Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Obama orders Military Campaign on ISIS.

Lets get a real coalition this time and route them out.

Sp3yO7jVzn4

america tryn to fix other countries...evil with the venom we have here..... i wonder why china... doesn't try to do the front and center fixing we do ?

A real war is about to begin.

If US wins this war, it might be Obama's defining moment of his career.

Man I hate war. I can't use a gun. I miss swords.

Remember that last war on terror? How well it turned out?

This one might be a little different and it's what America should have done in 2003. Gone in small for the purpose of taking out the actual threat ie gone into Afghanistan and hunted Al-Qaeda.

Originally posted by Robtard
This one might be a little different and it's what America should have done in 2003. Gone in small for the purpose of taking out the actual threat ie gone into Afghanistan and hunted Al-Qaeda.

As opposed to rolling in tanks setting down a flag and crying out "FREEDOM IS HERE FOR YOUR OIL!!"

I didn't get any oil, all I saw was my fuel prices rise and rise and rise from 2003 on.

How much you getting it for now?

I hope they send B-1 and B-2 bombers and just bomb the living shit out of them.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I hope they send B-1 and B-2 bombers and just bomb the living shit out of them.

You know there are children there right?

It's actually not going to be a real war, not for America anyway.

It will be a prolonged air campaign to support local ground forces. Basically nothing has changed after Obama's speech except that now he's talking about bombing targets in Syria.

Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
How much you getting it for now?

Around $4.15 per gallon.

Originally posted by Robtard
Around $4.15 per gallon.

Errr... how much is that a litre?

Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
Errr... how much is that a litre?

About 1.10 USD per liter.

Its cheaper in NSW and VIC but in the Northern Territory we pay 1.66 AUD per litre at the cheapest place we found around Darwin. Its why I take the bus.

Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
You know there are children there right?

Tell that to Obama before he drops the dombs.

Where's James Bond when you need him?

Originally posted by Robtard
Around $4.15 per gallon. #SFBayArea

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Where's James Bond when you need him?

Thats a great idea actually, its to bad no one has thought of this.

**** James Bond, we need Brock Sampson.

Jack Bauer would solve this in 12 hours

this is what happens when we go into a region with no other goal or plan other than "shock and awe" and "bomb em' back to the stoneage".
now we have to deal with the wild cavemen we helped create. *shrug*

Originally posted by Lestov16
Jack Bauer would solve this in 12 hours

Exactly, he would not even need a whole show.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
this is what happens when we go into a region with no other goal or plan other than "shock and awe" and "bomb em' back to the stoneage".
now we have to deal with the wild cavemen we helped create. *shrug*

Lol, Obama has a good plan "degrade and ultimately destroy them"

His plan is good. Thanks for finally giving him the respect he deserves

Originally posted by Lestov16
His plan is good. Thanks for finally giving him the respect he deserves

It was a good speech, now we need action.

He needs to gather international support for this coalition, So far UK, Germany and Turkey have said no to a air campaign. Having Turkey back out because they don't trust this is a huge blow to this campaign because there huge NATO ally with military bases to help support the air operation.

So it's his fault other nations are pussies?

it's apparently also obama's fault that we deposed the leader of a sovereign nation and expected it to magically turn into Murica.

obama derangement syndrome

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
it's apparently also obama's fault that we deposed the leader of a sovereign nation and expected it to magically turn into Murica.

obama derangement syndrome

Just like the Bush derangement syndrome.

It's hilarious that every time I hear a complaint about Obama it's actually something either the GOP is currently responsible for or something Bush started in the past.

ex. It's hilarious the GOP are attacking Obama for veteran aid reform when McConnell went out of his way to veto Obama's bill to do such. Republicans are roaches.

" "Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things." - D. Rumsfeld April 2003

Originally posted by Lestov16
So it's his fault other nations are pussies?

No its political.

What is political? The pussification of other nations?

Originally posted by Lestov16
What is political? The pussification of other nations?

Yup they al pussies, Saudi King just talks trash but takes no action either.

That's why Obama's the HNIC. Ain't no such thing as half-way heads of state

Originally posted by Lestov16
What is political? The pussification of other nations?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Yup they al pussies, Saudi King just talks trash but takes no action either.

---

USA is situated far away from Middle East. Strategically, its easy and safer for USA to project power in regions where it is not directly affected as consequence from war.

However, ground realities of countries - situated in Middle East or in regions where wars are taking place - are vastly different from that of USA. These nations are directly affected by destabilization and aftermath of conflicts around them, they won't be excited about cooperating with USA to fight ISIS which is a by-product of devastating conflicts in Iraq and Syria.

Wars are costly matters, slow down development processes and can destabilize regions.

If any nation from Middle East will join an international coalition against ISIS, it will be on its own accord and calculated move.

Also, it isn't easy to crush a well-funded insurgency and prevalent mindset in a region. Unfortunately, more people will die and this will fuel more hatred in ground zero. Fighting fire with fire seldom yields positive results.

No one knows anything about the Middle East crisis, or war unless they been there and dealt with it first hand. The rest is speculation and opinion based off others speculation and opinions.

isis isn't a war... its karma... i love america.. but when you go ****ing with groups of ppl over hundreds of years its going to come back on you... yeah you can go bomb them... but if they are willing to die anyway... this is a war you cannot win... they will keep coming back.. because of the history of pain inflicted on different races of ppl. innocent ppl. will pay for other ppl. actions

I still don't see how 9/11 justified the massacre of 200,000 Iraqi civilians.

Originally posted by Shabazz916
isis isn't a war... its karma... i love america.. but when you go ****ing with groups of ppl over hundreds of years its going to come back on you... yeah you can go bomb them... but if they are willing to die anyway... this is a war you cannot win... they will keep coming back.. because of the history of pain inflicted on different races of ppl. innocent ppl. will pay for other ppl. actions How's that really karma for us considering that we (America) will largely feel almost none of ISIS' wrath?

Isn't it Isil? Anyway. After the third beheading my views have changed. Just slaughter them. I don't care. If this was 500 years ago and someone beheaded a diplomat and sent the head back that was a declaration of war.

