ISIL & the Mid-East

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by ronv, Dec 24, 2015.

What should be done with ISIS and the Mid-East

  1. Get completely out and let them fight

    7 vote(s)
    58.3%
  2. Stay the course

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Declair all out war and destroy them

    5 vote(s)
    41.7%
  4. Draw some loose boarder based on religion and enforce them with air power

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Other

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ronv

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Nov 12, 2008
    3,282
    1,234
    There has been a spirited discussion about the subject here http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/isis.118462/
    It has gone on for some time and seems to be stalled, so I thought it might just be time to poll the issue.
    So if you could be so kind as to fill out the poll and if you have comments post to the other thread so they both don't get closed as political or religious.
    Several of the choices don't require any or a substantial increase in our (The coalition) investment of blood or treasure. We were however unable to figure out a viable plan for all out war, so if you have ideas for that please post in the other thread and leave this one for the poll.
    I think the results are anonymous.
     
  2. #12

    Expert

    Nov 30, 2010
    16,257
    6,757
    I think you need to define, "Stay the course" better. That string of words has no meaning for me.

    In addition, my vote is useless because you can't un-start a war.:(
     
  3. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,907
    2,164
    You are combining two separate issues. The ISIS/ISIL/Daesh version of radical Islam must be destroyed and the ME in general is opposed to them as the rulers of Muslims. The major powers of the world will destroy ISIL and its version of radical Islam as a state power.


    The question in my mind is how best to fast forward Islam 700 years so the rulers of the ME are unable to use Islam as the power of God to wage war on nonbelievers in the future.
     
    JoeJester likes this.
  4. JoeJester

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 26, 2005
    3,373
    1,157
    I thought about number three but I don't think it's right to transplant the homeless from the U.S. to the Middle East for some boarder project, let alone enforcing this relocation using the U.S. Air Force.

    I've heard of a British lord by the name of Lord De La ware, but I don't know anything about de Clair war.
     
  5. tracecom

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 16, 2010
    3,869
    1,393
    Maybe it's stalled because it's a futile political discussion.
     
    Brownout, JoeJester and #12 like this.
  6. ronv

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Nov 12, 2008
    3,282
    1,234
    Could be, but I think it's because nobody knows how to "fix" it. They just want to *#&@% about it.

    Here is my read:
    We basically have 3 ideas.

    Bail out and let them have at it.
    Problem is it may spread to include Iran and Saudi Arabia.

    Draw some religious boundaries and let them fight it out.
    Both of the above are fairly cheap in terms of blood and treasure.
    The problem they have is they may not keep terrorism from home because of either a deep seated hatred of the West or our support of Israel.

    3rd, declare all out war (call it Iraq 3 - or is it 4) and bring everyone into line again.
    The problem with this one is it will be very expensive in blood and treasure and results are still not guaranteed because there is no one secular to turn the country over to when it is "pacified" and "democratized" so we end up with Iraq 4 or 5.

    @cmartinez is right. It is pretty complicated.
     
    cmartinez likes this.
  7. ronv

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Nov 12, 2008
    3,282
    1,234
    She's my sister. :oops:
     
    cmartinez and JoeJester like this.
  8. justtrying

    Active Member

    Mar 9, 2011
    329
    343
    I think before going at it, "we" needs to be defined because currently "the coalition" is not even working together. Neither does it have a common goal.
    If "we" here is defined only as the US, there is nothing that can be achieved by any of those options.
     
  9. ronv

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Nov 12, 2008
    3,282
    1,234
    I think your right. My take on that is that most of the "local" coalition is Sunni and have no desire to go fight other Sunnis. So instead of boots on the ground all we can round up is cold feet.:DCould be wrong.
    I'm not clear what the goal would be with that approach either. Some of the cities in Iraq we have cleaned out several times only to have them go bad after we turn them back to the Shiite Iraqi government.
    Maybe we can get some ideas from the hawks in the group.
    Right now if I'm reading you right. If I were to pick a category to best match your concerns I would say stay the course. It seems like we will throw some extra into the fight when the locals show up to fight. Let's see what happens in Ramadi.
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2015
    justtrying likes this.
  10. JoeJester

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 26, 2005
    3,373
    1,157
    Back in the 90s, when the President was deciding to intervene in Bosnia, I ran in to my Congress critter at lunch. He asked what I thought.

