How do we defeat ISIS without U.S. Ground Troops?

[Mr.Bitty]

The only people able to stand against ISIS right now are the Kurds, and they are only succeeding because of U.S. Airstrikes. But the Kurds only defend their own territory. It is unlikely they will go further south to fight ISIS. Most of the rest of the Iraqi Army is turning and fleeing at the first sight of ISIS.

My question is: If airstrikes can only do so much against ISIS, how can we defeat ISIS in Iraq without U.S. Ground Troops if most of the Iraqi Army does not want to fight?

[WhatTheGox]

We used ground troops already vs al qaeda it doesnt solve the problem.

[cryptodevil]

The question posed in the topic title is, "How do we defeat ISIS without U.S. Ground Troops?".

Do you want to know the *real* simple answer to that?
.
.
.
.
.
You're not going to like it.
.
.
.
.
.
It requires no bullets, bombs or broken bodies.
.
.
.
.
.
Still want to know?
.
.
.
.
.
Ready?
.
.
.
.
.
The answer to the question, "How do we defeat ISIS without U.S. Ground Troops?" is,
.
.
.
.
.
With intellectual honesty.

[Snail2]

The question posed in the topic title is, "How do we defeat ISIS without U.S. Ground Troops?".

Do you want to know the *real* simple answer to that?
.
You're not going to like it.
.
It requires no bullets, bombs or broken bodies.
.
Still want to know?
.
Ready?
.
The answer to the question, "How do we defeat ISIS without U.S. Ground Troops?" is,
.
With intellectual honesty.

Do you want to know what the IS guys will do with your "intellectual honesty"?
".
You're not going to like it.
.
Still want to know?
.
Ready?"

They will wipe their ass with it, then hopefully they will cut off the heads of the "intellectually honest" left/lib/tree hugging losers.
By doing this they may save the western civilization.

Listen mate, those guys are a mix of fanatics and retards led by a bunch of intelligent sociopaths and/or psychopaths, but not some sort of "noble savages". They are in the middle of a conquest they have the momentum, so they will push forward as long as they can. That's their only chance.

[cryptodevil]

Listen mate, those guys are a mix of fanatics and retards led by a bunch of intelligent sociopaths and/or psychopaths

You don't get to tell people their intellectually dishonest delusions are wrong while your intellectually dishonest delusions are right.

Theism requires a persistent state of intellectual dishonesty and the more we attempt to tell people that their delusional conditioning isn't acceptable but other people's delusional conditioning is, the more they will ignore all you try and do to stop their madness.

How do you otherwise propose we defeat a people who think dying is a good way to impress their god?

The sooner we as a species recognise the insanity and dishonesty of theism, all theism, the sooner we'll be able to replace indoctrination with education.

[samaricanin]

ISIS 'Flames Of War' HOAX: The Road To WW3 - DON'T BE FOOLED!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULsW_pkPAe0

[Snail2]

Listen mate, those guys are a mix of fanatics and retards led by a bunch of intelligent sociopaths and/or psychopaths

You don't get to tell people their intellectually dishonest delusions are wrong while your intellectually dishonest delusions are right.

Theism requires a persistent state of intellectual dishonesty and the more we attempt to tell people that their delusional conditioning isn't acceptable but other people's delusional conditioning is, the more they will ignore all you try and do to stop their madness.

How do you otherwise propose we defeat a people who think dying is a good way to impress their god?

The sooner we as a species recognise the insanity and dishonesty of theism, all theism, the sooner we'll be able to replace indoctrination with education.

I wouldn't tell them any honest or dishonest thing. I would wipe them out of this world before I find them (or their followers) in my own backyard.

[Rigon]

The only people able to stand against ISIS right now are the Kurds, and they are only succeeding because of U.S. Airstrikes. But the Kurds only defend their own territory. It is unlikely they will go further south to fight ISIS. Most of the rest of the Iraqi Army is turning and fleeing at the first sight of ISIS.

