Best Posts in Thread: Isis could have nuclear weapon within one year

lol because you just go around back of the local camel shop to pick up a nuke. I believe there is only one country in the world with a nuke that would even consider selling at this point...but Pakistan are Shiite Muslims and ISIS holds them in no higher regards than they do a bible thumping Christian American. And even if they did find one.....do they want their new found caliphate to be turned to glass? Not that that nuclear retaliation would come from the US, the current US president doesn't have the balls to go forward with an order like that, he still thinks global warming is the biggest threat to the US. I'm not so sure that Putin would have such reservations. Russia might be the only hope in dealing with this ISIS problem. I'm rootin' for Putin.

 

Russia is already dropping bombs in Syria.


Of course they are dealing with the western front to help out their buddy Assad, and I don't really blame them. Assad might be a prick and brutal dictator but look at what has happened to Iraq since we took out Saddam. Sometimes those types of leaders are needed to prevent something worse from taking grasp. Maybe Russia has the right idea here. Beat ISIS down and assist Assad until he can get a firm grasp over his country again.....since we know that the alternative to Assad is much much worse. "The devil you know" and all.

France launches fresh strikes on Isis as Pentagon chief calls for global coalition | World news | The Guardian
The French have the 7th most capable air force in the world (behind, US, Russia, China, India, Japan and South Korea). I think they can handle dropping a few bombs. Their military as a whole is ranked as the 6th most powerful. I don't think they have a problem with military might....their political will might be what is lacking. Perhaps after these attacks that will change, perhaps not.

Obama doesn't have the political will power/balls to send in ground troops, even with NATO partners supporting the fight. Obama goes to Walter Reed and sees injured troops and has to excuse himself to the CR as he turns yellow.

He doesn't seem to realize that, while sad, serving in the military has it's dangers and casualties are a part of conflict. We (veterans) signed that service contract knowing d*mn well that getting hurt or killed is a possibility. I'm sure there are a few in the military that would disagree with me but those types will serve long enough to collect their benefits and then get out, they won't be in long enough to have much say in things.

Fighting groups like ISIS why many people signed up in the first place and it is currently almost entirely what the military's training is focused on combating. ISIS is an even easier target because they are currently fighting out in the open as if they were a legitimate military. These are targets that the US Army can eliminate very quickly with their superior ground equipment-weapons. ISIS would stand no chance fighting a ground war with the US and NATO partners. Their main fighting force would be reduced to rubble in less than a month with very minimal US casualties.

Ok Obama:

1. Send CIA and JSOC forces in to Takrit, Falluja and Syrian border to assess the appropriate first strike invasion targets and coordinate with Iraqi and Kurdish military leaders. Also start training Syrian forces/people willing to fight against ISIS.
2. Send in somewhere around 100k US ground toops. Maybe more, maybe less depending on the intelligence coming from the CIA/JSOC teams. Start the attacks in Takrit and just North West of Falluja. (I'm sure some NATO, Iraqi and Kurdish troops would be more than willing to tag along as they did in the 2003 Iraq War) Do not give a warning, do not declare war, do not tell Assad or Russia before you do this. Needs to be a surprise attack.
3. Destroy infrastructure along the Iraq-Syria border with heavy bombing from Air Force to destroy their supply chains.
4. After supply routes on the border are destroyed start on the infrastructure/supply chains in Syria.
5. Have US/Coalition invasion troops work their way from Takrit and Falluja to the Syria borders destroying all ISIS fighters and their inferior tanks/equipment. (Iraqi forces should be able easily to take care of the ISIS stragglers in the western Anbar province with Takrit and Falluja areas being taken off plate.)
   
6. Continue to heavily bomb ISIS weapon caches and strongholds in Syria, which should have been identified by your CIA/JSOC teams. (At this point Russia and Assad will probably have figured out what is happening and will have started to freak out a bit. Assure them you want stability in the Region and Assad should provide that stability after ISIS falls. Hopefully you haven't already burned that bridge and they will believe you. Perhaps you could throw them some equipment to support them fighting ISIS from the western side of Syria. Perhaps the Turkish military would be able to assist with an invasion from the north with a bit of support as well.)
7. ISIS will quickly be forced to resort to guerrilla warfare.
8. Once that happens pull out all main invasion troops, leaving CIA/JSOC troops to assist Iraqi, Kurdish and Syrian troops.
9. Continue Air Force and unmanned drone attacks on targets identified by CIA/JSOC personnel until Assad, Iraq and Kurdish forces have full control over their respective areas.

There will be very few US/coalition deaths in such an invasion outlined above. The problem comes with what happens after their main fighting forces are destroyed. The White House would have to suck it up and work with Russia to allow Assad to regain control of Syria so that we don't have to do that nation building stuff again. The White House will never go along with that though (if I remember correctly, we played a hand in him losing his some of his grasp on the country during the "Arab Spring" nonsense). Of course that is the real dilemma in Washington. I'm sure that the top brass in the military have already came up with a much better plan than I just laid out to deal with ISIS. It's easy to kill people and defeat standing militaries, it's a lot harder to kill an idea. It's not impossible to kill an idea, the West just doesn't have it in them to go to those levels of human rights violations.....and that is exactly why they need Assad and other brutal regimes in that region. Someone has to do the dirty work and the West just doesn't have the ability to do so.

 

The West can't even bring themselves to call them Muslims when they are, in fact, the very definition of it. If modern Muslims and Christians took their holy books as literally as ISIS did without cherry picking the verses they liked they would be the exact same as ISIS (let's not forget that the god of the bible has no problem with the enslavement, crucifixion and beheading of people either....luckily we have moved past those times and consider that part of "god's will" unacceptable.). This is why ISIS thinks Shiite Muslims deserve death just as much as Christians do. Cherry picking their god's words is just as bad, if not worse, than not believing at all in their god and prophet. I believe ISIS has bitten off more than they can chew. If they wanted to continue to exist they should have just stuck with the killing of Westerners....and they most certainly should have left Russia and other Muslims out of it. At this point only extreme nut-jobs are supporting them.