DragonSworne
Banned
Didn't people make a lot of money from Iraq war?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Obama: No ground troops against Islamic State
- Thread starter Malyse
- Start date
- Status
Didn't people make a lot of money from Iraq war?
Netherscourge
Banned
Ground troops would just give ISIS clear targets to shoot at. In fact, it would rally them for a chance to kill a US soldier.
ISIS doesn't just march around together in identifiable groups and formations looking for some epic battle on a specific battlefield. The videos of them riding around in modified pick-up truck parades is just for propaganda videos.
They stay well out of sight and scattered around in outlying villages and towns. They hide with civilians and if the bombs start dropping, they go underground and make the civilians take the shrapnel so they can use it to make new propaganda videos.
You need to fight ISIS covertly, through infiltration and espionage and supported with strategic airstrikes on targets gathered through subterfuge intelligence operations.
ISIS doesn't just march around together in identifiable groups and formations looking for some epic battle on a specific battlefield. The videos of them riding around in modified pick-up truck parades is just for propaganda videos.
They stay well out of sight and scattered around in outlying villages and towns. They hide with civilians and if the bombs start dropping, they go underground and make the civilians take the shrapnel so they can use it to make new propaganda videos.
You need to fight ISIS covertly, through infiltration and espionage and supported with strategic airstrikes on targets gathered through subterfuge intelligence operations.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Yup.
Middle east is fucked because two people with a ruler decided to draw random borders. You are never going to be able to have a "quick" ground war.
Iraq's lesson is not learnt still to a lot of people it seems.
Netherscourge
Banned
Halliburton did.
Yes, I understand that, but as there wealth diminishes, there negative influence will decrease as well.
They have a lot of expenses they have to pay for.. Especially since oil and gas is a "birth right" for there populace aka they dont make money off it within there country, not to mention that they are the only country that burns crude oil as a necessity to be able to provide electricity and drinking water for its population.
There is a reason why there are spending a lot $$ now researching into solar power and other solutions (dust on panels is a major deterrent) as they know that there current model will not be sustainable within the next decade or two, possibly less if the price of oil remains where it is or drops lower.
gutter_trash
Banned
and listening to Jeb! and Trump this morning, they sure did not learn from 2003.
the language Jeb is using regarding Putin pretty much paints that it's either our way or the highway routine
the sad truth is that the US needs Russia, China and *gasp* Iran to stamp out ISIS.
Everyone talks about Iran growing in strength but the last time they got stronger was when Saddam Hussein was removed and a Shiite regime was installed in Iraq who are now buddy buddy with Iran
another Bush in the White House would just continue another Bush cluster fuck
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Wow so many people in this thread want to go to war.
If you want to go to war so bad I'm happy to tell you that the US military is a volunteer one!
Seriously, if you guys think that the solution is to "go in, kill ISIS, get out" I have a little fucking war to tell you about that happened within the last decade...
If you want to go to war so bad I'm happy to tell you that the US military is a volunteer one!
Seriously, if you guys think that the solution is to "go in, kill ISIS, get out" I have a little fucking war to tell you about that happened within the last decade...
Skellig Gra
Member
Sounds like more of the same.
strikeselect
You like me, you really really like me!
Seriously wish Bams could run for a third term. He's the only adult in the room. Can't even imagine where we'd be if Romney was president.
LegendofJoe
Member
We will put troops on the ground (and soon) but they'll be under the command of NATO joint forces. And it's the right way to handle this. America should not be expected to continue to unilaterally intervene in Middle East military conflicts. Situations like this are what NATO was built to handle, we either do it through NATO or not at all in my opinion.
It was the stupid wars that led to this situation now which makes it even worse.
mcz117chief
Member
Exactly, the problem though is that it costs money and requires effort neither of which the free world wants to commit. All they want is the dosh that is hiding in those oil fields and also arms industry is lining their pockets every second this war drags on. Because if they didn't then all they would have to do is completely obliterate the oil processing infrastructure in the regions controlled by ISIS and let them starve out (figuratively speaking).
JordanN
Banned
Robot soldiers could be an actual solution to fighting terrorists.
They could maintain a permanent presence in a region without growing tired. If technology ever gets advanced enough, they could be programmed to never hurt civilians.
mcz117chief
Member
Yeah I wouldn't put my faith in that too much. They can be stolen and re-programmed, reverse engineered, hacked, etc. etc. too many variables.
Poodlestrike
Banned
If nothing else, we should be considering putting boots on the ground in Iraq. Push ISIS out of there.
It's one thing to talk about how we need to create a new approach to issues in the Middle East, but short-term, we really do need to crush the life out of ISIS ASAP.
