the Middle East. The U.S. should be a support role in the conflict, providing intelligence and air support to others, but that's it. No American soldiers should go back.

[Dark RaveN]

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49127896]If you're willing to sacrifice millions of people in the off chance that it will make you safer, don't pretend you're any less savage than the people you're fighting.[/QUOTE]

Again this half assed idealism. IT DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT

[JumpinJackFlash]

God damn it.

[QUOTE=Govna;49129015]ISIS should have been tackled by the West as soon as they appeared.[/QUOTE]Oh, so intervene in Arab Spring? That's when they "appeared" by the way. So we're going to police [B]THE ENTIRE FUCKING ARAB WORLD[/B] just to stop some two-bit shitheads that were localized and not even a credible threat at the time? They weren't even participating in the civil war that didn't happen yet.

[QUOTE=Govna;49129015]The Middle East is yet again engaged in another great war as a "genocidal, suicidal death cult" (to quote another user) occupies huge swathes of it-- destroying infrastructure and world heritage landmarks, indiscriminately murdering civilians, and destabilizing the entire region.[/QUOTE]This happened because of an already destabilized region, and really, the "suicidal death cult" only occupies a very tiny portion of the Middle East and they're being slowly pushed back every day. Every single analyst of the situation disagrees with your opinions that are obviously clouded not only by hindsight but a total misunderstanding of the situation.

[QUOTE=Govna;49129015]Our policy should have been intervention from the outset, if not with the goal in mind of just general military victory then containment.[/QUOTE]Here's a great example of that total lack of understanding, this has been our policy [B]the entire time[/B] and so far it's worked out great; while the rest of the world plaintively bitched at us for "not doing more" we were supporting the forces already in-country and have allowed them to make significant gains.

[QUOTE=Govna;49129015]We resorted to aerial attacks, special operations attacks, and other limited functions.[/QUOTE]That have had far, far more success than you're willing to admit.

[QUOTE=Govna;49129015]We resorted to aerial attacks, special operations attacks, and other limited functions. These were feel-good measures that were not completely ineffectual against ISIS (we have undeniably hurt them as a terrorist organization), but the fact of the matter is they were never anything more. And they certainly were never going to be sufficient to achieve victory.[/QUOTE]Without a doubt the YPG would not have had their strategic success (managing to push back daesh so badly that they've shifted to taking on the ineffectual rebels) without the bombing campaign. Especially so with arguably one of the most important towns in the conflict: Kobane, not so much because of what the town had but because it was symbolic [I]and[/I] it locked them in a siege that ate up their best fighters, armored vehicles, heavy weapons, and they lost a big chunk of their artillery capability thanks to US-dropped bombs.

So no, it's completely sufficient to achieve victory and it's the victory that [B]needs to happen.[/B] Local forces have to be the ones to deliver the death-blow here, not Western ones, and Western presence in the Middle East is without a doubt the biggest selling point when these fucks recruit. (aside from the pay)

[QUOTE=Govna;49129015]Beyond that, we also need to actually stick around this time for the cleanup. For however long is necessary.[/QUOTE]HAHAHAHAHA. WOW. You're talking about occupying the Middle East for [B][U]decades,[/U][/B] probably at [U]least[/U] thirty to forty years. What the fuck?

[QUOTE=Govna;49129015]Because, like Corn has said here, the end result will just be that this will happen all over again with somebody else eventually if we don't.[/QUOTE]Or we can let local forces do the same thing and ensure that we A: do not get sucked into half a century of occupation and B: build up the confidence and solidarity to continue to police their own much like the Kurds have done since 2004, it is a viable model and it is very possible [I]if it is something that is kept up.[/I]
[QUOTE=Govna;49129015]The United States, nevermind the rest of NATO, is great at waging war; it's the peacetime operations that we suck at: rebuilding, re-engineering (socially especially; and this includes re-educating), re-creating stability and loyal/capable native defense forces (a lack of loyalty and willingness to fight severely hurt Iraq against ISIS), etc.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately the reconstruction of Iraq was mired by so many bullshit political factors and constant second-guessing, this is what killed everything and it just spread more animosity. We pulled out prematurely, yeah, but at the same time we were completely spinning our wheels.

[editline]16th November 2015[/editline]

Why the fuck do the same people who cried so hard about occupying the Middle East when we were in Iraq now have this huge erection for occupying [I]more[/I] of it for what would be a completely indefinite period of time?

[Joey Skylynx]

Rules out ground invasion, but puts special forces on the ground, directly funds Al Queda and 1/3rd of our supplies are going to ISIS.
Yeah, stop lieing to yourself bucko.

[JumpinJackFlash]

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;49130822]Rules out ground invasion, but puts special forces on the ground, directly funds Al Queda and 1/3rd of our supplies are going to ISIS.
Yeah, stop lieing to yourself bucko.[/QUOTE]Got any sources on that? Specifically, "one third of our supplies" part and the "directly funds Al Queda" bit.

I'd really like to see that.

[editline]16th November 2015[/editline]

Actually I can guess where that "oh one third goes to ISIS!" part comes from: Kobane. When the battle was at it's worst the YPG were losing ground and we accidentally supplied enemy territory which is something that happens in war.

This happened all the fucking time in Vietnam, Korea, WWII, and nobody's ever cried foul then so why the hell is it happening now? Actually I know why that's happening, because those conflicts nobody was watching the entire thing happen courtesy of the internet so they could second-guess and bitch from a position of comfort and safety. Here's a newsflash: planes fly very high and there isn't any nifty markers that say "THIS HERE BE ISIS COUNTRY!" so when shit happens it is precisely that: shit happens.

[Unclejimmema]

Reguardless of what the US does there's going to need to be boots on the ground from somewhere. Right now it's the Iraqi government, which is full of corruption and woefully Ill equiped, and the peshmerga. The peshmerga can only do so much without direct support, which leads go tension not only with the Iraqi government but Turkey as well. Supporting the Iraqi government so far has got us to where they are now, a mess.