Just slaughter whom? Everyone in Syria and Iraq?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Just slaughter whom? Everyone in Syria and Iraq?

ISIL. Obviously not everyone. What are we barbarians?

Well, that comes with the issue of how to do it though, doesn't it? Like that has been the fundamental problem with this type of terrorist/guerrilla war. It's hard to know who to hit, without hitting civilians and without creating more soldiers for their cause.

Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
Isn't it Isil? Anyway. After the third beheading my views have changed. Just slaughter them. I don't care. If this was 500 years ago and someone beheaded a diplomat and sent the head back that was a declaration of war.

The problem is you can't go in and do so. It risks the deaths of civilians and that's what ISIS/ISIL/IS wants. If a USA led coalition attacks them it creates a huge recruiting drive for them.

They are trying to goad the world into attacking them.

Originally posted by One_Angry_Scot
The problem is you can't go in and do so. It risks the deaths of civilians and that's what ISIS/ISIL/IS wants. If a USA led coalition attacks them it creates a huge recruiting drive for them.

They are trying to goad the world into attacking them.

Then lets send in Coca Cola/Maccas Marketers to convince the people that the ISIL deserve to die and help us!

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, that comes with the issue of how to do it though, doesn't it? Like that has been the fundamental problem with this type of terrorist/guerrilla war. It's hard to know who to hit, without hitting civilians and without creating more soldiers for their cause.
For now at least it isn't so hard.

These guys are riding around in vehicles with black flags on them. Their success has allowed them to essentially act like a regular, overt army.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
For now at least it isn't so hard.

These guys are riding around in vehicles with black flags on them. Their success has allowed them to essentially act like a regular, overt army.

Honestly its like they want to die.

Dying as a martyr is pretty cool according to their interpretation of Islam.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Dying as a martyr is pretty cool according to their interpretation of Islam.

Well if their happy, I'm happy.

The day when Islamic terrorist start worshiping Egyptian mythology...

Originally posted by Oneness
The day when Islamic terrorist start worshiping Egyptian mythology...
You'll start learning to play castanets?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You'll start learning to play castanets?
He seems like more of a clarinet kinda guy.

Originally posted by Astner
I still don't see how 9/11 justified the massacre of 200,000 Iraqi civilians.

So let us be bombed and have no retaliation. Just as the enemy would want.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
So let us be bombed and have no retaliation. Just as the enemy would want.

Iraq wasn't involved in the 9/11 attacks.

America went into Iraqi because Saddam had WMDs; turned out he didn't. Don't you recall when I broke it down in your beheading thread not long ago?

Originally posted by Robtard
Iraq wasn't involved in the 9/11 attacks.

America went into Iraqi because Saddam had WMDs; turned out he didn't. Don't you recall when I broke it down in your beheading thread not long ago?

Sure he did, and we knew he did, because we gave them to him. Do I have to post the picture of the dead peoples?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sure he did, and we knew he did, because we gave them to him. Do I have to post the picture of the dead peoples?

Pretty sure that if the WMDs that the Bush cabinet sold the war on had been found, Bush would have been doing back-flips while giving the middle finger and saying "told ya so!". There are multiple ways to kill people without using WMDs.

Originally posted by Robtard
Pretty sure that if the WMDs that the Bush cabinet sold the war on had been found, Bush would have been doing back-flips while giving the middle finger and saying "told ya so!". There are multiple ways to kill people without using WMDs.

No. I don't think so. They would have hidden them away and said "Oh well, there was no WMDs, after all". You forget, we gave them to him. If we "found them" then it would become news.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. I don't think so. They would have hidden them away and said "Oh well, there was no WMDs, after all". You forget, we gave them to him. If we "found them" then it would become news.

And i'm sure you have some proof of this?

But I'm pretty sure the US would never have given Saddam nukes, even back when he was the US's lackey in the 80's during the Iran-Iraq conflict.

Originally posted by Robtard
And i'm sure you have some proof of this?

But I'm pretty sure the US would never have given Saddam nukes, even back when he was the US's lackey in the 80's during the Iran-Iraq conflict.

You didn't say nukes. You said WMDs.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Like proof matters? To people who aren't hopelessly paranoid and pulling accusations out of their ass, yes.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sure he did, and we knew he did, because we gave them to him. Do I have to post the picture of the dead peoples?
America sold conventional armaments to Saddam Hussein before and during the Iran-Iraq War, but America didn't supply the chemical weapons that Saddam used against the Iranians, those were locally produced.

Here's the thing about chemical weapons that makes them so dangerous and that might make the recent UN-sponsored effort to remove them from Syria ultimately pointless despite its success: chemical weapons are super easy to manufacture. The same factories that produce castor oil can produce ricin, while it doesn't take much modifications for a chlorine factory to produce chlorine gas. The only marginally difficult part is fashioning a delivery mechanism, of which Saddam had in abundance with his cheap scuds. Scuds were in many ways the ideal carrier for chemical weapons warheads because they're cheap but notoriously inaccurate, which isn't a problem if your payload can kill by area of effect.

According to the latest reports, Australia is sending a few hundred special operations ground troops to Iraq to serve in an advisory/support role to the Kurds and Iraqi military.

They were moved and hidden in the Bekaa Valley before the invasion.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
They were moved and hidden in the Bekaa Valley before the invasion.

Proof?

Originally posted by Robtard
Proof?

Internal IA source while I was in Iraq.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Internal IA source while I was in Iraq.



Have to ask, why would the Bush cabinet keep that a secret? When not finding the WMDs brought them many a woe.

Originally posted by Robtard


Have to ask, why would the Bush cabinet keep that a secret? When not finding the WMDs brought them many a woe.

They couldn't find them. Even when they looked cause they were given wrong info.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
They couldn't find them. Even when they looked cause they were given wrong info.

If the info was wrong, then how do you know where they were moved and the US government apparently doesn't?

Originally posted by Robtard
If the info was wrong, then how do you know where they were moved and the US government apparently doesn't?

