They’ve got large numbers of captured T-62s, some captured Abrams tanks, recently captured a Syrian artillery base… they’ve got all the equipment they need, much more than the Kurds
So the way they’ll do it without artillery and heavy equipment is… using artillery and heavy equipment?
Looks like Obama is now committed to long term action, now saying we’re going to be bombing them for longer than “weeks”. I don’t understand his foreign policy-- it seems ridiculously reactive. If he’s willing to bomb ISIL for an extended period of time now, why didn’t he do so 2 months ago?
Maybe they can drive them, maybe even shoot. Can they fix them?
Because it’s not two months ago. Time does its thing.
Want him to invade Syria? You’ll have to wait for our next Republican administration. They’re already ramping up the “will IS attack America?” rhetoric.
To quote a thread on another board I read, where a lot of stories about ISIS have been posted:
Brilliant insight. I would never have thought of that.
I don’t want him bombing Iraq, so why would I want him to invade Syria? I’m questioning his strategy as it doesn’t seem he actually has one. What he has is a series of tactics.
OK. what’s yours?
Get out and* stay out.*
Which is what every other country in the world is doing. Maybe they know something we don’t.
Well maybe you should consider that things change. Ever been in the military? Things do change all the fraking time. Get off your high horse armchair quarterbacking what everyone should have done months or years or decades ago. Life’s fucking rough.
I’ll say whatever the fuck I want to say, thank-you-very-much. Feel free to skip over my posts if you find them offensive.
No.
Offensive? Bwahahahahahha!
The nice thing about large pieces of equipment is that we’re very good at breaking them.
He did the same thing in Libya: waited until Qaddafi’s forces had the advantage and had nearly defeated the insurgency to get involved. He makes decisions too slowly. We should have been bombing as soon as Iraq requested it.
He’s doing the right thing now though, and the nice thing about American military dominance is that you can wait and still pull out a victory. But we will be involved for quite some time, probably months. Although doing like Afghanistan and putting just a few special forces on the ground to spot our air power and reinforce the peshmerga would probably rout ISIS the way it did the Taliban.
And look what a success that has been!
Are you under the impression this deal was specific to Iraq? That it is uniquely disadvantageous for them? American soldiers stationed in German, Japan and South Korea are also under the jurisdiction of the US military.
The US government didn’t want the possibility of American soldiers to become civilian political pawns, Maliki wanted terms our closest allies don’t even get.
I don’t trust Italy’s justice system. Why should I trust Iraq’s?
Why? Are we a vassal state of Iraq, that we should jump when they command it?
Frankly, I prefer not to rush too quickly into war.
The only reason I suggested waiting until Iraq requested it is out of respect for their sovereignty.
As for rushing into war, rushing to start a war is bad. Dithering while a war is going on and your allies are losing is not a virtue.
“Allies” is, as usual, a term of art. I am ready to see us help protect the fearful and the helpless. The fact that it supports the Maliki regime is an undesirable collateral benefit. At least some of the sympathy these monsters enjoy amongst the Sunni element is due to the Sunni sense of grievance at his hands. Truly, the Shia well deserve *their *sense of grievance at the hands of the Sunni, but a regime of retribution is not a government.