My question is: If airstrikes can only do so much against ISIS, how can we defeat ISIS in Iraq without U.S. Ground Troops if most of the Iraqi Army does not want to fight?

US  arm them. Maybe not intentionally, but it has everything to do with unintentional consequences of poorly executed foreign policy. As far as funding, there's no real doubt Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Syria, and many other countries have given them funding for all kinds of reasons.....so lets stop funding and arming them.

[BADecker]

The only people able to stand against ISIS right now are the Kurds, and they are only succeeding because of U.S. Airstrikes. But the Kurds only defend their own territory. It is unlikely they will go further south to fight ISIS. Most of the rest of the Iraqi Army is turning and fleeing at the first sight of ISIS.

My question is: If airstrikes can only do so much against ISIS, how can we defeat ISIS in Iraq without U.S. Ground Troops if most of the Iraqi Army does not want to fight?

US  arm them. Maybe not intentionally, but it has everything to do with unintentional consequences of poorly executed foreign policy. As far as funding, there's no real doubt Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Syria, and many other countries have given them funding for all kinds of reasons.....so lets stop funding and arming them.

Stop paying income taxes in the U.S.   

[cryptodevil]

I would wipe them out of this world before I find them (or their followers) in my own backyard.

Sure, that approach has certainly worked well so far. I'm certain if only you had more bullets, or more bombs, or more broken bodies of your enemy laying around, it would bring rapid victory. Or victory, anyway.

Cos they're, like, totally not thinking the same thing.

[noviapriani]

The only people able to stand against ISIS right now are the Kurds, and they are only succeeding because of U.S. Airstrikes. But the Kurds only defend their own territory. It is unlikely they will go further south to fight ISIS. Most of the rest of the Iraqi Army is turning and fleeing at the first sight of ISIS.

My question is: If airstrikes can only do so much against ISIS, how can we defeat ISIS in Iraq without U.S. Ground Troops if most of the Iraqi Army does not want to fight?

US  arm them. Maybe not intentionally, but it has everything to do with unintentional consequences of poorly executed foreign policy. As far as funding, there's no real doubt Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Syria, and many other countries have given them funding for all kinds of reasons.....so lets stop funding and arming them.

And what foreign policy would that be? Invading Iraq? I agree, that was pure idiocy.

[Rigon]

The only people able to stand against ISIS right now are the Kurds, and they are only succeeding because of U.S. Airstrikes. But the Kurds only defend their own territory. It is unlikely they will go further south to fight ISIS. Most of the rest of the Iraqi Army is turning and fleeing at the first sight of ISIS.

My question is: If airstrikes can only do so much against ISIS, how can we defeat ISIS in Iraq without U.S. Ground Troops if most of the Iraqi Army does not want to fight?

US  arm them. Maybe not intentionally, but it has everything to do with unintentional consequences of poorly executed foreign policy. As far as funding, there's no real doubt Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Syria, and many other countries have given them funding for all kinds of reasons.....so lets stop funding and arming them.

Stop paying income taxes in the U.S.   

If we do that then you will find uncle sam knoking at your door.

[BADecker]

The only people able to stand against ISIS right now are the Kurds, and they are only succeeding because of U.S. Airstrikes. But the Kurds only defend their own territory. It is unlikely they will go further south to fight ISIS. Most of the rest of the Iraqi Army is turning and fleeing at the first sight of ISIS.

My question is: If airstrikes can only do so much against ISIS, how can we defeat ISIS in Iraq without U.S. Ground Troops if most of the Iraqi Army does not want to fight?

US  arm them. Maybe not intentionally, but it has everything to do with unintentional consequences of poorly executed foreign policy. As far as funding, there's no real doubt Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Syria, and many other countries have given them funding for all kinds of reasons.....so lets stop funding and arming them.

Stop paying income taxes in the U.S.  

If we do that then you will find uncle sam knoking at your door.

Actually, no! Uncle Sap is words on paper. It might be people knocking at my door. And if any of them happen to be Uncle Sap, then I would have to ask him how I have personally harmed him or damaged his property. Otherwise, get off my property.

