USA vs ISIL

[ScriptReadsMe]

What objective would the US have? people who say, who would win in a war without establishing an objective shouldnt be talking about the topic in the first place since it seems its ok to joke around talking about killing people like if it was an age of empires game.

If the US objective is to commit mass genocide against the Iraqi people, my vote goes to the USA as it would only need to send a nuke or level their cities with a bombing campaing.

If the US objective is to pacify Iraq, my vote goes to ISIS, since the US already showed it couldnt untangle the fabric of Iraqi society and leave a functioning government, despite the huge material and life losses of the Iraq occupation.

Thread right there

 

[ncordless]

ISIS's entire force would scatter and hide like the cockroaches they are if they were up against 1/1000 of the US military. Their best bet would be to run and hide behind their women and children and hope that the US is unwilling to slaughter innocents to get to them.

 

[Tekk]

Whenever i see pics of these terrorist having rallies I always wonder "Where's a predator done when you really need one?"

 

[Rod1]

ISIS's entire force would scatter and hide like the cockroaches they are if they were up against 1/1000 of the US military. Their best bet would be to run and hide behind their women and children and hope that the US is unwilling to slaughter innocents to get to them.

And the Vietcong is going to scatter and run like flies in one month when they feel the power of the rolling thunder.

 

[ncordless]

And the Vietcong is going to scatter and run like flies in one month when they feel the power of the rolling thunder.

1) ISIS ain't no Vietcong

2) The Vietcong never stood a chance in combat against the US. We just stopped fighting after a while (as we should have).

 

[Rod1]

1) ISIS ain't no Vietcong

2) The Vietcong never stood a chance in combat against the US. We just stopped fighting after a while (as we should have).

1.- You dont know the point of break of them, but i can assure you they are highly motivated.

2.- Thats the point i was making combat is not the only factor that decides whether you win or lose a war, there are other important factors, if combat alone solved conflicts like it was a game of civilization 5 countries would be dropping nukes left and right. Saying that the Vietnam war wasnt actually lost when there was a huge material and life loss without the achievement of the objectives its a joke, maybe Anderson Silva actually won right?

 

[saanen vaeltaa]

most of us know about the american army's strength, but what about the military strength of the islamic state of iraq and the levant?

ISIL uses a highly mobile form of warfare striking enemy forces like lightning. ISIL army units were able to move from mosul to the outskirts of baghdad in just 2 days!

First off, good post, good graphics, and good topic!

But what your post doesn't address is that the success of ISIL was due as much, if not much more, to not the strength of their attacking forces but to the lack of opposition they faced from the forces that were supposed to be defending those areas of Northern Iraq against them. The Iraqi Army pretty much dropped their weapons and split.

We'll see their the extent of ISIL's resilience once pockets of them start getting isolated, once large groups of their forces start getting drone striked, once their military leaders start getting killed or captured, and once their supply lines start drying up. Once superior counter-terrorism forces and intelligence starts working to combat this issue, my guess is serious progress against ISIL will start to be made.

 

[liquidfire]

First off, good post, good graphics, and good topic!

But what your post doesn't address is that the success of ISIL was due as much, if not much more, to not the strength of their attacking forces but to the lack of opposition they faced from the forces that were supposed to be defending those areas of Northern Iraq against them. The Iraqi Army pretty much dropped their weapons and split.

which is the entire point of the ISIL's high mobility lighting style warfare. to overwhelm an enemy so quickly that their only option left is to run.

 

[KnightTemplar]

If the USA decides to get it's Avengers Assemble on, then Captain America by brutal 1st Round KO.

The only advantage ISIL have is America's moral/legal restraint and lack of political will to be drawn into Gulf War III: Revenge of the Saddam

 

[Strychnine]

What objective would the US have? people who say, who would win in a war without establishing an objective shouldnt be talking about the topic in the first place since it seems its ok to joke around talking about killing people like if it was an age of empires game.

If the US objective is to commit mass genocide against the Iraqi people, my vote goes to the USA as it would only need to send a nuke or level their cities with a bombing campaing.

If the US objective is to pacify Iraq, my vote goes to ISIS, since the US already showed it couldnt untangle the fabric of Iraqi society and leave a functioning government, despite the huge material and life losses of the Iraq occupation.

