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

[Zanywing]

I believe that the US should put boots on the ground, because airstrikes simply won't take care of the problem.

[username18333]

I believe that the US should put boots on the ground, because airstrikes simply won't take care of the problem.

So long as this matter is "the problem," there shall prove no panacea about it.

[Barnikle]

We can offer to bomb mecca.
We can reveal the truth that the Muslim quran teaches that infidels are to be converted or put to the sword.
Therefore Muslims are no different then Nazi's.
Muslims that are NOT cutting peoples heads off are not truly following Muslim Law
and are no different than Mormons who practice safe sex, drink, or smoke.

Yes I am saying that Muslims and Mormons are silly fools, only normal when they do NOT follow their faith to a T.

ISIS is what happens when Muslims start following ALL the teachings of the quran.
Freedom of religion and political correctness will make this post taboo.

You cannot stop ISIS when we cannot be free to say "the Quran teaches terrorism to convert"
Hey even the Bible threatens that you will burn in hell and be in pain and suffering FOREVER unless you are a slave servant of "God".
But most Bible followers are super laid back so it is easy to tolerate them, as they are not crusading currently.

Muslims are crusading.
Cant stop ISIS when people don't know how to identify them as Nazi Muslims, or confuse them as "Ice-L"
I am just glad they are in the desert.
Too bad they killed Sadam, he wouldn't have let that shit happen.

[Lady_Cake]

I think without the U.S. Ground Troops is impossible defeat ISIS.
Why?  Because the USA have the biggest Ground Troops army.., simple 

[samaricanin]

Because the USA have the biggest Ground Troops army.., simple

Russia and China have stronger ground forces

http://www.globalfirepower.com

[Rigon]

Then like locust storms, repeat the same manoeuvre at all other none christian religious gatherings, even down at the ganges river where the religious bathing festival occurs, stuff like that. Should be able to shoot a few dozen million here and there ? It would lessen the none authorised religiousness going on in the world and send a message out, that you don't need either drones or jet power from the skies or troops on the ground, just flying Mohameds with machine guns.

A second wave of firepower could be in the form of 5 million really fit women in bathing suits toting rocket launchers, again with jetpacks, to go after ISIS directly, hiding in their odd small enclaves.

If I get what you're saying...essentially, it might not be a bad thing to let a bad thing fail, then I certainly understand where you're coming from even if I personally don't like the idea of letting something fail.

You have a really good point at the end there.

Basically, yes that's what I'm saying. As an example, slavery was a "bad thing", and it was doomed to fail at some point. Now a proper solution would have been to find a way to end it peacefully, and a worse way was to end it by civil war, but if you're dealing with a collapsed society with shifting alliances such as the middle east as a whole, sometimes the best answer is to watch from a distance.

I don't like the results any better than you do in the short/medium term. I'm just not sold a better answer exists in the real world.

We can't really watch from a distance. We are worried that ISIS will produce another 9/11-style attack. That is why we are so much more involved in the Middle East than before.

[Mr.Bitty]

The path is to have Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt and others who have a much bigger stake in that region to take up the fight against ISIS with us giving them air support.

Yeah, like that's going to happen.

[izanagi narukami]

ISIS but be fight together.
We must protect from ourself then our family.

If our people still believing ISIS
that will lead more ISIS fighter (just like this analogy : die one thousand will grow )

[PeanutCoins]

What about boots underground ?

Say ye tunnelled under ISIS with big boring machines allowing tens of thousands of troops to pop up at any point anywhere (say Baghdad) in no time at all.

Of course it might take 10 or 20 years to bore some decent holes ?

May as well plan for the future.

[My Name Was Taken]

The problem with fighting anyone in the Middle East generally:



How to fight them? We should instead be asking how not to create them instead.

[Gronthaing]

The problem with fighting anyone in the Middle East generally:



How to fight them? We should instead be asking how not to create them instead.

That's not just in the middle east. Anywhere you start killing innocent people that might be near someone you don't like, you're going to create a lot of pissed off people.

In order to stop this, you probably have to stop arming every crazy extremist group out there just because they will do what the west wants them to (until they turn on us), and stop backing Saudi Arabia and others in the region, that love these types of groups.

[samaricanin]

and stop backing Saudi Arabia and others in the region

Not only Saudi Arabia, Israel is key

[newflesh]

The problem with fighting anyone in the Middle East generally:



How to fight them? We should instead be asking how not to create them instead.

Same applies to all the drone attacks that Obama's sanctioned since he took office. There was a case study in the ME where a village was fairly neutral towards the US until a drone strike killed a group of civilians and the entire region became insanely anti-US. Dropping bombs now just creates more enemies in the future.

[Lethn]

The problem is we're having to state the obvious to a bunch of violent psychopaths who think dropping bombs is the only solution, simple answer is we need to talk about how to fight these guys instead.

[My Name Was Taken]

The problem is we're having to state the obvious to a bunch of violent psychopaths who think dropping bombs is the only solution, simple answer is we need to talk about how to fight these guys instead.

The point I was making is trying to fight them creates more of them. They are radicalized by our intervention. Our current problem was caused by our interventions to solve previous 'current problems,' which arose because of our interventions in trying to solve the 'current problems' before that. This is a predictable never-ending cycle. The solution it seems to me, is to break the cycle, not perpetuate it.

I suppose in a way, our biggest problem is that war is profitable, and very rich and powerful entities have influence in Washington. If war wasn't profitable, you wouldn't see us engaging in so much of it. But the uncomfortable truth about the American middle class is that a chunk of it is made possible by the high tech arms and defense industry, which employs many people and whose functions support many other not-necessarily arms-related businesses that employ many more people.

[tibor]

The problem with fighting anyone in the Middle East generally:



How to fight them? We should instead be asking how not to create them instead.

Same applies to all the drone attacks that Obama's sanctioned since he took office. There was a case study in the ME where a village was fairly neutral towards the US until a drone strike killed a group of civilians and the entire region became insanely anti-US. Dropping bombs now just creates more enemies in the future.

We don't need case study to understand this things. All we need is common sense.

For example if one country bomb your city and one of your love ones died. What would you do? Smile and shake hands with the killers?

[My Name Was Taken]

Countries always get pissed when another country tries to meddle with their internal affairs. Look how it turned out for the Germans before the US entered WWI when they sent a secret telegram to Mexico offering Mexico parts of Texas and other areas of the Southwest if Mexico declared war on the US to keep us too busy to fight the Germans. (Google the Zimmerman telegram if you don't know what I'm talking about.) You'd think we'd learn from history, but it seems we never do!

[newflesh]

The problem with fighting anyone in the Middle East generally:



How to fight them? We should instead be asking how not to create them instead.

Same applies to all the drone attacks that Obama's sanctioned since he took office. There was a case study in the ME where a village was fairly neutral towards the US until a drone strike killed a group of civilians and the entire region became insanely anti-US. Dropping bombs now just creates more enemies in the future.

We don't need case study to understand this things. All we need is common sense.

For example if one country bomb your city and one of your love ones died. What would you do? Smile and shake hands with the killers?

Exactly, problem is that nobody in government (especially in the military) has any common sense, the only way people get to that level of power is by being a ruthless psychopath. One major problem is that war has become a collosal money making industry. You've got the military industrial complex making $billions on hardware and then there's the bottom feeding oil corporations sniffing around for more resources to plunder.