Islamic State/Coalition Bombing Mega Thread

User avatar
Vestly
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 713
Joined: Sun 24 Mar 2013 14:19
Contact:

Re: Iraq, send in the tanks?

Postby Vestly » Thu 19 Jun 2014 15:08

praslovan wrote:
Vestly wrote:US and Iran should intervene. It seems like the terrorists know what they are doing. I dont think Iraqis army will stop them alone. Even worse is , that they can use captured abrames and humvees in Syria for example.

:lol: Imagine that. Although I think hauling Abramses from the middle of Iraq to Syria would cause them to run out of fuel/brake down far from the border. Regarding humvees... why would they make a difference?

Indeed , they would run out of fuel , but crews of these abramses changed sides , same goes for technicians etc. They can find fuel and ammo in the bases , which they captured, so I dont think fuel would be a problem.

User avatar
LoneRifle
Major-General
Posts: 3569
Joined: Wed 3 Jul 2013 17:11
Location: Cackalacky
Contact:

Re: Iraq, send in the tanks?

Postby LoneRifle » Thu 19 Jun 2014 15:12

Kolovrat wrote:
LoneRifle wrote:
a country is utterly collapsing into terrorist hands when it could be stabilized with a US presence.



Oh, i've heard that before... let me conjure up... in 1965 about Vietnam? In 1991 and 2003 about Iraq? In 1999 about Yugoslavia? In 2003 about Afghanistan? Yeah, stabilization was succesful and no doubts.


We left those places before they were ready, so of course they collapsed. And Yugoslavia was collapsing long before we got there so it's a stretch to blame the USA.

Germany, South Korea, and Japan. If we could help rebuild and reform two of the nations that helped start WW2, I think America has earned the right to say our presence has a stabilizing factor, considering all 3 of those nations are among the wealthiest in the world today.

Seriously though, this is like the Fall of Saigon all over again. America deserves the blame here for leaving before Iraq was ready to stand on it's own, and now there are some pretty nasty terrorists running around the country. Shameful.

Indeed , they would run out of fuel , but crews of these abramses changed sides , same goes for technicians etc. They can find fuel and ammo in the bases , which they captured, so I dont think fuel would be a problem.


You are going to have to back that one up. The issue with ISIS is not so much one of popular support, more to do with the Iraqi defense forces being so impotent. The Abrams are being abandoned and taken as booty for sure, but to say that entire companies are outright defecting? No.
Image

User avatar
frostypooky
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4334
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 14:12
Contact:

Re: Iraq, send in the tanks?

Postby frostypooky » Thu 19 Jun 2014 15:15

"UAV usually blow up 20-30 civilians as collateral"

Need verified evidence, thats just ridiculous and disrespectful to the actual dead to sit here and make a circus out of it. I believe the actual number from investigation (and not Pakistani media BS) is 15-25%, not 2000-3000%.

The truth is that the UAV operations in Pakistan have been relatively far more surgical than the general war between Pakistan government and TTP. There have been 50,000 civilian deaths between TTP and that government, but I don't see anyone decrying them when the US's role in this broader conflict is relatively a drop in the bucket focused more on the leadership and arms trafficking.

You do realize that in one day/operation alone, ISIS mass executed almost three-quarters as many people just for being Shia/minority (1700) as America has killed since so the start of drone strikes (2400 civilian and insurgent)? Like I said, disrespectful to the dead to sit here and try to use them as a factually incorrect political argument tool on the internet for the purpose of a flawed analogy.

We then resort to "the kids" emotional argument as the paid trolls always do in CNN and YouTube comments, but then I ask you to watch that ISIS propaganda video and tell me what you think about the poor kids standing in front of the black flag with AK rifles. And this is coming from ISIS own video, not me or lonerifle or evil CNN. It is sad that children have died in the drone strikes ; it is even more depressing that there is a strong possibility that some of them were near insurgents simply because they themselves were conscripted into jihad.
Last edited by frostypooky on Thu 19 Jun 2014 15:27, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Kolovrat
Lieutenant
Posts: 1051
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013 22:03
Contact:

Re: Iraq, send in the tanks?

Postby Kolovrat » Thu 19 Jun 2014 15:17

LoneRifle wrote:
We left those places before they were ready, so of course they collapsed.



How many millions tons of napalm should be dropped on Vietnam to "make the place ready"? I assume "place is ready" means "uninhabitant" for you?

User avatar
Vestly
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 713
Joined: Sun 24 Mar 2013 14:19
Contact:

Re: Iraq, send in the tanks?

