f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

No, they need to ask Martin, he has the answer to everything ... he just keeps any solution well hidden by attacking everyone else's posts rather than stating what he thinks should happen

Martin2005

Nice dodge

We should be attacking ISIS WHEREVER they are, relentlessly and without mercy.

Clear enough for you?

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

So you support a UK/US led military solution including troops on the ground in Syria and Iraq?

JTaylor

What about declared supporters of IS like Boko Haram and The Taliban, should they be pursued?

Martin2005

Only if it become necessary.

I hate the thought of it, but yes. If you are going to fight a war, then you have to do it properly.

Let's hope that the regional forces can get organised (with our help) and make it less likely that we'll have to get involved on the ground

Martin2005

Nope let's just deal with ISIS for now shall we?

JTaylor

Well, we tried dealing with The Taliban and failed. What's different about IS?

Martin2005

I guess their ambition, and ability to realise it makes them a much bigger threat than the Taliban.

JTaylor

My point was that if we failed to extirpate The Taliban, why do you think we can be successful with IS?

Martin2005

Depends how you define success?

If we can find away of suppressing/degrading IS, then that in itself would be a good result.

JTaylor

Why not let the region deal with it?

Martin2005

That would be the ideal solution. Will they / can they though?

JTaylor

Well Turkey is letting a town fall on its border as we speak - they have the military capability to intervene, but they don't have the will.

I honestly have no clear policy. As I said in another thread, we're in a zugzwang.

97TURBO

From reading reports today of the continued progress of ISIS i would imagine "boots on the ground" WILL happen sooner rather than later. It would be interesting to know how guys who have been on the frontline would feel about going back.

An0n0m0us

What I find increasingly frustrating is that ISIS is supposed to number 30,000 fighters, even if that's way off and we say 50,000 fighters is the rest of the World's military really incapable of dealing with an enemy that size with it's combined might, both in aerial and ground capabilities?

It becomes a game of numbers and you simply dwarf them with troops on the ground. The whole reason no troops on the ground have been committed and regional forces don't want to fight ISIS is because of how brutal they are and have no ethics regarding the Geneva Convention etc. If you get captured by them you will be tortured and you will end up being beheaded. That's their main weapon, strike fear into anyone who opposes them.

The reason airstrikes are so limited is because how splintered their pockets of fighters are. They haven't got thousands of fighters holding a frontline like a conventional war that is an easy target to attack from the air. I think the authorities are slowly realising to defeat ISIS there is no choice but to commit ground troops. The important factor here and the huge political mine field is the sheer number they will need to commit to actually be effective and no one (Obama first and foremost) at the moment wants to propose that solution because of the huge backlash it will receive and probably end their political career.

97TURBO

That figure of 300-500 thousand does surprise me, I'm not doubting you as I haven't looked into it, however I'm certain I did read they're "military" personnel was around 30,000.

An0n0m0us

LOL that will teach me to post whilst eating my dinner, yes that should have read 30,000 to 50,000! Hence my point about being easy to defeat.

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

Nail on head with the end of your post, but with regards to why an ISIS force of 'only' 30,000 is so difficult to deal with, you have to factor in:
- the fact they're raging fanatics, who live for nothing other than the opportunity to slaughter infidels
- tacit support among Sunni locals, who fear the Shia majority in Iraq almost as much as, or perhaps more than ISIS
- (understandable) reluctance for a whole variety of reasons from outside forces who would be capable of opposing them to be the first to send in or to push for a ground offensive

An0n0m0us

To put it in perspective the combined numbers of ISIS fighters could fit inside a Premiership football ground. To think that small an 'army' can rage across such huge areas of Iraq and Syria and succeed in taking the land they have and commit the attrocities they have shows what little resistance they have come across. Their fear factor is what has driven their opposition away not their numbers. Relying on local forces isn't going to be the solution, they are too scared of ISIS. It's going to take military troops to crush ISIS it's just a case of how long it will be before the US and others realise they have no choice but to go down that road.

JTaylor

As Napoleon Bonaparte said: "A man does not have himself killed for a half-pence a day or for a petty distinction. You must speak to the soul in order to electrify him." IS are electrified and their enemies terrified.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

There are estimated to be no more than 30,000 Taliban, after 10 years they remain largely undefeated, in fact many believe their numbers have swelled several times over during the course of the Afghan conflict.

Western military intervention is futile against these sort of 'organisations'.

dpb

It's all so convulted, everybody in the area is vying for their/ their clans particular intrest .

I bet half the so called "IS" brethren don't adhere to full sharia law , the rest of them should be given a patch in the dessert to carry on as they wish.

Having said that, we tried this with Isreal, and look what a mess that is

At least Palestine is getting recognition now

Shaid

The Original Taliban were never a threat to the us. The Mericans with their 'freedom' and spreading 'democracy' is what made them a threat. Although to date the Taliban have never committed any acts of violence in the west.

JTaylor

They gave a home to AQ.