Leaders of Iraq's Anbar province call for U.S. ground forces to stop ISIS

[Tierbook]

If we dont nip this in the bud these guys will make 9-11 look like childs play.

Actually they have shown no signs of wanting to attack the US beyond the usual propaganda to get more people, they seem more intent on conquest in their area than anything. Also of course if they want to make 9-11 look like childs play then the response to such an action will make the respons to 9-11 look like childs play.

[Ghostpanther]

I believe in overkill, tends to shorten active combat.

I too like A-10s, and B-52s. I would love to see JDAM carpet bombing.

Not only that, but the larger our force is, the less numbers we will lose to combat death's/injuries. Carpet bombing is certainly effective at killing. Anything within the area. :P

On this subject, I am with McArthur...." there is only one way to win a war, fight to win." And Sherman on his march to the sea, " war is hell and there is no way to refine it ". So be prepared to win outright or do not go to war.

[Skandulous]

Actually they have shown no signs of wanting to attack the US beyond the usual propaganda to get more people, they seem more intent on conquest in their area than anything. Also of course if they want to make 9-11 look like childs play then the response to such an action will make the respons to 9-11 look like childs play.

Yea all the foreign fighters with valid passports will never go back to their home country and plan attacks.

[The Penguin]

Crazy idea inc.

Make Iraq the 51st state, Nationalize the oil to pay off the massive amounts of money we've expended because they can't keep their crap together. US gains a Outpost in the Middle East and the rest of the world realizes that if they attack again = War. Problem solved.

[Tierbook]

Yea all the foreign fighters with valid passports will never go back to their home country and plan attacks.

From what I've seen there are a dozen or so US fighters with them now.

- - - Updated - - -

Crazy idea inc.

Make Iraq the 51st state, Nationalize the oil to pay off the massive amounts of money we've expended because they can't keep their crap together. US gains a Outpost in the Middle East and the rest of the world realizes that if they attack again = War. Problem solved.

I agree to some extent but we should make 2-3 states throw in Puerto Rico if needed for the flag to look decent.

[fluffhead]

Also of course if they want to make 9-11 look like childs play then the response to such an action will make the respons to 9-11 look like childs play.

all i could think about was this

[The Penguin]

I agree to some extent but we should make 2-3 states throw in Puerto Rico if needed for the flag to look decent.

Works for me. I mean hell if Putin can do it, why can't we? Then we respond with ruthless force to ISIS. By ruthless I mean we take a page from what Vlad did to the Ottomans, who incidentally were Muslim also. As far as I can tell the world in general has been far too accommodating to this so-called religion for far too long.

As a interesting side note, most modern historians agree the Crusades were in fact not the cause of the hostility between Islam and other faiths. Rather the Crusades were started because Pilgrims from Europe were harassed by the Muslims ( kinda like how they STILL treat their women ), and gradually built into a excuse by corrupt clergymen to grow the power of the Roman Church.

This in turn created a need for Knights protecting the pilgrims, and it went up in escalation from there. How many years are we going to allow a faith that glorifies the slavery of women and religious genocide? As I've said prior, I won't deny all faiths have done it in the past but I'd say modernly there's only one still doing it. While not all Muslims are Terrorists, almost all Terrorists are Muslims.

Seems to me if you look at it in that sense, that if one religion is the problem for that long and kills all opposing views, something not even modern Christianity, Hinduism, Shinto, Judaism, Wicca, or Buddhism espouses, then clearly something needs to be done to stop them from doing it. If intolerance to Muslims and reduced opportunities is what is required to send the message that as a race we won't tolerate such behavior? Well, maybe we better do it as the alternative is them murdering more people in the name of their "God".

[Chingylol]

The thing with ISIS is that if we do defeat them and crush them, another group of its remaining members just form up something new in 6 months.

[Kuntantee]

is there anything that the USA is not the first country to blame for?

I do not hate USA if that's what you are asking.

[KingInYellow]

mmmm

IDK that sounds like a bit much for a jerkoff group like the ISIS.

Id say 1 HCBT, a stryker brigade, and 1 CAB

Of course top it off with some A-10 support...because, well i just fucking love A-10's

Varus's ghost would like to see that happen. Then he can stop being the most famous military fuck-up in history. ISIS/ISIL/iJihad has two divisions, and lots of anti-air thanks to their good buddies in the gulf. I wonder how much "Syrian" stuff they could "capture" in a hurry if the US is stupid enough to stick its dick right in the meatgrinder?

- - - Updated - - -

I believe in overkill, tends to shorten active combat.

I too like A-10s, and B-52s. I would love to see JDAM carpet bombing.

Really like jerking it to that deathporn, huh? I hope you get your wish, up close and personal.

[Keosen]

is there anything that the USA is not the first country to blame for?

When it comes to middle east chaos it's almost sure that USA is involved more or less.

[Anyael]

The Bush administration was borderline retarded for disbanding Saddam's army,
the Obama administration went full retard by pulling out of the country,
and now they continue to show complete incompetence by broadcasting what we are willing to do to our enemies.

