Turkey's tough choice: Take on ISIS or the PKK? - CNN.com

I SUGGEST THE TURKS ARE WAITING FOR THE ANNIHILATION OF THE KURDS. You may not agree but american ban on boots on the ground condemn the kurds to death. I hope you are proud of yourselves and I hope you are proud of your NATO allies

I seriously doubt most American citizens agree with, or are proud of, how the entire situation has been handled.

remember Warsaw 1944 ? It was as shameful an episode in WWII as there was . The Ruskies stopped at the edge of town while the Germans crushed the Polish national resistance . When the Poles asked for US air support there was none . You see the Stalinists were our realpolitik allies. So if their post war plans had no room for Polish nationalism then who were we to stand in their way ? The partition of Europe had already been agreed upon by the Communist Stalin and the neo-Fabian Roosevelt.
Let's for fun change the names .....Ruskies = Turkey ...Stalin = Erdogan and the Islamic State is the Nazis . The emperor is Roosevelt . It is no secret that he wants the Turks to commit to his tepid war against the Islamic State (for boots on the ground ) . But the Kurds have no use for Kurdish nationalism. So as usual for the purpose of realpolitik they get screwed again as they have been for over a century.

Now the emperor thinks that air power will "degrade and ultimately defeat " the Islamo-Nazi ISIS . Let's put that into context. We went to war against AQ in Afghanistan after 9-11. We had an organized boots on the ground army in the Northern Alliance to secure the real estate gained . We had spec ops on the ground directing air strikes . We used heavy weapons like 500 lb bombs dropped from B-52s . WE dropped 17,000 munitions in the comparable period since we started the air campaign against ISIS .Since Aug 8 we have dropped less than a thousand bombs on them . And the ones we have used have been used primarily to take out single vehicles or cell towers on building ....and as far as I can tell there are no US spec forces in Syria.
Kobani is lost . The Islamic State learned from the North Vietnamese that air power is less effective when you "grab their belt" .
GRAB THEIR BELTS TO FIGHT THEM | U.S. Naval Institute

We will lament the massacre that follows ,and it will be forgotten in a month.

Yes I understand the reference to grabbing their belts, we are not at that stage yet, what I don't understand is ISIS can stand on a hill top next to their flag and not be taken out, surely the fighting has gone on long enough now that a few buildings could be flattened, what you need here is a little of the Israeli strategy, every building they take gets flattened

lol If the standards applied to Israeli operations were used to the US air campaign ,we'd already hear cries and demands for war crimes investigations against us. Our bombing has been far less discriminate .

Surely you mean indiscriminate. This is the problem, this is not a gentleman's war. You didn't shrink from flattening the home of a fanatical enemy in the past, what is different here is you haven't actually been attacked. It is obvious that what it takes to get you off your collective arses is to be attacked. You destabilised Iraq but take little responsibility for the outcome of your actions. You have learned war is expensive, particularly when you don't take and hold territory. You gave it back to people who had no real idea. Empires in the past have exploited the territory they took and grew rich. This lesson is lost on you, you took Germany, Japan and created large industrial nations and you gave it back to the very people you fought. But you gave Iraq back without doing anything for them

I agree we should've stayed . Saddam Hussein was much more brutal than the Islamic State in so far as he terrorized the people ,and threatened his neighbors. If being brutal is the criteria for military action then you are being inconsistent in supporting attacks against the Islamic State ,but not supporting the invasion against Saddam .

LOL, we didn't learn the lesson of Iran either, so Iraq was no surprise at all.

don't take your eyes off the prize . The prize is the oil fields of Kirkuk (that hasn't changed since Oct. 14, 1927, https://www.flickr.com/photos/shanyar/6449829821/ ) ,and the transportation route of energy into Europe....and yes ,Iran is a player .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I agree we should've stayed . Saddam Hussein was much more brutal than the Islamic State in so far as he terrorized the people ,and threatened his neighbors. If being brutal is the criteria for military action then you are being inconsistent in supporting attacks against the Islamic State ,but not supporting the invasion against Saddam .

---

There is a difference between deploring the outcome and supporting action. I certainly supported action in the first gulf war because saddam had invaded a neighbouring country, the facts of the second gulf war are a little blurred, while I generally supported action based on flawed intelligence and a lie, it doesn't mean I endorsed your actions when managing the population. Let's face it the Gulf war was pure paranoia.

I thank you Tom for acknowledging the truth of what the Iraq war was about, oil, not many americans would acknowledge that. For ISIS oil is an important prize
It has enabled them to do what they might otherwise have not been able to do and at the same time weaken Iraq. We have to say that ideologically, you failed in Iraq, you won a limited military victory and obviously failed to train an Iraqi army with a backbone. If Iraq isn't yet a failed state it won't be long before it joins Syria and Libya

Quote:

---

We have to say that ideologically, you failed in Iraq, you won a limited military victory and obviously failed to train an Iraqi army with a backbone.

