ISIS. I think they are

winning and the world leaders are in a panic.

With the latest abhorrent attacks in Paris, it seems that our collective "intelligence gathering systems", to prevent these types of incidents from occurring, are overloaded and somewhat powerless.

I'm generally not one to overreact but this is pretty scary stuff IMHO:eek1:

Gordon, relax, I have buddies in communications at Ft. Huachuca here in southern Az, they and many,many others are listening to some serious crap on-line, on cell phones. the Arabic language and their codes are no match for the West. What ****es me off is that we know most of their positions in mass to turn them into glass but, for every one we might blow up, there are 10 more sleeper cells and a 100 more willing to kill in the name of Allah Akbar.


My thoughts and prayers for those in Paris, we should expect the same here soon...

What gets me, is that it's not like they haven't been saying what they were going to do. They just finally made good on their word. Why do we, and other nations, wait until the blow, where hundreds of innocent lives are taken, before we get serious about it? If someone gets in an argument with me, says they are going to hit me, and raises their fist up to show me they mean business, do I need to wait until my nose is bleeding before defending myself?

I don't know the correct answer or response we, along with other nations, should have. Like many things in life, there are no easy solutions. But not taking them seriously and doing just a bare minimum to defeat them, certainly hasn't been the correct response. I also think the US had better get tighter on our own immigration policy, so we know as much as possible about who is coming and leaving from our own country in these times. I have no doubt that we have within our borders, groups currently planning the same type of attacks.

I too offer my prayers and thoughts to those in France.

Well said Kevin, I concur………….

I would like to think that is is common knowledge to most people, what the intention of ISIS is for anyone that does not follow the Muslim faith, though I'm afraid that is not the case.

I'm puzzled how once this attack on France, and it's certainly not the first time something has happened, the French began air strikes on fuel, supply lines and other strategic sites of ISIS. France has been having problems with Islamic militants for quite a while now. How can any of our governments know where the "enemy", (sorry if that offended any of you) is and not be being proactive.

I understand the thought of If we attack them they will retaliate but ISIS is coming for us non Muslims regardless.

I am not in any way suggesting that all Muslims are radical but for our government to deny that Radical Islam or Islamic Terrorists exist is awfully short sited. It is most likely to late but we had better pay closer attention to who is entering our country.

Yes my friends, all good points.

But if a significant presence of US troops is required in the Middle East to "turn the corner" on this conflict, how many Americans would support that proposition?

I frankly don't see that as a viable option in the "tool bag".

I would need to see a MAJOR effort from the Middle East and Europe to seriously wipe out ISIS before I would side with boots on the ground effort from our men and women.

Brad225 said:

I would need to see a MAJOR effort from the Middle East and Europe to seriously wipe out ISIS before I would side with boots on the ground effort from our men and women.

Click to expand...

Yes. I agree.

Brad225 said:

I would need to see a MAJOR effort from the Middle East and Europe to seriously wipe out ISIS before I would side with boots on the ground effort from our men and women.

Click to expand...

Because that worked out so well last time.......

So would you suggest waiting until you have the mark of the Nazarene on your front door before you all pull out your boomerangs to fight them?

A couple of armchair generals on this forum.
Going into war half arsed is why we are in this this situation in the first place.

I don't have any answers to this terrible situation, sure as hell none you do either.

Scumurculum said:

A couple of armchair generals on this forum.
Going into war half arsed is why we are in this this situation in the first place.

I don't have any answers to this terrible situation, sure as hell none you do either.

Click to expand...

So do you think if we leave them alone and say nice things about them they will just go away?

Let's be nice please. I think there is consensus that going to war with Iraq was a massive mistake and helped contribute to the current unrest in that area.

One potential benefit is that Russia and the USA now have a common enemy and that it may impact Russia's current ambiguous attitude towards Syria.

Another is the fact the all civilized nations see ISIS as a threat to their ideals and maybe, just maybe, this will prompt a global discussion on how to rid this scourge from the face of this earth.

Thank you Gordon, well said.

It just gets my blood boiling when people are all gun-ho to go to war, especially given recent history.

I am not in any way a pacifist, but this situation needs an intelligent global solution, as opposed to a knee-jerk boot on ground response that will probably make things worse.

Anyway, I'm off to play with my boomerangs.

I have a question if anyone knows... what the f*** is the difference between ISIS and Alqueda (sp??) .... I have a friend from Lebanon who claims that the US supported what were then allies in another conflict .... don't remember the conflict... somewhere in the Mideast.... but they were supported as we wanted to rid whomever was in power etc..... and then he claims essentially the same group of people... rebels ... whatever..... are called ISIS in other situations.....because we are against whatever cause they are chirping about....

what I do know is that they are 'evil doers'.... and you can not kill innocents and expect anyone to be helping your cause. Reflecting back on George W. Bush's speech (Gordon's favorite president... Where the hell is Len??)....about - if you support terrorist activity in your country - you are our enemy... you are either with us or against us... type of mentality..... Do we agree with that yet?? Do we believe that if countries support terrorist groups that we should get involved militarily? If this would have happened in the States - what would your answer be then? Did the Iraq piece fuel this.... or did it actually delay it??? Has the Obama administrations policies helped or hindered this type of terrorist activity and the growth or so it seems of a terrorist group? Just some open ended questions for you to stir it up a bit...