The thing with Iraq is that because of US intervention it is religiously polarised between the sunni and Shi'a populations, and that is going to be a lingering effect reguardless whose declared winner. In order for stability in the country there has to be more than just wiping the floor with ISIS, you need to build bridges and raise a sense of nationalism amongst the people to unite them under the banner of their country and not just their religion or tribe.

That's the biggest differance between Iraq and Afghanistan vs. Japan and Germany. Japan and Germany were/are largely homoginous in terms of idealism and national/emperor pride. They all united under one banner willingly. Afghanistan might as well be a bunch of separate little countries in terms of who holds loyalty to who, and post 2004 Iraq has suffered a similar fate.

IMO I'd love to see the Marines just come in and glass ISIS, but there's a lot more substance that needs to be accounted for in order to actually leave Iraq as a stable country.

[Joey Skylynx]

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49130839]Got any sources on that? Specifically, "one third of our supplies" part and the "directly funds Al Queda" bit.

I'd really like to see that.

[editline]16th November 2015[/editline]

Actually I can guess where that "oh one third goes to ISIS!" part comes from: Kobane. When the battle was at it's worst the YPG were losing ground and we accidentally supplied enemy territory which is something that happens in war.

This happened all the fucking time in Vietnam, Korea, WWII, and nobody's ever cried foul then so why the hell is it happening now? Actually I know why that's happening, because those conflicts nobody was watching the entire thing happen courtesy of the internet so they could second-guess and bitch from a position of comfort and safety. Here's a newsflash: planes fly very high and there isn't any nifty markers that say "THIS HERE BE ISIS COUNTRY!" so when shit happens it is precisely that: shit happens.[/QUOTE]
No. Our government has been directly funding "moderates" and for the most part, these moderates are brain dead retarded and keep lossing our supplies.
Other aspects include how in 2010 the United States was offered by Syria and Russia to deal with ISIS as it was understood how legitimate of a threat it was becoming, but the United States denied to do so, and instead continued to fund groups which later became the Islamic State or swore loyalty towards the Isalmic State. At this current moment in time, our government directly funds groups like Al Nursa and the Islamic Front with TOW Missiles, Supplies, Ammo, and Weapons. It's depressing to a guy like me to actually know that my government funds the Islamic Front when groups like the Peshmerga could actually get supplies from US and would probably be far more successful and preventing shit.

[laserpanda]

[QUOTE=Jund;49128124]it's not germany or japan. they do not have a fanatical devotion to al-baghdadi

even if he dies they can still get what they want when [I]they[/I] die[/QUOTE]

They literally believe al-Baghdadi to be the successor to Muhammad. You can't have a caliphate without a Caliph.

[JumpinJackFlash]

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;49130949]Reguardless of what the US does there's going to need to be boots on the ground from somewhere. Right now it's the Iraqi government, which is full of corruption and woefully Ill equiped, and the peshmerga. The peshmerga can only do so much without direct support, which leads go tension not only with the Iraqi government but Turkey as well. Supporting the Iraqi government so far has got us to where they are now, a mess.[/QUOTE]They are getting direct support, Peshmerga forces retook the vital routes into Mosul precisely because of airstrikes that cut off supply routes and also tactical positions that threatened Kurdish forces as they pushed for the city. When all was said and done, US and Canadian aircraft have bombed [I]a lot[/I] of daesh positions, destroyed a sizable amount of the vehicles, supplies, ammunition, and equipment that had been used to directly defend or support the defense of Mosul. Right now there's some question about the Iraqis being able to actually take the city in an assault or if it should be a Peshmerga-led operation, but these are just rumors.

I believe you've been over there, but I can't remember so I'll just give you a refresher either way: Mosul is a major strategic city that provides a nice place to attack all the important places in that part of the war such as Baghdad, Kirkuk, Erbil, and also would be economically important for the enemy's war effort. I'm concerned about the territory increases that daesh has enjoyed, and if they manage to succeed in ousting Assad's forces entirely from Dier ez-Zor (which will likely result in a slaughter) then the war will drastically change.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;49131039]No. Our government has been directly funding "moderates" and for the most part, these moderates are brain dead retarded and keep lossing our supplies.
Other aspects include how in 2010 the United States was offered by Syria and Russia to deal with ISIS as it was understood how legitimate of a threat it was becoming, but the United States denied to do so, and instead continued to fund groups which later became the Islamic State or swore loyalty towards the Isalmic State. At this current moment in time, our government directly funds groups like Al Nursa and the Islamic Front with TOW Missiles, Supplies, Ammo, and Weapons. It's depressing to a guy like me to actually know that my government funds the Islamic Front when groups like the Peshmerga could actually get supplies from US and would probably be far more successful and preventing shit.[/QUOTE]We fund the FSA but like with everything in our government these days the competency of [I]certain people[/I] gets in the way and groups like al-Nusra get some shiny new BGM-71s (well not shiny or new, but still) that were intended to be used against Assad. For the most part though the arms that have been misappropriated or otherwise lost to hostile groups [I]are[/I] being used as intended, we haven't directly supported daesh in any way other than pure battlefield accidents.

[Spazi]

[QUOTE=OvB;49127591]If Obama's military advisors don't have 150 different unique plans to defeat isis that's a complete lack and breakdown of leadership on his part. We shouldve been prepared for every situation with isis since the day they took Falujah. There should be a folder tilted "In case of massive ISIS attack on NATO ally: plans A-Z" in the Pentagon. We've had years to deal with these people, we should be prepared for every scenario. If we're not then we have weak leadership, and it's showing.[/QUOTE]

A plan to "defeat isis" won't solve the problem that caused them to form in the first place.

On a side note why do people seem so obsessed with leadership having to pose as strong? Esp in this case: What are people expecting Obama to do, swear vengeance and promise military action without considering the long term consequences?

[MaverickIB]

A lot of people seem to think it would be doing veterans a favor if they aren't sent in to the Middle East. It doesn't quite work that way, most people in the military right now are itching to go back and put some warheads on foreheads. I bet that 25 year old who lost limbs would jump at the opportunity to go back and fight if he could. A lot of guys had an issue with being a part of the occupation over there because there was no solid goal, they didn't know what their purpose was. But send men over there with the mission of murder everything ISIS, you'd be hard pressed to find a guy who doesn't believe in that mission.

