Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

yawn when is the rest of the world going to just admit these underground losers who have no choice but to run away to the desert aren't actually a cause for concern or action?

Jihadists have seized 'enough radioactive material to build their first WMD'

{ The Isis militant group has seized enough radioactive material from government facilities to suggest it has the capacity to build a large and devastating “dirty” bomb, according to Australian intelligence reports.

Isis declared its ambition to develop weapons of mass destruction in the most recent edition of its propaganda magazine Dabiq, and Indian defence officials have previously warned of the possibility the militants could acquire a nuclear weapon from Pakistan. }

really Australia, when are you going to stop this warmongering?

Those countries are asking us to be there.

Their leaders are, not their citizens, and most of those countries are far from democratic.

whhaaaaat, the ME countries are advising the exact same ground troop surround-n-slaughter effort I’ve been putting forward? impossibru1!!1!!

If you actually read what Al Otabi said (difficult, I know), you'd realize he's asking for a containment strategy; keeping ISIS where they are now, not invading and slaughtering them wholesale.

Fuck ‘em. Let them sort out their own problems.
We wouldn’t want to go around causing brutal conditions or anything.

Yes, life under ISIS isn't fun. When have I said that it wasn't? However, you want an occupation of the entire Middle East so brutal that all terrorists can't operate there; is a despotic rule under someone like Saddam Hussein that much better?

Aside from that, only thing I see working is a nuke.

lol

I asked you to explain why us going in and taking out the group who is holding an entire country's worth of people at ransom for their money and lives while enforcing fundamentalist Islam law in their newly established caliphate would create brutal conditions?

{ Their leaders are, not their citizens, }

Have you actually read a single thing I've posted in this thread.
Do I need to re-link you to the extensive interview of actual citizens living under ISIS?
Who are being forced to watch their neighbors be murdered under Sharia law to keep them intimidated?
Who are faced with death or giving up 1/4 of their annual salary to ISIS jizya collectors?

How about for once you link me to some recent (since the troops pulled out and ISIS flourished) sources that say the people of the Middle East would rather be left on their own?

Even Obama (used to) admit ISIS needs to be destroyed not just contained or talked down.

{ “As an international community, we must meet this challenge with a focus on four areas. First, the terrorist group known as ISIL must be degraded, and ultimately destroyed,” Obama said.

“No God condones this terror,” he added. “No grievance justifies these actions. There can be no reasoning – no negotiation – with this brand of evil. The only language understood by killers like this is the language of force.” }

Containment stops them in their tracks and corrals them like lambs for the slaughter, as they deserve.

I asked you to explain why us going in and taking out the group who is holding an entire country’s worth of people at ransom for their money and lives while enforcing fundamentalist Islam law in their newly established caliphate would create brutal conditions?

Brutal conditions would be necessary to prevent such a group from reforming after being dispersed.

Do I need to re-link you to the extensive interview of actual citizens living under ISIS?
Who are being forced to watch their neighbors be murdered under Sharia law to keep them intimidated?

Are those same citizens calling for another Anglo-American invasion and occupation? Are they asking for another despotic regime to stamp out all terrorist activities?

Containment stops them in their tracks and corrals them like lambs for the slaughter, as they deserve.

le magic unstoppable western army kills every isis soldier in one hit using magic bullets argument again?

Have you actually read a single thing I’ve posted in this thread.

Funny, I could ask you the same question.

{ Brutal conditions would be necessary to prevent such a group from reforming after being dispersed. }

That's why we're containing them Jarbsy, please try to keep up. They are not dispersing. They are being surrounded and destroyed.

{ Are those same citizens calling for another Anglo-American invasion and occupation? Are they asking for another despotic regime to stamp out all terrorist activities? }

Why don't you read the interview I posted that answers that exact question?
I'm pretty sure I even quoted the text so you didn't have to click the link at all.

{ le magic unstoppable western army kills every isis soldier in one hit using magic bullets argument again? }

First you said that if a Western army actually attacked they would absolutely demolish ISIS, which is why they would run, but if we surround them suddenly our military isn't good enough to pick off some sitting duck terrorists with a bunch of old Russian equipment that you were also denouncing a couple pages back?

killing me Smalls.

They are not dispersing. They are being surrounded and destroyed.

If that's the case, why do we need to do anything more?

Do you even read what you're typing?

Why don’t you read the interview I posted that answers that exact question?

I read it, and it doesn't.

First you said that if a Western army actually attacked they would absolutely demolish ISIS, which is why they would run, but if we surround them suddenly our military isn’t good enough to pick off some sitting duck terrorists with a bunch of old Russian equipment that you were also denouncing a couple pages back?

Scattering an army and forcing them to abandon all their equipment is one thing, surrounding and eliminating all of them is another.

The middle east isn't small or hospitable. There's plenty of nooks and crannies for these people to run to, assuming they just don't hide with friends or family (which then brings in the moral dilemna of harming them to get to the soldiers).

WE TRIED THIS IN AFGHANISTAN. IT CLEARLY DIDN'T WORK. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK IT WILL WORK THIS TIME???

