@Aurora has long made the case for a ground war against ISIS. I have and continue to fully support her in that. Hollande has come out today, as he has before, and pursued a very Bush-esque war rhetoric. But where is the credibility? He has been Merkel's poodle every since he came to office. Merkel let a million people into the EU without any means to check, before entry, whether or not they were legitimate migrants. Hollande has shaken hands on this the whole time. Obama, Cameron, Theresa May, and the others in the bombing campaign against ISIS, have continued to say that a ground war is not worth while. The military generals disagree. Parliament in the UK says that ISIS is severally weakened. Yet inspired attacks are increasing. We need to take the battle to the extremists and accept that we need to wipe them out. These are the Nazis if the Islamic world. Let's stop pissing around and just do it. Wipe out the so called caliphate. America was so determined after 9/11 to go after people who largely weren't behind 9/11. Why won't it go after ISIS now?
We can't go after ISIS on the ground because then we'd win in a few weeks of active combat. You see, Obama has insisted that this war will be a multi-generational conflict, so we have to milk it for a few more decades.
I suspect Obama was saying that the ideological conflict would be multi generational. Do you disagree? That has nothing to do with what I am saying, which is wiping out the "caliphate" in short order so that western Muslims are no longer inspired by it.
I'm not necessarily against a ground war, but I'm completely convinced it does nothing to bring safety to Europe.
No, you are missing the point, which is that there is already a large army of independent extremists inspired by the caliphate, but not of the caliphate. They are the larger risk to Europe. If you think a lightning war in Syria will make those guys disappear, then you are completely delusional. But like I said, not necessarily opposed, just realistic about the limits of what such an effort accomplishes.
Where did I say they would all disappear? You're just as limited a thinker as the rest. ISIS/Islamic State must not be underestimated. It is very powerful and very influential. Am I arguing that it will get rid of Islamic extremism? Of course not. Are you so thoroughly stupid, after reading and agreeing with so many posts of mine, to think that is what I was arguing? I am saying that ISIS is powerful and inspiring. I am saying that it is contributing to the increase in attacks. Are you honestly saying we just let it be?
For an energetic and successful ground war against ISIS, we'd have to have Trump in charge. We saw how Hillary fucked up the Middle East with half hearted and self-defeating measures while sucking down millions from the Gulf States. They'd just bribe her some more to make sure the war's outcome went the way they wanted, which means crushing the Shias and Kurds and leaving Sunni radicalism largely intact. Basically, they would just export the jihadists to Europe to make Syria safe for Salafists. A Trump alternative should strongly reinforce the Kurds (which will really upset the Turks, but fuck Erdogan) to maintain a strong northern line against ISIS so they can't make it into Turkey (and thus into Europe). Then a vastly more massive use of air power would cut the roads between cities, and that would be followed by an assault rolling west from central Iraq into Anbar, taking city by city as the force rolls into Syria, striking like a hammer and using Assad's forces as the anvil. Then we need to draw a "temporary" border between US, Iraqi, and allied territory and Assad and Putin's territory so that all those liberated Syrian Sunnis vote toward Iraq's parliament, balancing out the Shias and dampening the problems and fears that caused the Iraqi Sunnis to turn towards radicalism. Meanwhile Syria could hold free and fair elections without the threat of suicide by Sunni votes.
I've heard talking heads on NPR saying it for a couple of years now. They predicted that when ISIS started loosing territory in Syria/Iraq, expect them to start attacking soft targets in the West. They were right.
I think that is a simplification of the problem. Most of the kids attacking us are internet radicals. You've got to stamp out what they are being inspired by.
Ever since the bombing started, I knew it wouldn't be enough. The Iraqis have made gains recently, but it should have happened sooner. ISIS needs to be crushed out of existence, not just suppressed. No, it won't solve every problem, but it's got to be done.
Well, they are being stamped out. We're just letting the locals do the heavy lifting so it's taking a while.
I kind of wish that @Goldstein the Space Jew hadn't started this thread. It's just going to be a grade A clusterfuck of differing agendas, trolling, grudges, and out and out lunacy. That being said, I agree with him 100%. More importantly, DOD and MOD do as well.
You can't start threads like this El Chup. Advocating a major war by the U.S. and its allies is what I do. You're supposed to sit back and lecture us on not making war against Muslims and how violence will only create more terrorism. El Chup the warmonger. Who'd have thought
I've made no bones about the fact that I am a centre right conservative by British standards. I just don't condone bigotry and stupidity.
That in a nutshell is why the Iraqi War failed. We went in with a half assed plan that only manage to destroy what little stability was there and pretty much opening the door for ISIS to fill that void. Same with Germany and Hitler. We need to go all in, and attack them hard and fast and commit to stabilizing the region afterward to keep this from happening again, like we've done with post WWII Japan.
Problem is, even with la force de frappe (the French nuclear weapons) and la légion (the Foreign Legion) you can't kill the idea. I mean, we can flatten everything between Damascus and Baghdad. Easily. But the sleeper cells would live on. So... yes. I'm all for it because of reasons. Geopolical and personal Those attacks will continue in the foreseeable future BUT we can take away the justification. Good enough IMHO. (and recolonize & pacify a good part of the ME but I can't say that as a European liberal) I'm really not a fan of waging war in that region. Not a fan of war in general. It's too brutal, too bloody and too muddy (as in, which fraction are our friends now?). It would have to be total war in the original nazi sense, without wasting a thought on civilians, infrastructure or whatever. So let me put it like this: extended ground war is the only way to defeat them on the battlefield right now. Education is the only thing that could erase IS from the minds of people. We don't have the will for either one of them. So hey, let's get ready. Four to five attacks a week will be the new normal. Syria's war is one of those things future historians will measure our civilizaion upon. We will fail. We have let this rage on for years without a reaction. IS is the answer to keeping still and appeasing a population tired of war.
Maybe put down the whiskey bottle if you want to have this discussion. I've said almost none of what you are suggesting, and you are spewing insults like they are going out of style. So kindly fuck-off.
The Middle Eastern nations are not Japan. But even if the results would be the same, do you think Americans and their allies are prepared to use the level of violence we used in World War Two. We turned major cities into smoldering graveyards. A staggering level of violence that even I'm not prepared to condone.
Committimg to total war against IS will inspire more radicals in our homelands. We need to find another way to protect ourselves.
Ah yes, ISIS, which came about as a result of an ill-conceived and badly executed ground war in the Middle East will surely be defeated by doing the self-same thing again. What was that quote about doing the same thing and expecting a different result...
And that's where Europe screwed up (and where Hillary wants to take the US). Once you have significant percentages of Muslims living in your country, you can't wage war against groups like ISIS without risking significant domestic terrorist attacks, if not war in the streets in certain areas. But if a country fears that side-effect, it can no longer stop groups like ISIS, and the Muslims have won. It's a deranged version of MAD where they can keep attacking Europe and Europe can't respond.
