A Simple Solution to solving ISIS

[Lucy Hamilton]

The Muslim Army are a professional army with battleground experience unlike the Iraq Army.

Really? And where is this fantasy battle-hardened army of yours?

In their fantasy-addled mind....in Fantasia Utopia.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

First, we need a CinC who is not supporting ISIS and AQ

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

I don't understand why the US Neocons want to put US soldiers on the ground.

You won't actually find any pseudo-conservatives committing to this plan. You won't find them committing to any plan, except one which involves sending innocents back home to be slaughtered and bugging mosques.

Like always, they have no plan. They only have an anti-plan: "Whatever Obama is doing, we are against that."

Huh? Obama is following the Neo-Conservatives plan himself.

It is impossible to follow a plan which does not exist. The pseudo-conservatives don't have a plan.

Are the pseudo-conservatives the neo-conservatives?

I'm on the Right but I LOATHE the Neo-Cons with a passion.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

First, we need a CinC who is not supporting ISIS and AQ

My goodness, give you a cigar! Yes, Obama isn't even subtle, it's just so terribly obvious with him.

 

[CowboyTed]

I don't understand why the US Neocons want to put US soldiers on the ground. When a simpler solution is available.

A major in the Indian army make $99 dollars a month. A lot of these soldiers have military experience and the army 1.3 million big. They 20% muslim. Bangladesh has also a big army as do many muslim nations.

I figure if you offer $1000 a month salary and another $1000 for support you could raise an army of volunteers (100,000+) from these various armies for about $200m a month. With western air support they could defeat ISIS in a matter of months. Performance driven.

We could use the UN if needed but ISIS are war criminals so that would be much of a hassle. So the years bill would be $2.4 billion spread between a lot countries. You get a friendly Muslim country to propose it, US is better leading from the back on this one.

So a great Muslim Army defeats the radicals and the West looks like we have nothing to do with it.

This is not a new plan and was done plenty of time in the Cold War.

Bit trick is to figure out a post war plan. Syria has be in control when finished or another uprising with the same crowd would happen. At this stage the Muslim Brotherhood would look good but a modern muslim secular like Turkey would be best.

This is a far reduced price tag and less blow back on US and other western states.

We have been providing money to Iraq for their military support for several years.

And we saw how their army collapsed and ran in the face of ISISBOOMBAH, leaving behind all that US military equipment which ISIS now owns.

The Iraqi army vastly outnumbered ISIS, and they still tucked tail and ran.

So there's that precedent going for you.



You know what's funny?

The whole reason Osama bin Laden created Al Qaeda is because he wanted Muslim troops to deal with the invasion of Kuwait. He didn't want the US involved.

And look how things have gone since then.

And now here you are, uttering the exact same party line as OBL.

Isn't that interesting?

G,

You are totally right about the Iraq Army and the reason they were hopeless is because they were on an employment scheme not a professional army with any real discipline. The real Iraq army was disbanded, they were the actually trained ones and possibly more than a few ended up in ISIS.
The other armies especially India and Bangladesh are quite professional and have pride in the discipline. They would be backed by special forces from possibly western countries.
The thing is this has all been done in the UN before... The UN has an army of 80,000+ around the world and mixes countries in its command structure. The US doesn't do this and likes to have it all US or nothing(each to there own).

If I am wrong, there was no US soldiers involved..

 

[The Great Goose]

I don't understand why the US Neocons want to put US soldiers on the ground. When a simpler solution is available.

A major in the Indian army make $99 dollars a month. A lot of these soldiers have military experience and the army 1.3 million big. They 20% muslim. Bangladesh has also a big army as do many muslim nations.

I figure if you offer $1000 a month salary and another $1000 for support you could raise an army of volunteers (100,000+) from these various armies for about $200m a month. With western air support they could defeat ISIS in a matter of months. Performance driven.

We could use the UN if needed but ISIS are war criminals so that would be much of a hassle. So the years bill would be $2.4 billion spread between a lot countries. You get a friendly Muslim country to propose it, US is better leading from the back on this one.

So a great Muslim Army defeats the radicals and the West looks like we have nothing to do with it.

This is not a new plan and was done plenty of time in the Cold War.