[catbarf]

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49130799]This happened because of an already destabilized region[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49130799]Without a doubt the YPG would not have had their strategic success (managing to push back daesh so badly that they've shifted to taking on the ineffectual rebels) without the bombing campaign. Especially so with arguably one of the most important towns in the conflict: Kobane, not so much because of what the town had but because it was symbolic [I]and[/I] it locked them in a siege that ate up their best fighters, armored vehicles, heavy weapons, and they lost a big chunk of their artillery capability thanks to US-dropped bombs.[/QUOTE]

Supplying arms and equipment to politically convenient rebels is never, [i]ever[/i] going to resolve the long-term instability of the region. Everyone calls out a hit-it-and-quit-it invasion as unproductive in the long term but supplying and fueling age-old partisan ethnic conflicts is going to do the same exact thing, eliminate the threat du jour without doing anything to prevent another terrorist organization or rogue state from popping up next year.

You might be content to send arms and bombs every few years to eliminate whatever threat keeps popping up but we're going to be stuck in this same cycle until someone conducts a true intervention, preferably with blue helmets and international backing.

[Rangergxi]

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;49131979]A lot of people seem to think it would be doing veterans a favor if they aren't sent in to the Middle East. It doesn't quite work that way, most people in the military right now are itching to go back and put some warheads on foreheads. I bet that 25 year old who lost limbs would jump at the opportunity to go back and fight if he could. A lot of guys had an issue with being a part of the occupation over there because there was no solid goal, they didn't know what their purpose was. But send men over there with the mission of murder everything ISIS, you'd be hard pressed to find a guy who doesn't believe in that mission.[/QUOTE]

This could easily become nation building and sitting around waiting for another terrorist army to consolidate power.

[Tools]

[QUOTE=OvB;49127543]ISIS has been murdering for years at this point and the West has been bombing them here and there will next to no real effort to destroy them as a look were doing things feel-good-measure with minimal results. ISIS is still bombing civilians in Lebanon and France and we're still sitting here saying "hey let's not jump the gun!" As if this is a new and unexpected event.[/QUOTE]

We haven't cut into their fundings as far as I know, they still make tons off of oil and theft.

Al Quaeda almost died out because they couldn't afford any form of warfare, so why not do the same about ISIS?

[JumpinJackFlash]

[QUOTE=catbarf;49132312]Supplying arms and equipment to politically convenient rebels is never, [i]ever[/i] going to resolve the long-term instability of the region. Everyone calls out a hit-it-and-quit-it invasion as unproductive in the long term but supplying and fueling age-old partisan ethnic conflicts is going to do the same exact thing, eliminate the threat du jour without doing anything to prevent another terrorist organization or rogue state from popping up next year.

You might be content to send arms and bombs every few years to eliminate whatever threat keeps popping up but we're going to be stuck in this same cycle until someone conducts a true intervention, preferably with blue helmets and international backing.[/QUOTE]So short answer: would you be in favor of 30+ years of occupation?

That's what it would probably take, at least three decades of constant occupation by [I]peacemakers[/I] and not [I]peacekeepers[/I] who so far are only as effective as they are recognized. (hint: they won't be) So it will boil down to the West occupying the Middle East under your plan for a very, very long time and there will be constant bitching and moaning about how we're either not doing enough or we're there "against the wishes of the locals who hate us anyway." That's why the idea of "well yeah but if we solve it now and solve it our way all our problems will be solved forever!" is a stupid, stupid plan.

Supplying local forces to police their own, be they politically convenient or not, (here's a hint buddy boy: the YPG are not politically convenient at all, they're leftist and our ally Turkey hates Kurds period) is the most cost-effective solution that would yield the best results long-term even though it would likely mean Assad remains in power.

[QUOTE=Tools;49135228]We haven't cut into their fundings as far as I know, they still make tons off of oil and theft.

Al Quaeda almost died out because they couldn't afford any form of warfare, so why not do the same about ISIS?[/QUOTE]Bitch at Russia, currently a big chunk of their oil profits supposedly come from Assad paying for their dirt-cheap oil and he's their dog in this fight. Otherwise it's the same game as it's always been, you just have to have patience for the agencies who are working on this to get the job done.

[editline]17th November 2015[/editline]

Oh and for reference, please take a loot at how long it took the Ottomans to "pacify" the area in question. People seem to be under the mistaken impression that we'll go over there, "get the job done" and be back in time for dinner.

I guess forgetting the past fourteen years is easier than I thought.

[Ricenchicken]

IMO, we need to help Russia and France with their efforts to fight ISIS.

ISIS is going after multiple countries, this is a global problem imo, in someway we should back our allies.

[ramkeham]

[QUOTE=Ricenchicken;49136346]IMO, we need to help Russia and France with their efforts to fight ISIS.

ISIS is going after multiple countries, this is a global problem imo, in someway we should back our allies.[/QUOTE]

And bombing ISIS since last year doesn't count as fighting ISIS?

[Mr. Someguy]

[QUOTE=Ricenchicken;49136346]IMO, we need to help Russia and France with their efforts to fight ISIS.[/QUOTE]

Yeah but we already are.

[Vitalogy]

ISIS is getting demolished. We've been killing on average 1,000 ISIS members every months for the past year. Currently their recruiting efforts have kept up with the pace, but that won't last forever. We are tearing them apart right now, and every day they continue to lose more ground. All of this is being accomplished with no boots on the ground, and very very minimal risk to our soldiers. Another added benefit of no boots on the ground is that the citizens see their own country's forces retake control, giving them legitimacy. What we're doing now is effective and there is no reason to start a ground invasion.

[Maniac]

[QUOTE=Vitalogy;49136861]ISIS is getting demolished. We've been killing on average 1,000 ISIS members every months for the past year. Currently their recruiting efforts have kept up with the pace, but that won't last forever. We are tearing them apart right now, and every day they continue to lose more ground. All of this is being accomplished with no boots on the ground, and very very minimal risk to our soldiers. Another added benefit of no boots on the ground is that the citizens see their own country's forces retake control, giving them legitimacy. What we're doing now is effective and there is no reason to start a ground invasion.[/QUOTE]

Except that it's Russians who's doing all the grunt work this time. Ruskies pay, Americans claim am I right?

