- Joined
- Sep 14, 2011
- Messages
- 26,629
- Reaction score
- 6,661
- Location
- Florida
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
There are no rules. There are only things that are more or less effective. If dealing with a group that only understands violence, then using violence against that group is called for. You can't reason with the unreasonable.
Sigh...
But the ultimate objective is to NOT create more of these guys. Our involvement creates more. And the more innocents we kill...the more terrorists we make. Violence begets violence.
But...surgical strikes. Killing the leaders? Taking away their money. That cripples them. Honestly...if we hired thieves to take away their money it would likely be more effective, because without money...they cannot pay for bullets or food.
Mexico - lawless
Middle East - lawless
seem similar to me.
Sigh...
But the ultimate objective is to NOT create more of these guys. Our involvement creates more. And the more innocents we kill...the more terrorists we make. Violence begets violence.
But...surgical strikes. Killing the leaders? Taking away their money. That cripples them. Honestly...if we hired thieves to take away their money it would likely be more effective, because without money...they cannot pay for bullets or food.
I don't mean to be insensitive to this woman's family, BUT, sorry, no deal. I don't care what you travel to these hot places for, you should only go with the knowledge that if you get kidnapped, you're on your own.
Tim-
I am sorry but your post seems odd to me.
This is a criminal group and if they have no money they can't get their hands on bullets or food?
Don't you think they will take it from who has it rather than say "We have no money so we are out of business?"
I know this may come as a shock to some of you but people who make decisions to go to Countries like this in a humanitarian role are already fully aware of the risks involved. They don't just wake up one day and decide to travel there without having an interest in the area, studying it and being prepared. They know what the consequences could be and that for all intents and purposes they are on their own. The don't go there "hoping" to die of course, but they do understand that there are certain risks involved and even if you take all necessary precautions to stay safe it's not guranteed that you will.
They dont go there expecting someone to "save their ass". They know the risks involved and if they weren't prepared for the consequences they wouldn't go.
They have a great deal of money, both from robbing banks, for example, and sympathetic (and very wealthy) supporters.I understand. But the less money they have...the less effective they are. So they can stay out and fight all they want. But it is pretty hard to fund a conflict against a nation when you can't afford food.
I disagree with him too! In fact, I don't agree with anybody that thinks Iraq, Egypt or Libya are better today then they were with Hussein, Mubarak and Gaddafi in place. Nor will Syria be better if we succeed in removing Assad!
Better off today? Of course not. But better off when they made those statements? Certainly.
So the questions is, What happened during the period when it was 'stable' to what we have today? The answer should be clear.
Lol! In fact that's not a clear answer at all!Never better off is the clear answer.
Lol! In fact that's not a clear answer at all!
That's more nonsense. Do you genuinely not understand what caused the difference in the situation in Iraq when Obama made those statements and what we have today?Then its apparent that you are I'll informed of conditions in Libya, Egypt and Iraq. But then that's understandable.
That's more nonsense. Do you genuinely not understand what caused the difference in the situation in Iraq when Obama made those statements and what we have today?
And this my fellow Americans is why we DON'T give into ransoms.
Yeah, I think Obama's going to put his tail between his legs and yield. Whatever international foreign policy cred he got for going after bin Laden in Pakistan, he squandered with how he handled Syria's chemical weapons and Russia's invations of Ukraine.
Did you not understand the question?Along with most people, I realise that US policy of regime change has destabilised the ME and its in flames now. That this has escaped you is bazaar.
Did you not understand the question?
Actually Roadvirus is correct. Obama Flashback: 'We're Leaving Behind a Sovereign, Stable and Self-Reliant Iraq'
They have a great deal of money, both from robbing banks, for example, and sympathetic (and very wealthy) supporters.
And they also control vast oil fields. Their supporters smuggle crude oil into Syria where it's transported to other countries for processing. They make millions and millions of dollars every single day from quasi-legitimate means.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?