At what point would you be ok with stepping in and finishing this?

Anvilbrother · February 24, 2015

Please for god sakes dont start with the bush/obama shit on this.(billvon could you please keep those type of blame comments away /shudder)

I dont think too many people here would disagree that WW2 was justified despite the cost of war. The Holocaust by Hitler, and the Nazi party, and Pearl harbor by japan.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/islamic-state-kidnaps-scores-of-syrian-christians-1424771194
Today its being reported that ISIS has kidnapped up to and over 90 christian civilians, this just on the heels of the beheading of over two dozen egyptians, the burning of the pilot, suicide bombings, mass murders and hundreds of other attacks. Below is an ongoing list of attacks by them alone.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2014.htm

How long do you wait before you decide enough is enough? Looking back Hitler's aims were to expand and included the extermination of whole races and religious groups in the establishment of an empire. The Islamic State, too, aims to spread, exterminate and take over Europe first, and the world. It is true hitler killed more people, but just give ISIS time.

If it were an isolated island like say Australia one could possibly say meh, they are just killing each other, we have tried to fix it, and they are bound to the island with no way to spread to other parts of the globe lets just ignore it, but this is simply not true. At some point you cannot just ignore it. What is that point for you? A hundred thousand civilians dead, a million? How many regions, or countries overthrown? As we sit here thousands of miles away you feel safe to say aww fuck it ISIS is not attacking me at my starbucks let someone else handle it, but for those nearer like today in Syria and those tomorrow closer but still farther away like France, England, what do you say to them?

I always look back and say to myself how the FUCK did the world not see what Hitler was doing before it got to the level of murder and corruption that it did before anyone realized it and stepped in. I sort of think that it is that time for us on ISIS and the middle east.

We know what type of military action we have done in the past doesnt work for this type of enemy. We are not fighting enemies under a state name with uniforms like we did in WW2. We also know trying to fight a politically correct war with minimal civilian casualties, super stringent ROE only allows the enemy to play the game and drag out the conflict until we leave. We also know since we are fighting a enemy that is not formally under a country like Japan, or Germany protections at the end of the war such as in the Treaty of Versailles, the Treaty of San Francisco, and Security Treaties will not be effective. The enemy will simply run and hide, and come back another day, just like we are seeing in Mosul.

Will a WW3 type war end this type of enemy? At what point do you say countries of the world, lets eliminate all of this, band together and engage in the type of war that will finally eliminate this threat, and divide the area up where we can finally have stability. The people of the world have gotten soft physically, and in a war mentality. Do we have the guts anymore to stop being politically correct, and realize people of all types military, civilian, terrorist will all die in mass numbers to finally get this fixed. Say it takes a million deaths, well if you wait long enough you might get that million on its own in the form of ISIS hostages.

So at what point do you say enough is enough?

I guarantee you grammar issues so don't even start with that also.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

BillyVance · February 24, 2015

It's definitely going to take a coordinated effort with a coalition of countries like we had during Desert Storm, but this will be a tough war to fight. Guerrilla warfare is generally one of the most difficult to wage, if the goal of keeping civilian casualties to a minimum is on the table.

Honestly, I just can't see fighting ISIS with that goal is going to be successful. They are going to use human shields. That is a guarantee. Just like Hamas, they are going to hide in civilian areas and hospitals and schools, etc. What are you gonna do? If you know they are there, bomb the shit out of it. War is hell.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

Anvilbrother · February 24, 2015

I agree, and I would like to add I am not war mongering, and if we had a magic switch that would be my first option, but I believe.
-Trouble in this area isnt going away.
-It will spread.
-It will take more lives.
-It cannot be fought with politically correct means, you will have to go beyond what we have been doing for the past 10+ years and enter into a world war sized, and tactic type action.
-Eventually someone, or all of us will have to finally deal with it for good.

What I fear is when we finally take the BIG initiative to end the middle east a player like Russia will see it as a perfect time to do something stupid.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

wmw999 · February 24, 2015

We didn't go early to WW2 (Japan drug us in), and we shouldn't go early to fight ISIS. One big problem is that most Americans can't tell the difference between an enemy and a friend until they see a gun, and that only works at a short range and on a small scale.