Bit trick is to figure out a post war plan. Syria has be in control when finished or another uprising with the same crowd would happen. At this stage the Muslim Brotherhood would look good but a modern muslim secular like Turkey would be best.

This is a far reduced price tag and less blow back on US and other western states.

Isis would beat them. Its well known mercenary armies aren't any use against a determined enemy.

The Muslim Army are a professional army with battleground experience unlike the Iraq Army. They have superior numbers, air support, artillery support, satellite support, drones...

Sorry this is not the an Iraq type army which was an army to keep guys employed.

So you want to HIRE professional soldiers? as opposed to just employing a few countrymen. Hmmm.

They'll take your money and just pissfart about. Especially indians. A mercenary army of Afrikaners, maoris or ghurkers might do the trick, but pakis and indians? Theyll pissfart about. Those lot are survivors. Why do you think there is so many of them?

 

[paulitician]

Man, when are Amerians gonna wake up? ISIS is a mercenary terrorist gang created by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. It was created to kill Assad in Syria. Reports today are stating that the U.S. isn't bombing ISIS. It's bombing the Syrian Military.

So the U.S. is actually helping ISIS. Americans just need to stop solely depending on American Government/Corporate Media for their information. It's propaganda lies for the most part. They should begin demanding their Government stop all the meddling and killing. They should demand it leave lands it doesn't belong in.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

First, we need a CinC who is not supporting ISIS and AQ

My goodness, give you a cigar! Yes, Obama isn't even subtle, it's just so terribly obvious with him.

Hillary and Obama made it the mess it is today! They destroyed Libya, Iraq, most of Syria and Afghanistan

 

[CowboyTed]

I don't understand why the US Neocons want to put US soldiers on the ground.

You won't actually find any pseudo-conservatives committing to this plan. You won't find them committing to any plan, except one which involves sending innocents back home to be slaughtered and bugging mosques.

Like always, they have no plan. They only have an anti-plan: "Whatever Obama is doing, we are against that."

How about we pretend it's their plan?

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

First, we need a CinC who is not supporting ISIS and AQ

My goodness, give you a cigar! Yes, Obama isn't even subtle, it's just so terribly obvious with him.

Hillary and Obama made it the mess it is today! They destroyed Libya, Iraq, most of Syria and Afghanistan

Agreed, it's only the Leftists who have an inability to admit this. Were this a Republican Administration they'd have already been protesting and out there on their inane marches, banging pots and pans and blowing their whistles.

When it's a Democrat Administration, they not only condone it all, they actually become warmongers themselves.

Typical Leftist hypocrisy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'll never stop posting it until it finally dawns on people that Obama actually switched sides. We won Al Anbar, defeated the Insurgents until Obama switched sides. He withdrew US troops in 2012 and today, ISIS controls Ramadi

""Raider" Brigade takes over Ramadi[edit]
In January 2007, the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, on its third tour to Iraq, arrived in Ramadi and assumed responsibility from Macfarland's brigade on February 18 at a transfer ceremony at Camp Ramadi. During the ceremony, which was attended by Sheikh Sattar, MacFarland said that his brigade had lost 86 soldiers, sailors and Marines during the 8 month campaign (though the Brigade had spent a total of nearly 17 months in Iraq).[43][44]

In January 2007, Ramadi averaged approximately 35 enemy attacks on US forces per day. Following heavy fighting over an 8-week campaign, which was led by a Task Force commanded by 1st Brigade, 3rd ID, also known as Task Force Raider, attacks in the brigade's area of operations dropped to one or two per day within the city of Ramadi. In the early months of 2007, 3-69 Armor Battalion, in conjunction with two Marine Battalions, along with TF PathFinder was largely responsible for securing Southern and Central Ramadi. By August 2007, Ramadi had gone 80 consecutive days without a single attack on US forces and the 1st BDE, 3rd ID commander commander, Colonel John Charlton, stated, "...al-Qaida is defeated in Al Anbar". However, despite 1-3 ID's effectiveness, insurgents continued to launch attacks on Ramadi and the surrounding areas in the weeks and months to follow. On June 30, 2007, a group of between 50 and 60 insurgents attempting to infiltrate Ramadi were intercepted and destroyed, following a tip from Iraqi Police officers. The insurgents were intercepted by elements of the 1st Battalion, 77th Armor on 30 June 2007 and on 1 July 2007 they were destroyed by elements of Bravo company, 2nd Squad, 1st platoon, 1-18 Infantry Regiment. 1-18 operated out of the Ta'Meem district of Ramadi's western sector. North of Ramadi, elements of 3-69 Armor, whose headquarters had been moved north of Ramadi, engaged elements of al-Qaeda in Iraq who had taken refuge in rural areas north of the city. After several counter-insurgency operations, 3-69 AR Battalion effectively removed Al Qaeda in Iraq from the greater Anbar province. By March 2008, Ramadi, Iraq had become a vastly safer city than it had been only a year before and the number of enemy attacks in the city had fallen drastically. Years later, by mid 2012, Ramadi remained far safer than it had been since 2003.[45][46][47]"

