polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 9:55am:

If the West fought like the Islamists, there would not be any Islam left, there would not be Muslim lands, there would be nothing. You would be completely obliterated.
Your luck, mujahaddins and jihadists,  is that the West is not like you. That is the only reason you still exist.

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 8:40pm:


The US did what exactly "in a few days"? And I'm still waiting on how exactly the US could have wiped out ISIS in 3 hours - despite spending 8 years failing to end the insurgency against them.

Sunni ISIS are not baathists, where to begin...
1. Saddam did not militarily conquer Iraq like ISIS was trying, he seized the arms of government in a CIA backed coup
2. Saddam did not take over Iraq as part of some holy war to literally wipe out shiites - like ISIS are trying
3. Baathists were secular and at least in theory ruled for all Iraqis, irrespective of religion or creed. Many shiites were baathist, and in fact the sunni-shiite identities were probably less important during Sadaam's rule than at any other time in Iraq's history.

ISIS never did and never will come close to conquering and ruling the whole of Iraq because a) almost the entire population is against them and b) they don't have the military strength to conquer it by force.

Quote:


no they didn't.

Quote:


define "army". Iraq's real strength is not the artificial US-made official "army" that runs away whenever under attack - its the Iranian trained Shiite militias that protect the Baghdad regime. The official army are the guys who ran from Mosul when ISIS started shooting at them. The shiite militias are the guys who retook it - and the rest of Iraq from ISIS control. Had ISIS posed any sort of threat to Baghdad and the regime, the militias would have been deployed and would have destroyed ISIS with relative ease. As it was, the regime was understandably relunctant to deploy shiite militias into sunni cities that were heartlands of anti-shiite resentment to start with. Hence why those cities were overrun. As always, Iraq's war against terrorism was greatly complicated by the usual sunni-shiite conflict.

Frank wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 10:17pm:


Hilarious attempt at playing the moral high ground card Frank: ISIS remains a problem only because we don't play dirty like muslims. Its actually quite adorable.

Suggest you take a crash course in Realpolitik Frank, you might learn a thing or two about intentions vis-a-vis western foreign policies. While you're at it, you might also take a course in simple common bloody sense.

First ask yourself, what gain does the west have in "obliterating" Islam and muslims? The reality is, the west has profited nicely over the decades from muslims working with and for them. They just happen to reside on energy rich ground that has great strategic significance. Of course they could simply exterminate all the inhabitants and simply take it over for themselves. But as any military strategist would tell you, its far more efficient and profitable to get others (ie the inhabitants) to do the work for you - rather than maintaining a direct occupation. And its worked fabulously for the west for decades - especially on the arab peninsula: arabs get rich extracting their oil, and in turn they supply the west with all their energy needs. Win win for everyone. But such a scenario obviously requires a certain level of political and social stability in the countries in question. So when jihadis and terrorists march in to rain on the parade, sure the west can storm in, destroy all the terrorists and half the country in the process - but that would be bad for the existing business arrangement. The destruction the west just reaped would cause political and social strife, that would impede that countries ability to make the west rich by providing them with their energy security. Far better is to take a softly-softly approach, empower the locals to take care of the terrorists themselves, and generally do as little as possible to disrupt the stability and prosperity of the country. You might even decide that letting the terrorists run rampant in some limited capacity doesn't affect business too much, and that destroying them completely might even be counter-productive. Thats basically the attitude Israel takes towards its jihadi enemies.

This is not about holding the moral high ground - its shrewd business. The west doesn't indiscriminately destroy when they have better, more efficient alternatives. The terrorists don't have that luxury. And yet, the west is not averse to causing massive suffering and destruction when it doesn't adversely affect their business interests. The Iraq blockade in the 90s that the UN estimated killed hundreds of thousands of children is a good example. At that stage Saddam and his country wasn't serving US interests, so they had no problem in destroying the country. Just look at the laundry list of murderous dictators the US installed and kept propping up (both in the muslim world and outside). Whether its indiscriminate or not - there is no bypassing the fact that in the post-war era, the blood of innocents on US hands far exceeds the blood of innocents on muslim hands 

But you're forgetting K, Uncle could have wiped out ISIS in 3 hours - FD says so...

Re. Vietnam - there's an interesting theory (actually pretty much common knowledge, and confirmed by on-the-record statements by US leaders) - that after a few years of failing to win over Vietnam, they took a "if we can't conquer it, we'll destroy it" approach.

Karnal wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2017 at 10:07am:


Not just the old boy. Its one of FD's more obnoxious memes. I think goes something like "after bringing democracy, freedom and prosperity to the colonies, the British decided job well done, mission accomplished, and happily packed up and left"

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2017 at 7:49am:


Those militias were deployed Gandalf. How much of the regime's strength do you think they were holding in reserve? And do you think it is wise to stretch a conflict like this out over a decade on your own soil because you don't want to upset people? Do you think it was a smarter idea to have America dropping bombs from a great height on your behalf than deploying your own citizens?

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2017 at 6:21pm:


When did I ever say they were on the verge of over-running the country? I expect they would have if Iraq did not have foreign support, but that is not the same thing.

You could always try sucking on both ends at once.