Going in and shooting everyone who looks pissed off means that all those people who were just going about their business until we invaded now see us as invaders. Much better to be the second invader, rescuing them. That was a big problem with Iraq. Bush did absolutely right in going after OBL in Afghanistan. He fucked up when he decided that Iraq should be included. We cannot risk that kind of mistake. Remember WW2 had been going on for two years before we joined.

ISIS are seriously bad, and I hope they end messily. But it's not our fight to start. If we're attacked as a country, the. We can go try to wallop them (but it won't end well). Until then, we stay ready to join if asked.

BTW, Boko Haram are probably at least as bad; they just haven't targeted Europeans.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

ryoder · February 24, 2015

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Andy9o8 · February 24, 2015

Emotionally, I'd love to always be able to step in and stop all of that. Why didn't the US step in and stop Pol Pot from murdering 1 million Cambodians? What about Idi Amin killing hundreds of thousands of his own people? How about... well, you know all the historical examples, even if we start at no earlier than, say, 1946.

I'm tired of the US always being sidled with the burden of being the world's policeman, or at least always the first string on the filed. Yes, ISIS all deserve to be naped. And their arch-enemy in Syria, Assad, deserves to be tried for his own crimes against humanity and hanged. There are plenty of homicidal warlords and their corrupt politician co-conspirators in Mexico who deserve early dirt naps. And I'm very much the opposite of an isolationist. But on behalf of the baby boomers, I'm sick of American lives being sacrificed to fight local or even regional evil thousands of miles from our shores; and that evil will always be there.

"So where do we draw the line?" you'd quite reasonably ask. Well, I realize it's a bit arbitrary, but it's a question of degree. First, ask whether the evil is a threat to American security. Not to the security of American corporate industry, but the security of our children in their beds. That's why, for example, I did support hot pursuit of al-Quaeda into Afghanistan after 9/11. Next, as I said, it's a question of degree. I agree with you (as did Churchill; no I'm not equating you with Churchill ) that the evil of Hitler and Imperial Japan was confronted way too late. So would I draw the line? I guess it's at something less than Hitler, and something more than ISIS.

turtlespeed · February 24, 2015

Andy9o8

Emotionally, I'd love to always be able to step in and stop all of that. Why didn't the US step in and stop Pol Pot from murdering 1 million Cambodians? What about Idi Amin killing hundreds of thousands of his own people? How about... well, you know all the historical examples, even if we start at no earlier than, say, 1946.

I'm tired of the US always being sidled with the burden of being the world's policeman, or at least always the first string on the filed. Yes, ISIS all deserve to be naped. And their arch-enemy in Syria, Assad, deserves to be tried for his own crimes against humanity and hanged. There are plenty of homicidal warlords and their corrupt politician co-conspirators in Mexico who deserve early dirt naps. And I'm very much the opposite of an isolationist. But on behalf of the baby boomers, I'm sick of American lives being sacrificed to fight local or even regional evil thousands of miles from our shores; and that evil will always be there.

"So where do we draw the line?" you'd quite reasonably ask. Well, I realize it's a bit arbitrary, but it's a question of degree. First, ask whether the evil is a threat to American security. Not to the security of American corporate industry, but the security of our children in their beds. That's why, for example, I did support hot pursuit of al-Quaeda into Afghanistan after 9/11. Next, as I said, it's a question of degree. I agree with you (as did Churchill; no I'm not equating you with Churchill ) that the evil of Hitler and Imperial Japan was confronted way too late. So would I draw the line? I guess it's at something less than Hitler, and something more than ISIS.

So on a scale of 100, you'd draw your line somewhere less than 100, and somewhere more than 15? Is that about right?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Anvilbrother · February 24, 2015

Quote
We didn't go early to WW2 (Japan drug us in), and we shouldn't go early to fight ISIS.

So who is going to go "first"? Why have they not "gone first", how many people need to die to go in and be "the first"

Quote
One big problem is that most Americans can't tell the difference between an enemy and a friend until they see a gun, and that only works at a short range and on a small scale.

Agreed that is why I am saying these small war efforts like we have done since the 90's have not been effective.

Quote
Going in and shooting everyone who looks pissed off means that all those people who were just going about their business until we invaded now see us as invaders. Much better to be the second invader, rescuing them.

