ISIS

[Quick Karl]

people would rather be bat shit frightened than believe that, but you are entirely correct.

Sure hope you're right!

[Quick Karl]

I saw that BBC series while on TDY to the UK a few years ago.  Truly an eye-opener for a guy who grew up in the Vietnam-era in the US.  Few know there are several Gurka regiments in the Indian Army as well as in the UK, I remember reading most of them are on the border with China.

I thought that Gurkas were originally Indian (of the south Asian persuasion) mercenaries? I know they cuts some head off in WWII, and their enemies were scared shitless of them, wherever they went...

Well now - a quick Wikipedia and, my recollection from a stack of WWII magazines given to me when I was a kid (I cannot recall the name of the magazine but they were periodical that came out monthly - an older veteran I knew gave me a 3-ft stack of them to read), may have been askew. I did recall that Gurkas were feared warriors, but I did not recall the Nepal connection.

Nevertheless, it will take men like them, with balls, to go fix the problem that useless morons in suits will never fix.

[Uncle Duke]

This is not a job for mercenaries, this is a job for the greatest military on the planet. Make no mistake about that. Mercs can be handy in certain situations, but clearly, this is not one of those situations.

A fair point and one I won't argue with in some scenarios.  For example a mercenary force rescued a significant number of Europeans in the Congo in 1964 (read "111 Days in Stanleyville" by David Reed). Also the pirates off Somalia were stymed, at least in part, by mercs providing security on merchant ships. 

On the other hand, you deploy the Gurkas and FFL para regiments in Syria and Iraq (with air support) and IS runs and hides.  Look into the FFL intervention in Kolwezi in 1978 as a example.  As good as US forces are, the FFL and Gurkas are world class.

[MV/Liberace!]

Sorry for making you try to think here.

i get that you want to make your point, as does everybody, but sometimes you come off as a total cunt in the course of doing so. almost makes me wish i didn't agree with your views on this subject. bleh.

[Uncle Duke]

i get that you want to make your point, as does everybody, but sometimes you come off as a total cunt in the course of doing so. almost makes me wish i didn't agree with your views on this subject. bleh.

Not to worry Sir.  I consider such comments for what they are worth.  Sadly there are some posters here who revert to the Cicero approach to argument.  When they get to that point, it's apparent they have given up making a rational point.  On the plus side, there are far more posters here who can make cogent, non-personal comments even when they disagree with others.

[Quick Karl]

Been there, done that.  Where do you think ISIL was incubated?

We will have to disagree - I do not believe we HAVE unleashed massive, overwhelming force. Ask any combat vet about "rules of engagement"... rules, designed by quivering lambs that cry when it gets too hot in their office or their coffee is too strong, that the people putting THEIR LIVES on the line must abide by.

We have NOT let the military do the job it was trained to do. We've used them as political pawns for election campaigns.

[Quick Karl]

On the plus side, there are far more posters here who can make cogent, non-personal comments even when they disagree with others.

Thanks Uncle Duke! I knew someone here would finally get me!

[FightTheFuture]

A fair point and one I won't argue with in some scenarios.  For example a mercenary force rescued a significant number of Europeans in the Congo in 1964 (read "111 Days in Stanleyville" by David Reed). Also the pirates off Somalia were stymed, at least in part, by mercs providing security on merchant ships. 

On the other hand, you deploy the Gurkas and FFL para regiments in Syria and Iraq (with air support) and IS runs and hides.  Look into the FFL intervention in Kolwezi in 1978 as a example.  As good as US forces are, the FFL and Gurkas are world class.

Yeah, like I said, mercenaries have their place. But this is a fairly complicated operation. It's going to require a great deal of force integration and highly complex command and control protocols spread out over a very large theater of operation. Not exactly suited to the standard mercenary force.

With that said, I would agree that they may play a small role in the larger picture. Depending on the mission.

