Gun Hub Forums banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,678 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Well guys what are your thoughts?

I personally think someone needs to stop ISIS, I just question why it needs to be us?

We liberated Iraq, we setup security and beat back their insurgency. Then they asked us to leave. Then they refused to fight for their own country.

So why does OUR sons need to go and die for Iraq??

We have to stop being the world's police force.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,882 Posts
Kevin Gibson et.al.,

Frankly, I really don't think that we NEED any ground combat troops in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Nigeria, Niger or anywhere else when we have the ability to destroy the terrorist training camps, headquarters & convoys from the air, using our drones & other air assets.

Otoh, we should (imvho) continue to arm/train local forces with weapons/ammunition/SF trainers.

That said, I do NOT trust the current resident of the WH on ANY subject, as he is nothing more than our very own LIAR-in-CHIEF.

just my OPINION, sw
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,678 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
We have been hitting them from the air since September. We have over a thousand SF troops on the ground training their troops, yet they still can't beat ISIS.

The problem with air strikes is the indiscriminate nature. Yeah you'll get the a-hole you're after, but you're going to hurt or kill someone else...and that someone else or their friends will get pissed off and decide to join ISIS. We did this in Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and the list goes on. Air power is very limited, and our President has learnd that his gratuitous use of drones causes nearly as many problems as they solve. When you have ground troops holding ground, you can hit them, you can hurt them from the air. But if you want them gone, it takes troops on the ground to root them out and kill them.

I'm always reminded of what an Iraqi tank platoon commander said in the first Gulf War. He went into Kuwait with 39 tanks. After 30 days of the air war, he had 31. After 20 minutes of ground attack in combat with US forces, he had none.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,173 Posts
We have been hitting them from the air since September.
Not seriously, we haven't. I think Jordan did more damage in one week than we've done in six months.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,882 Posts
Snake45,

EXACTLY CORRECT. = 200 lazar-guided bombs (at least one per terrorist HQ & training facility) & some massed 7.62 mini-gun fires on EVERY terrorist convoy would have SERIOUSLY damaged ISIS already.

We also need to publically tell THE WORLD that if you collaborate with terrorists that we will consider you an unlawful combatant/terrorist/target for elimination.

Btw, BHO & his coven CANNOT BE TRUSTED to tell the TRUTH, ever. = The talk much & do LITTLE.

yours, sw
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,499 Posts
Well guys what are your thoughts?

I personally think someone needs to stop ISIS, I just question why it needs to be us?¹

We liberated Iraq, we setup security and beat back their insurgency. Then they asked us to leave. Then they refused to fight for their own country. ²

So why does OUR sons need to go and die for Iraq??

We have to stop being the world's police force.³
1.) "It needs to be us" because no one else can do it. We might be able to get together a bunch of ostensibly "allied" countries in the mideast as a consortium and do it but the fact remains we will be at the head of the spear, atleast in coordination and overall planning and execution.

2.) We left after we gave up (IMHO) trying to get a "status of forces" agreement set of with the Iraqi leaderr ...what's his name, Malaki? He refused to agree to one. I fault Obama and his state dept stooges for not twisting arms more forcefully; I honestly think Obama WANTED the war "over" and our troops home and just threw up his arms and said; "OK, that's it, we're done, the Iraqis have security and we're out."
That the Iraqis were no where near ready is evident by what happened after.
"Then they refused to fight for their own country." Eeeeyup. That's what they did.
I got myself in trouble on another forum I visit discussing this; there were real vets from that war that were members there and they DID NOT LIKE what I was saying. They took it personnally, which I did not mean.
There's a latin phrase, "raece ipso loqitor" (spelling?) which means "the thing speaks for itself."
The problem is that Iraq is divided into tribes and from them into families. It's "family first," then "tribe" and "country last." And one problem is that "country" is an artificial construct descending from British messing around in the region a century ago. But, we KNEW THAT going in, and didn't train them beyond that (this is my opinion) and I blame the politicians and state department doodleheads for this, as well as Obama.
Would it take longer?
Yes. We still have soldiers in S. Korea just south of where it turns into N. Korea. So ... we've done it before, albeit for different reasons.

3.) As radio pundit Rush Limbaugh puts it, "we live in a world that is run by the aggressive use of force." I'm sorry, I know Limbaugh is not everyone's "cup of tea" here, and I do not always agree with him, but, here I say, he is bloody damned right.
It's the way the world is. Tough.
Look at Putin for example. Like him or not, throughout history, most political leadership has more closely resembled him than John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and (especially) B. H. Obama.
We can stop being the world's leader. And from what Obama's been doing IMHO I think we will be it by decision or default.
That will leave a power vacuum.
And that vacuum will be filled, as nature fills in vacuums.
It will be filled by Red China.
Or a resurgent Russia.
Or a Caliphate. Hey, Isis is a 40,000 member glee club right now compared to what would be needed for any kind of world power mongering.
And, at one point of history, the Nazi Party was composed of Adolf Hitler, lingering in a prison cell, writing a meandering tome he'd call "Mein Kampf" on paper he'd have friends smuggle into him. Who would then have speculated what his future would be? A prisoner who wrote about becoming a powerful leader of a major hate movement marching across europe? Yuck yuck. Keep the joker in the cell 'til he develops a sense of reality.
Isis will not go away by itself.