All of this in bold is the fault of the current Iraqi President Al-Maliki. When he had a 15 minute meeting with an advisory panel at the White House, it turned into 1 and 1/2 hours. They pleaded with President Al-Maliki to include both Sunni and Shia into his new government. He refused and now he's whispering "Save us!" Now he's being told "This is what you wanted."

 

[Misfit23]

This never would have been a problem if the bush administration didn't disband the Iraqi army when we first took over.

 

[Strychnine]

This never would have been a problem if the bush administration didn't disband the Iraqi army when we first took over.

All of this right here^

 

[Darkballs]

which is the entire point of the ISIL's high mobility lighting style warfare. to overwhelm an enemy so quickly that their only option left is to run.

ISIS'a success has been built on sectarian divides where they are finding no opposition because Sunni's are not willing to go to bat for the Shia led government.

Driving a Toyota Tundra down the highway is not a brilliant display of strategy.

I hope you're trolling.

 

[threelions]

ISIL on penalties after extra time.

 

[ncordless]

1.- You dont know the point of break of them, but i can assure you they are highly motivated.

2.- Thats the point i was making combat is not the only factor that decides whether you win or lose a war, there are other important factors, if combat alone solved conflicts like it was a game of civilization 5 countries would be dropping nukes left and right. Saying that the Vietnam war wasnt actually lost when there was a huge material and life loss without the achievement of the objectives its a joke, maybe Anderson Silva actually won right?

Of course we lost Vietnam. We lost because we quit fighting. And we should have quit fighting because the price wasn't worth winning We should have never been there.

But this thread is about Iraq. We should have never been in Iraq, either, and the US is never going to accept the the cost it would take to actually keep the peace in the middle east. But Iraq is not Vietnam. A very small US force could easily sweep ISIS and their conveys of pickup trucks off the battlefield and scatter them into hiding behind innocents in population centers. If our goal is to pacify Iraq, then we should plan on intensive nation-building for the next 50 years or so. But if our goal is to stop ISIS from sacking Bagdhad, or sweeping them back to sympathetic population centers they can hide in, the US can do that with relative ease.

 

[ZroC]

Whenever i see pics of these terrorist having rallies I always wonder "Where's a predator done when you really need one?"

Too busy bombing weddings

 

[oldshadow]

We (the U.S.) could not win a police action which is what the UN and others want, if it's war then we kill most of them and drive them in a central area. We then hold the perimeter and let the local military go in.

The question is why should we.

 

[ZroC]

ISIS's entire force would scatter and hide like the cockroaches they are if they were up against 1/1000 of the US military. Their best bet would be to run and hide behind their women and children and hope that the US is unwilling to slaughter innocents to get to them.

Americans complaining about islamist tactics reminds me of the pre ww1 era generals who called the enemy cowards when they wouldn't line up and slowly walk in toward them

 

[z_zen]

which is the entire point of the ISIL's high mobility lighting style warfare. to overwhelm an enemy so quickly that their only option left is to run.

So why doesn't this "strategy" work in Syria, where they meet opposition that actually fights. I doubt ISIL will win battles in Shiite territory.

 

[Snackbar]

What objective would the US have? people who say, who would win in a war without establishing an objective shouldnt be talking about the topic in the first place since it seems its ok to joke around talking about killing people like if it was an age of empires game.

If the US objective is to commit mass genocide against the Iraqi people, my vote goes to the USA as it would only need to send a nuke or level their cities with a bombing campaing.

If the US objective is to pacify Iraq, my vote goes to ISIS, since the US already showed it couldnt untangle the fabric of Iraqi society and leave a functioning government, despite the huge material and life losses of the Iraq occupation.

Quite the rant there, and well done on dictating who can and cant discuss this hypothetical situation.

The thread title is US vs ISIL so there is your objective.

Since several early posters stated the US would win in short time i simply reminded them of the enemies historical use of civilians and thier property as shields.

The US doesnt need to commit genocide against the iraqi people to out a relatively small force like ISIS, but it sure as hell has to be prepared to kill alot of civilians to reach the goal in a short time period.