    I asked him if he shot any critters on his farm when he's not in DC. He said yes. I asked if he got them on the first shot. He said no. I told him he was out of practice and needed more training. I went on to say, for the U.S. to have the best military, they need to train as well, so their funding must be enough to provide that training.

    I also said ... as far as Bosnia is concerned, and I'm not sure of us intervening in a 1300 year old conflict, but, once the decision is made, I fully expect you to support the troops 100 percent.

    It's the president who orders our people into battle. The military executes the mission and deserves our support. Like it or not, since Congress relinquished their duty by passing the War Powers Act, they gave the President the sole authority to Act in the best interest of the country. Granted it's only a 92 day authority, but with the weapons today, a lot can happen in 92 days.

    I do not want the country to go to war haphazardly. Sending people in harms way should tie your stomach into knots. I never appreciated what Ms Albright said to General Powell.

    Use of force ... it has a whole different meaning when your talking about the military.

    We all want an articulated mission statement. The military wants one because of the history and the wavering support it gets once the mission creeps into other missions, and it always does. These mission variances cause political and public wavering.

    The "what's next" question rarely gets answered in the beginning. What's next, historically, is nation building. Something best left to the population, whether we like their choice or not. If we won't like their choice, why get involved? I once told my charges that if an Admiral asks for their opinion, give it to them. If they don't like your opinion, they should have never asked for it. They deserve your unvarnished thoughts.

    Sometimes it better to deal with the devil you know than the devil you don't.
     
  11. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,907
    2,164
    I hope they move half as fast back as when they left when ISIS took the city.
     
    JoeJester likes this.
  12. ronv

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Nov 12, 2008
    3,282
    1,234
    Must have been like a Friday on the 5 in L.A. :D
    It will be interesting to see what they do when it gets down to house by house.
     
  13. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,907
    2,164
    They are moving forward.
     
  14. ronv

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Nov 12, 2008
    3,282
    1,234
    Don't forget to vote.
    :D
     
  15. ronv

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Nov 12, 2008
    3,282
    1,234
    JoeJester likes this.
  16. dannyf

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 13, 2015
    1,775
    360
    As I said this earlier: they have been killing each other since the dawn of times and will continue to do so. No amount of outside persuasion will change that.

    Sustained peace can only come from bloody wars.
     
  17. ronv

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Nov 12, 2008
    3,282
    1,234
    Did you vote?
     
  18. ronv

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Nov 12, 2008
    3,282
    1,234
    A note from my terrorist friend in Pakistan: :D

    Hi
    , I have a favor to ask of you. If you don't want to just say so, it is okay.
    As you probably know there was a terrorist attack in California a few weeks ago. People here are either afraid or angry and have what I think are strange ideas.
    Since you are the only Muslim I know right now I would like to seek your input so I can speak with some first hand knowledge.
    Some point to the Koran and say it says to convert others by force. I am not so sure how that goes when taken in full context. Maybe you could explain?
    Others say all (or most) Muslims are out to get the West. The reason they are is because our religion is different or because they feel under attack from the West.
    I thought maybe you could tell me why there are these attacks.
    Like I said, it's okay if you don't want to respond.

    upload_2016-1-2_7-46-12.png
     
    shortbus likes this.
  19. shortbus

    AAC Fanatic!

    Sep 30, 2009
    4,004
    1,523
    Ron, that is also what my Muslim friends say. Like the Christian bible, the Koran can be made to say what certain people want it to say. By taking passages out of context. Both have to have all of a verse/paragraph in context to show the real meaning, but many of both faiths are using the books to make their own agendas.
     
  20. dannyf

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 13, 2015
    1,775
    360
    Trust but verify.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.