As I said they were there and moved into Lebanon. But we all know why we went to war. OIL

Originally posted by Robtard
The "WMD's" the Bush cabinet sold the war on were nuclear based weapons, hence the whole "yellow cake uranium" deal Powell did and the "not have a mushroom cloud in Manhattan be the smoking gun" Rice blabbed about. So "WMD" and "nukes" is exchangeable in this specific setting.

No nukes were found. No WMDs were found. Which ever way you put it, the Bush cabinet sold the war to us on a lie.

And you believed that crap?

Just admit that Saddam Hussein had WMD because we gave them to him. That is why we knew he had them. Me and you are not talking about nukes. We are talking about all or any WMD.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And you believed that crap?

Just admit that Saddam Hussein had WMD because we gave them to him. That is why we knew he had them. Me and you are not talking about nukes. We are talking about all or any WMD.

It's not a matter of belief or not, it's a fact that the WMDs the Bush cabinet sold the war on were nuclear in nature. ie the "yellow cake" sell.

And the US did find bunkers full of cerin (sp?) gas, which is a form of WMD, but again it was stated "these are not the WMDs we thought Saddam had; went to war over". You should probably do some research.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's not a matter of belief or not, it's a fact that the WMDs the Bush cabinet sold the war on were nuclear in nature. ie the "yellow cake" sell.

And the US did find bunkers full of cerin (sp?) gas, which is a form of WMD, but again it was stated "these are not the WMDs we thought Saddam had; went to war over". You should probably do some research.

Irrelevant. I was correcting you when you said that Saddam had no WMD. He did! I didn't say anything about Nukes! You kept trying to change the subject.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Irrelevant. I was correcting you when you said that Saddam had no WMD. He did! I didn't say anything about Nukes! You kept trying to change the subject.

Are you being obtuse on purpose? My stance was clear that the WMDs were the ones the war was sold on (nukes).

See:

Originally posted by Robtard
Pretty sure that if the WMDs that the Bush cabinet sold the war on had been found, Bush would have been doing back-flips while giving the middle finger and saying "told ya so!".

You keep bringing up that "WMDs were found and hidden", without substantiating it once.

Originally posted by Robtard
Are you being obtuse on purpose? My stance was clear that the WMDs were the ones the war was sold on (nukes).

See:



You keep bringing up that "WMDs were found and hidden", without substantiating it once.

Dude, you were wrong. Just admit it. If you mean nukes, say nukes.

"A weapon of mass destruction (WMD or WoMD) is a nuclear, radiological, biological, chemical or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere."

https://www.google.com/#q=WMD+definition

Remember in 1988? The Kurds?

http://www.ncas.rutgers.edu/center-study-genocide-conflict-resolution-and-human-rights/al-anfal-and-genocide-iraqi-kurds-1988

The world is better off without Saddam Hussein!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Dude, you were wrong. Just admit it. If you mean nukes, say nukes.

"A weapon of mass destruction (WMD or WoMD) is a nuclear, radiological, biological, chemical or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere."

https://www.google.com/#q=WMD+definition

Remember in 1988? The Kurds?

http://www.ncas.rutgers.edu/center-study-genocide-conflict-resolution-and-human-rights/al-anfal-and-genocide-iraqi-kurds-1988

The world is better off without Saddam Hussein!

History tells us that the WMDs the Bush cabinet went to war over were not found. So no, I was not wrong when repeating history.

What are your thoughts on the 200,000+ Iraqi civilians that were killed because of the second Iraq/Bush war?

Some would argue that Iraq being a lawless terrorist breeding ground might be worse.

It's actually pretty obvious that Shakyamunison is in the wrong and Robtard is right. All is right in the universe.

Saddam Hussein had WMD, and in 1988 he used them on the Kurds. That is fact. To say that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD is a lie.

Were you even alive in 1988?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Saddam Hussein had WMD, and in 1988 he used them on the Kurds. That is fact. To say that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD is a lie.

Were you even alive in 1988?

This isn't about 1988 though, this is about the WMDs Saddam allegedly had in 2003, which was the basis for the 2003 invasion. Those alleged WMDs were never found.

Yes. Were you awake from 2003 to 2011?

Originally posted by Robtard
This isn't about 1988 though, this is about the WMDs Saddam allegedly had in 2003, which was the basis for the 2003 invasion. Those alleged WMDs were never found.

Yes. Were you awake from 2003 to 2011?

We did find WMD. Let me quote you. "And the US did find bunkers full of cerin (sp?) gas," Sarin gas is a WMD. So, Saddam Hussein had WMD and the US found them. You can say we did not find nukes, but you cannot say we did not find WMD.

Maybe the truth isn't important to you.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We did find WMD. Let me quote you. "And the US did find bunkers full of cerin (sp?) gas," Sarin gas is a WMD. So, Saddam Hussein had WMD and the US found them. You can say we did not find nukes, but you cannot say we did not find WMD.

Maybe the truth isn't important to you.

Yes, and it was stated that those were not the WMDs that the US went to war over. They were left over from the Iran-Iraq war that ended in 1988, long forgotten and not in usable condition.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, and it was stated that those were not the WMDs that the US went to war over. They were left over from the Iran-Iraq war that ended in 1988, long forgotten and in in not usable condition.

I don't care what the US went to war over. I am talking about what YOU said. It was wrong, and I corrected you.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't care what the US went to war over.

I am talking about what YOU said. It was wrong, and I corrected you.


A very odd statement.

Actually it is correct, the WMDs in question that the US went to war over were never found. This was never about "did Saddam ever have WMDs during his reign"; the conversation has been specifically about the GW Iraq war from the start and you know that.

Originally posted by Robtard
A very odd statement.

Actually it is correct, the WMDs in question that the US went to war over were never found. This was never about "did Saddam ever have WMDs during his reign"; the conversation has been specifically about the GW Iraq war from the start and you know that.

You just rationalize all over the place. Technically, Saddam Hussein had WMDs and we found them.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't care what the US went to war over. I am talking about what YOU said. It was wrong, and I corrected you.

That so?

Originally posted by Robtard
Iraq wasn't involved in the 9/11 attacks.

America went into Iraqi because Saddam had WMDs; turned out he didn't. Don't you recall when I broke it down in your beheading thread not long ago?

Here we see Robtard's original post. Which is about what the US went to war over.

If you don't care, then what are you arguing? Do you even know?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You just rationalize all over the place.

Technically, Saddam Hussein had WMDs and we found them.

My point has always been about the WMDs the war was sold on (not Saddam in the 80's). So I've been in the same place.

History disagrees, much to George W. Bush's dismay.

Originally posted by Robtard
My point has always been about the WMDs the war was sold on (not Saddam in the 80's). So I've been in the same place.

History disagrees, much to George W. Bush's dismay.

But the way you say it is wrong, it leads to a lie.

As far as Bush, I don't want to talk about Bush to Bush haters.

The fact is that Saddam had WMD when we entered Baghdad. If you want to talk about Nukes, then say "Nukes". But that's not what you do. Why? Why do you insist on saying WMD when you mean Nukes? You are distorting the facts, and I think you are doing for ideological reasons. What do you have to gain by distorting the truth?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The fact is that Saddam had WMD when we entered Baghdad. If you want to talk about Nukes, then say "Nukes". But that's not what you do. Why? Why do you insist on saying WMD when you mean Nukes? You are distorting the facts, and I think you are doing for ideological reasons. What do you have to gain by distorting the truth? It was incredibly obvious when he said "the WMDs that the Bush cabinet sold the war on" that he was referring to nuclear weapons though.

Why do you need obvious meanings explicitly spelled out for you to understand them? You're either arguing for the sake of arguing, or your reading comprehension is poor enough that one would question if you're old enough to actually be on this site. It's a 13+ site, Shakya. Alpha Centauri's gonna get ya, Shakya.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But the way you say it is wrong, it leads to a lie.

As far as Bush, I don't want to talk about Bush to Bush haters.

The fact is that Saddam had WMD when we entered Baghdad. If you want to talk about Nukes, then say "Nukes". But that's not what you do. Why? Why do you insist on saying WMD when you mean Nukes? You are distorting the facts, and I think you are doing for ideological reasons. What do you have to gain by distorting the truth?

Except it's not.

OK, neither do I. But the fact remains that if the WMDs that Bush sold the war on had been found, Bush would have been the first to point it out, since it would have proven his claims correct.

Nukes, biological or chemical WMDs, doesn't really matter in the end; the fact remains that the WMDs that Bush sold the war on were never found.

"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." - C. Rice 2003

So, the British journalist David Haines has been beheaded.

They showed another Brit next in line to be executed at the end of the video.

Apparently, they're trying to dissuade the UK to form a coalition with the US.

Killing journalists seems like a really dumb way to attempt to achieve that.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
So, the British journalist David Haines has been beheaded.

They showed another Brit next in line to be executed at the end of the video.

Apparently, they're trying to dissuade the UK to form a coalition with the US.

Really seems more like the opposite.

The identity of the masked exexutioner is so far a mystery.

The only confirmed facts about him are: 1) he is a Brit/Kiwi/Australian local/immigrant based on his accent, and 2) he is left-handed.

I thought they identified him.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I thought they identified him.

It's meant to be this guy named L Jinny (rap name)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cT1YDIV4lGE

Real name Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
So, the British journalist David Haines has been beheaded.

They showed another Brit next in line to be executed at the end of the video.

Apparently, they're trying to dissuade the UK to form a coalition with the US.

Do they have a stockpile of Westerners they can keep threatening to decapitating as a deterrent?

Originally posted by Robtard
Do they have a stockpile of Westerners they can keep threatening to decapitating as a deterrent?

Yeah they have like 50+ prisoners. All sold to them by rebel groups in Syria or captured by themselves in lands they own themselves.

https://ph.news.yahoo.com/islamic-state-groups-war-chest-110805652.html

Sickening.

Seems like this war really isn't about religion.
It's about money.

Money is only the means to an end. It's about power. Islamic State is very serious about the "state" part of their name. They intend to supplant the countries of Iraq and Syria and eventually the entire Middle East.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Money is only the means to an end. It's about power. Islamic State is very serious about the "state" part of their name. They intend to supplant the countries of Iraq and Syria and eventually the entire Middle East.

Trouble is it's very hard to remove them from power either. If a US led coalition goes in there to attack ISIS has many Sunni towns under their rule. And Sunni's love ISIS so all we can do by attacking ISIS is create a bigger recruiting drive.

Best thing to do is to arm local armies as the armies and people form that region. Kurds, Syrians. Iranians blend in and understand the culture.

ISIS funding is over 3 million a day from oil sold on the black market. As well as them robbing a bank in Iraq for 500 million. As well as it seems people are funding and donating to them.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/14/america-s-allies-are-funding-isis.html

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
ISIS funding is over 3 million a day from oil sold on the black market. As well as them robbing a bank in Iraq for 500 million.

That's not a whole lot of money if you're planning on keeping control of a country through military force.

The US drops 50 bombs and surpasses ISIS' yearly budget.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's not a whole lot of money if you're planning on keeping control of a country through military force.

The US drops 50 bombs and surpasses ISIS' yearly budget.

Half a billion dollars and 3 million a day is not a lot of money? Thats an insane amount of money America is spending 7.5 million a day just on air strikes, and thats high tech weapons deployments.

This is not the JV league as we were led to believe, as shown they are not to be fcked with.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Half a billion dollars and 3 million a day is not a lot of money? Thats an insane amount of money America is spending 7.5 million a day just on air strikes, and thats high tech weapons deployments.

This is not the JV league as we were led to believe, as shown they are not to be fcked with.

In the general sense, sure, that is a lot of money. In regards to trying to control an entire country through military force while fending off a coalition of attackers, it's chump-change.

If the US rolled in and they tried conventional war tactics, they would lose very quickly, they're best at guerilla tactics and winning through attrition when facing a none broken army. Even a country like Iran would steamroll them in a conventional war.