[Vitalogy]

[QUOTE=maniacykt;49136890]Except that it's Russians who's doing all the grunt work this time. Ruskies pay, Americans claim am I right?[/QUOTE]

Russia is no doubt playing a considerable role in defeating ISIS. I never said they weren't. The 1,000 ISIS members taken out are numbers from Operation Inherent Resolve, so I don't believe that accounts for the dent the Russians have started to make as well. If so then we are taking out more than they are recruiting at this moment, which means it's only a matter of time before ISIS is too thin to even function.

[Lord_Ragnarok]

Until recently, Obama's been pretty militant throughout his presidency. Now seems like a politically dangerous time to stop.

We have technically been containing ISIS in terms of the actual territory they control and their territory is shrinking with the help of the Kurds. Obama's just picking a really bad time to seem like he's downplaying them.

[swebonny]

[QUOTE=maniacykt;49136890]Except that it's Russians who's doing all the grunt work this time. Ruskies pay, Americans claim am I right?[/QUOTE]

Russia have mainly been bombing the rebels, maybe it has changed now. USA has been bombing ISIS since 2014, so let's not downplay USA's role in this.

[catbarf]

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49135765]So short answer: would you be in favor of 30+ years of occupation?

That's what it would probably take, at least three decades of constant occupation by [I]peacemakers[/I] and not [I]peacekeepers[/I] who so far are only as effective as they are recognized. (hint: they won't be) So it will boil down to the West occupying the Middle East under your plan for a very, very long time and there will be constant bitching and moaning about how we're either not doing enough or we're there "against the wishes of the locals who hate us anyway." That's why the idea of "well yeah but if we solve it now and solve it our way all our problems will be solved forever!" is a stupid, stupid plan.[/QUOTE]

30+ years is, going by previous experience in Africa, not a realistic assessment. 15-25 is. And yes, I'd be in favor of it. Post-colonial intervention has worked out pretty well in Africa. If we always followed the kind of policy you're recommending, Somalia would still be a war-torn pirate refuge and the entirety of central and east Africa would be a divided wasteland. Many of those countries may not be in the best shape now, but they're not breeding extremists and some degree of political stability has been achieved. Organizations like Boko Haram and Al-Shabaab represent the exception rather than the rule and don't have the resources or political leverage to present any threat to the West, and are opposed by domestic military groups. That's where we want the Middle East to be.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49135765]Supplying local forces to police their own, be they politically convenient or not, (here's a hint buddy boy: the YPG are not politically convenient at all, they're leftist and our ally Turkey hates Kurds period) is the most cost-effective solution that would yield the best results long-term even though it would likely mean Assad remains in power.[/QUOTE]

The YPG are politically convenient in that they give us a way to avoid boots on the ground and provide a just-as-temporary, just-as-ineffectual solution while pretending we're helping the situation rather than perpetuating the cycle of ethnic conflict. We can feel like we're helping without having to commit people, and instead piss away billions of dollars in materiel. It's not going to result in long-term stability any more than supplying the Mujahideen did. Either we commit to long-term nation-building or we admit that the endless parade of terrorists, dictators, and failed states is going to continue no matter who we throw guns and ammunition at.

[Govna]

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49130799]God damn it.

Oh, so intervene in Arab Spring? That's when they "appeared" by the way. So we're going to police [B]THE ENTIRE FUCKING ARAB WORLD[/B] just to stop some two-bit shitheads that were localized and not even a credible threat at the time? They weren't even participating in the civil war that didn't happen yet.[/quote]

Well actually, they've been around since the late-1990s, and they've undergone several transitions since that time (and their name has changed several times as well; for the sake of simplicity, I just refer to them as "ISIS" because this is a term which pretty much everyone is familiar with to describe them).

But it was only a couple of years ago back in 2013 (in the third year of the Arab Spring, yes) that they started claiming territory in Syria and the rest of the Levant (and actually had the military power to enforce those claims). And then in 2014, they announced they were independent from al-Qaeda. It was also last year that they, you know, started overrunning major areas in Iraq (and I speak in particular here of Mosul, which remains under their control to this day).

Having said that, we only needed to police Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place-- not "the entire fucking Arab world"-- since this was where our involvement in the Middle East first occurred directly with us in the War on Terror. ISIS' origins as a credible terrorist threat were in Iraq and began in 2004, just a year after we invaded the country and overthrew Hussein. They merged with al-Qaeda, and then two years later, they proclaimed their state in Iraq. Again though, it wasn't until 2013 that they actually started amounting to a major military threat; they were underground and spent most of their time as financiers and as infiltrators in the Iraqi government's western provinces beforehand, and even then, they weren't doing a very good job at this.

Later in more recent years, we needed to intervene in Syria when the civil war broke out. Not only because it would've allowed us to topple a state in the region that is a strategic asset to Russia, but also because it was in Syria that ISIS started expanding significantly with the formation of the al-Nusra Front by ISIS (for terminological clarity: ISIS became ISIS in name when they financed and formed al-Nusra). We did intervene in the sense that we sent weapons, supplies, and other such aid over to the Free Syrian Army, but we didn't directly intervene to ensure that the job was done the way it needed to be done against both ISIS and Assad's government.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49130799]This happened because of an already destabilized region, and really, the "suicidal death cult" only occupies a very tiny portion of the Middle East and they're being slowly pushed back every day. Every single analyst of the situation disagrees with your opinions that are obviously clouded not only by hindsight but a total misunderstanding of the situation.[/quote]

Yes, I know that, and the reason why the region was destabilized was because we didn't handle our first intervention (our first phases in the War on Terror) in the Middle East properly. We didn't do so in Iraq, nor did we do so in Afghanistan (although Afghanistan has fared better than Iraq has; Iraq is torn up between its formal government, ISIS, and the Kurds). Like I said in my original post, we did an absolutely horrible job at reconstruction the first time around. Social reconstruction was a major failure on our part. This has been a consistent issue for us: we're great at winning wars, we're not great at winning peace.

