- Joined
- Jul 25, 2014
- Messages
- 9,869
- Reaction score
- 3,495
- Location
- Los Angeles area
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I don't disagree with what you've posted - that doesn't change the fact that a ground force of Americans or Coalition forces would have a very difficult time entering a city, like Mosul as an example, and clearing out the ISIS fanatics, leaving the friendlies alone, and leaving the city in any sense of repair such that it would be inhabitable going forward.
This must be done, with our assistance, by Iraq troops, Kurdish troops, in the area who readily know who to trust and who not to trust.
Im saying thats what we are going to need to do-go in balls deep. The current POTUS is pretending the war in Iraq is over, its not-in fact its grown.
When we tell our enemies when we are leaving this type of thing happens. Obama ceded Iraq to ISIS and Iran.
Like I said-we are going in, its just a matter of time.
The U.S. should be concerned first with destroying these jihadists, who are a growing threat to the whole civilized world. That is the main thing. We should not be so concerned about damage to cities where these people are sheltering--Raqaa, for example--that we let it limit our ability to destroy them. The U.S. and Britain believed that to defeat Nazi Germany, it was necessary to invade France. They did not let the fact this unavoidably would cause the deaths of many French civilians--about 40,000 of them as it turned out--prevent them from acting.
And the allies were even less concerned about the enemy's civilians. About a year later, the U.S. bombed a part of Tokyo where civilians were using shops attached to their houses to make valuable machine parts for the Japanese military, even though this very heavy raid killed as many as 100,000 people and razed a large area of the city.
This President will never do anything like this, but I hope the next one will be willing to. If heavy bombing raids on jihadist targets in or near a city in Iraq or Syria happened to kill a substantial number of the residents, it is hard to imagine any other city in the area continuing to shelter them. The inhabitants would realize it was safer to drive out the jihadists than risk becoming incidental casualties of bombings aimed at them.
The precision that was on display in the show attacks with which Mr. Obama kicked off his pinprick camapaign late last summer--pinpoint Tomahawk strikes, or that only one corner of a building had been bombed and the rest left intact, or that only the communications gear on the roof had been destroyed, or all the other exquisite selectivity that was made much of--may have been working against us all along.
It has been paraded as a way to make Iraqis, or whatever other Muslims are involved, like us. The idea seems to be that once the vast majority who are good, nice Muslims see how friendly and humane we are, we will win their hearts and minds, and they will help us fight that small minority of mean, icky jihadists--who after all, are plaguing them as well as us.
But the world is not a kindergarten. I have always suspected that was a fable we have let ourselves be comforted by, and probably not for admirable reasons. A lot of people want to believe jihadists are not part of Islam, because the idea that they are--that many ordinary Muslims in a number of countries sympathize with them to some extent--suggests one hell of a lot of killing may be necessary to defend our way of life.
And not nearly so many Americans today, both because of the softer lives we now lead, and because of forty years of indoctrination in public schools that this country and Western culture are hardly worth defending, have the stomach for that as did in the 1940's or '50's. And there are now millions of statists in the West, some of whom always crop up on sites like this, who detest the U.S. just as much as the jihadists do.
I would like to see a move to retake Mosul as one part of a much larger U.S. effort, although there may not be enough reliable and determined local forces. But then, it would have to wait for another President anyway. I think it would take a substantial force of infantry to retake a city as large as Mosul--say 10,000 men, more or less, depending on how good they were. U.S. and allied servicemen would have to be involved in their training, and quite a few would also have to be leading them, come the day. Of course plenty of artillery, armor, various aircraft, or other heavy weapons could be provided to support an division-sized infantry force.
Iraq is not under control of ISIS and they have lost ground since we started our air war and Maliki was ousted.
Will you neo-cons never learn? The Muslims need to take charge of their own problems. We cannot stay and babysit them forever.
Our presence on the ground will just make things worse, like it did in Iraq when we created ISIS.
Korea was bumbled for several reasons, including an idiotic (but new) UN. We underestimated the communist threat until we were at bayonet range.
In Vietnam, we were slow to adapt to counter insurgency techniques-and after a largely political loss, the military essentially burned the manual on coin warfare.
Throughout the cold war-we focused on conventional enemies, and excepting gulf war 1, we never really saw that.
By 9/11 we still hadn't really changed...and we found ourself in a new (to the current generation) type of war, low intensity, asymmetric, coin. Our drones decimated AQ in Afghanistan (still a striking achievement-even as Obama squanders that victory) and probably prevented us from invading Pakistan.