I maintain we deploy 15 to 20 thousand American ground troops with artillery, into Western Iraq to cut escape routes. Our special operators push, cajole and horse whip the Iraqis to fight their way North. The Kurdish forces, armed now with our equipment and resources, move from the North. That all presupposes the fact that we will be greatly increasing our bombing sorties throughout Syria which will effectively chase  ISIL into the anvil, where they will be absolutely crushed. This plan makes the greatest use of our military, with the least amount of casualties

[FightTheFuture]

people would rather be bat shit frightened than believe that, but you are entirely correct.

Muslim Arabs  are coming across the Southern border all the time. That's not even being questioned. The only real question we're left with is, what are their intentions? At this point, don't we have to assume the worst?

[Quick Karl]

Yeah, like I said, mercenaries have their place. But this is a fairly complicated operation. It's going to require a great deal of force integration and highly complex command and control protocols spread out over a very large theater of operation. Not exactly suited to the standard mercenary force.

With that said, I would agree that they may play a small role in the larger picture. Depending on the mission.

I maintain we deploy 15 to 20 thousand American ground troops with artillery, into Western Iraq to cut escape routes. Our special operators push, cajole and horse whip the Iraqis to fight their way North. The Kurdish forces, armed now with our equipment and resources, move from the North. That all presupposes the fact that we will be greatly increasing our bombing sorties throughout Syria which will effectively chase  ISIL into the anvil, where they will be absolutely crushed. This plan makes the greatest use of our military, with the least amount of casualties

I say we just nuke a few random cities...

Anyways - the thing the really bugs the fricken shit outta me, is that we have what we are constantly being told are the smartest people leading our country (yes, I am talking about the US here), and those smartest people been sitting around ruminating for years and years, and I even remember when I was 17-years old and some of those smart people warned that what is happening in the Middle East today was coming, so it means that smart people had to have an idea what was coming, and yet, a handful of cavemen in the Middle East, somehow, like a miracle, are able to wreak havoc on innocent people, and the smart people we having running things, are like helpless idiots that are more worried about their vendetta for an offense they never suffered, and decide things based on how to destroy opposing political parties rather than do what even a maid working at a Days Inn knows is right.

It's like when you sit at your dining room table all proud of yourself, smoking a cigarette, talking about how you scammed the insurance company when your water heater exploded, while telling your child that if you catch them smoking you're going to beat them and they better not lie to you about anything - and then you wonder why your kid thinks you're an asshole and has no respect for you...

NOT directing this at you FTF - I'm just saying, in general, people that are full of themselves and think they are so fucking smart, should oughtta start acting like it, or one day your kids might snap and sneak up behind you and cave your head in with a baseball bat (that is a metaphor for rebellion, for those sensitive types that might read this all bass akwards).

[Uncle Duke]

Yeah, like I said, mercenaries have their place. But this is a fairly complicated operation. It's going to require a great deal of force integration and highly complex command and control protocols spread out over a very large theater of operation. Not exactly suited to the standard mercenary force.

With that said, I would agree that they may play a small role in the larger picture. Depending on the mission.

I maintain we deploy 15 to 20 thousand American ground troops with artillery, into Western Iraq toe cut escape routes. Our special operators push, cajole and horse whip the Iraqis to fight their way North. The Kurdish forces, armed now with our equipment and resources, move from the North. That all presupposes the fact that we will be greatly increasing our bombing sorties throughout Syria which will effectively chase  ISIL into the anvil, where they will be absolutely crushed. This plan makes the greatest use of our military, with the least amount of casualties

No argument except I think you can replace "American ground troops" with "capable Western ground troops".  If we can get the Turks in that mix, so much the better.  In the mean time, the coalition air forces are down to tank/vehicle "plinking", a clear sign in air war doctrine we are running out of targets.  No ground forces means no victory.

[PB the Deplorable]

Been there, done that.  Where do you think ISIL was incubated?

Well, seems pretty clear the Islamo-fascists sprang up in the vacuum Obama created by leaving the area before it was fully secured.  Just as multiple sources warned him would happen (his generals, his intelligence agencies, Romney and the Republicans, anyone else paying attention). 

Then he compounded that by playing golf while ISIS raced down the highway, slaughtering people at every village along the way.  That would have been the time for airstrikes - it's too late for that to be effective now.