---

yes the emperor snatched defeat from the jaws of victory .

Yes oil was a reason for both Gulf wars . The 1st one was because Saddam invaded Iraq and before that Iran . One of the biggest causes of the second one was a direct result of the failure of the UN to enforce the 'oil for food' program ; which became a cash cow for the top UN officials, as well as various world leaders who opposed the second invasion. In fact ,had the sanctions that were imposed by the UN and almost solely enforced by the US and a lesser extent Britain succeeded ,then Saddam would've been forced to make a better accounting of his WMD program. You talk about a lie . The lie was the UN holding Saddam to account for his aggressions against his neighbors and his own population. When the Islamic State gasses entire cities causing thousands of deaths then maybe you can talk about comparable brutality .

This is why the no boots on the ground policy doesn't make sense, ISIS is more brutal than Saddam, he didn't try to eliminate whole populations on religious grounds. The point here Tom is there is no point in waiting. The world waited for Hitler, the world waited for Pol Pot, the world waited for Saddam and what did we get out of it, in each case destruction. If you wait for ISIS you will have to fight a larger war. They represent maybe a division at the moment spread out over Iraq and Syria, they can't fight on all fronts at once, if a major ground offense started against them they would be vunerable, but picking them off from the air isn't going to work, the only way air power works is blanketting the enemy and moving in with ground forces. No, move in and force them out of the towns and destroy them as they retreat

Don't you have an air bourne division you could put on the ground?

I don't disagree. But I don't see the commitment to do the sacrifice necessary ;nor the leadership from the emperor ,or any other western leader . In fact ,there is a school of thought that says we should let the Islamic renavatio happen ;that all our efforts to stop it makes it stronger .
Take for instance our reaction to a few beheadings .On cue we pseudo-declared war . But what if the intent was to draw up into the fray ? Then they succeeded ,and the propaganda value is used for more recruitment ;a call for the Muslims of the world to defend the Levant . They fight an existential war .We do not .
The powers of Europe formed a coalition to defeat the French revolutionaries after they beheaded Louis XIV .They lost at the battle of Valmy ,leading to the French victory in the War of the First Coalition ,and the eventual rise of Napoleon .

I'm not saying that we should not take them on and defeat them .I'm just saying that I do not believe that the west is willing to do the things necessary to accomplish it .

Yes and nor it seems are the arabs and it really is their fight. Yes ISIS have a savvy propaganda machine and they have tempted us, this is why Obama wants it to be Muslims who fight them but if we stand back when we have the power to put an end to this we deserve the outcome we get. This is not the first time we have seen this sort of Muslim effort, the Sudan being a case in point, but it took boots on the ground to put a stop to that. It took boots on the ground to drive the Taliban back into the hills and it will take boots on the ground to subdue the sunni insurgency once again. If these fellows achieve any sort of victory we can expect a Taliban resurgency in Afghanistan and Pakistan

All talk, minimal action apparenty there are about to be losses on two fronts, did you really expect cruise missiles would scare this lot? Serious miscalculation here, they are going to go hard while they can and create as much confusion as they can and the Turks, what a useless crew, when the final bugle blows they can say we cheered ISIS on, safe on our side of the border. I wonder how they will like Sharia law in Ankara? Ah well maybe they think their caliphate will be reactivated

For now the Islamic State is serving the purposes of the Ottomans .They will not get seriously into the fight until we commit to an Assad takedown . The region currently reminds me of this scene from' The Good ,the Bad ,and the Ugly' .

Best duel scene - The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - YouTube

.....except there are many more players in the circle .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

For now the Islamic State is serving the purposes of the Ottomans .They will not get seriously into the fight until we commit to an Assad takedown . The region currently reminds me of this scene from' The Good ,the Bad ,and the Ugly' .

Best duel scene - The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - YouTube

.....except there are many more players in the circle .

---

Not really

I think it is more like the Magnificant Seven when the bandits took over the village again and ejected the good guys, the locals were gutless and made a deal


Now there is a choice to be made here, ride off into the sunset and let the sheep be fleeced or depend upon your obvious superiority

Village Boy 2: We're ashamed to live here. Our fathers are cowards.
Calvera: If God didn't want them sheared, he would not have made them sheep.

if you want a Western where the folks are cowards then I would recommend High Plains Drifter .
A Town of Cowards from High Plains Drifter | Anyclip

This is definitely shaping up to a 55 days at Peking scenario where the valiant embassy protection forces hold off the maurauding hoards until the folks at home get off their collective arses

Iraqi plea for US troops as Islamic State advances in key province