What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Why am I not surprised?

al Qaeda is getting jealous of all the attention being given to ISIS, and wants to get back into the limelight. :(

WASHINGTON—The U.S. is tracking multiple terror plots based out of Syria that target the West—threats that current and former intelligence officials say have been traced to al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate and not to Islamic State, the extremist group that has seized the world's attention.
Click to expand...
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

The French have joined in on the fight against the Islamic State. Ok, we can all breath a sigh of relief! Oh wait.... :D
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

joecct said:
Gentlemen - please get on the same page...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...11e4-b03f-de718edeb92f_story.html?tid=HP_more
Click to expand...

Don't employ US ground troops, there's no need. There should be enough regional groundforces to crush IS like the cockroaches they are (quoting my new hero Kevin O'Leary), along with using Western Air Support. The moderates in the region don't want the destabilization to continue. Let them fix it.
 
Timothy A said:
Don't employ US ground troops, there's no need. There should be enough regional groundforces to crush IS like the cockroaches they are (quoting my new hero Kevin O'Leary), along with using Western Air Support. The moderates in the region don't want the destabilization to continue. Let them fix it.
Click to expand...
Vietnam 1955-1964. Then it blew up.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Pessimism (realism?) says ISIS won't be easy to kill off, but there's an element that maybe makes the difference. Most homespun religious terror groups have some public support so they can mingle with the locals and expect some help. If we're right about ISIS (always a big if), everybody hates them -- especially the locals. Maybe that makes them more vulnerable.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

joecct said:
Vietnam 1955-1964. Then it blew up.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is equivilent to that. You had a country feeding revoltutionaries in another country that slowly escalated. Here you have people funneling into a region but are not supported directly by any one country. In hindsight, had S Vietnam fell in 1960, it would not have done anything to affect the US, so we should not have gone into there either. But the Cold War fear of Communism was real at that time and they (the US) acted accordingly.

I suppose this IS deal could blow up like Nam in 64 and let's say they take over Iraq. It's still not our problem and wouldn't be our problem unless they A) attack US conitental soil or B) get methods to deliver explosives from long range or C) get nuclear. A is the most likely, but I think they'll be content killing an occasional hostage or maybe attacking an embassy. The fact that they are p/o'ing the locals will help fuel the regoinal powers to act, but Obama has to clearly tell them what our plan is. Right now they are sitting back and assuming the West will try to clean this up for them (again), but history shows the West is not effective in dealing with issues like this because we don't commit enough ground forces to do the job right.
 
Timothy A said:
I don't think this is equivilent to that. You had a country feeding revoltutionaries in another country that slowly escalated. Here you have people funneling into a region but are not supported directly by any one country. In hindsight, had S Vietnam fell in 1960, it would not have done anything to affect the US, so we should not have gone into there either. But the Cold War fear of Communism was real at that time and they (the US) acted accordingly.

I suppose this IS deal could blow up like Nam in 64 and let's say they take over Iraq. It's still not our problem and wouldn't be our problem unless they A) attack US conitental soil or B) get methods to deliver explosives from long range or C) get nuclear. A is the most likely, but I think they'll be content killing an occasional hostage or maybe attacking an embassy. The fact that they are p/o'ing the locals will help fuel the regoinal powers to act, but Obama has to clearly tell them what our plan is. Right now they are sitting back and assuming the West will try to clean this up for them (again), but history shows the West is not effective in dealing with issues like this because we don't commit enough ground forces to do the job right.
Click to expand...
If the locals prove incompetent to deal with ISIS/L who IS going to deal with them?

Granted at this point ISIS/L does not have superpower backing them like the Soviet Union backed North Vietnam, but if the sentiment is to bomb them up to the Stone Age who is going to do it?

There was a coalition of sorts in the Vietnam War - mainly of SEATO signers, but most of them deserted the cause by the time Milhous took over and ended the conflict (after a surge or two).

Quagmire?
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

So Russia flies combat jets within 33 miles or so of Alaska and we send up fighters to chase them off.

Ah, the good old days.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Yeah, the only reason that's a news story is because Russia has been acting all "AHHH MOTHERLAND!1!!" again the past year.
 
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Yeah, the only reason that's a news story is because Russia has been acting all "AHHH MOTHERLAND!1!!" again the past year.
Click to expand...
Yeah every few years it pops up for one reason or another, everybody freaks out for a week and then goes on to the next thing.

Meanwhile those of us in Anchorage go "meh, not like the F-22's go streaking out of JBER for nothing..."
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

joecct said:
So Russia flies combat jets within 33 miles or so of Alaska and we send up fighters to chase them off.

Ah, the good old days.
Click to expand...

What's good for Putin is good for Northrop-Grumman. I for one welcome you suckers subsidizing my industry for yet another decade.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

So how the F does a wack job jump a fence and manage to run into the whitehouse? With all the money that is spent and rights lost all I'm the name of "security" and the secret service can't stop one person from entering the building? good grief.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top