Also, [url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Syrian%2C_Iraqi%2C_and_Lebanese_insurgencies.png]ISIS occupies and has free range over most of Western Iraq and Eastern Syria as well as some of Lebanon[/url], and [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/war-with-isis-islamic-militants-have-army-of-200000-claims-kurdish-leader-9863418.html]it has anywhere between 50,000+ and 200,000+ fighters operating for it[/url] (we don't actually know; nobody has consistent statistics-- not the CIA, not the Russians, not the Kurds...). [url=http://europe.newsweek.com/isis-grows-international-footprint-affiliate-jihadist-groups-spring-305519]They operate everywhere from the aforementioned countries to Libya, Algeria, and Egypt in North Africa to Yemen, Pakistan and India, Chechnya and Dagestan in the Caucasus... they're even in the Philippines and Indonesia in Asia. They're possibly Western Africa as well.[/url] At present, [url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/03/13/mideast-crisis-syria-icrc-idUKKBN0M921X20150313]their state has control over more than 10 million people (according to Red Cross estimates, who also say they have enough control that these people are still out of their reach)[/url]. No, "every single analyst of the situation" does not agree with this. Stop being a bullshitter. What's universally agreed upon is that they're still a major threat, they're going to be around for a while yet, and above all that they have not been anywhere near defeated. They're alive and well, and they're going to be at the present rate things are going.

No one doubts that they will be defeated eventually. It's just a question of time and how many lives it will take, both of which could be decreased with direct intervention at this point by the United States/NATO and which could have been drastically decreased if we'd bothered to intervene at the beginning of this mess. But what's done is done, and the fact is we can't go back; we just have to choose now how we'll go forward.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49130799]Here's a great example of that total lack of understanding,[/quote]

...lack of understanding on your part? Absolutely.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49130799]this has been our policy [B]the entire time[/B] and so far it's worked out great; while the rest of the world plaintively bitched at us for "not doing more" we were supporting the forces already in-country and have allowed them to make significant gains.

That have had far, far more success than you're willing to admit.[/quote]

You're both overexaggerating their successes and downplaying ISIS' abilities. Again, no one doubts that the latter will be defeated in the end, and they probably could be with the way things are currently going with our limited involvement. You are ignorantly oblivious however to the fact that if we intervened now, we could defeat them much quicker and with fewer lives lost thanks to our sheer might/unparalleled ability to wage war. This is what I've been arguing from the beginning. We could have beaten them even sooner and saved many more lives had we intervened when they first became a major issue, but again, we didn't.

And beyond that, direct intervention offers us the ability to determine ourselves how things will play out. It puts the ball in our court and lets us not only determine how we'll fight and when, but what we'll do once we're done fighting. The indirect aid-to-their-enemies approach isn't nearly as effective; I don't think anyone seriously disputes that. Cleanup is going to be absolutely essential when the war is done and over with, and most people anymore are (correctly) of the opinion that the Middle East is incapable of doing it on its own. It definitely could do it much better if we were a part of the process. We just have more resources at our disposal than they do to do so.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49130799]Without a doubt the YPG would not have had their strategic success (managing to push back daesh so badly that they've shifted to taking on the ineffectual rebels) without the bombing campaign. Especially so with arguably one of the most important towns in the conflict: Kobane, not so much because of what the town had but because it was symbolic [I]and[/I] it locked them in a siege that ate up their best fighters, armored vehicles, heavy weapons, and they lost a big chunk of their artillery capability thanks to US-dropped bombs.

So no, it's completely sufficient to achieve victory and it's the victory that [B]needs to happen.[/B] Local forces have to be the ones to deliver the death-blow here, not Western ones, and Western presence in the Middle East is without a doubt the biggest selling point when these fucks recruit. (aside from the pay)[/quote]

What successes the Kurds have had have not been sufficient to destroy ISIS. And as far as the Battle of Kobane is concerned, it hasn't won the war for them. You're arguing like ISIS has been destroyed by it. They haven't. In fact, you forgot to mention that after Kobane was retaken, it was discovered that 70% of the city was destroyed. It's largely a wasteland, although people are moving back into it. And then there were the suicide bombings that were launched there a few months ago by ISIS that killed 200+ people; they also drove through and just shot people randomly, and conducted a village massacre nearby. The battle itself ended back in March... and yet the war still drags on. The Kurdish followup offensive on Sarrin a few weeks after Kobane? Failed. Their drive to cut the border between ISIS and Turkey? Succeeded, but it's pissed the Turks off, and then their was the Kurdish decision to push out Arabs and Turkmen that helped to flame up ethnic tensions; [url=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34511134]they've been committing war crimes against them and perceived ISIS-supporters according to allegations by Amnesty International[/url]. Also, [url=http://ezidipress.com/en/barzani-only-the-peshmerga-have-liberated-shingal-no-other-unit-has-been-involved/]a lack of consolidation between the Kurds has been showing here recently since the battle at Shingal[/url], by which I mean some groups have been trying to steal credit from others and it's causing a lot of tension. This is bad, because we don't know what will happen with it in the future; they might break up and start fighting with each other (although probably not until ISIS is defeated).

Also, it's funny you mention ISIS' payment for recruits. [url=http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/free-syrian-army-decimated-desertions-151111064831800.html]Because the Free Syrian Army that we've been supporting against ISIS (of course) here in recent weeks has been decimated by mass desertions over low pay (also, it is fragmenting along the lines we're seeing with the Kurdish)[/url]. Aleppo is still being contested between ISIS and the FSA, but that may change now thanks to this turn of events.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49130799]HAHAHAHAHA. WOW. You're talking about occupying the Middle East for [B][U]decades,[/U][/B] probably at [U]least[/U] thirty to forty years. What the fuck?[/quote]

Doubtful it would be that long. Like Catbarf said, look at our successes in Africa:

[quote][QUOTE=catbarf;49138997]30+ years is, going by previous experience in Africa, not a realistic assessment. 15-25 is. And yes, I'd be in favor of it. Post-colonial intervention has worked out pretty well in Africa. If we always followed the kind of policy you're recommending, Somalia would still be a war-torn pirate refuge and the entirety of central and east Africa would be a divided wasteland. Many of those countries may not be in the best shape now, but they're not breeding extremists and some degree of political stability has been achieved. Organizations like Boko Haram and Al-Shabaab represent the exception rather than the rule and don't have the resources or political leverage to present any threat to the West, and are opposed by domestic military groups. That's where we want the Middle East to be.[/QUOTE][/quote]