[Rigon]

The only people able to stand against ISIS right now are the Kurds, and they are only succeeding because of U.S. Airstrikes. But the Kurds only defend their own territory. It is unlikely they will go further south to fight ISIS. Most of the rest of the Iraqi Army is turning and fleeing at the first sight of ISIS.

My question is: If airstrikes can only do so much against ISIS, how can we defeat ISIS in Iraq without U.S. Ground Troops if most of the Iraqi Army does not want to fight?

US  arm them. Maybe not intentionally, but it has everything to do with unintentional consequences of poorly executed foreign policy. As far as funding, there's no real doubt Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Syria, and many other countries have given them funding for all kinds of reasons.....so lets stop funding and arming them.

And what foreign policy would that be? Invading Iraq? I agree, that was pure idiocy.

We agree on this.
But the next incident of pure idiocy was leaving no troops behind to stop groups like ISIS, because that is the situation that Obama inherited. He just made a bad scenario much worse.

[noviapriani]

The only people able to stand against ISIS right now are the Kurds, and they are only succeeding because of U.S. Airstrikes. But the Kurds only defend their own territory. It is unlikely they will go further south to fight ISIS. Most of the rest of the Iraqi Army is turning and fleeing at the first sight of ISIS.

My question is: If airstrikes can only do so much against ISIS, how can we defeat ISIS in Iraq without U.S. Ground Troops if most of the Iraqi Army does not want to fight?

US  arm them. Maybe not intentionally, but it has everything to do with unintentional consequences of poorly executed foreign policy. As far as funding, there's no real doubt Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Syria, and many other countries have given them funding for all kinds of reasons.....so lets stop funding and arming them.

And what foreign policy would that be? Invading Iraq? I agree, that was pure idiocy.

We agree on this.
But the next incident of pure idiocy was leaving no troops behind to stop groups like ISIS, because that is the situation that Obama inherited. He just made a bad scenario much worse.

We lost Iraq long before Obama was in office. Banning the Baathists dismantling Iraq's army and civil service wasn't a very good start, ignoring the lessons learned from the Gulf War was another poor start. Iraq was pretty much doomed. We had a chance, but the Maliki administration destroyed it and would have even if we had stayed (and it is likely he would still be in power if we had stayed which might have made long run change even worse off).

[Rigon]

The only people able to stand against ISIS right now are the Kurds, and they are only succeeding because of U.S. Airstrikes. But the Kurds only defend their own territory. It is unlikely they will go further south to fight ISIS. Most of the rest of the Iraqi Army is turning and fleeing at the first sight of ISIS.

My question is: If airstrikes can only do so much against ISIS, how can we defeat ISIS in Iraq without U.S. Ground Troops if most of the Iraqi Army does not want to fight?

US  arm them. Maybe not intentionally, but it has everything to do with unintentional consequences of poorly executed foreign policy. As far as funding, there's no real doubt Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Syria, and many other countries have given them funding for all kinds of reasons.....so lets stop funding and arming them.

And what foreign policy would that be? Invading Iraq? I agree, that was pure idiocy.

We agree on this.
But the next incident of pure idiocy was leaving no troops behind to stop groups like ISIS, because that is the situation that Obama inherited. He just made a bad scenario much worse.

We lost Iraq long before Obama was in office. Banning the Baathists dismantling Iraq's army and civil service wasn't a very good start, ignoring the lessons learned from the Gulf War was another poor start. Iraq was pretty much doomed. We had a chance, but the Maliki administration destroyed it and would have even if we had stayed (and it is likely he would still be in power if we had stayed which might have made long run change even worse off).

I can't say I agree with that conclusion, but it's easy to blame Bush.

[noviapriani]

The only people able to stand against ISIS right now are the Kurds, and they are only succeeding because of U.S. Airstrikes. But the Kurds only defend their own territory. It is unlikely they will go further south to fight ISIS. Most of the rest of the Iraqi Army is turning and fleeing at the first sight of ISIS.