 

[CowboyTed]

The Muslim Army are a professional army with battleground experience unlike the Iraq Army.

Really? And where is this fantasy battle-hardened army of yours?

India have been fighting Pakistan in the mountains for years. Both countries provide huge numbers to UN peacekeeping roles.

But they are professional armies and with the pay so much increased they would be volunteering within their ranks. There is plenty of professional soldiers who would be up to it. These are not reserves and with the added support from the west they would have a massive advantage. UN peacekeeping is a highly disciplined role and they have all been deployed with western EU forces for years.
This is not a ragtale army but a professional one which are ready for a war.

This not something that makes news in the US too often,
List of countries by number of UN peacekeepers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And Obama is already on the case using the UN route initially:
Countries to pledge troops to bolster UN peacekeepers after intense US pressure

Ireland with a very small army has lost 90 troops in UN peacekeeping alone. That's defending innocent people in foreign countries.
US has a army for 266 times of Ireland's. That would the equivalent of US losing 23,000 troops.
I know the Irish ones are very professional and their discipline is very high.

 

[CowboyTed]

I don't understand why the US Neocons want to put US soldiers on the ground. When a simpler solution is available.

A major in the Indian army make $99 dollars a month. A lot of these soldiers have military experience and the army 1.3 million big. They 20% muslim. Bangladesh has also a big army as do many muslim nations.

I figure if you offer $1000 a month salary and another $1000 for support you could raise an army of volunteers (100,000+) from these various armies for about $200m a month. With western air support they could defeat ISIS in a matter of months. Performance driven.

We could use the UN if needed but ISIS are war criminals so that would be much of a hassle. So the years bill would be $2.4 billion spread between a lot countries. You get a friendly Muslim country to propose it, US is better leading from the back on this one.

So a great Muslim Army defeats the radicals and the West looks like we have nothing to do with it.

This is not a new plan and was done plenty of time in the Cold War.

Bit trick is to figure out a post war plan. Syria has be in control when finished or another uprising with the same crowd would happen. At this stage the Muslim Brotherhood would look good but a modern muslim secular like Turkey would be best.

This is a far reduced price tag and less blow back on US and other western states.

Isis would beat them. Its well known mercenary armies aren't any use against a determined enemy.

The Muslim Army are a professional army with battleground experience unlike the Iraq Army. They have superior numbers, air support, artillery support, satellite support, drones...

Sorry this is not the an Iraq type army which was an army to keep guys employed.

So you want to HIRE professional soldiers? as opposed to just employing a few countrymen. Hmmm.

They'll take your money and just pissfart about. Especially indians. A mercenary army of Afrikaners, maoris or ghurkers might do the trick, but pakis and indians? Theyll pissfart about. Those lot are survivors. Why do you think there is so many of them?

Nope, use the already structures in place and ask the muslim nations to donate willing troops for money. Again this was done by Brits for centuries with Warlords, we are just upping the stakes a little.

Gurkha is the right idea just the wrong religion. Gurkha are considered to be some of the best soldiers in the world pound for pound. They would be the last ones I would slagging off.

 

[Preacher]

I don't understand why the US Neocons want to put US soldiers on the ground. When a simpler solution is available.

A major in the Indian army make $99 dollars a month. A lot of these soldiers have military experience and the army 1.3 million big. They 20% muslim. Bangladesh has also a big army as do many muslim nations.

