|
galdur
|
 |
June 15, 2015, 11:20:25 PM |
|
Why ISIS winning in Iraq? Can someone explain? Iraqi's army was armed and trained by America. So what is the problem? I can understand why ISIS is winning in Syria such that country ruined in civil war. But why Iraq is losing? What is is about ISIS?
they will lose to the world eventually. It is only a matter of time. I like your optimism. But real question is how many innocent poeple have to die before that happens? Millions? If this world campaign is going to be led by the same nutcases that created the mess in the first place one thing is for absolutely 100% sure: We´ll end up with an even worse mess. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
bryant.coleman
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 3654
Merit: 1217
|
|
June 16, 2015, 02:14:49 AM |
|
If this world campaign is going to be led by the same nutcases that created the mess in the first place one thing is for absolutely 100% sure: We´ll end up with an even worse mess.
That's true. If the Americans launch an all out attack against the ISIS, it will be viewed in the Muslim world as an American war against Islam, and the radical Islamists all over the world would travel to Iraq and Syria, to fight against the American troops. The fight will lag on for months, or even years, with no one really winning. |
|
|
|
|
|
CryptoTrout
|
|
June 16, 2015, 02:51:31 AM |
|
They are trapped in the desert and forced to hide from airstrikes all day. Are they really winning?
|
|
|
|
|
bryant.coleman
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3654
Merit: 1217
|
|
June 16, 2015, 03:28:11 AM |
|
They are trapped in the desert and forced to hide from airstrikes all day. Are they really winning? Don't make me laugh. The American airstrikes are a joke. They are not creating any problems at all for the ISIS. If the airstrikes had any effect at all, then how the ISIS was able to conquer new territory? (Palmyra, Ramadi.etc). I have a feeling that the air-strikes are a clever strategy by the Americans to create a smoke screen, in order to liquidate Assad. |
|
|
|
|
|
cryptocoiner (OP)
|
|
June 16, 2015, 03:43:24 AM |
|
They are trapped in the desert and forced to hide from airstrikes all day. Are they really winning?
There is no air strikes powerful enoght to stop ISIS actually. Theese airstrikes is just an image on an american TV. They maybe hitting one or two targets per week. It's not a problem for ISIS. They keep advancing. USA just want them to destroy Assad. That's it. |
|
|
|
|
mikaljan
|
|
June 16, 2015, 04:34:02 PM |
|
Why ISIS winning in Iraq? Can someone explain? Iraqi's army was armed and trained by America. So what is the problem? I can understand why ISIS is winning in Syria such that country ruined in civil war. But why Iraq is losing? What is is about ISIS?
Even so, taking Ramadi and holding it are two different things. Evidence from previous battles suggests that ISIS doesn't do defense as well as offense, and it is still vastly outnumbered by Iraqi forces. But the longer ISIS fighters are entrenched anywhere, the more difficult they are to expel, and the Iraqi Security Forces clearly aren't capable of the task alone. |
|
|
|
bryant.coleman
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3654
Merit: 1217
|
|
June 16, 2015, 05:37:11 PM |
|
Even so, taking Ramadi and holding it are two different things. Evidence from previous battles suggests that ISIS doesn't do defense as well as offense, and it is still vastly outnumbered by Iraqi forces. But the longer ISIS fighters are entrenched anywhere, the more difficult they are to expel, and the Iraqi Security Forces clearly aren't capable of the task alone.
The ISIS is having only around 50,000 to 100,000 active fighters, which is just about a tenth of the combined strength of the Iraqi Army, Shiite militias and the Peshmerga. Most of these fighters are used for offensive operations, with very few available for holding the territory. When their opponents launch offensives against them, the ISIS conducts tactical withdrawals, in order to minimize the casualties. But as soon as the offensive operations cease, the terrorists move back to reclaim the lost areas. |
|
|
|
|
|
spirit of btc
|
|
June 16, 2015, 06:05:48 PM |
|
The short answer is they are winning because we didn't Nuke them out when we could have.
|
|
|
|
|
Spendulus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
|
|
June 17, 2015, 03:51:27 PM |
|
Why ISIS winning in Iraq? Can someone explain? Iraqi's army was armed and trained by America. So what is the problem? I can understand why ISIS is winning in Syria such that country ruined in civil war. But why Iraq is losing? What is is about ISIS?
they will lose to the world eventually. It is only a matter of time. I like your optimism. But real question is how many innocent poeple have to die before that happens? Millions? If this world campaign is going to be led by the same nutcases that created the mess in the first place one thing is for absolutely 100% sure: We´ll end up with an even worse mess. There is no need for this campaign to be led by the same nutcases. Why will you not allow other nutcases an equal chance to fuck things up? |
|
|
|
|
bryant.coleman
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3654
Merit: 1217
|
|
June 17, 2015, 05:01:36 PM |
|
There is no need for this campaign to be led by the same nutcases.
Why will you not allow other nutcases an equal chance to fuck things up?
The only viable option is to launch a ground operation under the command of the United Nations, in Syria and Iraq against the ISIS. Countries such as Russia, the United States, China, India and Germany should provide soldiers for such an operation. The ISIS should be eradicated once and for all. And a sizable contingent of the UN peacekeepers should be maintained in both Iraq and Syria, to make sure that the remnants of the ISIS will never surface again. |
|
|
|
|
Spendulus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
|
|
June 17, 2015, 07:16:18 PM |
|
There is no need for this campaign to be led by the same nutcases.
Why will you not allow other nutcases an equal chance to fuck things up?
The only viable option is to launch a ground operation under the command of the United Nations, in Syria and Iraq against the ISIS. Countries such as Russia, the United States, China, India and Germany should provide soldiers for such an operation. The ISIS should be eradicated once and for all. And a sizable contingent of the UN peacekeepers should be maintained in both Iraq and Syria, to make sure that the remnants of the ISIS will never surface again. There's really nothing wrong with stationing ground troops in areas that have some basic instability and more of such expected in the future. The UN "peacekeepers" have had some pretty sordid track records of course, and there are cases where they had guns. But no bullets. |
|
|
|
|
bryant.coleman
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3654
Merit: 1217
|
|
June 18, 2015, 03:30:16 AM |
|
The UN "peacekeepers" have had some pretty sordid track records of course, and there are cases where they had guns. But no bullets.
Anything will be better than the current ISIS regime in vast areas of Iraq and Syria. Recently, there have been a lot of scandals involving the UN peacekeepers (esp. in Congo and Haiti), but still they will do a better job than the ISIS and the Iraqi army. But patrolling such a huge area will require tens of thousands of soldiers. |
|
|
|
|
|
