• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Where do you stand: ISIL action

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

What action do you support in Iraq and Syria?

  • Boots on the ground in both

  • Boots on the ground Iraq only

  • Boots on the ground Syria only

  • Air support/strikes in both

  • Air support/strikes Iraq only

  • Air support/strikes Syria only

  • Support only where the locals ask for it (ground and air)

  • Support locals only through air

  • Stay out

  • Other


Results are only viewable after voting.
The economy needs a push in the right direction in order to bring in a new wave of prosperity for the American people. So I am supporting full involvement by the USA military. Something in the range of 2mil soldiers. The USA has yet to show a strong stance on terrorism, until that Islamic boy no longer picks up his father's gun, there is no victory. Make THEM fear taking up arms against America and the might of the free world.

Boots on the ground, total annihilation of ISIL, freedom and peace for all.
 
I put other because it's a very fluid situation with lots of factors that not everyone will agree upon.

Right now I'm against further armed forced on the ground because if that goes sideways which is almost a given in the M.E. these days President Obama will have just given his political opponents a baseball bat to bludgeon him which like a bad re-enactment of this famous movie scene.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy3MtznDeqg&t=1m38s
or this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isVwqPyxLM8
For little or no gain at all.

I'm cynical enough to believe that commentators who are cheering on a deployment of ground troops are twice as eager to pull the knives out if it goes bad (again almost a given in the M.E.)
So another scene comes to mind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FvgP5hO99o
The only thing that would make that scene more appropriate to is if some wag superimposed the faces fox news commentators on the people with knives.


Never mind the fact that the roots of this situation definitely occurred more than 6 years ago and it's easily arguable at least decades ago.

Right now I believe that the Kurdish forces are able to defeat IS with air support that destroys the artillery and armored transport that IS employs.

The difficult part of the situation is the ability of IS to hide in cities and their ability to sell oil on the blackmarket that undercuts the official price.

This allows them to do things like repair the utilities of cities they occupy to a state that is usually better than what had been the norm before they arrived.

There was a person who probably would have been willing and able to keep an organization like IS out of Iraq.... but oh well, he was no longer convenient to keep around.

As for Syria Assad is supposedly now worried about IS who he tolerated because they were fighting the rebels who wanted to overthrow Assad. The brutality of IS has reportedly given Assad second thoughts.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ign-against-militant-strongholds-9679480.html
As a result he may be willing to deal with the west and may be willing to look the other way and not complain if there are U.S. air strikes upon IS within Syrian borders

As for people traveling to the area from the west. Put flags on people's passports who travel to the area and when they return have people who actually know how to interrogate possible terrorists (like Israeli trained security experts) to see if they are a threat.

If we do invade then don't keep the costs off the books (as was done previously) it is necessary implement a War tax on gasoline to remind people one of the major reasons why the west is involved in the area as well as keeping the debt that certain politicians are oh so worried about from really ballooning. If politicians are unwilling to pay for the war after running the ones started in the past decade on the national credit card then they should sit down and shut the fuck up about the debt.

TLDR:
Keep the current situation Air Strikes in support of groups fighting IS. Don't escalate just because you want to look tough, do it because previous steps haven't been fruitful.
The West still has the option of arming certain groups like the Kurds who don't seem likely to turn into religious fundies before another invasion.
Because there is already a modern day example of unintended consequences in the M.E. and IS and the current worries are those consequences.

....
 
Last edited:
Honestly I don't think it's even possible to stop ISIL. The idea of a caliphate is just too appealing to Muslims. They want to create one too much. We really played right into al-qaeda's hands. Their primary goal was always to establish a caliphate - it was never about the US. The US was just someone they could goad into a fight in order to galvanize cohesion on the arab world.
 
Honestly I don't think it's even possible to stop ISIL. The idea of a caliphate is just too appealing to Muslims. They want to create one too much. We really played right into al-qaeda's hands. Their primary goal was always to establish a caliphate - it was never about the US. The US was just someone they could goad into a fight in order to galvanize cohesion on the arab world.

We had to destabilize the Middle East first. Bush with Iraq, Obama with Egypt, Libya, and Syria.

When their governments fall, Islam rises.
 
We supported a Muslim Brotherhood takeover. Just because the military defied us doesn't erase the side we chose.
Did Obama actually side with the Muslim Brotherhood, or simply pretend to be on their side after they won power? Either way it obviously backfired on us, but there's an argument to be made for being on the side of those in power.
 
Obama pressured Mubarak to step down. If he didn't know who would likely replace him he shouldn't have interfered. Amateur blunder, or not?

Obama pressured the military to back off when Morsi moved to make himself dictator for life and the military acted to prevent it.

Fern
 
Obama pressured Mubarak to step down. If he didn't know who would likely replace him he shouldn't have interfered. Amateur blunder, or not?

Obama pressured the military to back off when Morsi moved to make himself dictator for life and the military acted to prevent it.

Fern
Those are good points I'd forgotten. Honestly I thought Mubarak being tumbled had caught Obama sleeping.
 
Most important thing if engaging in acts of war is to call it War. The perversion through words to make the truth more palpable or in some cases hide the truth about what we are actually doing is the most dangerous thing going on here.