Originally posted by Robtard
In the general sense, sure, that is a lot of money. In regards to trying to control an entire country through military force while fending off a coalition of attackers, it's chump-change.

If the US rolled in and they tried conventional war tactics, they would lose very quickly, they're best at guerilla tactics and winning through attrition. Even a country like Iran would steamroll them in a conventional war.

True, but we just did this, we rolled in Eradicated, left, and they crawled back. Also ISIS is nothing new, I was fighting ISIS/ISIL when I was there in 2005. This is our Afghanistan, just like Russia in the 70 and 80's.

I wonder if anyone else is alarmed by Obama's complacency? We may very well be living in the most dangerous times in history, and Obama has people believing that "Everything is Awesome"... It isn't.

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/372238/obama-administrations-2014-message-everything-awesome-jim-geraghty

Originally posted by Robtard
About 1.10 USD per liter.


How much is a litre of bottled drinking water in USD?

Originally posted by Stoic
I wonder if anyone else is alarmed by Obama's complacency? We may very well be living in the most dangerous times in history, and Obama has people believing that "Everything is Awesome"... It isn't.

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/372238/obama-administrations-2014-message-everything-awesome-jim-geraghty

Where exactly is the " everything is awesome" quote there?

I mean, every Obama speech I've ever heard has showcased a variation of "we've made considerable gains in X and Y, but we're not out of the woods yet.

Originally posted by One_Angry_Scot
Trouble is it's very hard to remove them from power either. If a US led coalition goes in there to attack ISIS has many Sunni towns under their rule. And Sunni's love ISIS so all we can do by attacking ISIS is create a bigger recruiting drive.

Best thing to do is to arm local armies as the armies and people form that region. Kurds, Syrians. Iranians blend in and understand the culture.
I don't think it's accurate to say that Sunnis "love" ISIS.

It's probably more accurate to say that Sunnis hate and fear the Iraqi and Syrian governments, but many Sunnis also hate and fear ISIS as seen by all the tribal uprisings in ISIS areas.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't think it's accurate to say that Sunnis "love" ISIS.

It's probably more accurate to say that Sunnis hate and fear the Iraqi and Syrian governments, but many Sunnis also hate and fear ISIS as seen by all the tribal uprisings in ISIS areas.

Yeah I probably misphrased it there I admit. What I meant was pretty much what you said. ISIS are a Sunni uprising after governments in the region are Shia backed.

So while love was a bit strong. I mean to say that a Sunni man in Raqqa or Mosul see's ISIS and knows that they are Sunni so they have the same culture and believe the same thing. Whereas under Al Maliki when he was in power, they wouldn't have the same ideology.

This whole situation could be fixed with two words:

MASS GENOCIDE!

Originally posted by One_Angry_Scot
Best thing to do is to arm local armies as the armies and people form that region. Kurds, Syrians. Iranians blend in and understand the culture.
The Kurds/Syrians won't do much damage, though.
The IS seems to be the superior army of we compare both.

The best solution methinks is a repeated air strike by US and allied forces in areas occupied by IS jihadists.
If it ever comes to it, innocent blood must be shed for the greater good.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
The Kurds/Syrians won't do much damage, though.
The IS seems to be the superior army of we compare both.

The best solution methinks is a repeated air strike by US and allied forces in areas occupied by IS jihadists.
If it ever comes to it, innocent blood must be shed for the greater good.

It's a difficult situation, sure ISIS are probably well armed. But don't forget Assad has been fighting ISIS, Al Nusra and the FSA among other rebel groups and for a time held his own.

In the end indiscriminate bombing won't help. All it does is angers the populace. Make air strikes where you know no civilians are located. Like the US has done with the air strikes on the dams.

I don't think the war can be won unless the Kurds are armed and the Syrians are assisted. You need boots on the ground without UK, US etc being there. And the only way for that to happen is by making sure the Kurds are armed. The Syrians are possibly armed plus given intelligence. And hopefully get Iran to assist as well.

Originally posted by One_Angry_Scot
Yeah I probably misphrased it there I admit. What I meant was pretty much what you said. ISIS are a Sunni uprising after governments in the region are Shia backed.

So while love was a bit strong. I mean to say that a Sunni man in Raqqa or Mosul see's ISIS and knows that they are Sunni so they have the same culture and believe the same thing. Whereas under Al Maliki when he was in power, they wouldn't have the same ideology.
I don't think it's like that. I think the Sunnis in ISIS-controlled areas either are intimidated by ISIS or think they're the lesser of two evils when compared to the Iraqi government.

If studying the Middle East has taught me anything it's that the only thing that really actually matters when it comes to life or death struggles is if you're Kurdish or not--they're the only group that seems to always be cohesive, even when they have such a broad range of political ideologies and approaches to seeking statehood.

Being Sunni means dick until a Shi'ite is in the room.

Logistically it is not feasible for an army in the middle of Syria and Iraq with 20-30k troops to maintain a fighting force for very long. Even with captured equipment they will run out of food and supplies if they cannot move significant quantities of resources. Especially with no air power they will be always limited and eventually will fail in a drawn out conflict. Those shiny truck tacticals are toast against any sort of armored vehicle if we provide them. They seem to have BMPs and some cheap T series tanks which all are pretty much targets for any drones.

Originally posted by Robtard
This isn't about 1988 though, this is about the WMDs Saddam allegedly had in 2003, which was the basis for the 2003 invasion. Those alleged WMDs were never found.

Yes. Were you awake from 2003 to 2011? basically my understanding is that he got rid of the stockpiles to comply with UN sanctions but kept up the appearance of having secret stockpiles as a sort of deterrent against the iranians. basically he was purposely acting like he did have weapons but was trying to hide it. but he always maintained the capability to produce said weapons at any time if they were ever needed. it just wasn't feasible at the time for him to have huge stockpiles. saddam's approach to geopolitical power relied pretty heavily on WMDs so i think it's a pretty arbitrary point that he didn't happen to have a stockpile at the time of the invasion. i know that the bush administration stressed the intelligence that he did have those weapons... which i'm not defending. but yea. imo dude loved WMDs and would have pursued them the first chance he got.