[Thekri]

mmmm

IDK that sounds like a bit much for a jerkoff group like the ISIS.

Id say 1 HCBT, a stryker brigade, and 1 CAB

Of course top it off with some A-10 support...because, well i just fucking love A-10's

Actually that sounds like nowhere near enough, granted ISIS couldn't beat that package, but it couldn't beat ISIS either, and a stalemate isn't really what we are going for here. Consider the size of the area that needs to be covered, and that ISIS is going to simply go where we are not. And if/when we do beat their field forces what do you think they will do? Hint: It isn't embracing democracy and spreading the message of love and peace...

So "winning" in the context of beating ISIS field forces means another insurgency appears immediately. Three Divisions isn't enough either, and it isn't affordable/doable currently. The best solution is probably pretty much what is happening right now, which is happening undercover and not on the news. The worst thing we can do is give them publicity and legitimacy through the Arab world by deploying ground forces.

[Deleted]

Anyone hoping for Turkey to actually do something might aswell hope for France to jump into the fray. No actually, France would be a better bet. Turkey's civil government is basically in love with Isis since the AKP is a fairly radical islamist party themselves. Turkey currently is allowing Isis supplies to cross the border freely and is the waygate for most of Isis reinforcements.
Meanwhile they open fire and kill Kurdish fighters trying to join the embattled Kurds in Kobani still holding out. Turkey has made pretty clear on which side they are on and that they're simply not to be trusted. The only question I have is why they're still part of the Nato and considered for EU membership.

[DEATHETERNAL]

We need to get a presence back in the country ASAP. We shouldn't have left so completely for purely political reasons like we did against the advice of the military. Get in with enough forces to end the current threat to the stability for the country (not necessarily destroy ISIS, but ensure it doesn't have the capacity to topple the nation), and then leave a token force there until Iraq can stand on its own (yes, however long that takes) like we should have done before. We don’t need a massive long term deployment, just a meaningful short term deployment and then a very small long term deployment. This current policy of gambling that the country is going to be able to stand with the minimal help we are providing is foolishness. If it falls over, the cost of reinstituting any form of stability in the region will be massively more costly than just safeguarding what stability still exists and can easily be recreated.

[Zvinny]

We need to get a presence back in the country ASAP. We shouldn't have left so completely for purely political reasons like we did against the advice of the military. Get in with enough forces to end the current threat to the stability for the country (not necessarily destroy ISIS, but ensure it doesn't have the capacity to topple the nation), and then leave a token force there until Iraq can stand on its own (yes, however long that takes) like we should have done before. We don’t need a massive long term deployment, just a meaningful short term deployment and then a very small long term deployment. This current policy of gambling that the country is going to be able to stand with the minimal help we are providing is foolishness. If it falls over, the cost of reinstituting any form of stability in the region will be massively more costly than just safeguarding what stability still exists and can easily be recreated.

Until Iraq agrees to grant us a SOFA, we won't send combat troops there. If Iraq wanted us to stay, they had the chance 3 years ago.

[DEATHETERNAL]

Until Iraq agrees to grant us a SOFA, we won't send combat troops there. If Iraq wanted us to stay, they had the chance 3 years ago.

Had we wanted to stay, we would have made it happen. Our leader did not want to. Getting it now would be simple. Either they give it to us or we pull any and all support and country falls. They would not refuse if for no other reason to save their own skins.

[Thekri]

Had we wanted to stay, we would have made it happen. Our leader did not want to. Getting it now would be simple. Either they give it to us or we pull any and all support and country falls. They would not refuse if for no other reason to save their own skins.

And how long should we protect a sovereign state that doesn't want to be protected? How long should we leave a garrison of troops in a country that doesn't want us? You are right, it will fail without us, but how is that our responsibility? The intital entry into Iraq was to destroy Saddam and his WMDs, (Which we never found, but that isn't relevant to this) we stayed to help rebuild the country because it was the right thing to do, after 8 years they said they could handle it and asked us to leave. Why wouldn't we respect that?

[Zvinny]

Had we wanted to stay, we would have made it happen. Our leader did not want to. Getting it now would be simple. Either they give it to us or we pull any and all support and country falls. They would not refuse if for no other reason to save their own skins.

Well, yes, if America wanted to stay in any country in the world, they could. However, the Iraqi government didn't want us there, the Iraqi people didn't want us there, and the American public didn't want to be there.

America isn't the worlds bailout option, you don't get to kick us out to assert your independence and then call us back in when shit hits the fans.

[Deleted]

Well, yes, if America wanted to stay in any country in the world, they could. However, the Iraqi government didn't want us there, the Iraqi people didn't want us there, and the American public didn't want to be there.

America isn't the worlds bailout option, you don't get to kick us out to assert your independence and then call us back in when shit hits the fans.

This is really more a "you guys made the mess so you can clean it up also" situation.