[FightTheFuture]

No argument except I think you can replace "American ground troops" with "capable Western ground troops".  If we can get the Turks in that mix, so much the better.  In the mean time, the coalition air forces are down to tank/vehicle "plinking", a clear sign in air war doctrine we are running out of targets.  No ground forces means no victory.

Absolutely. I would be thrilled to have a sizable Britt force in place, maybe even augmented with some good Polish and Italian forces. That would leave us with about 1500 special operators to provide logistics and training, as well as a little motivation.

[FightTheFuture]

I say we just nuke a few random cities...

Anyways - the thing the really bugs the fricken shit outta me, is that we have what we are constantly being told are the smartest people leading our country (yes, I am talking about the US here), and those smartest people been sitting around ruminating for years and years, and I even remember when I was 17-years old and some of those smart people warned that what is happening in the Middle East today was coming, so it means that smart people had to have an idea what was coming, and yet, a handful of cavemen in the Middle East, somehow, like a miracle, are able to wreak havoc on innocent people, and the smart people we having running things, are like helpless idiots that are more worried about their vendetta for an offense they never suffered, and decide things based on how to destroy opposing political parties rather than do what even a maid working at a Days Inn knows is right.

It's like when you sit at your dining room table all proud of yourself, smoking a cigarette, talking about how you scammed the insurance company when your water heater exploded, while telling your child that if you catch them smoking you're going to beat them and they better not lie to you about anything - and then you wonder why your kid thinks you're an asshole and has no respect for you...

NOT directing this at you FTF - I'm just saying, in general, people that are full of themselves and think they are so fucking smart, should oughtta start acting like it, or one day your kids might snap and sneak up behind you and cave your head in with a baseball bat (that is a metaphor for rebellion, for those sensitive types that might read this all bass akwards).

I am not sure about nuking random cities, but I will say this: I was a strong advocate of deploying our nuclear arsenal  in Afghanistan, specifically the Tora Bora region. We had UBL and all his forces trapped and hiding in the mountains, With a few well-placed strikes, we could have rid the earth of that scourage in one day. That would also have sent a very clear message to the rest of our adversaries in the region..

[Quick Karl]

I am not sure about nuking random cities, but I will say this: I was a strong advocate of deploying our nuclear arsenal  in Afghanistan, specifically the Tora Bora region. We had UBL and all his forces trapped and hiding in the mountains, With a few well-placed strikes, we could have rid the earth of that scourage in one day. That would also have sent a very clear message to the rest of our adversaries in the region..

Our government has become infected with a cancer that is more worried about the hysterics of the purely divisive-fringe-political-and racial-groups they created, for the sake of a maniacal death-grip on power, than they are about doing what is right for anyone else but themselves and the bank accounts of their cronies.

[Zoo]

Nuke the Middle East then they can Nuke us and then it will be done!!1

[Quick Karl]

All of the intellectual giants in America can't seem to come up with a plan they can agree on, yet tiny little Israel, surrounded by bloodthirsty serial-killers bent on destroying them, somehow lives metaphorically, like KKK crackers in the middle of Ferguson MO, and they've managed to survive...

The difference between Israel and the rest of the "intellectual world" - is balls, and a grip on reality.

If anyone pops a nuke it will be the Israelis, and I hope they do it.

[Yorkshire pud]

All of the intellectual giants in America can't seem to come up with a plan they can agree on, yet tiny little Israel, surrounded by bloodthirsty serial-killers bent on destroying them, somehow lives metaphorically, like KKK crackers in the middle of Ferguson MO, and they've managed to survive...

The difference between Israel and the rest of the "intellectual world" - is balls, and a grip on reality.

If anyone pops a nuke it will be the Israelis, and I hope they do it.

Jeeze your simplification knows no bounds. I wish I lived in QK world. No complex world, no naunce, no people with different views of the world, and in this case not billions of dollars of US investment arming Israel who have pretty much spat out international law that other countries can't manage to do without sanctions. Oh, and that's before they joined the nuclear club that is denied other countries.

