ISIS militants attack and take over Iraqi northern city of Mosul

[Pizza]

Originally Posted by Dion

Please take it down!

We shouldn't be giving ISIS an opportunity to spread their message of fear.

Why put your head in the sand? if anything, this message pisses me off and have encourage me to support the Canadian gov't on their attacks on ISIS

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Pizza

Why put your head in the sand? if anything, this message pisses me off and have encourage me to support the Canadian gov't on their attacks on ISIS

I don't like the fact we're giving them free air time to spread their message of fear.

[OldDutch]

From the files of the truly messed up, Syria and the Kurds are buying ISIS oil. Given they are enemies of ISIS, and ISIS wants to kill them, this is interesting.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/sy...ficial-n232381

However, my question is why it is so hard to cripple ISIS oil. Oil Fields are easily marked, can't they just bomb them? Or do they want to keep things intact so the fields can get up and running once ISIS is extinguished?

Lots of really wierd things happening here. As always, I am sure this is not the whole story. However, I just don't see why it is so hard to stop their oil production with the air power in play.

[CaptainCrunch]

my guess they're not bombing the field to avoid mass civilian casualties.

I think I said from the start that the air war will fail.

They will eventually run out of easy targets as ISIS forces bundle themselves into civilian areas.

[WhiteTiger]

[Senator Clay Davis]

Well the inevitable course of action, boots on the ground, will be coming soon I would imagine, as quickly as a month. I'm guessing Obama won't commit any until after the midterms for political reasons, but after that there will likely be no choice. Bombing could only go so far with how big the group is, ground forces were always going to be needed.

But frankly the Islamic world, if they really are so disgusted and angry at the extremists, should take this battle on themselves. Doing so sends a substantially more powerful message than the West doing it, which will primarily be used as a propaganda and recruitment tool by future extremist groups. A coalition of primarily Islamic countries taking out ISIS would be a landmark move.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Well the inevitable course of action, boots on the ground, will be coming soon I would imagine, as quickly as a month. I'm guessing Obama won't commit any until after the midterms for political reasons, but after that there will likely be no choice. Bombing could only go so far with how big the group is, ground forces were always going to be needed.

But frankly the Islamic world, if they really are so disgusted and angry at the extremists, should take this battle on themselves. Doing so sends a substantially more powerful message than the West doing it, which will primarily be used as a propaganda and recruitment tool by future extremist groups. A coalition of primarily Islamic countries taking out ISIS would be a landmark move.

You raise an really interesting point about the political dimensions of this.

I have no doubt that the advisory pool that the Americans have will grow sharply after the mid term elections,

Then the Americans will announce that the training program will become training in the field with troops embedded with the Kurds for example.

As well the Islamic militaries might not want to put their troops in the field to fight ISIS because and I'm guessing quite a few of the rank and file are sympathetic to ISIS. We've seen a number of defections from various Militaries.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Spoiler!

I want to think this is awesome, but I can't get over "This Products"

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

From the files of the truly messed up, Syria and the Kurds are buying ISIS oil. Given they are enemies of ISIS, and ISIS wants to kill them, this is interesting.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/sy...ficial-n232381

However, my question is why it is so hard to cripple ISIS oil. Oil Fields are easily marked, can't they just bomb them? Or do they want to keep things intact so the fields can get up and running once ISIS is extinguished?

Lots of really wierd things happening here. As always, I am sure this is not the whole story. However, I just don't see why it is so hard to stop their oil production with the air power in play.

Oil is like a drug. We haven't had any problem dealing with the Saudis either, or other terrible regimes.

Disrupting the oil flow would hurt too many rich and powerful people.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by nik-

I want to think this is awesome, but I can't get over "This Products"

Those "This Products" are French and Pioneers...........be thankful it isn't a bunch of senseless crayon scratches.....

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by nik-

I want to think this is awesome, but I can't get over "This Products"

That really annoyed me, too...but I couldn't find a "correct" version

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Oil is like a drug. We haven't had any problem dealing with the Saudis either, or other terrible regimes.

Disrupting the oil flow would hurt too many rich and powerful people.

Not at all.

Disruptions to Middle East oil pump a ton of money into Canada and the US these days.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

That really annoyed me, too...but I couldn't find a "correct" version

Did the source that you pulled that from have anything to back up the claim? I don't doubt it, cuz we have always been bad as mother####ers, but I would like to read more.

[PIMking]

this problem is like rats, they need to be exterminated to the very last one.

[_Q_]

Sorry wrong thread

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Well the inevitable course of action, boots on the ground, will be coming soon I would imagine, as quickly as a month. I'm guessing Obama won't commit any until after the midterms for political reasons, but after that there will likely be no choice. Bombing could only go so far with how big the group is, ground forces were always going to be needed.

But frankly the Islamic world, if they really are so disgusted and angry at the extremists, should take this battle on themselves. Doing so sends a substantially more powerful message than the West doing it, which will primarily be used as a propaganda and recruitment tool by future extremist groups. A coalition of primarily Islamic countries taking out ISIS would be a landmark move.

I agree boots on the ground is the inevitable escalation, but it's just as bound to fail in the long run. How many years did the west have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and how did that turn out? (the "Surge" is actually a good example of applying appropriate forces and achieving a result, but only for as long as those forces stayed).

Even if we defeat this round of fundamentalists there are plenty more to take their place, because it is not an organization it's a mindset. We can hinder their ability to spread their territory and message (maybe) but you can't defeat a belief. In fact just the opposite you strengthen it.

If we still insist on fighting them then forget blowing up a few humvees or tanks and killing a few thousand radicals - you have to fight their economic and political support. Blow up their refineries and pipelines to deprive them of that income (i.e. save the country by destroying it), go after their benefactors - individual or state - whevever they may be - Turkey, Saudi, UAE, ....

I agree with you Senator that the only hope for a lasting military solution, if there is one, is an Arab one. Let the Saudi's and other do the heavy lifting, but be careful what you wish for. Suppose we end up with Saudi effectively controlling Iraq and applying their own version of brutal justice to keep the populace in check. Is that much of an improvement?

My conclusion is we can't win and should just stay the hell out.

Now when it comes to terrorism and security, different story. I don't fear the ISIS horde invading Canada so leave them to their own fate. But go after the homegrown terrorists (mostly half-crazed loners so far but likely to evolve), go after the terror networks (if ISIS has one), go after the propaganda machine, go after the leadership. Mostly international police work with a few extrajudicial missile strikes thrown in (I never said I was a pacifist). Basically, what has been working for the most part in the 13 years since 9/11. Despite lots of threats and plots, even in Canada, the West has seen relatively few successful attacks.

Do we need to beef up CSIS to deal with the internal threat? Seems reasonable. Do we need to curtail a few liberties? I can live with that, though as a middle aged white male that's awfully easy to say. Let's do whatever is necessary to protect our own house and people but not pin any hopes that we can "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here".

[Bill Bumface]

I hate CNN for popularizing the phrase "boots on the ground".

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

I hate CNN for popularizing the phrase "boots on the ground".

"in harm's way"............

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Pizza

takendown...real life boogie man is too much for some

What did I miss here?

[RedMileDJ]

Originally Posted by Pizza

takendown...real life boogie man is too much for some

WTF. You shouldn't have taken it down.