Originally posted by red g jacks
basically my understanding is that he got rid of the stockpiles to comply with UN sanctions but kept up the appearance of having secret stockpiles as a sort of deterrent against the iranians. basically he was purposely acting like he did have weapons but was trying to hide it. but he always maintained the capability to produce said weapons at any time if they were ever needed. it just wasn't feasible at the time for him to have huge stockpiles. saddam's approach to geopolitical power relied pretty heavily on WMDs so i think it's a pretty arbitrary point that he didn't happen to have a stockpile at the time of the invasion. i know that the bush administration stressed the intelligence that he did have those weapons... which i'm not defending. but yea. imo dude loved WMDs and would have pursued them the first chance he got.

"i think it's a pretty arbitrary point that he didn't happen to have a stockpile at the time of the invasion"

Disagreed. We invaded a country and wrecked the shit out of it on a false premise. I'm not willing to look the other way because it happened to be the US that ****ed up.

Ignoring the false premise that lead us into Iraq for a moment, fast forward to 2014, look what our "freedom" actions have attained? Iraq is in a chaos and a hot bed for churning out new terrorist.

Holy shit!

I just saw a scary video by IS training very young children on how to assemble and reload an AK and some basic combat tactics.

It seems that Tarkhan Batirashvili (the Georgian jihadist 2nd in command of IS) is present in the video.

Originally posted by Robtard
"i think it's a pretty arbitrary point that he didn't happen to have a stockpile at the time of the invasion"

Disagreed. We invaded a country and wrecked the shit out of it on a false premise. I'm not willing to look the other way because it happened to be the US that ****ed up.

Ignoring the false premise that lead us into Iraq for a moment, fast forward to 2014, look what our "freedom" actions have attained? Iraq is in a chaos and a hot bed for churning out new terrorist. yea but the basic reasoning behind taking saddam out of power was sound... he was acting like he had wmd's and he certainly would have pursued them once he got out from under the sanctions.

iraq is a mess yea but so is a lot of the middle east which we haven't invaded. maybe the sectarian war that is going on now is enabled by the lack of a saddam dictatorship to hold things in place, but that doesn't mean the current mess is more dangerous than saddam would have been. there are elements in iran who want nukes and that was certainly one of saddam's supreme ambitions. we could have been looking at a nuclear arms race in the middle east for all we know. lets not pretend like these rivalries were invented in 2003... we would most likely be looking at a volatile situation either way. it's only guesswork which situation would end up worse overall. but since when is it good strategy to do nothing about a threat because another one will probably pop up later?

Originally posted by red g jacks
yea but the basic reasoning behind taking saddam out of power was sound... he was acting like he had wmd's and he certainly would have pursued them once he got out from under the sanctions.

iraq is a mess yea but so is a lot of the middle east which we haven't invaded. maybe the sectarian war that is going on now is enabled by the lack of a saddam dictatorship to hold things in place, but that doesn't mean the current mess is more dangerous than saddam would have been. there are elements in iran who want nukes and that was certainly one of saddam's supreme ambitions. we could have been looking at a nuclear arms race in the middle east for all we know. lets not pretend like these rivalries were invented in 2003... we would most likely be looking at a volatile situation either way. it's only guesswork which situation would end up worse overall. but since when is it good strategy to do nothing about a threat because another one will probably pop up later?

Saddam said he didn't have them and the UN inspectors overall backed that up, multiple allied countries were against the US invasion and considering the US's official stance is that the WMDs in question were not found, the reasoning of "oh well, he would have maybe pursued them" is not sound reasoning at all. We literally demolished a country and 200,000+ civilians died (and continue to die) because of "maybe" going by your reasoning.

Saddam was an insane dick, but he kept what the US considers enemies in check in Iraq since these same lunatics were a threat to his dictatorship. To insist that it would have been worse to not have invaded is a complete guess. By all accounts, he was not involved in the 9/11 attacks and invading Iraq turned out to be a cluster****. Those are facts we can see today, not guesses.

Don't you find it a little insane that the country which not only has the most (possibly second) nuclear weapons and is the only country to ever have used them in aggression is telling other countries "no, you can't have nukes"?

Speaking of "worse to do nothing". India and Pakistan both have nukes and they generally hate each other, why aren't you worried that the US isn't taking away their nuclear devices?

North Korea who routinely wags its little dick while making threats. No push for military action against them. Why?

Which is worse, an authoritarian dictatorship or a totalitarian theocracy?

Originally posted by Robtard
Saddam said he didn't have them and the UN inspectors overall backed that up, multiple allied countries were against the US invasion and considering the US's official stance is that the WMDs in question were not found, the reasoning of "oh well, he would have maybe pursued them" is not sound reasoning at all. We literally demolished a country and 200,000+ civilians died (and continue to die) because of "maybe" going by your reasoning.he admitted the in trials that he was giving the UN inspectors the run around to make it appear like he was hiding WMDs. he was obligated to say he didn't have them to try to get out from under the sanctions but he also was keeping up the ruse that he secretly did have them to keep the iranians from spotting any weakness.

he was an insane dictator with an obsession with WMDs. the iranians are already pursuing nuclear technologies and there are factions that want the bomb. that is without saddam next door. you really think its a stretch that having him still in power would fuel that drive for nuclear weapons even further, and in return give him even more incentives to pursue his own nuclear ambitions? it's not as much as a maybe as you are suggesting. saddam without wmd's as part of his geopolitical power is a bit like the cold war without nukes.

no, i think it is to be expected. hypocritical, sure. but probably a safer bet than putting them in the hands of some rogue dictatorship.

because they already have nukes. that's the entire point. if saddam had nukes he wouldn't ever once have to fire them to see his geopolitical leverage increase.