As I say QK world is pretty damn simple.

[MV/Liberace!]

Muslim Arabs  are coming across the Southern border all the time. That's not even being questioned. The only real question we're left with is, what are their intentions? At this point, don't we have to assume the worst?

Of course Muslims cross the Mexican border. So do Chinese, Polish, Swedish, and Russian people.

Your quote makes the case for better border control, which I'm all in favor of, but it misses the point of the discussion which was to question whether the cartel would support/back/fund ISIS in attacking the US from across the border. What your quote definitely doesn't do, in my opinion, is make the case for spending yet more trillions on the other side of the planet killing Islamic extremist animals, only to rinse and repeat every few years... building further hostility across generations as we go.

On the cartel thing... there's no way the cartel helps ISIS. It's a ludicrous notion. It entirely impairs the cartel's mission of making money through the free flow of drugs. A quick buck from some ISIS goons is never going to offer the steady prosperity the drug trade has given the cartel. As I said a week ago, with the first terrorist attack confirmed to have crossed the Mexican border, the border will be locked up so tightly you won't be able to throw a ball across it. This circumstance would not be favorable to the drug trade. Obviously.

[WOTR]

I am not sure about nuking random cities, but I will say this: I was a strong advocate of deploying our nuclear arsenal  in Afghanistan...

Any time that you start agreeing with George on the best tactic I would suggest that it is time to reexamine your thinking.

I have said it before- the biggest problem with breaking out nukes is that it suddenly gives the rest of the world permission to do the same.  The only reason for using them is because we do not want to risk our soldiers (which is reasonable.)  However,  I would suggest that there may be more than one leader who believes that a couple of well placed nukes in Washington would solve their problems.

There are two other problems with this.  First is that suddenly one of the only (semi)successful agreements that has ever come out of the UN would be pretty much useless.  The nuclear non proliferation treaty would see signatories pulling out as fast as possible.  If, suddenly you have one of the nuclear weapon states (NWS) using them on a non-NWS you are going to see countries finding that the only way to defend themselves and have security is building their own nukes.

Article 1 of the NPT states "Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons..."

I would say a good case could be made that using them in Afghanistan would have meant that the US (who has benefited greatly in terms of the security provided by this treaty) would be inducing countries to acquire nuclear weapons.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the US has "indicated that it may use nuclear weapons in response to an attack with non-nuclear "weapons of mass destruction", such as biological biological or chemical weapons, since the US may not use either of these in retaliation."

I would argue that using a nuke to bomb Afghanistan may not meet even the loosest interpretation of this declaration.

I suppose that I am saying that the short term gain (keeping our soldiers safe by just nuking the countryside) may be outweighed by the long term consequences of having dozens of countries deciding to join the nuclear weapons states once they feel that is the only way to provide security against a country who already possess the weapons and shows a willingness to use them.

Read the entire NPT posted on the UN's site here http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPTtext.shtml
The statement from the US regarding when they may use nukes is here http://www.dkosopedia.com/static/n/u/c/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty_dece.html

[MV/Liberace!]

Nuke the Middle East then they can Nuke us and then it will be done!!1

You're so cute when you talk like that.

[Yorkshire pud]

No argument except I think you can replace "American ground troops" with "capable Western ground troops".  If we can get the Turks in that mix, so much the better.  In the mean time, the coalition air forces are down to tank/vehicle "plinking", a clear sign in air war doctrine we are running out of targets.  No ground forces means no victory.

The principal problem any troops will have (I'll get to Gurkhas and FFL) is the same in any conflict that has the opposition melting into the population. Knowing who they are, and being sure you know who they are. These thugs have a command and control structure, a great many are the displaced ex Iraqi military commanders who benefitted from Western training in SH era. We're very very good at that; training the soldiers and pilots of other countries. They deliberately turn to US and UK governments to pay for their training teams to fly over and spend a few years turning shambolic, undisciplined but aggressive young men into very disciplined, motivated and highly trained aggressive fighting forces. Couple this with their home advantage and knowing their territory better than we ever can and they're not the walk over we might think they might be. We can't shame them; we can't make them see reason or feel compassion, it isn't something they recognise.