I figure if you offer $1000 a month salary and another $1000 for support you could raise an army of volunteers (100,000+) from these various armies for about $200m a month. With western air support they could defeat ISIS in a matter of months. Performance driven.

We could use the UN if needed but ISIS are war criminals so that would be much of a hassle. So the years bill would be $2.4 billion spread between a lot countries. You get a friendly Muslim country to propose it, US is better leading from the back on this one.

So a great Muslim Army defeats the radicals and the West looks like we have nothing to do with it.

This is not a new plan and was done plenty of time in the Cold War.

Bit trick is to figure out a post war plan. Syria has be in control when finished or another uprising with the same crowd would happen. At this stage the Muslim Brotherhood would look good but a modern muslim secular like Turkey would be best.

This is a far reduced price tag and less blow back on US and other western states.

That might work if it wasn't for the fact that the US NEEDS and WANTS "terrorists" in the ME because it gives the US and its allies a reason to stay involved in the ME,since the US's politicians are elected by corporations donating money to their campaigns those corporations want a return on their investment and that is the money they make profiting from war!

 

[bendog]

Did anyone point out to Ted that India is not a muslim country? No way am I wasting my time reading the entire thread; the OP was enough.

 

[paulitician]

I have a better solution. The U.S. should stop creating mercenary terrorist gangs to do its dirty work. And it should stop all the meddling and killing it's currently doing all over the world. Al Qaeda and ISIS owe their success to the U.S. almost entirely. Without its funding & arming, they would be nowhere.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

I don't understand why the US Neocons want to put US soldiers on the ground. When a simpler solution is available.

A major in the Indian army make $99 dollars a month. A lot of these soldiers have military experience and the army 1.3 million big. They 20% muslim. Bangladesh has also a big army as do many muslim nations.

I figure if you offer $1000 a month salary and another $1000 for support you could raise an army of volunteers (100,000+) from these various armies for about $200m a month. With western air support they could defeat ISIS in a matter of months. Performance driven.

We could use the UN if needed but ISIS are war criminals so that would be much of a hassle. So the years bill would be $2.4 billion spread between a lot countries. You get a friendly Muslim country to propose it, US is better leading from the back on this one.

So a great Muslim Army defeats the radicals and the West looks like we have nothing to do with it.

This is not a new plan and was done plenty of time in the Cold War.

Bit trick is to figure out a post war plan. Syria has be in control when finished or another uprising with the same crowd would happen. At this stage the Muslim Brotherhood would look good but a modern muslim secular like Turkey would be best.

This is a far reduced price tag and less blow back on US and other western states.

Isis would beat them. Its well known mercenary armies aren't any use against a determined enemy.

The Muslim Army are a professional army with battleground experience unlike the Iraq Army. They have superior numbers, air support, artillery support, satellite support, drones...

Sorry this is not the an Iraq type army which was an army to keep guys employed.

So you want to HIRE professional soldiers? as opposed to just employing a few countrymen. Hmmm.

They'll take your money and just pissfart about. Especially indians. A mercenary army of Afrikaners, maoris or ghurkers might do the trick, but pakis and indians? Theyll pissfart about. Those lot are survivors. Why do you think there is so many of them?

Nope, use the already structures in place and ask the muslim nations to donate willing troops for money. Again this was done by Brits for centuries with Warlords, we are just upping the stakes a little.

Gurkha is the right idea just the wrong religion. Gurkha are considered to be some of the best soldiers in the world pound for pound. They would be the last ones I would slagging off.

I agree that the Gurkha's are amazing.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Did anyone point out to Ted that India is not a muslim country? No way am I wasting my time reading the entire thread; the OP was enough.

There's a minority of Muslims in India, naturally they cause immense trouble, the Indian Government does rather a good job of trying to keep them under some sort of control.

 

[CowboyTed]

Did anyone point out to Ted that India is not a muslim country? No way am I wasting my time reading the entire thread; the OP was enough.

India is 15% muslim with a 1.3m army, That would suggest they have just short of 200k muslim soldiers. Bangladesh has 250k soldiers...
Turkey 600k+... These are professional soldiers not reserves...
All in all I have been told there is 6 million soldiers to choose from...

I was going for India and Bangladesh because they are cheap and well tested.

 

[g5000]

First, we need a CinC who is not supporting ISIS and AQ

Done.

Next?