I don't like what I just wrote. In fact I hate it. But I think it's true. I don't want another war. I don't trust Obama to get it right. I thought Dubya "might" get it right and he didn't.
"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."
But it will have to be done, sometime. And it will be easier to do it now then it will in a decade.
:-(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,678 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Not seriously, we haven't. I think Jordan did more damage in one week than we've done in six months.
No that's not true...Jordan has got some good US press (in fact, I think Obama should hire Abdullah's press secretary).

Early on we hit them really hard and hurt them pretty bad. I have a hard time believing that Jordan's military is more competent than ours. I can believe they have intelligence assets that are better than ours, that makes sense. But we've been working with their intelligence, Syrian intelligence, Iraq, Saudi, etc. So to think Jordan is doing it better, I just can't swallow that.

I think people get caught up too much in the Obama hate and anything he's even remotely connected to, they just have to believe it's all bad and incompetent.

But I can't extend Obama's incompetence to our military. Our military has done some very impressive work even under Obama.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,678 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Snake45,

EXACTLY CORRECT. = 200 lazar-guided bombs (at least one per terrorist HQ & training facility) & some massed 7.62 mini-gun fires on EVERY terrorist convoy would have SERIOUSLY damaged ISIS already.
Sure would, but our enemy may be evil, but they're not stupid. They tend to not amass their assets into one place...Darwin's learning curve is sharp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,678 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
1.) "It needs to be us" because no one else can do it. We might be able to get together a bunch of ostensibly "allied" countries in the mideast as a consortium and do it but the fact remains we will be at the head of the spear, atleast in coordination and overall planning and execution.
We have the most capable and competent military in the world, but I'm here to tell you there are MANY other militaries that can take on ISIS, it doesn't have to be us. And since this has become a global problem, I would really like to see other militaries step up. But we don't, and I think there's a reason for that…they don't want to get mixed up in a long term military commitment; so why are we always so eager to do so?

2.) We left after we gave up (IMHO) trying to get a "status of forces" agreement set of with the Iraqi leaderr ...what's his name, Malaki? He refused to agree to one. I fault Obama and his state dept stooges for not twisting arms more forcefully; I honestly think Obama WANTED the war "over" and our troops home and just threw up his arms and said; "OK, that's it, we're done, the Iraqis have security and we're out."
That the Iraqis were no where near ready is evident by what happened after.
I believe he made just enough "show" of wanting to stay there so he can make the claim. But once he was presented with an easy way out, he took it and it was a big mistake…on this you can I can agree.

I said in 2004 that to really change Iraq, we would need a peace keeping force there for AT LEAST a generation, perhaps even longer. This is even more reason why I'd like to see other nations step up.

"Then they refused to fight for their own country." Eeeeyup. That's what they did.
I got myself in trouble on another forum I visit discussing this; there were real vets from that war that were members there and they DID NOT LIKE what I was saying. They took it personnally, which I did not mean.
There's a latin phrase, "raece ipso loqitor" (spelling?) which means "the thing speaks for itself."
The problem is that Iraq is divided into tribes and from them into families. It's "family first," then "tribe" and "country last." And one problem is that "country" is an artificial construct descending from British messing around in the region a century ago. But, we KNEW THAT going in, and didn't train them beyond that (this is my opinion) and I blame the politicians and state department doodleheads for this, as well as Obama.
What we knew going in was that Iraq was horribly divided and that an oppressive regime was the only thing keeping everyone from killing each other (like Yugoslavia). Just one more reason this was a very bad idea in the first place, but that's another argument.
The key here is; "They won't fight for their country". Vietnam ring a bell? Just like you said, they're worried about family and tribe first…and you can't exactly blame them. Look at their history, they've been lead by one a-hole after another, and everytime they fight, they just replace once oppressive dictator for another; so why fight at all? So I can see their point for not fighting.

Until they see real hope, they're not going to fight. And for them to see hope and taste it will require foreign troops being there a LONG time. And I don't want the US to shoulder that alone. I'm sick and tired of us being the world's police force.

This is all from a Cold War between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and the US is just DUMB enough to do the heavy lifting in their Cold War. Personally, I think we're backing the wrong side. Iran hasn't stirred up half the crap that Saudi Arabia has, yet Saudi Arabia always comes off as the good guys…hint, THEY'RE NOT!!! ISIS is a Wahhabi organization made up of and lead by Saudi's. We should be demanding they do something about the mess they created.

This is a middle east problem, let's insist the middle east deal with it. Jordan just threw their hat in, that's the best thing that's happened there in 20 years. Now if we can put some international pressure on both Iran and Saudi Arabia to clean up the mess THEY created, then there's a chance we can have the middle east deal with their own problem.