You're the one who has been saying that surrounding them and slaughtering them is not a viable option. Now all the sudden you have no complaints?

{ I read it, and it doesn’t. }

Compelling response.

{ assuming they just don’t hide with friends or family }

They don't have friends or family hanging out in the Iraq and Syria warzone! It almost sounds like you think the people currently living under ISIS rule want to be there, like it's a minor inconvenience for them, like they're getting on with their daily lives in spite of what happened to their cities. Please assure me that's not the case.

WE DID NOT TRY CONTAINMENT IN AFGHANISTAN

how do I make that bigger and more obvious for you

1991 was the political end of US containment policy, it has not been used since.

You’re the one who has been saying that surrounding them and slaughtering them is not a viable option.

You're the one who has been saying we need to surround them and slaughter them; until now, you said that's what we're already doing? What sense does that make?

Compelling response.

Compelling reply. 10/10 upboated :^)

They don’t have friends or family hanging out in the Iraq and Syria warzone!

No friends at all? Zero? Zilch? Nada? None?

WE DID NOT TRY CONTAINMENT IN AFGHANISTAN

But you aren't asking for containment, you're asking for wholesale slaughter, as you've said many times in this thread.

{ until now, you said that’s what we’re already doing? What sense does that make? }

what the fuck? Until now I've said we've been doing what we're doing, which is air strikes, you know, the ones that have killed 200k civilians and 8k terrorists?

{ But you aren’t asking for containment, you’re asking for wholesale slaughter, as you’ve said many times in this thread. }

I said over and over that we need a Western multi-country effort to surround them in the little slice of caliphate they've declared for themselves so we can go through and slaughter them on the ground to avoid as many civilians deaths as possible. You're right, that's not technically containment, that is Containment +

Until now I’ve said we’ve been doing what we’re doing, which is air strikes, you know, the ones that have killed 200k civilians and 8k terrorists?

You also said:

They are not dispersing. They are being surrounded and destroyed.

So, since that's in the present tense, I should ask: who is surrounding ISIS and destroying them? And if they are being surrounded and destroyed, why should we have to invade? Or would you prefer to rescind that statement?

I said over and over that we need a Western multi-country effort to surround them in the little slice of caliphate they’ve declared for themselves so we can go through and slaughter them on the ground to avoid as many civilians deaths as possible.

And I've said over and over again that such an effort isn't possible, and would end up as a repeat of Afghanistan, but the message appears to not be getting through.

{ So, since that’s in the present tense, I should ask: who is surrounding ISIS and destroying them? }

nigga now you are playing dumb on purpose, that was very obviously my response to the hypothetical situation you put forward, that brutal conditions were necessary.

Right now they're being left to conquer city after city, again I have to state, they have captured half of Iraq and Syria in three years. They are moving unchecked through the region, and it is setting off fuckin' alarm bells in South Asia, North Africa, and the parts of the UAE who want to abandon Islamic fundamentalism for the glory of capitalism (see: Dubai).

{ And I’ve said over and over again that such an effort isn’t possible, and would end up as a repeat of Afghanistan, but the message appears to not be getting through. }

That's all you're doing. You're not telling me why though. You're saying a completely different strategy would result in the same conclusion as Afghanistan, but you're not saying why.

I'll take that as a yes.

You’re saying a completely different strategy would result in the same conclusion as Afghanistan

You haven't provided any details to how your beloved western coalition super strike would be different from the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, which was a western coalition super strike much like the one you keep asking for.

…

I have, repeatedly, but here it is again, I will spell it out as broken down and fragmented as possible for you this time.

First, it wasn't until 2006 that a multinational coalition began sending troops over to start replacing some of the US troops, and as I have said, they never attempted containment. They broke up the troops into little mini armies and sent them to the small, individual areas the Taliban were able to keep a hold on. 2007, I'm sure you remember, was the year of civilian massacre at the hands of the Western coalition due to unprepared lack of response to Taliban ambush attacks (also the year that had the greatest number of US casualties of the entire war, a whole 100). 2008 brought the reassessment and Obama (and Pakistan, but they're less related) and controversial triple in the number of air raids that ended up increasing the civilian death toll a hundred fold. Even with the troop surge of 2010, barely 1,200 Taliban fighters were killed that year because the troops were never all in the same place surrounding an enemy whose majority is condensed in one large territory that they have full political and military control over. The coalition in Afghanistan was not containment, which is a necessary strategy for a final takedown. By 2011 Obama was "bring the troops home for Christmas" and we know how it goes from there.

None of that post really details how you would redo the invasion to ensure that all the insurgents were caught and eliminated.

I wouldn't "redo" anything because a solo-country-with-half-assed-support clearly could not work, as I just explained. I also already explained the "containment +" strategy to you, I even used that phrase. Read it again. See if it sticks this time.

Containment isn't a strategy for capturing and eliminating a threat, it's designed to keep it one place. Nor is it an especially effective strategy, as Vietnam showed.

That's why there's a + sign Jarbsy. Containment +. Not just containment, yet not a total rollback.

It was perfectly effective during the Cold War.

