How best to deal with isis?

[Ransom]

Yer all over the links I'm providing too, donttread, blown analysis after blown analysis.

[Peter1469]

Number One, No one ever compared the Islamic State to US forces neither the jv term from our President nor sideshow from our other realism disciple was given in that context. Number Two, you're absolutely correct. Your "the problem is how to deal with them" is accurate, Peter, but it's not a new problem. How to deal with them differs here in July of 2017, one should have been addressing that problem in July of 2014........oh wait, we all did address that problem of how to deal with ISIS in 2014 didn't we, Pete?

Tell you what, this should be a real easy exercise. Let's type US intervention in Iraq into our search bar here, see what comes up.....scroll to exactly 3 years ago......oh look....here is a thread titled US Intervention in Iraq will only worsen the situation.......this should be f'n good........

ZELMO1234: Intervention to contain ISIS, would only create a mess.
GREEN ARROW: Military intervention has been proven to not work.
POLWATCH: That said, I state again that I don't think anyone over there is worth the first American soldier stubbing his toe for. If they are a threat to us...bomb them into extinction. I believe in minding our own business militarily & letting others mind theirs...what does that make me?
DONTTREAD: But if we regulated private military companies (PMCs) at the international level, nations could hire those guys for humanitarian interventions.The only problem with Maine's statement is that it would be used to perpetuate war forever. IMHO, we need to cut our losses, admit our wrongs and bring em all home
PETER1469: They don't have any staying power. Americans can't see past their noses. I am not surprised by these events. They will pass. Most Sunnis hate extremists.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/thread...t=Intervention

Colossal swings. Brutal misses.

I said the Islamic State would be short lived the day after they declared a Caliphate. I was correct.

[donttread]

Yer stating we "could" continue military action "for a bit" and weaken ISIS a "bit more" in the process.

ISIS then has been "weakened" but they're still strong after US intervention?

apparently, if the locals could of handled them to begin with the only reason for us to go in would of been.... control. If we've been at them this long and haven't weakened them we too are ineffective and should leave instead of staying for an orderly hand off.

[donttread]

Yer all over the links I'm providing too, donttread, blown analysis after blown analysis.

So we've reached that point in the discussion where you have run out of counters to my sane arguements but just can't bring yourself to shut your keyboard. Duly noted.

[Peter1469]

The days no one thought this was in the vital interests of the United States. When false red lines were being set. When ISIS was rolling over the Levant in Toyota trucks. When they raped and killed Kayla Mueller. When they indeed made alliances with the Sunni Tribal Factions, were pushing Peshmerga forces back, sending the Iraq military scurrying, and perpetrating atrocities. The days they could be compared the Syrian and Iraq militaries. Opposing extremist groups in Syria such as Hezbollah and even sometimes al-Qaeda, there was where the comparisons were being made, not with US forces. They had staying power. They transformed into a transnational terror group even surpassing al-Qaeda in threat level for many nations. And they were making that transformation long before they began to be rolled back by western intervention. In fact, the game changer for the West and intervention in my opinion was the Paris attacks, ISIS obviously an international threat long before that attack.

Late to the table, call it what you want. This Forum collectively bone fcked the ISIS threat matrix. And I mean, badly.

I get the feeling a threat matrix is something else you don't undertand. Like terms of art.

The Islamic State was no great threat to the US. It was to those nearby its territory. The threat to the use was grassroots terrorists / lone wolves who followed the call to Jihad.

[Peter1469]

I am stating we could CONTINUE our military action against ISIS for a bit to turn over the job to the countries they have invaded and weaken ISIS a bit more in the process. Without attacking Syrian government forces if we can manage that. BTW, why is ISIS still this strong with us involved like we are? Humm.
2) You almost always call for occupation. It's your "thing"
3) LO $#@!ing L. Even if we really 100% withdrew from Iraq I specifically said the "Region" which we have never fully withdrawn from as you know. Nice try though.
4) ISIS became stronger than ALQ because we invaded and occupied a nation without just cause. A recruiting speech that practiaclly writes itself. In taking such action in this region we will always create more terrorist and others we label "terrorist" than we can kill. But on the bright side for you personally it will always beget and "justify " more war.

About 4: it was our fetish for democracy that was the problem. Had we installed another dictator to replace Saddam, none of this would have happened.

[Ransom]

I said the Islamic State would be short lived the day after they declared a Caliphate. I was correct.

Even the blind squirrel finds a nut on occasion, Peter. The specific reason they were short lived was that direct military opposition was finally engaged. The military intervention you opposed from day one to about Nov 13th, 2015. It is why I'm putting the actual record onto these pages so we could see who was at the table and who wasn't. You got there Nov 14th, 2015. Welcome.

[Ransom]

apparently, if the locals could of handled them to begin with the only reason for us to go in would of been.... control. If we've been at them this long and haven't weakened them we too are ineffective and should leave instead of staying for an orderly hand off.

Go ask the town of Mosul if they've been weakened.

You've made the argument yourself they've been weakened and propose we "continue" the air campaigns that have been weakening them. Donttread, why not pick a f'n side of your mouth you'd like to wing it out of.....and then I'll dissect that bunch of hooey and mail it back to you so that you can then use the other side. This out of both sides of your mouth is a tad difficult to keep up with, it's taking an exceptional person like me to expose your deflection, you're confusing our lesser audiences.

[Ransom]

About 4: it was our fetish for democracy that was the problem. Had we installed another dictator to replace Saddam, none of this would have happened.

Wrong. It was our withdrawal in 2011 when every analysis except for those found in here were warning against a precipitous and politically motivated withdrawal from Iraq. Predicted violence began as early as summer of 2012 and Peter1469's exact response was NOPD. Not our problem Dude. Let other players handle it. No interests, excuse me, no vital interests in the outcomes in Syria even when this conflict spread into Iraq, even when this Caliphate was formed, up to the very minute Paris exposed the massive mistake the international community took ignoring this problem.

You were too late to the table, Peter, where is the shame in admitting that?

[Ransom]

So we've reached that point in the discussion where you have run out of counters to my sane arguements but just can't bring yourself to shut your keyboard. Duly noted.

And you.....got this so wrong, I'm surprised you even offer conversation anymore. Your analysis concerning the Islamic State found all through their rise, their Caliphate forming, their threat to the international community that you so famously now termed 'the boogieman.'

Blamed on the US, this organizations formed in Syria. Under the influence of Syrian leadership, Turkey's leadership, and Hamas. They battled with al-Qaeda, Shia militia's baked by Iran, and even Hezbollah. Russia and Iran knee deep, Obama sitting on the sidelines with the other realism disciples and isolationists setting false red lines and trying to sound mean and nasty. There are so many influences and reasons behind the Islamic State, Saudi money and recruitment, etc. But it's all blamed on the US donttread who demands we just pack up and leave. Now.......that wasn't what happened and in fact, donttread is today supporting continued military engagement against ISIS because he's sees that it works.

You blew it, donttread. Your analyses.....like everyone else's...like mine.....are there in the record that I've linked to. If you're proud of those then so be it, I wouldn't be. You just blew the call. Missed it. Whiffed. And by a lot.