Not in comparison with the other regional players, mainly Iran, Bashir's military forces, Israel or even Lebanon. It's easy to over-state the capabilities ISIS seems to represent just from the gains they've made in Iraq.
But it turns out conquering Iraq isn't actually that hard. It's KEEPING it that presents a bit of a challenge.
I'm sorry, were you actually trying to say it is not so easy to under-state the gains ISIS has made in Syria, controlling 1/3rd of the country...you know, the group that has "no comparison" to Bashir's military forces? And you also might note that no one was speaking of ISIS as "Jayvee" to Israel or Lebanon, but to those forces it actually engages and has often defeated.
I suggest you do some homework and re-read my link to the history of ISIS and how it has doubled in ability compared to the heyday of Iraq of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. After all, most folks were noticing that ISIS had kicked ass in Syria and Iraq, although Obama was oblivious to those "Jayvees"...
Nonsense. ISIS can't continue to advance in Kurdistan if the Kurds Pershmega are supplied with more than AK-47s, with or without an effective Baghdad government.
They don't necessarily have to if they managed to take the rest of Iraq first. But that is an entirely different can of worms (see below).
Red Herring. Your reply has little relation to what I stated, or to the original claim (by you) that in order to check ISIS advances Iraq has to have a reformed effective government and military. Once more: provide arms to Kurds and air power with ground controllers for Iraq (and the Kurds) and ISIS will be checked. You suggested that it did not work in Vietnam, I demonstrated that comment to be historically ignorant.
No it did not. At NO point during the Vietnam War was ARVN in any position to launch a decisive counter-attack that would have forced the North to capitulate and abandon its aims for unification. Quite the contrary: American military support is literally the ONLY thing that ARVN had going for it. The moment that support vanished, they were crushed.
Sorry, a far too obvious strawman. No one claimed that airpower forced NV to capitulate or give up its aims. I claimed air power could check ISIS advances and expansion. You scoffed, offering Vietnam as a counter-factual. I demonstrated you were historically challenged.
Again, by 1972, most US combat troops were no longer in Vietnam. A poorly led and demoralized ARVN was subjected to far more than "JayVees", they faced the formidable NV army in their full scale offense of both infantry and armored divisions. US air power checked the offensive, crushing the NVA attacks. In other words they "checked" the NVA. I think the point is fairly obvious to those who bother to read; we are talking about what it takes to check ISIS, NOT what it takes to expel them from Iraq.
Of course it did not work out when Congress denied ARVN american air support AND artillery shells, and ammunition in 1975.
So exactly how long should the United States have stayed in Vietnam, then? Because if the conditions for pulling out are "When ARVN is ready to stand on their own," we would probably still be there today.
Except the US did not try to keep its promise even ONCE. The US made a promise of proving air power and supplies to convince SV to sign the Paris Peace accord.. The day after the accord was signed, craven forces in Congress worked overtime to break that promise and to sell out SV at the first opportunity. As far as Iraq is concerned, no promise was made, but the US ought to continually intervene as long as it is US interest to do so (measured against, of course, cost-benefit).
You hope Iraq is unified under a terrorist and blood thirsty group too extreme for Al Qaeda?
Yes. Because the Sadrists, the Baathists and those crazy Alawite bastards in the marshes were so happy about American occupation, I'm sure they're going to LOVE being occupied by an ultra-Islamist Sunni caliphate.
All the shit we went through trying to ram our political ideas down Iraq's sectarian throat only to have them bite us every single time. Now ISIS wants to have a go...
fuckin let em! And grab some popcorn, because it's going to be something to see!
Although you babbling, I get that you hate Iraqi's and want them slaughtered and beheaded (unless they Al Qaeda or ISIS). Now that you have confessed your hopes and ends for ISIS success, I can see why you oppose US airpower and arms for Kurds. Were Obama equally candid, we would not be so uncertain of his real goals.
Anyone familiar with the relative prosperity and vibrant culture of Saigon compared to Hanoi (for example) in 1974 would not have made such an nonsensical statement.
And if it was still 1974, that would mean something.
Evasion. If you had not dodged my argument and the evidence made in order to micro carp, you'd know it was nonsensical. 1974 matters because in seeing "the best thing that every happened to Vietnam" one has to first examine where South Vietnam was in 1974. Obviously it was not "the best thing that could have happened" because if South Vietnam had been left alone without millions of them in re-education camps, and if unification had not needlessly reduced South Vietnam's market economy to a subsidence level while suffering under the totalitarian culture of the North then they would have been far better off.
Obviously "the best thing that happened" was not unification, but the "best thing" is that after a decade or two the Communist ideologues of North Vietnam finally got their head out of their ass and woke up to the value of the power of the market.
Gee, I thought it pretty well established that Hitler's, Stalin's, and allied military power DID meaningfully effect the destinies of a people via their 'effective government' of conquest.
They did not. Primarily because they were only able to CONQUER those countries, not govern them. It seems like a cliche, but it actually remains a very important fact: you cannot win a war unless you have the capacity to win the peace.
It's more than a clique, its a meaningless cotton headed platitude. As is commonly known, Stalin not only conquered eastern Europe by military force and he RULED them by military force, as did other Soviet leaders. To impose their will they maintained military forces in those countries, and on the occasion that an "effective government" wanted to run their own country, they'd get a visit from the Soviet war machine. Didn't they teach history in your high school?
Anyway the actualization of political power is ALWAYS created and secured by para-military or military power.
Incorrect. No matter how powerful your military is, power actually derives
from the consent of the governed. That is, in fact, the entire basis of Democracy and is the underlying principal behind the EXISTENCE of the United States. This country WOULD NOT EXIST if it were otherwise.
Glad to hear that over the last 10,000 years of civilization, of which democracy is but a small blip, that those who were ruled always consented their being governed. For example, I was not aware that the Mongol empire was really a gigantic democracy for those they ruled. I guess all those leveled cities, slaves, and the pillaging of those peoples who "consented" to their rule was just bad press.
And a PS - political power is always secured by a military or para-military, regardless of whether or not there is popular consent to that power. Democracy's use military and police power is to secure and maintain order - nations are not run on the honor system.
Frankly, after reading your stash of trite, contradictory, sloppy, and historically challenged 'thoughts' I find you to be mostly incoherent. Your claim of supporting democracy, consent of the governed, rule by communist totalitarians, rule by ISIS totalitarian terrorists, and denying that rule is maintained by force is more than a bizarre hoard of incompatible prejudices, its a case of psychosis. Mishmash emoting democratic sentimentalizes mixed with eulogies to theocratic and communist regimes may make sense in your bunker, but I'd prefer communicating with someone who has a mature, organized or at least a coherent world view.
So moving on...