The only place it was used and where it worked was in Korea, and that situation had the benefit of having a standing army for the UN forces to fight. Compare it to Vietnam, where a very similar problem of endless guerilla warfare could not be stopped by the magic containment ++.

sigh and now we're back to "lol isis is a bunch of sandniggaz hidin undah rocks they dont scurr me lolololol"

Islamic militants have army of 200,000, claims senior Kurdish leader

{ Fuad Hussein, the chief of staff of the Kurdish President Massoud Barzani said in an exclusive interview with The Independent on Sunday that "I am talking about hundreds of thousands of fighters because they are able to mobilise Arab young men in the territory they have taken."

He estimates that Isis rules a third of Iraq and a third of Syria with a population of between 10 and 12 million living in an area of 250,000 square kilometres, the same size as Great Britain. This gives the jihadis a large pool of potential recruits.

"They are fighting in Kobani," said Mr Hussein. "In Kurdistan last month they were attacking in seven different places as well as in Ramadi [capital of Anbar province west of Baghdad] and Jalawla [an Arab-Kurdish town close to Iranian border]. It is impossible to talk of 20,000 men or so." }

The US estimate that hasn't been updated in four years at 31,500 is still more than twice the number of Russians in the entire Korean War.

Good thing they don't have a standing army or anything tho.

And I've said this before: They have people, but they don't have tanks or planes or ships or cruise missiles or any of that shit.

If people were all it took to make an army then China would be the worlds #1 military power in all respects, followed by India. Clearly this is not the case.

They do have tanks and anti-aircraft/tank missiles and a hell of lot of modern ground warfare equipment taken straight from the Iraqi Army we originally gave them to. There's also, you know, those 2,300 US Humvees they just captured in Mosul alone.

India is the strongest and most significant SE Asian military… they're our most important ally in the region. Not only are they among the largest and most well/heavily equipped, but they spend a comparable percent of their GDP on military expenditures as us. Their spending is on par with the UK, France, and China.

Why you are writing off China after the global impact they have and continue to have, and how significant their current South Sea aggression has been internationally in the last few months, is beyond me.

{ According to the United States Defense Department, China is developing kinetic-energy weapons, high-powered lasers, high-powered microwave weapons, particle-beam weapons, and electromagnetic pulse weapons with its increase of military funding. }

:|

They do have tanks and anti-aircraft/tank missiles and a hell of lot of modern ground warfare equipment taken straight from the Iraqi Army we originally gave them to.

You know, the shitty Iraqi Army that couldn't accomplish anything besides flailing around like a headless chicken?

India is the strongest and most significant SE Asian military…
Why you are writing off China after the global impact they have and continue to have…

Neither of them are the strongest in the world. That's the fucking point I was trying to make.

According to the United States Defense Department, China is developing kinetic-energy weapons, high-powered lasers, high-powered microwave weapons, particle-beam weapons, and electromagnetic pulse weapons with its increase of military funding.

Wunderwaffe

Also, the US navy's got them beat in that regard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4ZqfEJTGzw

{ You know, the shitty Iraqi Army that couldn’t accomplish anything besides flailing around like a headless chicken? }

Hence why ISIS now has all their equipment, yes, glad you're finally keeping up.
The Iraqi Army was supposed to be "sovereign, stable and self-reliant" according to Obama, that's why we were okay with leaving.

{ Neither of them are the strongest in the world. That’s the fucking point I was trying to make. }

No, they're third and fourth according to the Global Firepower Index. :|
Russia is second, we're first.

{ Wunderwaffe }

What does Germany 70 years ago have to do with China now?

Is there a cash prize for whoever leaves the last post or something? This debate is like a verbal Zeno's Paradox, you guys get closer and closer to a conclusion with each post yet by all appearances you'll never reach one.

@lisalombs: You have every right to believe whatever you want, but you are evidently not a military strategist and your suggested plans don't stand up to any scrutiny. @jarbox: You can keep egging her on and debating her, but surely you know that it's too late to change her mind and I presume you're just doing this for fun, right?

Also, obligatory.

You can keep egging her on and debating her, but surely you know that it’s too late to change her mind and I presume you’re just doing this for fun, right?

It's not fun, but if I feel like I leave then I've given up.

Not that the thought isn't tempting…

@jarbox: I'll sub you if you'd like, we can tag team this debate.

@lisalombs: What jarbox meant by "wunderwaffe" is that those R&D programs for advanced weaponry that China is bankrolling right now are just propaganda projects with little to no practical application. DARPA, NASA, and IARPA can run circles around any other country's military research agencies, not only in terms of success but also sheer funding. Trying to analyze China's military power is complicated, as wars have so many dimensions that you have to approach it with very specific questions (eg "Can the Chinese support an air campaign against the Philippines?" or "Can we intercept theater-level ballistic missiles launched over the Taiwan strait?"). Any way you cut it the Chinese are not a technologically adept military, except for their cyber-warfare division (which is exceptionally good). …Wait why are we talking about Chinese wunderwaffe?

PS: If this is the last post, do I win the cash prize?