Even if it did, the long-term benefits would be worth it. You're arguing against indefinite occupation (which really wouldn't be that indefinite; 15-25 years seems like a realistic assessment); all that would accomplish is more of what we've already seen: indefinite war and political chaos.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49130799]Or we can let local forces do the same thing and ensure that we A: do not get sucked into half a century of occupation and B: build up the confidence and solidarity to continue to police their own much like the Kurds have done since 2004, it is a viable model and it is very possible [I]if it is something that is kept up.[/I] [/quote]

Yeah, because that's going so well lol. Again, look at the Kurds now: they're fragmenting. You've got leftists, rightists, nationalists, communists/socialists, etc. fighting together against this common enemy, but there's still not enough binding them together-- which is exactly why we're seeing (as I just posted a few paragraphs above) the troubles that have broken out between the proper Peshmerga and the other Kurdish groups/units that have been fighting. Credit isn't being given where credit is due, and for what sacrifices have been made, that's a major issue because credit is duly deserved. This is causing problems now, and it will continue to cause problems in the future. Oh and beyond the Kurds, look at the Free Syrian Army: same problem. Fragmentation. People are deserting because they're not consolidating their beliefs. They're deserting because they aren't being paid enough, and they'd rather not die for, in their eyes, nothing. This isn't a limited issue, it's a big one. It's causing more problems than you're either willing to acknowledge, or maybe you just weren't even aware of them in the first place.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49130799]Unfortunately the reconstruction of Iraq was mired by so many bullshit political factors and constant second-guessing, this is what killed everything and it just spread more animosity. We pulled out prematurely, yeah, but at the same time we were completely spinning our wheels.[/quote]

Good thing then that we learned a lot about reconstruction from the Iraq War/occupation. We learned a lot from Afghanistan as well, and they're still holding together. They're in a much better position than Iraq is. We knew what we were doing with them, and for what problems they've had, we still succeeded with them. We could succeed now and again with Iraq. We could've succeeded with Syria as well had we gone in sooner; but now that's Russia's mess to deal with.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49130799]Why the fuck do the same people who cried so hard about occupying the Middle East when we were in Iraq now have this huge erection for occupying [I]more[/I] of it for what would be a completely indefinite period of time?[/QUOTE]

I never "cried hard" about occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. I wanted us to gradually withdraw, but I still wanted us to maintain a military presence over there in order to keep the peace, because I knew that consolidation wasn't going to happen smoothly or quickly. The only thing I was mad over was us going into Iraq in the first place when we had no business there; not to say Hussein was a decent human (he was a horrible dictator), but the fact is there was stability under his regime, and that stability is gone now ever since we got rid of him.

And to answer your question about why intervention/occupation is wanted now, it's because it's actually needed now. The Middle East is at an all-time low for regional stability with civil wars and terrorism strewn out all across it. There's a lot of lives being lost, infrastructure and irreplaceable cultural monuments being destroyed, political and ethnic tensions raising up everywhere. It's a bad situation. For our sake here in the West as much for the sake of the people living there, we should play a much more significant role than we are in helping to end this destructive war with ISIS as soon as possible. The sooner it ends, the more lives, monuments, etc. can be saved; the sooner it ends, the sooner we can begin cleaning up and reconstructing it to be stable and peaceful, rather than just letting it to continue to erupt into whatever it'll erupt into as the years ago on. I mean, it [i]could[/i] consolidate itself, and everything [i]could[/i] work out-- for them as well as us. But a hands-off approach doesn't guarantee us anything. Intervention, the hands-on approach, gives us a lot more power to control the situation.

We've got the experience and the resources to do what needs to be done. We can win the war as much as we can win the peace thereafter. Sitting around throwing material aid, advisors, and continually bombing the hell out of things is not the most efficient way to go about doing this.

[JumpinJackFlash]

[QUOTE=catbarf;49138997]30+ years is, going by previous experience in Africa, not a realistic assessment. 15-25 is. And yes, I'd be in favor of it. Post-colonial intervention has worked out pretty well in Africa.[/QUOTE]Please explain because last time I checked Africa's never been a [I]good[/I] example for anything.

[QUOTE=catbarf;49138997]Somalia would still be a war-torn pirate refuge and the entirety of central and east Africa would be a divided wasteland.[/QUOTE]It is and they are? I mean I don't know how much you think has changed but Somalia is still fractured and only because of [I]neighboring[/I] countries, aka local forces, has anything changed there. East Africa is and likely always will be a total shithole. Sorry, but I'm not at all convinced.

[QUOTE=catbarf;49138997]The YPG are politically convenient in that they give us a way to avoid boots on the ground and provide a just-as-temporary, just-as-ineffectual solution while pretending we're helping the situation rather than perpetuating the cycle of ethnic conflict.[/QUOTE]Uh? The YPG have managed to take the most territory [U]from[/U] daesh, meanwhile the FSA (who receives far, far more support) has lost considerable territory.

[QUOTE=catbarf;49138997]e can feel like we're helping without having to commit people, and instead piss away billions of dollars in materiel. It's not going to result in long-term stability any more than supplying the Mujahideen did.[/QUOTE]We're still only providing token support to the YPG and we provide hardly any to the Peshmerga outside of airstrikes, we have not contributed a significant amount of supplies to the YPG. Actually Germany and a few other European countries have contributed far more actual military equipment than we have, so I'm not sure what support you think we're giving them; certainly not "billions of dollars in materiel" that's for sure.

[QUOTE=catbarf;49138997]Either we commit to long-term nation-building or we admit that the endless parade of terrorists, dictators, and failed states is going to continue no matter who we throw guns and ammunition at.[/QUOTE]So go in there and do it America's way or the highway? Right, that worked out splendidly last time. So are you really asserting that if we had spent just a handful more years in Iraq it would be all sunshine and rainbows? Give me a fucking break.