However, they goad us by murdering, raping, displacing and just generally go about being murderous bastards on their home turf, knowing full well that by and large, our troops are not (with the few exceptions) murderous, pillaging rapists.  We can't have any kind of negotiation with them, they're not interested, they basically couldn't care less what we say, do or think. For every one of theirs we kill, they'll get more to replace them, no sorrow, no regret, no pausing to contemplate their situation; they just get on with getting on.

This will be a long drawn out conflict, and has no end in sight, personally I think at best it will be contained, but only if there are soldiers on the ground. The likes of the FFL and Gurkhas is a noble gesture, but they don't have the numbers, they're in those special positions because they're the few of the very few who can meet the standards. Same goes for elite SF's, same goes for the Royal Marines, and indeed any quick, adaptable, better than the rest fighting force.  Estimates of the thugs is 30000 in number; it might be more. I appreciate that SF's by their definition fight above their weight, many fold in some cases, but fatigue sets in, and they can't sustain it for ever when the thugs can replenish easily; unless those prospective members are frightened to death to think about doing it, and that's where our PR comes in..psy ops. Convincing the wannabees that it really isn't worth it, and they won't reach paradise.

No pressure then?

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

Any time that you start agreeing with George on the best tactic I would suggest that it is time to reexamine your thinking.

I have said it before- the biggest problem with breaking out nukes is that it suddenly gives the rest of the world permission to do the same.  The only reason for using them is because we do not want to risk our soldiers (which is reasonable.)  However,  I would suggest that there may be more than one leader who believes that a couple of well placed nukes in Washington would solve their problems.

There are two other problems with this.  First is that suddenly one of the only (semi)successful agreements that has ever come out of the UN would be pretty much useless.  The nuclear non proliferation treaty would see signatories pulling out as fast as possible.  If, suddenly you have one of the nuclear weapon states (NWS) using them on a non-NWS you are going to see countries finding that the only way to defend themselves and have security is building their own nukes.

Article 1 of the NPT states "Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons..."

I would say a good case could be made that using them in Afghanistan would have meant that the US (who has benefited greatly in terms of the security provided by this treaty) would be inducing countries to acquire nuclear weapons.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the US has "indicated that it may use nuclear weapons in response to an attack with non-nuclear "weapons of mass destruction", such as biological biological or chemical weapons, since the US may not use either of these in retaliation."

I would argue that using a nuke to bomb Afghanistan may not meet even the loosest interpretation of this declaration.

I suppose that I am saying that the short term gain (keeping our soldiers safe by just nuking the countryside) may be outweighed by the long term consequences of having dozens of countries deciding to join the nuclear weapons states once they feel that is the only way to provide security against a country who already possess the weapons and shows a willingness to use them.

Read the entire NPT posted on the UN's site here http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPTtext.shtml
The statement from the US regarding when they may use nukes is here http://www.dkosopedia.com/static/n/u/c/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty_dece.html

My feelings exactly, except much more cleverly written than anything I would have posted.

[MV/Liberace!]

I have said it before- the biggest problem with breaking out nukes is that it suddenly gives the rest of the world permission to do the same. 

Great post.

[Yorkshire pud]

Any time that you start agreeing with George on the best tactic I would suggest that it is time to reexamine your thinking.

I have said it before- the biggest problem with breaking out nukes is that it suddenly gives the rest of the world permission to do the same.  The only reason for using them is because we do not want to risk our soldiers (which is reasonable.)  However,  I would suggest that there may be more than one leader who believes that a couple of well placed nukes in Washington would solve their problems.

There are two other problems with this.  First is that suddenly one of the only (semi)successful agreements that has ever come out of the UN would be pretty much useless.  The nuclear non proliferation treaty would see signatories pulling out as fast as possible.  If, suddenly you have one of the nuclear weapon states (NWS) using them on a non-NWS you are going to see countries finding that the only way to defend themselves and have security is building their own nukes.