My point is we have made huge advancements in the last 14+ years. This type of conflict wont be going away in the foreseeable future (coin), we need to get very good at it now (while retaining the ability to strike conventionally in other conflicts) to prevent us from having to constantly fight these conflicts in the future.
If you have the time, this segment is excellent-the best weapon right now isnt a bomb or missile-its a knife-we need to have a committed force on the ground that knows who its fighting-that knows the local conditions, thats let both our enemies and friends know its better in the long run to side with us. And we need to establish that we are there for the duration-when we constrain ourselves to deadlines-we are saying we aren't really serious.
Regardless of how you or I feel-this conflict isn't going away-we can either commit to it now, or commit to it later for a dearer price.
Heres a newsflash-ISIS is NOT just a muslim problem. Its a world wide issue (all of islamic radicalism).
Step up to the fight, its not going to leave because you dont like it.
I'm not saying that we should not address the threat. But there is no political will to give our 'boots on the ground' permission to do what they have to do to decimate and destroy the enemy. We are forced by political and social forces to fight 'politically correct' wars and woe to anybody who violates the rules in that regard. They will be destroyed either literally via the legal system or in the court of public opinion.
All I am saying that unless we know in advance what victory will look like and we are willing to let our people win, we should not send them at all.
Unfortunately, we just don't have the balls for it, it comes part and parcel with the liberalization of American society. We've spent 50 years becoming a culture of ******s that refuse to do the job that needs to be done and I don't think there's any going back now. If 9/11 didn't make us willing to go in balls deep, nothing will.
Abandon the ME to the ME.....if they cannot or will not get along, let them kill themselves off up to and including Israel nuking Arab enemies in self defense.So how does that get rid of the problem of AQ and ISIS? As it clear those in the M.E are not competent enough to resolve the problem on their own. Not counting Israel that is.
LOL You answer is kill them all. The easiest way would be to nuke them. Why is that not an option for you?
I'm not saying that we should not address the threat. But there is no political will to give our 'boots on the ground' permission to do what they have to do to decimate and destroy the enemy. We are forced by political and social forces to fight 'politically correct' wars and woe to anybody who violates the rules in that regard. They will be destroyed either literally via the legal system or in the court of public opinion.
All I am saying that unless we know in advance what victory will look like and we are willing to let our people win, we should not send them at all.
ISIS is not made up of Muslims? That IS news. Of course it is a Muslim problem and you want to declare war on every one of them. We might as well just nuke them all now then. Why wait until they all join up against us?
Here you go....This is what "victory" on your terms will look like.
It didnt keep them from getting their asses kicked the last time.I can't believe you would say that after Iraq. Nothing helps the cause of jihad like 1000's of infidels invading Muslim nations.
Here you go....This is what "victory" on your terms will look like.
Abandon the ME to the ME.....if they cannot or will not get along, let them kill themselves off up to and including Israel nuking Arab enemies in self defense.
The U.S. should be concerned first with destroying these jihadists, who are a growing threat to the whole civilized world. That is the main thing. We should not be so concerned about damage to cities where these people are sheltering--Raqaa, for example--that we let it limit our ability to destroy them. The U.S. and Britain believed that to defeat Nazi Germany, it was necessary to invade France. They did not let the fact this unavoidably would cause the deaths of many French civilians--about 40,000 of them as it turned out--prevent them from acting.
And the allies were even less concerned about the enemy's civilians. About a year later, the U.S. bombed a part of Tokyo where civilians were using shops attached to their houses to make valuable machine parts for the Japanese military, even though this very heavy raid killed as many as 100,000 people and razed a large area of the city.
This President will never do anything like this, but I hope the next one will be willing to. If heavy bombing raids on jihadist targets in or near a city in Iraq or Syria happened to kill a substantial number of the residents, it is hard to imagine any other city in the area continuing to shelter them. The inhabitants would realize it was safer to drive out the jihadists than risk becoming incidental casualties of bombings aimed at them.
The precision that was on display in the show attacks with which Mr. Obama kicked off his pinprick camapaign late last summer--pinpoint Tomahawk strikes, or that only one corner of a building had been bombed and the rest left intact, or that only the communications gear on the roof had been destroyed, or all the other exquisite selectivity that was made much of--may have been working against us all along.