[QUOTE=Govna;49141389]Well actually, they've been around since the late-1990s, and they've undergone several transitions since that time (and their name has changed several times as well; for the sake of simplicity, I just refer to them as "ISIS" because this is a term which pretty much everyone is familiar with to describe them).[/QUOTE]Oh, so we're talking about global Islamic terrorism then? Well damn it if we had just nipped the bud back in the sixties this wouldn't have happened!

[QUOTE=Govna;49141389]Having said that, we only needed to police Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place-- not "the entire fucking Arab world"-- since this was where our involvement in the Middle East first occurred directly with us in the War on Terror.[/QUOTE]You're right, we went into Iraq completely forgetting that "nation building" only works if the locals give a shit about keeping things running. We really made things far, far worse by forgetting to keep people off the streets, keeping the power on, and making sure the country didn't fall apart.

I'll skip ahead past the history lesson and to the good part.

[QUOTE=Govna;49141389]You're both overexaggerating their successes and downplaying ISIS' abilities. Again, no one doubts that the latter will be defeated in the end, and they probably could be with the way things are currently going with our limited involvement. You are ignorantly oblivious however to the fact that if we intervened now, we could defeat them much quicker and with fewer lives lost thanks to our sheer might/unparalleled ability to wage war.[/QUOTE]Meanwhile you're stubbornly ignoring history, you said yourself that we incited this conflict with our presence there in 2004 and you can say it's because we didn't keep the lights on but we both know that the top dogs in this organization [U]hate[/U] [U]our[/U] [U]presence.[/U] Their entire ideology is built on the big bad USA defiling their holy sandbox, you can't ignore that and you can't ignore the [I]constant conflict[/I] that will follow with the occupation.
[QUOTE=Govna;49141389]This is what I've been arguing from the beginning. We could have beaten them even sooner and saved many more lives had we intervened when they first became a major issue, but again, we didn't.[/QUOTE]Really that's highly debatable, yes it would have been easy to crush them militarily but military successes do not easily translate into ideological victories, and really we are fighting an ideology more than anything else. You're concerned with this one war, I'm concerned with the globe for centuries to come.

[QUOTE=Govna;49141389]And beyond that, direct intervention offers us the ability to determine ourselves how things will play out. It puts the ball in our court and lets us not only determine how we'll fight and when, but what we'll do once we're done fighting. The indirect aid-to-their-enemies approach isn't nearly as effective; I don't think anyone seriously disputes that.[/QUOTE]No, I don't think anyone would dispute that but you're trying to convince me that there would be little to no consequences; or rather the consequences would be inconsequential. I'm not seeing that, all I can see is yet another instance where we go in cocked and locked and ready to rock and we just... fuck it all up... again. Our government can't even handle domestic issues with competence, I'm absolutely not confident we'll be able to do better a second time around.

[QUOTE=Govna;49141389]Cleanup is going to be absolutely essential when the war is done and over with, and most people anymore are (correctly) of the opinion that the Middle East is incapable of doing it on its own. It definitely could do it much better if we were a part of the process. We just have more resources at our disposal than they do to do so.[/QUOTE]I'm not saying we should be totally removed from the situation, we really will have to go in and help fix things but I'm saying we should not do the ground fighting ourselves. Sure, we'll need to go in with special forces but we should not be deploying a few hundred thousand troops.

[QUOTE=Govna;49141389]What successes the Kurds have had have not been sufficient to destroy ISIS. And as far as the Battle of Kobane is concerned, it hasn't won the war for them. You're arguing like ISIS has been destroyed by it.[/QUOTE]Where did I argue that? I would have remembered if I argued that and really, not ringing a bell here.

Kobane was a critical battle for the YPG (and Peshmerga reinforcements from Iraq) and a critical loss for ISIS, it meant the Euphrates became the Western front for the Kurds and they're now in a much better position to menace Raqqa as long as they hold Ain Issa, which last time I checked, they're not going to lose any time soon.

[QUOTE=Govna;49141389]The battle itself ended back in March... and yet the war still drags on. The Kurdish followup offensive on Sarrin a few weeks after Kobane? Failed. Their drive to cut the border between ISIS and Turkey? Succeeded, but it's pissed the Turks off, and then their was the Kurdish decision to push out Arabs and Turkmen that helped to flame up ethnic tensions; -bunch of stuff about Kurds being naughty-[/QUOTE]I'm not saying they're all great, but so far they've been the most civil in this conflict and have tempered their response to things with a level of discipline that could be expected of Western forces; on the ground they've proven to be quite effective despite having little to work with. Pound for pound they've used the support given to them a hell of a lot better than anyone else, they're a good choice to back despite the political tensions this causes with Turkey. (and really we shouldn't be basing our foreign policy around what fucking Turkey wants)
[QUOTE=Govna;49141389]This is bad, because we don't know what will happen with it in the future; they might break up and start fighting with each other (although probably not until ISIS is defeated).[/QUOTE]As for their fracturing I've always expected the Kurds to at least have some political disputes but those thoughts have been mostly focused on the "well what if" scenario of a Kurdish state. As much as I adore the plucky YPG, they're fucking socialist dingbats and their casual dismissing of any allegations of ties to the PKK worry me.

[QUOTE=Govna;49141389]Yeah, because that's going so well lol. Again, look at the Kurds now: they're fragmenting. You've got leftists, rightists, nationalists, communists/socialists, etc. fighting together against this common enemy, but there's still not enough binding them together-- which is exactly why we're seeing (as I just posted a few paragraphs above) the troubles that have broken out between the proper Peshmerga and the other Kurdish groups/units that have been fighting. Credit isn't being given where credit is due, and for what sacrifices have been made, that's a major issue because credit is duly deserved.[/QUOTE]Not trying to downplay what you're saying but this is definitely not new, there's been YPG/Peshmerga strife for awhile now, and I'm told that the really hardcore party line some of the YPG folks have is just unbearable. That aside they all mostly are playing nice, as long as they focus and bring it in for the big win then I guess the ideological differences aren't an immediate concern. (I doubt they'll be a concern long-term, but hey, I never expected the Iraqi Army to completely crumble so I have been wrong before)