No boots on the ground does not mean it's not War. "Milatary Advisors" on the ground is in effect the same as putting boots on the ground. No boots on the ground was demanded by people to keep us clear of another mess in Iraq,... so here we are with another mess in Iraq but it's being sold around the "no boots on the ground" when there is "sneakers/running shoes/dress shoes on the ground with boots in the backpack or in a drop location" type of continued language corruption by pointing to differences without distinctions that is one of many in a grab bag of shit so characteristic of Obama and his advisers. Cleverly lying and deceiving and manipulating information to achieve political wins is not going to end well here for many innocent people, it never has when acts of war are being waged and lives are put on the scales.

So lets have war and call it anything but. That is fucking dangerous.
 
Last edited:
Most important thing if engaging in acts of war is to call it War. The perversion through words to make the truth more palpable or in some cases hide the truth about what we are actually doing is the most dangerous thing going on here.

No boots on the ground does not mean it's not War. "Milatary Advisors" on the ground is in effect the same as putting boots on the ground. No boots on the ground was demanded by people to keep us clear of another mess in Iraq,... so here we are with another mess in Iraq but it's being sold around the "no boots on the ground" type of continued language corruption that is so characteristic of Obama and his advisers.

So lets have war and call it anything but. That is fucking dangerous.

Agreed.

We do have 'boots on the ground'. I expect more than "advisors" too. I'm not a military person but seems to me if we're going to carry out air strikes somebody (US military personnel) must identify/locate the targets.

Fern
 
Right now I'm against further armed forced on the ground because if that goes sideways which is almost a given in the M.E. these days President Obama will have just given his political opponents a baseball bat to bludgeon him which like a bad re-enactment of this famous movie scene.

Conservative talk operates by spinning that whatever Obama did, it was the wrong thing. You can't govern trying to avoid such manufactured criticism because there's no avoiding it.
 
Most important thing if engaging in acts of war is to call it War. The perversion through words to make the truth more palpable or in some cases hide the truth about what we are actually doing is the most dangerous thing going on here.

No boots on the ground does not mean it's not War. "Milatary Advisors" on the ground is in effect the same as putting boots on the ground. No boots on the ground was demanded by people to keep us clear of another mess in Iraq,... so here we are with another mess in Iraq but it's being sold around the "no boots on the ground" when there is "sneakers/running shoes/dress shoes on the ground with boots in the backpack or in a drop location" type of continued language corruption by pointing to differences without distinctions that is one of many in a grab bag of shit so characteristic of Obama and his advisers. Cleverly lying and deceiving and manipulating information to achieve political wins is not going to end well here for many innocent people, it never has when acts of war are being waged and lives are put on the scales.

So lets have war and call it anything but. That is fucking dangerous.
Agreed. Politicians try to have it both ways, authorizing "force" so they can claim support if it goes well and yet claim they were only intending a bluff if it goes tits up. If we're to drop bombs and kill people, we need to be honest enough to say the freakin' word.
 
It's kind of a no brainer if a President, a populace, is ready and willing to bomb targets with little to no chance of repercussion.

Little responsibility.
No boots on the ground.

etc.

-John
 
Last edited:
The tragedy will be in the innocent lives lost.

But that's their problem, more than ours.

-John
 
Last edited:
The tragedy will be in the innocent lives lost.

But that's their problem, more than ours.

-John

Yes there is no blowback to America when it kills thousands of innocent Muslims as collateral damage while gunning for the bad guys.... none whatsoever. There is no upper limit to the number of innocents America can slaughter in the name of freedom and democrazy. We just need to be killing SOMEBODY! God forbid that we go a single year without dropping million dollar bombs on 3rd worlders who can't fight back.
 
Policy of containment, surround them and starve them. Military options restricted to air support for local allied ground forces, special forces and arming said local allied ground forces.
 
We could use the same method that Israel uses... No Quarter.

Would never happen, even though that's the only way you can fight a war like this. ISIS is waging total war. The only way they can be defeated is by giving like for like. I get no delight in stating this, btw. My dad taught me that lesson by what little he told me of how the Japanese fought in WW2 and what had to be done to drive them back. 🙁 I think the best option is to support local troops with airstrikes. Local troops may have the wherewithal to do the needful to drive them out.

It is well that war is so terrible - lest we should grow too fond of it.
- Robert E Lee, on viewing the carnage of the 12/11-15/1862 battle of Fredericksburg, VA
 
Stay out - bad call Barry. Bad call.

Also, NOW the regional Arab countries want to support the US and actually do something? We are yet again taking up the role of policing someone else's mess,.. and then people (from the very same fucking area) decide to do something.

Fuck them. Let them be and let them go through whatever they need to go through.

My heart certainly bleeds,... but, when an area has had so much turmoil, death and fanaticism, it is not right for the US to step in a further sacrifice our soldiers, because middle eastern leadership is lacking.

We are being used, plane plain and simple.
 
Last edited:
I certainly wouldn't mind a return to ARCLIGHTS.

"ISIS has captured a major airport with eleven airliners!"

"Ten minutes from now that is going to be a field of craters. Problem solved."

I am against using the neutron bomb. I dislike the idea of leaving their buildings standing.
Yeah, maybe was overdoing it on that one.

ARC LIGHTS would really have a lot of em shitting in their pants.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top