Gordon Gray said:

Let's be nice please. I think there is consensus that going to war with Iraq was a massive mistake and helped contribute to the current unrest in that area.

One potential benefit is that Russia and the USA now have a common enemy and that it may impact Russia's current ambiguous attitude towards Syria.

Another is the fact the all civilized nations see ISIS as a threat to their ideals and maybe, just maybe, this will prompt a global discussion on how to rid this scourge from the face of this earth.

Click to expand...

I agree, the war in Iraq was a mistake. But removing all of our military from Iraq, against the advice of top military advisors at the time, was also a huge mistake. ISIS started out in Syria, but easily spread into the vacuum created in Iraq as a result of our withdrawal. I can pull up multiple quotes, if need be, from both Obama and Biden labeling Iraq as a success before the troops were pulled out. ISIS was not a problem in Iraq before that ill advised withdrawal. Biden even went as far as to say that things were so good in Iraq, prior to our leaving, that Iraq was a success for the 'Obama administration'.

But knowing that removing Saddam Hussein was a "massive mistake", what would one label the removal of Muammar Gaddafi, when we had the advantage of hindsight with what happened in Iraq? ISIS has spread into Libya as well, and were even on the streets in Libya celebrating the attacks on France. I think there is plenty of blame to go around when it comes to the current situation with ISIS.

I think it's important to know how ISIS came to be and spread so easily, but even more important is what we do 'now' about it. We can analyze the past, but we must live in the future. I would not do war half way, that never works at well. Either make the effort to destroy ISIS or stay the heck out of the problem. I don't know if we should commit troops on the ground or not, and agree that should we decide to do so, we shouldn't be even close to being alone. The airstrikes might have a good appearance of getting the job done, but every career military person I have heard interviewed or quoted seem to suggest that there is no taking out ISIS without a ground attack effort.

Hi Kevin,

I think most folks forget the fact that Moleki, the President of Iraq, circa 2007, "cut the deal" with President GWB that American troops would be withdrawn from Iraq in 2010 or 2011.

And, of course, Obama is blamed for the troop withdrawal and the subsequent consequences thereof.

And Gadaffi, as best as I can tell, had reasonable control over political unrest and those groups that threatened his power in Syria, before he was deposed.

To me, these two departures opened the door for ISIS for their current success to do what they are doing today.

Best,

Gordon

If you want to rid the world of terrorism, wars in the Middle east and the majority of war around the globe, abolish religion. Until that happens the violence will never end.

Gordon Gray said:

Hi Kevin,

I think most folks forget the fact that Moleki, the President of Iraq, circa 2007, "cut the deal" with President GWB that American troops would be withdrawn from Iraq in 2010 or 2011.

And, of course, Obama is blamed for the troop withdrawal and the subsequent consequences thereof.




And Gadaffi, as best as I can tell, had reasonable control over political unrest and those groups that threatened his power in Syria, before he was deposed.

To me, these two departures opened the door for ISIS for their current success to do what they are doing today.

Best,

Gordon

Click to expand...

Hi Gordon- It was assumed that the status of forces agreement could be renegotiated before it expired in 2011, depending upon the conditions in Iraq at that time. Think about it. If it was set in stone, by Bush, that all troops would be removed in 2011, then why did Obama's promise to remove all troops from Iraq play such a large part in his campaign platform? He promised again and again in campaign speeches that he would bring our troops home from Iraq. In a debate with Romney, the following exchange took place. Romney: "You didn't want a status of forces agreement?" Obama: "What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East." It sure seemed to me at the time that Obama was determined to bring home the troops, and not even make an attempt to renegotiate the agreement, even though the military was urging him to do just that.

When the troops were finally removed, he took the credit for having done so, I can't remember him sharing that credit with Bush..... at least at that time. Here is the beginning of his speech announcing the end of the war. Obama: "Good afternoon, everybody. As a candidate for President, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end -- for the sake of our national security and to strengthen American leadership around the world. After taking office, I announced a new strategy that would end our combat mission in Iraq and remove all of our troops by the end of 2011." He the proceeded to announce that he had kept 'his' promise.

Of course, once it was realized that removing all troops was a huge blunder, both Obama and his supporters then, and only then, started mentioning Bush as being the one who was responsible for ending the war. I don't buy that, and neither should you. Obama promised to end the war, he ran his campaign on being the one who would bring our troops home, and in the end, he took credit for having done so. If you take all the credit for your actions, then you must also assume all the consequences for those actions. These are the "facts" as I recall having taken place, mostly based upon the words of Obama himself.

If I remember correctly, the negotiations failed, under Bush, which led to the American withdrawal of forces. Obama had been campaigning that he would bring the troops home. It was a coincidence that occurred at the same time he was elected, so Obama took the credit for bringing the troops home, as was his wish anyway.