It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ISIS defenses in Mosul could be trigger for U.S. ground troop recommendation

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Willtell

And us boots on the ground would make it worse, how do you ignore that truth?

We have to let other middle east countries carry the load.


What u don’t understand is this:

The original sin was the invasion in the first place

What that did was obligate the US to the welfare of the country. Then once it was done and finished it was a reality that we had to deal with.

Obama should have accepted that if he wanted to be president...

So the next mistake may have been Obama leaving to early, granted Obama’s f up as well, though he didn’t do the original invasion he nevertheless has to understand once you invade a country you are responsible for it.


That’s the right thing to do but of course what’s right is one thing and what America under Obama does is another thing.

Unless all or much of this is only to destabilize the ME

Then the US IS WORST THAN ISIL
.
edit on 7-2-2015 by Willtell because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

IMO The fact that the countries around isis do nothing shows that the whole world is not the enemy of isis.

The saying enemy of my enemy is my friend does not apply.

I think the ones closest to isis that do not support them are being called out one by one so they can be defeated for going against isis.

Over here usa the current leaders have to put on a show to keep americans pacified into believing something will be done but like dominoes falling we will wake up one day and find that the islamic state grew X10 over nite as many claiming to be on one side suddenly show true colors.
edit on 7-2-2015 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Yes because the right thing to do is make it worse which a huge influx of troops would do, that's a brilliant plan.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: crazyewok


you should know Im about as Anti war on ATS as it gets.

I was against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and any future wars against Iran.

So you are for violating Syrian and Iraqi Sovereign territory now, though?

Just say it… Boots on Ground!


Iraq I thought were asking for the help?



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Last time I checked the atlas, there were 2 stand-out allies a lot closer to the action than the continental US of A.

Mobilization of ground forces from Saudi Arabia and Israel should be considered, nay, demanded.

Geographically, militarily and $$ wise it makes more sense and if either of them said no then the US should personally cut all diplomatic ties - just to say thanks for helping out, having their backs and assisting to collectively address this issue.

Gloves are off - so far, both those countries have delivered a plague of **crickets** regarding ISIS.

I mean WTF!!!!

The US needs to concentrate on the state of it's own back yard before jumping back over the fence to help clean up someone elses.

That's right, I forgot..........bloody Oil and Gas, oh well, I guess the US will need to deliver 3.3 Mega-freedoms of democracy to ISIS's doors if it wants to secure those assets.






if Israel sends an army to Iraq, the # has well and truly hit the fan.
edit on 2211642 by sg1642 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

You have to weigh their goals of world domination under a one world koranic government vs there ability to achieve those goals.

So far the signs point to the need to nip this.

It is much different than the russians taking over the ukraine or china claiming some islands that are in question.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   
There are absolutely no reasons I can think of that warrant ground forces being used because of ISIS defences being built. Defensive positions by their nature are static and therefore easy targets. The only reason they couldn't be neutralised from the air would be if they were inside the city and there was a risk of collateral damage. Our governments are only going to risk another Fallujah, Basra or Al Amarah if they're stupid or very stupid.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

Holding thousands of people hostage is one reason.

Murdering all non mooslims and raping children and marring them is another reason



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

The American funded ISIS wants Mosul because it is next to Nineveh. They want to rebuild it, as it will be the capital of Mystery Babylon, per Zephanian 2.

If America gets involves, it will probably result in the rebuilding of Nineveh.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
I can say that I'm tired of it. America and Britain are not the only countries out there with a military. ISIS has executed people from many different nations. It's time for some of them to step up to the plate as well. I mean, ISIS has killed people from France, Japan, Israel, America, UK, and who knows how many other countries. They even killed three Chinese, even though they were fighting with ISIS. But the point remains...

ISIS needs to be put down, but America shouldn't be spearheading everything all the time.


'Divide & Conquer' is your answer as to why Americas shadow government takes control of major crisis.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: sg1642

Holding thousands of people hostage is one reason.

Murdering all non mooslims and raping children and marring them is another reason
regardless of what force opposes them that situation is the same. Granted our troops would be a hell lot more effective in clearing the city but where does it end after that? It's an easy situation to get involved in and a hard one to exit.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Last time I checked the atlas, there were 2 stand-out allies a lot closer to the action than the continental US of A.

