Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29

Thread: Thoughts on the us's rapid change in their policy towards ISIL

  1. #1

    Default Thoughts on the us's rapid change in their policy towards ISIL

    Really sensitive topic i know but i want to ask you guys a good question to see if this sudden switch is really warranted since almost no one will give me a straight answer irl. Im sure of the fact everyone has heard of them. ISIL rough group real bunch of bullies. I have been closely studying the dramatic rise and inexorable decline of their organization. Now just when it seems like we are finally making a serious dent in them all of the sudden some of the presidents advisers are now going. "Wait wait wait! these guys are somewhat weakened lets go back to hating on iran!"

    Honestly i know the us gov has a hardcore issue with them but tbh I really think isil needs to be blown crushed and obliterated off the face of the earth. It seems like just as we are about to tie up one loose end we are going back and kicking up old rivalries seemingly just for the sake of doing it. We aren't politicians...well most of us aren't so i want your opinions. Does isil need to see its way out the door or do you all think our business is finished with them.

    Yeah i know its a totally random and extremely sensitive topic but i feel like i should broach this subject in a setting where people are more willing to respond rather than just dodging the subject.

  2. #2

    Default

    Can you offer something to back up your claims of how the situation is progressing? Newspaper article, foreign policy white people, criticism from a government watchdog organization? I haven't seen anything to indicate either that the government has put enough successful efforts against them to start making progress in destroying them or anything suggesting that the government is abandoning a successful effort.

    A quick google news search mostly shows analysis of why ISIS/ISIL is or is not a threat to America directly or a catalogue of some of their recent atrocities and conquests. I've mostly found myself consistently frustrated by the inability to obtain information to properly evaluate what's going on over there and my response to your policy question is to ask for the same thing: if we don't know, I don't think we can reasonably criticize or bless current policy. The criticism should be the lack of transparency and failure of effective reporting (though considering all the journalists that ISIS has harmed, I'm not surprised that the news is sketchy at best).

  3. #3

    Default

    http://freebeacon.com/national-secur...eat-than-isil/

    http://counterjihadreport.com/2014/0...eat-than-isil/

    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...te-116255.html

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/20/politi...iite-militias/

    there thats just 4 articles but hopefully that should be enough to back my claim though without actual ground reporters in the region this is is mostly what i have to feed off of
    tbh i would love a full blown ground report from within iraq to give us a better picture but as you stated a significant number were captured and subsequently executed
    Last edited by Alekofaugustgrad; 25-Mar-2015 at 10:18.

  4. #4

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Alekofaugustgrad View Post
    http://freebeacon.com/national-secur...eat-than-isil/

    http://counterjihadreport.com/2014/0...eat-than-isil/

    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...te-116255.html

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/20/politi...iite-militias/

    there thats just 4 articles but hopefully that should be enough to back my claim though without actual ground reporters in the region this is is mostly what i have to feed off of
    tbh i would love a full blown ground report from within iraq to give us a better picture but as you stated a significant number were captured and subsequently executed
    None of these articles make the claim that you're asserting - that we're dropping focus on ISIL.

    They simply report on a couple people outside the administration who are stating that Iran is a bigger threat than ISIL. David Petraeus isn't any more than an outside consultant anymore and Ted Cruz is the exact opposite of an adviser.

  5. #5

    Default

    Ehh, I think Iran is probably a bigger threat then ISIL/ISIS (to the US) but not by a whole lot. Hell considering how effective ISIL's marketing seems to be, it could easily be argued they are a bigger threat suppose.

    More to the topic, in the case that did happen I could understand it in the right circumstances. It seems highly unlikely going to ever truly be able to destroy them, cripple them but probably not destroy. Hell AQ is still around, crippled but still around (if you ignore that ISIL is, at least, made up of part of AQ in Iraq). So if they were crippled to not having much power, I could see shifting focus to more pressing manners and keeping an eye out for them regaining strength. Granted, if we really wanted to stop ISIL we'd be spending more time figuring out how to weaken/prevent their recruitment and implementing a plan instead of just bombs away.

  6. #6

    Default

    None of us can lay claim to knowing what's truly going on, because the media lets us know on l y what they want us to know.

  7. #7

    Default

    Its all part of the same problem. Militant Islam.

    Guys with machine guns mounted in pickup trucks is a problem.

    Bearded, robed dudes directing nukes is a whole 'nuther level.

    I don't get the sense that our Dear Leader understands or believes the problem. Him and Kerry doing Neville Chamberlain impressions aren't the the answer.