It has been paraded as a way to make Iraqis, or whatever other Muslims are involved, like us. The idea seems to be that once the vast majority who are good, nice Muslims see how friendly and humane we are, we will win their hearts and minds, and they will help us fight that small minority of mean, icky jihadists--who after all, are plaguing them as well as us.
But the world is not a kindergarten. I have always suspected that was a fable we have let ourselves be comforted by, and probably not for admirable reasons. A lot of people want to believe jihadists are not part of Islam, because the idea that they are--that many ordinary Muslims in a number of countries sympathize with them to some extent--suggests one hell of a lot of killing may be necessary to defend our way of life.
Not nearly so many Americans today, both because of the softer lives we now lead, and because of forty years of indoctrination in public schools that this country and Western culture are hardly worth defending, have the stomach for that as did in the 1940's or '50's. And there are millions of leftists in the West, some of whom always crop up on sites like this, who detest the U.S. just as much as the jihadists do.
I would like to see a move to retake Mosul as one part of a much larger U.S. effort, although there may not be enough reliable and determined local forces. But then, it would have to wait for another President anyway. I think it would take a substantial force of infantry to retake a city as large as Mosul--say 10,000 men, more or less, depending on how good they were. U.S. and allied servicemen would have to be involved in their training, and quite a few would also have to be leading them, come the day. Of course plenty of artillery, armor, various aircraft, or other heavy weapons could be provided to support an division-sized infantry force.
It's revealing that you think any of the Muslim jihadists whose goal is to kill everyone who does not share their religious beliefs--savages who torment and then execute captured soldiers by the hundreds, decapitate innocent people, including young children, push homosexuals off tall buildings, enslave women, slaughter people just because they are Christians, and have even revived crucifixion--should be allowed to live.
I can't imagine any target in areas overrun by jihadists that nuclear weapons would be needed to destroy. The conventional bombs of seventy years ago could kill fifty or even one hundred thousand people in a single raid, and I'm sure today's aircraft could do several times that much damage with conventional bombs.
Of course I would favor the use of this country's nuclear weapons any time our national security required it. If there is no conceivable circumstance under which we would use them, there is no point in having them. President Kennedy was certainly prepared to use nuclear weapons in October, 1962.
It didnt keep them from getting their asses kicked the last time.
It's revealing that you think any of the Muslim jihadists whose goal is to kill everyone who does not share their religious beliefs--savages who torment and then execute captured soldiers by the hundreds, decapitate innocent people, including young children, push homosexuals off tall buildings, enslave women, slaughter people just because they are Christians, and have even revived crucifixion--should be allowed to live.
I can't imagine any target in areas overrun by jihadists that nuclear weapons would be needed to destroy. The conventional bombs of seventy years ago could kill fifty or even one hundred thousand people in a single raid, and I'm sure today's aircraft could do several times that much damage with conventional bombs.
Of course I would favor the use of this country's nuclear weapons any time our national security required it. If there is no conceivable circumstance under which we would use them, there is no point in having them. President Kennedy was certainly prepared to use nuclear weapons in October, 1962.
They saved their asses for greener pastures in Syria you mean. They also killed 4000 of us and maimed 20,000 more It is just like Vietnam you can't get the bad guys without wiping out EVERYBODY. They don't wear uniforms and they don't like invaders.
ISIS cannot survive without constant war. They need to pull the West into more direct combat in order to thrive as an organization. ISIS has no actual means of maintaining a society in the land they seize. All they do is prep for more combat.
ISIS is playing the West for fools. Look at how quickly everyone jumped to action once the beheadings started. They didn't even need to crash planes into buildings this time. It's taking less and less to get the hawks riled up.
The question is why would we use conventional weapons to do the same thing that a nuclear blast would do quicker and cheaper? Victory on your terms would mean near total annihilation of the native population of Iraq and Syria and Iran and Yemen and Libya and on and on .............. You also forget we dropped more bomb tonnage on Vietnam that all of Germany in WWII and still lost.
Abandon the ME to the ME.....if they cannot or will not get along, let them kill themselves off up to and including Israel nuking Arab enemies in self defense.
That's my argument exactly. Unless we deep six all the political correctness nonsense and are willing to win the war and establish peace on our terms, all we accomplish is at best for awhile a slow down of the inevitable. And we leave a truckload of resentment and vengeful spirit and in our wake along with enemies with increased resolve who have all the time in the world to plan their next moves.'
I do not wish to expend any more of our precious blood and treasure just so we can feel righteous that we did something when in fact we accomplished little or nothing of lasting value.
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?