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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 Robtardbasically 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.
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 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.