Originally posted by red g jacks
he admitted the in trials that he was giving the UN inspectors the run around to make it appear like he was hiding WMDs. he was obligated to say he didn't have them to try to get out from under the sanctions but he also was keeping up the ruse that he secretly did have them to keep the iranians from spotting any weakness.

he was an insane dictator with an obsession with WMDs. the iranians are already pursuing nuclear technologies and there are factions that want the bomb. that is without saddam next door. you really think its a stretch that having him still in power would fuel that drive for nuclear weapons even further, and in return give him even more incentives to pursue his own nuclear ambitions? it's not as much as a maybe as you are suggesting. saddam without wmd's as part of his geopolitical power is a bit like the cold war without nukes.

no, i think it is to be expected. hypocritical, sure. but probably a safer bet than putting them in the hands of some rogue dictatorship.

because they already have nukes. that's the entire point. if saddam had nukes he wouldn't ever once have to fire them to see his geopolitical leverage increase.

Which did nothing to support the Bush cabinet's reasoning for war, the original point of the convo. So Saddam was shifty, he still didn't have WMDs and he wasn't involved with Al Qaeda or 9/11. Al Qaeda were his enemy, if anything. Bush later admitted that the majority of intelligence he built the war on was wrong. Which considering the amount of lives lost (and still being lost) is inexcusable.

Not impossible, no. But I could just as easily assert that if Bush didn't attack Iraq, we would have world peace right now or something via the butterfly effect. But your assertion is little more than dismissing the issue. ie "So what if we invaded Iraq based on wrong intel at best, outright lies at worst. The world is probably better off right now." "Probably" does not outweigh the current factual mess.

Glad you admit to the hypocrisy. And see below.

"if saddam had nukes he wouldn't ever once have to fire them" if that is the case, then your previous stance doesn't make any sense. ie we took out Saddam and wrecked Iraq because be might have pursued building nukes, but he never would have used them if he had.

Originally posted by Robtard
Which did nothing to support the Bush cabinet's reasoning for war, the original point of the convo. So Saddam was shifty, he still didn't have WMDs and he wasn't involved with Al Qaeda or 9/11. Al Qaeda were his enemy, if anything. Bush later admitted that the majority of intelligence he built the war on was wrong. Which considering the amount of lives lost (and still being lost) is inexcusable. sure. but i do think it is relevant that he was trying to give the very impression that they formed. it's a bit different from then conjuring up the claim that he had wmds out of nowhere based on their own agenda.

but i guess you are ultimately right, even i don't support the bush admin's emphasis on there being stockpiles of wmd's nor their hinting at his links with al qaeda.. i just think he was a well established and known threat that was going to have to be dealt with eventually one way or another. so my top priority isn't the integrity of the bush admin's propaganda campaign. the fact that saddam was taken out of power outweighs the bush admin's shadiness in my mind.

you don't think the world 'probably' being better off is a good reason to justify a war? i mean you can argue that point but its strange that you brush it off as if it doesn't matter. yea things are a cluster **** now... thing is they haven't not been a cluster **** in a pretty long time. if you want to blame sectarian war on the lack of a dictator to oppress them all then feel free. i think that issue was there long before either of the gulf wars.


two points.

1) yea he most likely wouldn't have used them. north korea most likely won't use them. but the situation between north korea and south korea and the situation between iran and iraq (if they were both nuclear) would be far more likely to produce an all out nuclear war than the united states or china or any other major world power having nukes will. because although they are cynical and selfish, they are not quite as desperate. imo north korea is probably the scariest situation in the world right now. if we could have some how prevented them from getting a nuke then i would say we should have done it. because why take the chance with these types of maniacal dictatorships having nukes?

2) the us has geopolitical interests just like any other country. giving saddam more leverage hurts the geopolitical interests of the US and its allies in the region. not to mention it makes his dictatorship seemingly permanent and gives more power to and oppressive, genocidal dictatorship.

Originally posted by red g jacks
sure. but i do think it is relevant that he was trying to give the very impression that they formed. it's a bit different from then conjuring up the claim that he had wmds out of nowhere based on their own agenda.

but i guess you are ultimately right, even i don't support the bush admin's emphasis on there being stockpiles of wmd's nor their hinting at his links with al qaeda.. i just think he was a well established and known threat that was going to have to be dealt with eventually one way or another. so my top priority isn't the integrity of the bush admin's propaganda campaign. the fact that saddam was taken out of power outweighs the bush admin's shadiness in my mind.

you don't think the world 'probably' being better off is a good reason to justify a war? i mean you can argue that point but its strange that you brush it off as if it doesn't matter. yea things are a cluster **** now... thing is they haven't not been a cluster **** in a pretty long time. if you want to blame sectarian war on the lack of a dictator to oppress them all then feel free. i think that issue was there long before either of the gulf wars.


two points.

1) yea he most likely wouldn't have used them. north korea most likely won't use them. but the situation between north korea and south korea and the situation between iran and iraq (if they were both nuclear) would be far more likely to produce an all out nuclear war than the united states or china or any other major world power having nukes will. because although they are cynical and selfish, they are not quite as desperate. imo north korea is probably the scariest situation in the world right now. if we could have some how prevented them from getting a nuke then i would say we should have done it. because why take the chance with these types of maniacal dictatorships having nukes?

2) the us has geopolitical interests just like any other country. giving saddam more leverage hurts the geopolitical interests of the US and its allies in the region. not to mention it makes his dictatorship seemingly permanent and gives more power to and oppressive, genocidal dictatorship.


Glad you agree on the BS that the war was sold on. Going to have to agree to disagree on "it was better in the end regardless of the truth" viewpoint. That is reckless thinking, imo.

I don't buy into the "world is probably better" mindset. I have no idea if it's better compared to something else (ie not invading Iraq) since I can't see alternate realities. I go with 'what I see now' and what I see now, it's a ****ing mess due to the US invading Iraq and taking out Saddam and his two whacky sons who were seemingly enemies with Al Qaeda and any religious zealot types.

Probably going to have to agree to disagree again as I'm all but done going in circles. But a couple points myself

-Saddam wasn't/isn't the only dictator in the world and Iraq in it's current state is a threat to the US and its allies.