[QUOTE=Govna;49141389]Oh and beyond the Kurds, look at the Free Syrian Army: same problem. Fragmentation. People are deserting because they're not consolidating their beliefs. They're deserting because they aren't being paid enough, and they'd rather not die for, in their eyes, nothing. This isn't a limited issue, it's a big one. It's causing more problems than you're either willing to acknowledge, or maybe you just weren't even aware of them in the first place.[/QUOTE]I have been aware of this but I really haven't been paying too much attention to the FSA, I've been focusing my time (and efforts) on the YPG specifically, but I can understand how this would be a huge problem. Even among the mostly volunteer Kurds there's a lot of apprehension about going too far into the black on the map but from what I understand that's mostly because they have jack shit to do it with. You're right though, this is a big concern because if there's mass desertions over pay I doubt those fighters are going to hand their guns back. I'm not too concerned with their joining the other side but I am concerned with them turning to common banditry which would fucking sap the shit out of the FSA's strength trying to keep them from stealing shit. There's a police force in Kurdish-held areas but if an entire unit deserted and decided "yeah, fuck this, I'm gonna go steal siht" then it would likely be a disaster. (probably worse because reasons, but yeah)

[QUOTE=Govna;49141389]Good thing then that we learned a lot about reconstruction from the Iraq War/occupation. We learned a lot from Afghanistan as well, and they're still holding together. They're in a much better position than Iraq is. We knew what we were doing with them, and for what problems they've had, we still succeeded with them. We could succeed now and again with Iraq. We could've succeeded with Syria as well had we gone in sooner; but now that's Russia's mess to deal with.[/QUOTE]Well honestly I thought the ANA would just implode after we left, but I'm big enough to admit I was 100% wrong and happy to admit it too. Thing is though, Afghanistan was mostly left to supporting the locals towards the end, we treated Iraq like they had a certain level of competency and it blew up because they really didn't... they just had no incentive to actually participate.

[QUOTE=Govna;49141389]I never "cried hard" about occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. I wanted us to gradually withdraw, but I still wanted us to maintain a military presence over there in order to keep the peace, because I knew that consolidation wasn't going to happen smoothly or quickly.[/QUOTE]Oh, sorry, I wasn't talking about you I was just stating that in general. A lot of people who were vehemently against our presence in Iraq are now calling for it again, or worse. (example being "nuke the middle east" and other stupid shit)

[QUOTE=Govna;49141389]And to answer your question about why intervention/occupation is wanted now, it's because it's actually needed now. The Middle East is at an all-time low for regional stability with civil wars and terrorism strewn out all across it. There's a lot of lives being lost, infrastructure and irreplaceable cultural monuments being destroyed, political and ethnic tensions raising up everywhere. It's a bad situation.[/QUOTE]Really it's not that bad, I mean it's bad but come on; this conflict is mostly focused to just Iraq and Syria, with some sporadic shit in Lebanon. This isn't an all-time low or even close to it, the region's still pretty stable and aside from regional conflicts elsewhere everything's mostly locked down. Jordan's safe, Saudi Arabia's stable, Israel isn't bombing anyone, hell [I]Iran is open to helping us along with Russia[/I] so if anything international cooperation has actually gone up because of this. I know that doesn't make this a good situation but it is something positive that's come from it.

[QUOTE=Govna;49141389]For our sake here in the West as much for the sake of the people living there, we should play a much more significant role than we are in helping to end this destructive war with ISIS as soon as possible. The sooner it ends, the more lives, monuments, etc. can be saved; the sooner it ends, the sooner we can begin cleaning up and reconstructing it to be stable and peaceful, rather than just letting it to continue to erupt into whatever it'll erupt into as the years ago on. I mean, it [i]could[/i] consolidate itself, and everything [i]could[/i] work out-- for them as well as us. But a hands-off approach doesn't guarantee us anything. Intervention, the hands-on approach, gives us a lot more power to control the situation.

We've got the experience and the resources to do what needs to be done. We can win the war as much as we can win the peace thereafter. Sitting around throwing material aid, advisors, and continually bombing the hell out of things is not the most efficient way to go about doing this.[/QUOTE]I get what your saying and I do support the idea, but I really don't think going in with a massive military force will help the situation at all, local forces do need to do the brunt of the work here and everyone needs to start reigning in their proxies and settling the score with rivals. We should be working with Russia, Turkey should be playing nice with the Kurds, Iraq should be admitting that maybe they still need us, we need to start figuring out who the fuck we're supplying. There's a lot that needs to get done but if we all come together and [I]support[/I] the locals and [I]help[/I] them rather than dictate to them what they're going to do or else, then we will win the war, win the peace, and cripple the ideology that we've been at war with for decades.

[editline]18th November 2015[/editline]

wow that was longer than I expected, sorry about that.

[BananaFoam]

[QUOTE=Glitchman;49127460]Obama is looking weak recently. You can't use your personal discomfort of a 25 year old veteran to make weak decisions. However, this was not an attack on US soil so I don't know. He needs a more concrete plan than just "Oh hey now let's be careful"

We're getting to a point where this is actually something worth fighting for, which is scary to think about.[/QUOTE]

He's taking time to cultivate a plan. That's the point of him saying we shouldn't "shoot first and aim later".

If we take on ISIS like we took on Al Qaeda, the only thing we will see from it is many thousands dead, many millions lost, and the enemy as strong as ever. These aren't conventional armies or countries, they are ideas, and ideas are fought with suppression.

[editline]19th November 2015[/editline]

[QUOTE=OvB;49127543]ISIS has been murdering for years at this point and the West has been bombing them here and there will next to no real effort to destroy them as a look were doing things feel-good-measure with minimal results. ISIS is still bombing civilians in Lebanon and France and we're still sitting here saying "hey let's not jump the gun!" As if this is a new and unexpected event.[/QUOTE]

It isn't unexpected, but that doesn't mean we know what to do about it.

Seriously, you sound exactly like the hawks rallying for war in Iraq. Think about our actions a little. The only people with "feel-good measures" are those who want to invade again in some childish reaction to "the evil bad guys". Guess what, it only made things worse before and it will only make things worse again.