Article 1 of the NPT states "Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons..."

I would say a good case could be made that using them in Afghanistan would have meant that the US (who has benefited greatly in terms of the security provided by this treaty) would be inducing countries to acquire nuclear weapons.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the US has "indicated that it may use nuclear weapons in response to an attack with non-nuclear "weapons of mass destruction", such as biological biological or chemical weapons, since the US may not use either of these in retaliation."

I would argue that using a nuke to bomb Afghanistan may not meet even the loosest interpretation of this declaration.

I suppose that I am saying that the short term gain (keeping our soldiers safe by just nuking the countryside) may be outweighed by the long term consequences of having dozens of countries deciding to join the nuclear weapons states once they feel that is the only way to provide security against a country who already possess the weapons and shows a willingness to use them.

Read the entire NPT posted on the UN's site here http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPTtext.shtml
The statement from the US regarding when they may use nukes is here http://www.dkosopedia.com/static/n/u/c/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty_dece.html

^^This.

[WOTR]

This whole thread has actually been quite good.  I will confess that I am pretty much ignorant when it comes to Gurkas and the Falklands war.  Reading the posts has been quite informative.  I also had not really considered the truth behind the Mexican cartels probably really wanting to keep terrorists out.  In some strange twisted manner, economic incentive (free flowing drugs) may make for great boarder security.

[Yorkshire pud]

This whole thread has actually been quite good.  I will confess that I am pretty much ignorant when it comes to Gurkas and the Falklands war.  Reading the posts has been quite informative.  I also had not really considered the truth behind the Mexican cartels probably really wanting to keep terrorists out.  In some strange twisted manner, economic incentive (free flowing drugs) may make for great boarder security.

[/b]

My enemies enemy....Strange alliances form with complicated situations.

[Yorkshire pud]

I think this is it. Enjoy.


http://youtu.be/F2MgB5R60Mo

[FightTheFuture]

Of course Muslims cross the Mexican border. So do Chinese, Polish, Swedish, and Russian people.

Your quote makes the case for better border control, which I'm all in favor of, but it misses the point of the discussion which was to question whether the cartel would support/back/fund ISIS in attacking the US from across the border. What your quote definitely doesn't do, in my opinion, is make the case for spending yet more trillions on the other side of the planet killing Islamic extremist animals, only to rinse and repeat every few years... building further hostility across generations as we go.

On the cartel thing... there's no way the cartel helps ISIS. It's a ludicrous notion. It entirely impairs the cartel's mission of making money through the free flow of drugs. A quick buck from some ISIS goons is never going to offer the steady prosperity the drug trade has given the cartel. As I said a week ago, with the first terrorist attack confirmed to have crossed the Mexican border, the border will be locked up so tightly you won't be able to throw a ball across it. This circumstance would not be favorable to the drug trade. Obviously.

I would agree that, generally speaking, the long term interests of the coyotes would not be best served  by transporting known elements of ISIL across the border, unless the money was too good to resist.

I can guarantee you, that if a couple of these ISIL folks come rooting around, and offer one of these small operators -- ones getting about 1k to 5k a head -- about 5 to 10 million to look the other way and drop them off across the border, you have to be pretty naive to believe they're not going to do it. However, the point I was trying to make is, we don't know what these people's intentions are, and neither do the coyotes. They could be ISIL, or may not be ISIL. Fact is, they don't wear a uniform saying that they are ISIL.

The bottom line is, we must secure our southern border. Hell, we probably need to take another look at our northern border. And, as soon as hell freezes over, we'll get right to it. Or, I guess, one of our cities takes a dirty bomb, or worse.

[FightTheFuture]

I have said it before- the biggest problem with breaking out nukes is that it suddenly gives the rest of the world permission to do the same.  The only reason for using them is because we do not want to risk our soldiers (which is reasonable.)  However,  I would suggest that there may be more than one leader who believes that a couple of well placed nukes in Washington would solve their problems.

No, what it does is inform the rest of the world that if you attack us, knock down our buildings, and kill thousands of our citizens, you will be annihilated.