-The US supported Saddam's rise to power cos of the Iranian revolution/the rise of the ayatollahs; he was a lunatic back then as well

i was going to leave it at that but one last thing i would say is that while i agree the sectarian war in iraq is a result of the intervention there in the more immediate sense, the rivalries which fuel them go back way further than that. in fact it was looked at as a predictable outcome by many even while the intervention was still only being considered. so there is the implication in this that in order for iraq to exist without this sort of 'crisis' there would have to be a permanent dictatorship like the one saddam had which was maintained by terror and brutality.

if this is the case then basically it seems like the question would come down to whether or not such a permanent dictatorship is possible and if so how it would be maintained. indications from the rest of the middle east (syria, libya, etc) currently give us a glimpse of how things go down when there is an insurrection from the people against such a dictatorship.

so with this in mind it seems like there are two basic paths iraq could have gone down, with or without the war. 1) saddam could have become a sort of perpetual despot and international nuisance similar to what we see with north korea today. 2) a long and bloody revolution which, if successful, almost certainly leads to the same type of sectarian violence which iraq is experiencing today. i am open to any other alternatives to these scenarios.

Saddam was the one keeping the extremists in check in Iraq.

People blame him for the war for no reason.

He didn't have WMDs. The US invaded Iraq not for those but for financial/resource reasons.
US knew the sensitivity of the situation under Saddam's rule and took advantage of that. They made Saddam the fall guy/scapegoat.

The US, being the capitalist leech that it is, wanted to take control of oil and gas resources, like they always do when they colonize/invade other territories.

Unbeknownst to them, the repercussions would be far worse than they expected.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Saddam was the one keeping the extremists in check in Iraq. what a lovely man. sounds like a winner.

well, they didn't want him monopolizing said resources through his military. that was the major concern with the first gulf war. that he could basically take over a good portion of the oil hosting regions. they always want to shore up access for US companies, of course.

he didn't have WMDs at the time cause he needed to get out from under the sanctions. but WMDs were so central to his foreign policy that even when he was complying with the sanctions, he had to make it look like he still had secret stashes of WMDs to keep his enemies at bay.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/isis-luring-u-s-women-with-cash-for-babies-promises/

IS are recruiting Western women to cook and make babies for them.

On a side note, IS are also recruiting children, as evidenced by the video in the site above.


WARNING:
Not for the faint of heart:
http://theync.com/zooster/lets-take-a-look-as-a-sweet-muslim-kindergarten16.htm

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Saddam was the one keeping the extremists in check in Iraq.

People blame him for the war for no reason.

He didn't have WMDs. The US invaded Iraq not for those but for financial/resource reasons.
US knew the sensitivity of the situation under Saddam's rule and took advantage of that. They made Saddam the fall guy/scapegoat.

The US, being the capitalist leech that it is, wanted to take control of oil and gas resources, like they always do when they colonize/invade other territories.

Unbeknownst to them, the repercussions would be far worse than they expected.
As I said in another thread, secular dictators in the Middle East aren't the solution to Muslim extremists. In most cases their brutal repression of their people makes a potent recruitment aid for nascent groups like ISIS. Cruel groups like ISIS arise from cruel circumstances.

I saw on CNN a report that Iraqis/Kurds are threatening to surrender to ISIS if US doesn't send ground troops.

LOL bet they wish they weren't bytching about "American imperialism" and "world policing" now

Do you have a source for this?

Not doubting, just want to see it for myself.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/12/world/meast/isis-threat/index.html

Sounds too manly to be true.

it's all about oil my friend, always do

http://news.yahoo.com/netherlands-says-ok-biker-gangs-fight-islamic-state-155136559.html


Sad to see that average citizens are now taking it up upon themselves to fight off this plague of evil.

Instead of the world governments working together to destroy this evil force, all they do is add more evils to this world with their lust for greed and deception.

Ironic how the people who wanted the US troops out of Iraq now wants them back on the ground.

Have you guys seen the picture of that young Syrian Christian woman who was gangraped and had her eyes gouged out and a huge crucifix jammed into her mouth?

And that other picture of a naked woman being held down and slit by throat while her blood is being drained in a bowl?


These people were treated like animals being butchered.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Have you guys seen the picture of that young Syrian Christian woman who was gangraped and had her eyes gouged out and a huge crucifix jammed into her mouth?

And that other picture of a naked woman being held down and slit by throat while her blood is being drained in a bowl?


These people were treated like animals being butchered.

No, I haven't. I would say post it here since it is topical and a news discussion but I still think it would break the rules. PM me that photo and associated news article, pretty please.



But, yes, gettin' real tired of this violence shit...


Wish humans would grow up.

Islamic State 'training pilots to fly fighter jets'

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29660029

I actually hope this is true. It would be a great opportunity to actually use F-22s in an air-to-air combat role for the first time.

Don't they have like 3 jets?

Originally posted by Mindset
Don't they have like 3 jets?

No they took over a Syrian Air Base, try to read the news, its in English.

Fox News says "Three Jets" of the MiG-21 and MiG-23 flavor: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/10/17/ex-iraqi-pilots-training-isis-fighters-to-fly-captured-planes-in-syria-rights/

So ISIS could in theory take on the Dominican Republic's air-force and win.

Originally posted by Robtard
Fox News says "Three Jets" of the MiG-21 and MiG-23 flavor: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/10/17/ex-iraqi-pilots-training-isis-fighters-to-fly-captured-planes-in-syria-rights/

So ISIS could in theory take on the Dominican Republic's air-force and win.

Fox news?

Now they are credible to you?

HAHHAHA

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Fox news?

Now they are credible to you?

HAHHAHA

When repeating what all the other news outlets are saying, sure.

If you have some info on ISIS having more jets, please do post it.

What with the Liberal Downplayism?

First it was ISIS is the JV League.

Now they have taken over basically the entire country and part of Syria.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
What with the Liberal Downplayism?

First it was ISIS is the JV League.

Now they have taken over basically the entire country and part of Syria.

Huh?

But those jets, do you have a credible source that says they have more than three? Cos iirc, the Syrians destroyed most of their inventory when it was clear ISIS was going to take the airbase.