Postby Vestly » Thu 19 Jun 2014 15:22

LoneRifle wrote:words

I am not saying , that whole companies are changing sides, but I think that at least dozen crew members changed sides .I dont expect , that they will bring several tank platoons to Syria , but they are capable of transorting at least few.
Last edited by Vestly on Thu 19 Jun 2014 15:54, edited 1 time in total.

DrRansom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat 14 Jan 2012 18:22
Contact:

Re: Iraq, send in the tanks?

Postby DrRansom » Thu 19 Jun 2014 15:32

How about this for a downside of the US leaving so soon.

As part of the Surge, the US convinced the Sunni tribes that they would be better off in an Iraq than with the Al Qaeda fighters. There were two legs to that bargain, the Sunnis would be treated well in the new Iraqi order in return for their turning in the foreign and local fighters.

President Obama has, by all appearances, forgotten about Iraq since the failed negotiations in 2011. In that vacuum, Maliki has lead a corrupt and sectarian government, which has thoroughly alienated the Sunnis and Kurds. Consequently, the Sunnis did not receive their half of the 2007 Surge bargain.

Is it surprising, then, that they would welcome Sunni ISIS? Also, why would the tribes trust the US now, given that the US all but forgot about them in 2011?

In Hindsight, the President should have retained residual interest to curb the worse of Maliki's excesses and bind the Iraqi nation further together. Now the US is lamely considering whether or not to back a leader who certain elements in the US blame for causing this situation.

Really, bombing ISIS isn't so straightforward. If ISIS has partially morphed into a Sunni independence movement, it would be very awkward for the US to impose an unacceptable status quo ante through bombing. The Kurds aren't going to cede Kirkuk, nor should they. The Sunni's are going to be highly distrustful of Maliki, who quickly mobilized the Shi'ite militias. And the Shi'ite are going to dislike the Kurds for leaving and the Sunni's for accepting ISIS.

User avatar
Aubustou
Lieutenant
Posts: 1070
Joined: Sun 9 Dec 2012 20:43
Contact:

Re: Iraq, send in the tanks?

Postby Aubustou » Thu 19 Jun 2014 15:48

Germany, South Korea, and Japan. If we could help rebuild and reform two of the nations that helped start WW2, I think America has earned the right to say our presence has a stabilizing factor, considering all 3 of those nations are among the wealthiest in the world today.


Germany and Japan were already world powers before US bombs fell on them... We are not talking about some third world desert...
And Germany and Japan did many things to educate their people against war, that's why they haven't still invaded anybody. It's not because US troops are in their country.

It truly has nothing in common with what you did in Iraq. During the WW2, the USA came to liberate Europe against the Nazis aggressors, and everybody, including the Germans, saw what the Nazis did. Germans, except the hardcore SS, had less reasons to be angry at you (well there are still the carpet bombings over the cities...). Well in Japan, you were under attack and you defended yourself. It's ok. And with the weird Asian pride, you managed to take profit of it.
Now, in Iraq, you are the aggressor, you attacked a country under the account they had WMDs, without any evidence except the usual lies USA love to use for their false flag operations (Tonkin incident for example). Don't expect people to believe in you on this matter. If the US troops stay 100 years on Iraqi soil, it'll be seen as 100 years of occupation like Germany in 1940 France. Hatred all over from all the muslim countries, as usual.
Image Gloire à la Nation!

User avatar
praslovan
Major-General
Posts: 3939
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011 21:56
Location: Slav inhabited Alps
Contact:

Re: Iraq, send in the tanks?

Postby praslovan » Thu 19 Jun 2014 15:55

LoneRifle wrote:Germany, South Korea, and Japan. If we could help rebuild and reform two of the nations that helped start WW2, I think America has earned the right to say our presence has a stabilizing factor, considering all 3 of those nations are among the wealthiest in the world today.

That is why people of Okinawa totally love presence of US military. Right? All the rape and stuff... they love it.

User avatar
GBNATO
General
Posts: 5884
Joined: Sun 14 Apr 2013 12:20
Location: The Republic of Dave
Contact:

Re: Iraq, send in the tanks?

Postby GBNATO » Thu 19 Jun 2014 16:00

Just watched Guggy's link in it's entirety...

We need to get some serious fellas in country now and wipe out the dregs of humanity that continue to spread hatred and death. I don't care who just get them in there.
Image

User avatar
BTR
General
Posts: 6298
Joined: Fri 9 Dec 2011 21:16
Location: Россия
Contact:

Re: Iraq, send in the tanks?

Postby BTR » Thu 19 Jun 2014 16:01

GBNATO wrote:Just watched Guggy's link in it's entirety...

We need to get some serious fellas in country now and wipe out the dregs of humanity that continue to spread hatred and death. I don't care who just get them in there.


I didn't hear this about the Syrian resistance before, while they are virtually the same.
Image

Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aushusediuth and 10 guests