It's one thing to talk about how we need to create a new approach to issues in the Middle East, but short-term, we really do need to crush the life out of ISIS ASAP.
I disagree with term limits also. If someone is doing a good enough job that they can consistently be elected (especially considering that incumbents frequently lose), why should we forcibly remove them? This isn't a playground. Everyone doesn't get a turn.
diffusionx
Gold Member
What do you think should be done? We have a quasi-state that has the organizational capability to carry out attacks on overseas planes, concert halls, and football stadiums in one week. They've promised more attacks.
Iraq was probably the biggest foreign policy disaster this country has ever had. The list of mistakes, lies, and crimes that went into that could fill a library. It was a moral, humanitarian, organizational, and logistical disaster.
But I don't see how attacking ISIS is in any way comparable, I really don't. I'm not sure if putting "boots on the ground" is the right thing to do, but I also don't see what it would take for people to see exactly what ISIS is and the obvious urgency in stopping them.
torre_avenue
Banned
Term limits are mainly to avoid absolute power corrupting absolutely. Look at senators and House Reps. No term limits, and look at the corrupt shit they pull. I agree King Superallah Obama has been doing amazing these past couple years, but part of me sees it as him using his final years of political power to do some good before Republicans turn all of it over.
This sums it up well.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
8000 airstrikes isn't exactly a joke either.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Nothing is going to be done by just walking in and destroying the army of ISIS. The only way you're going to deal with the situation in Syria is become an occupation force as you try and duct tape together a government in the middle of a civil war, which is what Iraq turned into.
When was the last time US military intervention succeeded? Before you go "something has to be done" ask yourself what has happened when something was done?
Toothpicks. Basically letting ISIS fester untouched. Air strikes can only do so much.
Yeah its amazing how many people are all hoping for boots on the ground, you'd think Iraq and Afghanistan would still be fresh enough in people's minds to make them realize that's a horrible idea.
ChronotriggerJM
Member
They probably do a lot more than skeptics give them credit for. Airstrikes are great for eradicating infrastructure and resources. Yes obviously we aren't using them to target specific people, but people are drastically understating their importance.
Also, this thread, for the most part seems very anti-boots on the ground. "So many" seems like a bit of an odd statement lol
Trail Guide
Member
Incumbents won over 90% in the last election at least on a national scale.
Well, kind of. Had it not been for the "stupid wars", Saddam would have never allowed Isis to gain power.
Plenty of other groups in Syria and Iraq that can be the ground forces to fight ISIS.
Airstrikes have been pretty effective, look at Kobane.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Or Sinjar or the targeted death of Jihadi John or the leader of IS in Libya.
The UK has not even been a part of this the entire time either, not to mention countless other allies. Imagine if all of NATO gets involved fully.
What's done is done. You can't go back in time and undo the war. But US could undo the mess they left behind. But obviously this is not that important anymore as long as there are no Americans dying because of it. Better spend the money on all those bombs that do shit.
Are you dense or just ignorant? Isis might as well be taliban part 2 and just like any other terrorist cell it's absolutely pointless wage war on something that'll just keep coming back.
esmith08734
Member
So what do you all think the US should do? Wait and see or plan on advance? Genuinely curious.
How ironic.
Fix the mess they created. Pissing over the fence doesn't really do that.
Don't do anything and find a way to cut funding
The wars on earth have produced economic breakthrough for various countries, created countries, and nuclear fucking pens
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
The genie is out the bottle. This mess is not being "fixed" whatever the fuck that means. Afghanistan has been occupied for 15 years and that country is not fixed.
Afghanistan is a lot more screwed up than Iraq and even Syria.
Libya was the EU's fault, anyway. The US was forced to step in there after the involved EU militaries weren't competent enough to carry on the campaign.
And Iraq kicked us out. So I guess you're upset that the USA didn't act in the role of global dictator after GWB left?
Afghanistan is in much better shape than Iraq now, though. Also, there were no terrorist attacks organized from Afghanistan since long time.
Abinash117
Member
The hyperbole in this thread mixed with ignorance, fear, and emotion is funny and pathetic .
Coriolanus
Banned
Solely due to continued military presence. Take the troops outta there and see how fast Taliban will be back in power.
What do you think the "war on terror" is?
It's an unending war. It always was.
It's nice that you find terrorism funny.
Yeah, I don't understand this either. Yes, there will always be extremist groups. Like there are always criminals. Does humanity not try to convict the criminals just because others will appear in the future?
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Yeah, it just moved on over to Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Egypt, Pakistan. You see how this game of whack a mole works? As soon as there's no permanent occupying force in Afghanistan all bets are off there too.
Hari Seldon
Member
Definitely a stupid idea to send in troops into that mess.
Yeah exactly
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked