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

Ah, there we go, that's more like it. Let's re-ignite a US led ground war.

CNN

ashington (CNN)The U.S. military is trying to gather as much intelligence as it can about ISIS defenses in Mosul to make a key decision about whether it's necessary to recommend American ground troops accompany Iraqi forces on the looming fight to retake Iraq's second largest city.

The first move by Iraqi forces on the ground could come as soon as April, a U.S. Central Command official told CNN.

ISIS is continuing to attempt to reinforce its defenses of Mosul. If those defenses grow to a significant level, then Iraqi forces may need U.S. help in locating military targets to hit, the official said.

If ISIS defenses reach that critical point, the Pentagon and Central Command may then recommend to President Obama that U.S. troops be involved, the official said.

Aren't Americans tired of being the ones who always have to put down the bad guy? Especially considering it's your own government that creates these problems and these groups to begin with?

Are you all actually going to support MORE war in Iraq? More American lives lost in a war that isn't yours?

This manufactured group and conflict have done enough harm to you all I think.

~Tenth

sorry, WHAT defenses? there is a coalition of let's say 10 countries and constant air bombardements.
how can IS build defenses?
are they dropping kebab or what?

meanwhile you should think everything that looks remotely military on IS ground gets blown into pieces!

i seriously doubt they want to defeat IS...

also as a family who lost someone in battle over there it would make me very angry to see the situation is now worse than ever before.

i hope we learn from history. the only forces on the ground should be muslims. now is their time to show they are with us and against radical islam!

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.

As I said in another thread.

Troops on the ground can help.

But only if done right. And the USA has a poor record of doing it right.

Plus a US lead coalition would likely put many backs up and cause more support for ISIS. as it will add the whole "fight the imperialist American pigs" aspect .

Only was a Western coalition would work is if it was lead by a country OTHER than the USA.

France or the UK should led it with the USA in a supporting role. Say 25k British troops 25k French troops 50k American troops with a French or British General in command. Plus a few thousand from Canada, Australia ect

America will need to put there pride to one side and do what is best for the outcome. And a American lead campaign will just inflame things.

a reply to: crazyewok

when france or uk leads then they become the second great satan and IS as usually gets more support to fight the crusaders plus terror in europe.

why not let the muslims show that they are against muslim terrorism? they should start an offensive from all directions.
if not then i'm afraid this means they accept terror in the name of islam.

send muslims in and we are their bonus card in case they need air support.

originally posted by: anticitizen
a reply to: crazyewok

when france or uk leads then they become the second great satan and IS as usually gets more support to fight the crusaders plus terror in europe.

why not let the muslims show that they are against muslim terrorism? they should start an offensive from all directions.
if not then i'm afraid this means they accept terror in the name of islam.

send muslims in and we are their bonus card in case they need air support.

Well France has a resent record in Mali that is pretty good at dealing with extremists.[

And I agree the mulsim countrys should do there part and handle most of the hard work.

The problem is they has small, poorly trained and equipped armed forces.

The exception being Saudi Arabia and Iran. Iran want to help more but the US wont let them and Saudi Arabia are the ones probably funding ISIS.

The us,UK,and France cannot lead, it has to be locals with the west assisting.

Like say the kurds, Iraqi militias, (Iraq military if the guy in charge has released them from Bagdad defense) and probably Jordan. We help on the logistics side (beans bullets bombs and medicine) and with air power let them handle the ground.

It's the only way out at this point... So more than likely we will see another surge.

a reply to: crazyewok

I am good with that...
Except how about you make it 50,000 French troops, 50,000 British troops and 0 American troops.
Please, run the whole show.

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.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
Aren't Americans tired of being the ones who always have to put down the bad guy?
~Tenth

Yes when you consider it's the Iraqi's job to protect Iraq and that the Iraq's are either to stupid to learn and use combat tactics and weapons or they are to afraid or don't care themselves.

Why? given any of the above I noted, would we put our Kids, and many are kids, at risk to help people who wont help themselves cause I know they ain't to stupid to learn and be trained, cause we are all created equal...right?

We should stop funding oil wars and use the money to speed up Lockheed Fusion Reactor.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: anticitizen
a reply to: crazyewok

when france or uk leads then they become the second great satan and IS as usually gets more support to fight the crusaders plus terror in europe.

why not let the muslims show that they are against muslim terrorism? they should start an offensive from all directions.
if not then i'm afraid this means they accept terror in the name of islam.

send muslims in and we are their bonus card in case they need air support.

Well France has a resent record in Mali that is pretty good at dealing with extremists.

ok, true!
although i'm sceptic when it comes to western engagement in iraq and syria right now but i think we both agree that there is too little effort now to stop this IS.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: crazyewok


Except how about you make it 50,000 French troops, 50,000 British troops and 0 American troops.

Cause our army are tiny it would be impossible to put that amount in as we have only 100k troops and need them elsewhere.

And we cant just raise 25k extra troops out of nowhere.

And those are armys are small due to the US foreign policy's of the 60's and 70's makeing us dissemble our empires.


Anyway part of the ISIS problem is DOWN to the US reckless actions in Libya and Iraq so its only right you contribute something in fixing the mess you helped create.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: crazyewok

I am good with that...
Except how about you make it 50,000 French troops, 50,000 British troops and 0 American troops.
Please, run the whole show.

Yep, right. Leave the rest of the world to deal with the fallout of the #storm that was the American-led invasion, occupation and nation-building of Iraq.

I don't think another Western-led war will help things, but there shouldn't be a problem in supporting local troops in a liberation of Mosul, which the Pentagon is actively considering. News reports already claim that US, UK, Australian and Canadian forces have directly combated IS on the ground in some instances. Remaining in such a capacity in order to aid in the liberation of Mosul shouldn't be that much of an ask.

a reply to: daaskapital

Yep, right. Leave the rest of the world to deal with the fallout of the #storm that was the American-led invasion, occupation and nation-building of Iraq. 

America caused all the problems....

So you want us to go back and cause more trouble?

Go fix it and take all of the credit for a job well done. Thank you.

a reply to: crazyewok

Cause our army are tiny it would be impossible to put that amount in as we have only 100k troops and need them elsewhere. 

And we cant just raise 25k extra troops out of nowhere. 

What's your population?
Sounds like cold feet to me.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: daaskapital

Yep, right. Leave the rest of the world to deal with the fallout of the #storm that was the American-led invasion, occupation and nation-building of Iraq. 

America caused all the problems....

So you want us to go back and cause more trouble?

Go fix it and take all of the credit for a job well done. Thank you.

Did you even continue reading what i had written? I didn't say that America should go back and cause more trouble. I said that another Western-led war would not help things. Our supportive actions of local troops is what is needed, and such instances already appear to be working.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: crazyewok

Cause our army are tiny it would be impossible to put that amount in as we have only 100k troops and need them elsewhere. 

And we cant just raise 25k extra troops out of nowhere. 

What's your population?
Sounds like cold feet to me.

Are you that naive?

You cant just raise battalions out of thin air. This aint 1914.

You need months of training, modern and expensive equipment and volunteers.

We certainly wont conscript to sort out a American # up.

Yay, more annexation of sovereign states in order to pillage them of their natural gas/oil.

what does up to 75,000 USA personnel who serve as staging area logistics/supply, and Contractors, or weapons-tactics training instructors sound like?
will Obama OK that kind of task force to Iraq, at an Iraqi request...
mind you, these will not be combat positions or those 'boots on ground' personnel

this tactic will allow the Muslim Brotherhood to take charge in saving Iraq from the IS radical, Sunni, extremists from creating pockets of ISil within a sovereign nation the USA has interests in (the oil fields in Iraq)

the MB can then recruit the fighters it needs to defeat ISIS from places like Libya or even Chechnya or past battle zones like Kosovo and all the nations in that SE European region Serbian, Balkan, Albanian Jihadists to fight IS-ISIS

I sure can see that ploy playing out... and Obama's minions praising the administration & MB for cleaning up the Jihad mess by unruly Muslims in ISIS, Iraq-Syria-Kurdistan regions... gushing over how Islam under MB direction is civilized and better than the chaos of IS-ISIS-ISil (of WH focus)


the usa will get Islamified before BHO leaves the WH, 1 way or another
((the other way is for ISIS cells in the homeland to start their Jihad destructions in the 'open border' usa)

I'd like to see all the murderers go in first as well as the peados while we plan step 2 .
And tbh I wouldn't even arm them .