Mobilization of ground forces from Saudi Arabia and Israel should be considered, nay, demanded.

Geographically, militarily and $$ wise it makes more sense and if either of them said no then the US should personally cut all diplomatic ties - just to say thanks for helping out, having their backs and assisting to collectively address this issue.

Gloves are off - so far, both those countries have delivered a plague of **crickets** regarding ISIS.

I mean WTF!!!!

The US needs to concentrate on the state of it's own back yard before jumping back over the fence to help clean up someone elses.

That's right, I forgot..........bloody Oil and Gas, oh well, I guess the US will need to deliver 3.3 Mega-freedoms of democracy to ISIS's doors if it wants to secure those assets.






if Israel sends an army to Iraq, the # has well and truly hit the fan.



Only thing that could make this worst than a American lead coalition of boots on the ground is a Israeli one......



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Willtell

Yes because the right thing to do is make it worse which a huge influx of troops would do, that's a brilliant plan.


Where did I say send in a huge influx of troops?



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I'm totally against another USA lead ground offensive. I will support USA providing training and weapons. It's time for other countries to send in ground troops. It's time for Muslim nations to step up as well.

a reply to: tothetenthpower



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: bucsarg
I'm totally against another USA lead ground offensive. I will support USA providing training and weapons. It's time for other countries to send in ground troops. It's time for Muslim nations to step up as well.

a reply to: tothetenthpower



You see US foreign policy over the last 60 years has seen most of Europe disarm itself.

US have put itself in the position of being the sole military power in the west.


Ok the US has let both France and UK keep credible projection forces.
Yet the UK has been at the side of the US in every war in the last 30 years. So thanks to again your foreign police we are over stretched and war weary.


So that leaves France...... They have formidable forces but doubt they can go in alone.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: bucsarg
I'm totally against another USA lead ground offensive. I will support USA providing training and weapons. It's time for other countries to send in ground troops. It's time for Muslim nations to step up as well.

a reply to: tothetenthpower



You see US foreign policy over the last 60 years has seen most of Europe disarm itself.

US have put itself in the position of being the sole military power in the west.


Ok the US has let both France and UK keep credible projection forces.
Yet the UK has been at the side of the US in every war in the last 30 years. So thanks to again your foreign police we are over stretched and war weary.


So that leaves France...... They have formidable forces but doubt they can go in alone.
the British army has been over stretched and war weary since the dawn of time to be fair. It's almost a tradition.
the average French infanteer isn't much better a soldier than those in the Middle East either.
edit on 2831642 by sg1642 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: deadeyedick

a reply to: sg1642



Holding thousands of people hostage is one reason.



Murdering all non mooslims and raping children and marring them is another reason
regardless of what force opposes them that situation is the same. Granted our troops would be a hell lot more effective in clearing the city but where does it end after that? It's an easy situation to get involved in and a hard one to exit.

Good point.

I think many heroic stories often end after the day is saved and there is never much thought givin to part 2



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: deadeyedick

a reply to: sg1642



Holding thousands of people hostage is one reason.



Murdering all non mooslims and raping children and marring them is another reason
regardless of what force opposes them that situation is the same. Granted our troops would be a hell lot more effective in clearing the city but where does it end after that? It's an easy situation to get involved in and a hard one to exit.

Good point.

I think many heroic stories often end after the day is saved and there is never much thought givin to part 2
yep. The smaller the military footprint in Iraq the better. But what is there has to count. Intelligence gathering, fire support, training and mentoring can be provided by special forces. The key to this mess lies in the Middle East. In Iraq and the countries surrounding it. The people of the Middle East need to learn to become cooperative and sort this mess out. Yes it's not their mess to clean up it's ours, that much is true but regardless of that it is a very real problem and it is on their doorstep.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 03:43 AM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

If creation of ISIS costs 1 billion lets say

But military complex makes 10 billion of the war

That's profit, of course minus small things like countless dead and destroyed lives



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: PizzaAnyday505
a reply to: tothetenthpower

If creation of ISIS costs 1 billion lets say

But military complex makes 10 billion of the war

That's profit, of course minus small things like countless dead and destroyed lives
and Mr tax payer will pick up the bill.




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join