  8. #8

    Default

    Soooo i can say one thing on this. Trying to type this up when i was drinking was clearly a bad idea xD. I couldn't organize anything proof or setting up a debate to save my life when im drunk despite having some surprisingly good grammar and decent typing. o.o
    Heck i didn't even remember i did this right up until i woke up a bit ago im sorry i posted this. Lesson forum topics and drinking. BAAAADDDD!
    Last edited by Alekofaugustgrad; 25-Mar-2015 at 20:11. Reason: grammar issues

  9. #9

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    Its all part of the same problem. Militant Islam.

    Guys with machine guns mounted in pickup trucks is a problem.

    Bearded, robed dudes directing nukes is a whole 'nuther level.

    I don't get the sense that our Dear Leader understands or believes the problem. Him and Kerry doing Neville Chamberlain impressions aren't the the answer.
    The problem with this sentiment, as echoed by Netanyahu, is that fearmongering and crying wolf isn't going to work anymore.

    Despite how badly this country fucked Iran since 1954, the Iranian people still are amazingly pro-American, and Iran has the largest population of Jews in the region outside of Israel who live very peacefully with their Muslim neighbors.

    Iran is nowhere near the point that Germany was when Neville Chamberlain was trying to appease Adolf Hitler. He had already invaded and gobbled up a lot of smaller nations and formed alliances with Italy, Japan, and the USSR. Iran is still at the point where diplomacy can work, and it's not just the Obama administration that thinks so. There are other countries invested in this, including economic rivals, and we would be stupid to walk away from the table now just because our Republicans want to polish Netanyahu's neo-con warmongering rod. Iran hasn't invaded anyone in decades, and if you want to accuse them of state sponsorship of terrorism, then I would counter with the way larger sponsor of terrorism- Saudi Arabia, our "friend" and "ally", whose government and clerical institutions are way more fundamentalist than Iran.

    In fact, ISIL is at its core a Wahabbist group whose targets are primarily other Muslims, and the reason why Saudi Arabia is reluctant to work against ISIL is because their government has used Wahabbism to keep their people from moving into the 21st century since the British installed the House of Saud, and a lot of the Saudis, misguided as they are, don't hate ISIL as much as we do.

    Complex problems won't be solved by cowboy grandstanding, saber rattling, or threatening to bomb people into submission.

  10. #10

    Default

    As far as our efforts on fighting ISIS, I haven't heard much information about us changing our strategy and focusing away from ISIS. Now, I've never been in favor of us getting involved in ISIS and have been against it from the beginning. I mentioned that fighting ISIS would kill innocent civilians and recruit them to ISIS, the people we're working with to fight them are highly likely to turn against us, among other problems in an ADISC thread on what to do about ISIS. http://www.adisc.org/forum/showthrea...highlight=ISIS Since we've began the "No Boots on the Ground" Fighting, we've killed a ton of ISIS Fighters, taken back the city of Kobani, however, ISIS is still surviving, and now they're taking over the city of Tikrit, and we have already begun the airstrikes over there. So as far as I'm concerned, we are not focusing our efforts away from this mess. http://theweek.com/speedreads/546407...st-isis-tikrit

    As for Iran and our focus on that, I just want to make one thing perfectly clear. IRAN IS NOT DEVELOPING A NUCLEAR WEAPON!!! They are not anywhere near the capability of developing a nuclear bomb. This has been confirmed by both U.S Intelligence Agencies and Israeli Intelligence Agencies. These negotiations that the United States (along with Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany) has been developing with Iran, based on the Geneva Conventions, is primarily based on the agreement that if Iran gets rid of parts of their nuclear POWER (NOT WEAPONS!! POWER!!! THINK SIMPSONS!!!) program, then we will lift some of the sanctions that we have placed on Iran. The hysteria of this myth came from when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lied to the U.N about Iran's nuclear capability in 2012, and recently revised these fears when he came to the United States to address Congress about this myth of a nuclear Iran and how we need to undermine President Obama and stop these sanctions. This would not have been tolerated if this was any other nation. Just imagine if the French President addressed Congress to undermine Bush about the Iraq War. I can GUARANTEE you that the media would not be treating him as warmly and politely as we've been treating Netanyahu for trying to undermine our country and leadership. Since that speech, the media has bought into it (I weep every time I see one of those Iran getting a nuclear bomb cartoons) and this myth got more hype when Sen. Tom Cotton and the 47 traitors sent a letter to the Ayatollah of Iran, stating that we would violate any deal as soon as Obama got out of office in 2017 (the only other option is war with Iran), and all that has really hyped up this myth that I sincerely hope (but don't believe) will go away soon.
    http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb...intel-20120224
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...an-bomb-mossad

Similar Threads

  1. Is Anyone Currently on a No Dating Policy??
    By lifeisabeach in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 18-Jul-2011, 01:18
  2. Is FGI the best policy?
    By mizzycub in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 19-Apr-2009, 05:30

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.