I would have my son go AWOL before I'd send him over to die for a country that won't fight for itself, and be a pawn in Iran & Saudi Arabia's Cold War.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,499 Posts
Kevin Gibson said:
We have the most capable and competent military in the world, but I'm here to tell you there are MANY other militaries that can take on ISIS, it doesn't have to be us. And since this has become a global problem, I would really like to see other militaries step up. But we don't, and I think there's a reason for that…they don't want to get mixed up in a long term military commitment; so why are we always so eager to do so?
Some others "can." Make them. How? We can't.
As for our willingness to do so, I don't see it. Maybe some warhawk politicians. What I seein America right now is a population that is tired of the conflict, grew tired of it when the casualty figure hit the 4000 mark. People that voted for B.H. Obama because he promised to get us out of the wars. To some extent I don't blame them, as I do think Iraq was a mistake. So was Kasserine Pass and Market Garden in WW2. I also happen to think Patton was right; that we SHOULD have had a combined American/German force built up and should have driven the Soviets back into Russia. Think what would have been the result of that....maybe it wouldn't have stopped a "Cold War" but eastern europe would have been spared.
Unless we're very careful and thorough, we tend to botch things up.
Americans by and large are tired of the war. It may be true that politiicians have to respond to how the mass of Americans feel, but it makes for a very poor defense policy because it hobbles a smart, thorough response to the enemy. In WW2 people were tired of the war as well, we'd defeated Hitler, we WANTED it over and we wanted Tojo taken down, and quickly, and it was that as much as the Japanese ruthlessness and tenacity that was behind the use of the nuclear bombs.
We didn't have the will to go after the Soviets in europe, much like today we are tired. We also had some kind of shortsighted faith or .....affinity for Stalin. Churchill and George S Patton knew better, but were over ruled. Eastern europe paid the price for that, as we are likely to pay the price for doing another "half-arsed" job in our time.

Kevin Gibson said:
What we knew going in was that Iraq was horribly divided and that an oppressive regime was the only thing keeping everyone from killing each other (like Yugoslavia). Just one more reason this was a very bad idea in the first place, but that's another argument.
The key here is; "They won't fight for their country". Vietnam ring a bell? Just like you said, they're worried about family and tribe first…and you can't exactly blame them. Look at their history, they've been lead by one a-hole after another, and everytime they fight, they just replace once oppressive dictator for another; so why fight at all? So I can see their point for not fighting.

Until they see real hope, they're not going to fight. And for them to see hope and taste it will require foreign troops being there a LONG time. And I don't want the US to shoulder that alone. I'm sick and tired of us being the world's police force.

This is all from a Cold War between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and the US is just DUMB enough to do the heavy lifting in their Cold War. Personally, I think we're backing the wrong side. Iran hasn't stirred up half the crap that Saudi Arabia has, yet Saudi Arabia always comes off as the good guys…hint, THEY'RE NOT!!! ISIS is a Wahhabi organization made up of and lead by Saudi's. We should be demanding they do something about the mess they created.

This is a middle east problem, let's insist the middle east deal with it. Jordan just threw their hat in, that's the best thing that's happened there in 20 years. Now if we can put some international pressure on both Iran and Saudi Arabia to clean up the mess THEY created, then there's a chance we can have the middle east deal with their own problem.

I would have my son go AWOL before I'd send him over to die for a country that won't fight for itself, and be a pawn in Iran & Saudi Arabia's Cold War.
I remember Vietnam -- I grew up during that war. The government there was more corrupt than the current Iraqi government. Many have made that argument but what I also recall was that many in the south did fight (like the Montagnards [SP?]) and even after we left, did a respectable enough job of it, until our bastard kongress stopped financial support, then they were left high and dry.

Iraq is a slightly different can of worms which I think you have assessed fairly well.
The problem is I don't know some magic way to bring them together.
It seems each country has its own motivations for causing instabilities over there. The Jordaniams could, it is theorized, solve the Palestinian problem and that would help Israel, and one might think the Jordanians would LIKE that, but they WANT the Palestinians to trouble Israel, so they're happy not to. And even in various other countries there is enough double dealing with both sides of issues, like the "Cold War" between Saudia Arabia and Iran you mention. Look at Iran ...it's led by a bunch of nutcake ayatollahs and mullahs and such.....but it has a very modern population and the younger generation is atleast nominally very prowestern. But do we do anything to help them? Seems to me I think I recall a situation where Obama had an opportunity to do so .... but didn't.

"I'm sick and tired of us being the world's police force."~~ Kevin Gibson.

Yeah.
I have bad news.
The mideastern situation could be cleaned up by magic tomorrow, all would be happy and the Sunni would sit wioth the Shiite and love and roses would prevail and they'd all live happily ever after.....
....and the need for us to be a world "police force" would continue on, to "time indefinite" (as my Bible says) because.....
....some other part of our world would blow up.

:sad:
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top