My question is: If airstrikes can only do so much against ISIS, how can we defeat ISIS in Iraq without U.S. Ground Troops if most of the Iraqi Army does not want to fight?

US  arm them. Maybe not intentionally, but it has everything to do with unintentional consequences of poorly executed foreign policy. As far as funding, there's no real doubt Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Syria, and many other countries have given them funding for all kinds of reasons.....so lets stop funding and arming them.

And what foreign policy would that be? Invading Iraq? I agree, that was pure idiocy.

We agree on this.
But the next incident of pure idiocy was leaving no troops behind to stop groups like ISIS, because that is the situation that Obama inherited. He just made a bad scenario much worse.

We lost Iraq long before Obama was in office. Banning the Baathists dismantling Iraq's army and civil service wasn't a very good start, ignoring the lessons learned from the Gulf War was another poor start. Iraq was pretty much doomed. We had a chance, but the Maliki administration destroyed it and would have even if we had stayed (and it is likely he would still be in power if we had stayed which might have made long run change even worse off).

I can't say I agree with that conclusion, but it's easy to blame Bush.

It's easy to blame Bush simply because the Bush Administration messed it up so badly (let's not forget that it was the invasion of Iraq that allowed AQI, the predecessor of ISIS, to be heavily established in the first place). The conclusion, is based both on internal sentiment expressed by Petraeus, current stated reasons for Sunni Tribal and militia support for the ISIS movement which said movement depends on, and on general lessons from history from other countries in similar situations.

[noviapriani]

Maliki initially refused to go because he knew, in the end, we would protect him no matter how much we disapproved of him. When that protection left and we made our return help conditional upon his stepping down, only then did he leave office. We saw this before with the Habre administration in Chad with France. Pretty similar situation. Sometimes having physical presences and guaranteeing the safety of the central government prevents the reform necessary for the country to evolve its political institutions or seek better governance / a compromise that will help promote peace and inclusiveness in the long run.

Sometimes, unfortunately, there is very little that one can constructively do when it comes to intervention in foreign domestic disputes.

[BADecker]

The only people able to stand against ISIS right now are the Kurds, and they are only succeeding because of U.S. Airstrikes. But the Kurds only defend their own territory. It is unlikely they will go further south to fight ISIS. Most of the rest of the Iraqi Army is turning and fleeing at the first sight of ISIS.

My question is: If airstrikes can only do so much against ISIS, how can we defeat ISIS in Iraq without U.S. Ground Troops if most of the Iraqi Army does not want to fight?

US  arm them. Maybe not intentionally, but it has everything to do with unintentional consequences of poorly executed foreign policy. As far as funding, there's no real doubt Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Syria, and many other countries have given them funding for all kinds of reasons.....so lets stop funding and arming them.

And what foreign policy would that be? Invading Iraq? I agree, that was pure idiocy.

We agree on this.
But the next incident of pure idiocy was leaving no troops behind to stop groups like ISIS, because that is the situation that Obama inherited. He just made a bad scenario much worse.

We lost Iraq long before Obama was in office. Banning the Baathists dismantling Iraq's army and civil service wasn't a very good start, ignoring the lessons learned from the Gulf War was another poor start. Iraq was pretty much doomed. We had a chance, but the Maliki administration destroyed it and would have even if we had stayed (and it is likely he would still be in power if we had stayed which might have made long run change even worse off).

I can't say I agree with that conclusion, but it's easy to blame Bush.

It's easy to blame Bush simply because the Bush Administration messed it up so badly (let's not forget that it was the invasion of Iraq that allowed AQI, the predecessor of ISIS, to be heavily established in the first place). The conclusion, is based both on internal sentiment expressed by Petraeus, current stated reasons for Sunni Tribal and militia support for the ISIS movement which said movement depends on, and on general lessons from history from other countries in similar situations.

None of the more recent administrations messed anything up. Just because we can't see what their bosses, the Power Elite, are ordering them to do.

 

[Tzupy]

F-22 takes first shot at ISIS:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-22-s-takes-first-shot-against-ground-not-air-target