Sooo.... You want them gone, and have no opinion on anything else? You know, actually how to do it?
Let Special Forces go work with the Kurds as well as the Iraqi army to take the fight to ISIS. Similiar to what we did in Afghanistsn at the start. Don't make them stay on the FOB or miles behind the front like they have to do now. Pretty much all we are doing now is calling in CAS from the extreme rear and flying Preds.So. What should we be doing that we are not doing now in your opinion?
Yea. Not do the action they grew out of....
Let Special Forces go work with the Kurds as well as the Iraqi army to take the fight to ISIS..
Good point.
Wasn't King Abdullah of Jordan going to personally attack IS until "..we run out of fuel and bullets..."?
Haven't heard much about him lately.......
Running out of fuel and bullets in an area awash with weaponry would seem to be a difficult task.
Maybe the king just got tired.
So you prefer the Obama Method: Ignore the problem and hope it goes away?
They were minor characters until Obama ceded Iraq to them, dismissing them as "the jv team".
Obama acted stupidly when he said this, didn't he?
Sure I do. But I'm not a general. The generals are a lot smarter than I am, when it comes to things like "how to do it". I suggest we defer to the experts in that area. Your task and mine, is the political will - the "civilian side".
"Minor characters"!?!? They were ****ing Al-Qaeda in Iraq.....
That doesnt mean you should simply rely upon authority because even genearls have different opinions of what to do. And also military action is simply not just left to genearls. Its alos a political decision.
Its not the same organization merely under a different name. Different philosophy, tactics, etc. They are distinct.
:doh :doh
"In 2013, the group once known as al-Qaeda in Iraq — now based in both Syria and Iraq — rebranded as ISIS.
Tension grew between ISIS and al-Qaeda, and they divorced in February 2014. "Over the years, there have been many signs that the relationship between al Qaeda Central (AQC) and the group's strongest, most unruly franchise was strained," Barak Mendelsohn, a political scientist at Haverford College, writes. Their relationship "had always been more a matter of mutual interests than of shared ideology."
According to Mendelsohn, disagreements over Syria pushed that relationship to the breaking point. ISIS claimed that it controlled Jabhat al-Nusra, the official al-Qaeda faction in Syria, and it defied orders from al-Qaeda's leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to back off. "This was the first time a leader of an al-Qaeda franchise had publicly disobeyed," he says. ISIS also defied repeated orders to kill fewer civilians in Syria, and the tensions led to al-Qaeda disavowing any connection with ISIS in a February communiqué." ISIS used to be al-Qaeda in Iraq - 17 things about ISIS and Iraq you need to know - Vox
Al-Qaeda was the father of ISIS.
:doh You make it sound like Obama purposely allowed ISIS to control much of northern Iraq? Is this your position? And if so, where is direct proof?Its ultimately a political decision-which is why Obama ceded Iraq to ISIS.
:lamo You are so ****ing delusional.. Are you serious? You think there was "peace" in ****ing Iraq when we were there? Are you ****ing kidding? We were the ones that lead to the EXPLOSION of violence in Iraq. We were the ones that lead to the civil war in Iraq, which is ****ing continuing..If the military had been able to get what they want, we'd be in Iraq and there would be peace there today.
Which changes my statement in any way how?
Its not the same organization merely under a different name. Different philosophy, tactics, etc. They are distinct.
Washington (CNN)Some in the U.S. intelligence community warn that ISIS may be working to build the capability to carry out mass casualty attacks, a significant departure from the terror group's current focus on encouraging lone wolf attacks, a senior U.S. intelligence official told CNN on Friday.
To date, the intelligence view has been that ISIS is focused on less ambitious attacks, involving one or a small group of attackers armed with simple weapons. In contrast, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, has been viewed as both more focused on -- and more capable of -- mass casualty attacks, such as plots on commercial aviation. Now the intelligence community is divided.
Meanwhile, the U.S. effort to train rebels in Syria to fight ISIS is having trouble. The few rebels that the U.S. has put through training are already in disarray, with defense officials telling CNN that up to half are missing, having deserted soon after training or having been captured after last week's attack by the al-Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front attack on a rebel site.
ISIS seen building capacity for mass casualty attacks - CNNPolitics.com
How long until Obama gets serious about ISIS? The left is incapable of addressing threats.
What? The "JV Team"?
Hussein Obama killed Osama, and with it The War on Terror is officially over.
After their years of idiocy trying to bring down Bush43, Obama and Libs cannot act in a responsible manner. No way. No chance. That would be reveal their idiocy was wrong.
ISIS will continue to make gains as Obama Sleeps.
Obama... usually the least knowledgeable person in any room he enters... and he's our leader.
How long until Obama gets serious about ISIS? The left is incapable of addressing threats.
I want us to occupy what is the defacto state known as ISIS, and in doing so-critically destroy what is obviously a threat.
He was taking a nap last time I checked. He was Jor-done from all of those sorties on ISIS. :mrgreen:
Obama doesn't want us working or arming the Kurds. He does, however, want them to get bombed by Turkey.
The founders of ISIS learned their trade fighting Americans and are a creation of the U.S occupation of Iraq. Don't try and weasel out of it. They also control 30% LESS territory than when Obama started the air war against them so "doing nothing" has been a success. The problem now is how to stem the tide of new recruits.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?