This makes no sense. So you sit quietly while untold numbers of people are beheaded and burned alive so the "first" people can go in and then you can come in and "rescue" them. Why wait to salvage your reputation as the ones that did not start the fight, but helped end it??

Quote
That was a big problem with Iraq. Bush did absolutely right in going after OBL in Afghanistan. He fucked up when he decided that Iraq should be included. We cannot risk that kind of mistake.

I politely asked that this kind of talk be kept from this thread.

Quote
Remember WW2 had been going on for two years before we joined.

The "war" in this area militarily, and on a humanitarian level have been going on for far longer even before we were involved in the 90's.

Quote
ISIS are seriously bad, and I hope they end messily. But it's not our fight to start. If we're attacked as a country, the. We can go try to wallop them (but it won't end well). Until then, we stay ready to join if asked.

Your looking to closely at ISIS, and that might have been my bad for mentioning them alot, but I am talking about the region as a whole from Israel through past Pakistan, and all bad players in the area from ISIS down the list.

You never answered any of my questions. Would a world war type action work in the middle east? Would a war that includes mass killings of whoever it takes to wipe out the bad guys, and some sort of restructuring of actual countries and physical borders to separate them and enforce those borders work? When does the world come together and finally try to fix this? Im not suggesting America does anything on their own, think bigger, when is the world gonna get ready and end the trouble in the region? And on your personal level, when would you be ready? Hasn't enough already happened? What would you tell the families of the 24 beheaded men, the pilot burned alive? Sorry some more people need to be killed before its worth our trouble?

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

Anvilbrother · February 24, 2015

Quote
That is potentially over 3 MILLION active duty troops before any reserves are called in;
Against 30 THOUSAND.
Why the hell should the US be the ones to shed blood and tax dollars over this???Crazy

Agreed and I am not saying that we go at this alone or be the first or whatever, think bigger, when is the world as a whole going to get fed up with this shit, and do something? How many people need to die in the middle east before someone does something. You brought up 3million active duty people around that region, why have they not stepped up? And if its shown they never step up and the bad players in the middle east continue to murder by the thousands who will? When will you be ok with the world and America stepping up and ending the problem for good.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

Stumpy · February 24, 2015

You are making a big assumption that you actually can "finish this", which changes the whole equation.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

Andy9o8 · February 24, 2015

turtlespeed

***Emotionally, I'd love to always be able to step in and stop all of that. Why didn't the US step in and stop Pol Pot from murdering 1 million Cambodians? What about Idi Amin killing hundreds of thousands of his own people? How about... well, you know all the historical examples, even if we start at no earlier than, say, 1946.

I'm tired of the US always being sidled with the burden of being the world's policeman, or at least always the first string on the filed. Yes, ISIS all deserve to be naped. And their arch-enemy in Syria, Assad, deserves to be tried for his own crimes against humanity and hanged. There are plenty of homicidal warlords and their corrupt politician co-conspirators in Mexico who deserve early dirt naps. And I'm very much the opposite of an isolationist. But on behalf of the baby boomers, I'm sick of American lives being sacrificed to fight local or even regional evil thousands of miles from our shores; and that evil will always be there.

"So where do we draw the line?" you'd quite reasonably ask. Well, I realize it's a bit arbitrary, but it's a question of degree. First, ask whether the evil is a threat to American security. Not to the security of American corporate industry, but the security of our children in their beds. That's why, for example, I did support hot pursuit of al-Quaeda into Afghanistan after 9/11. Next, as I said, it's a question of degree. I agree with you (as did Churchill; no I'm not equating you with Churchill ) that the evil of Hitler and Imperial Japan was confronted way too late. So would I draw the line? I guess it's at something less than Hitler, and something more than ISIS.

So on a scale of 100, you'd draw your line somewhere less than 100, and somewhere more than 15? Is that about right?

I'd take each example on a case by case basis. And if I was going to send someone else's American children in harm's way on behalf of World Human Decency, I'd insist on an equal contribution of other nations' (like our closest Western allies, not just the Third World ones) blood and treasure, too. I don't know about you, but I'm sick of our blood and treasure carrying our European allies' load. The Europeans are scared of Russia, worried about China, fed up with Greece and envious of Germany. And in the meantime they're all willing to combat world evil right down to the last American. Fuck that.

Anvilbrother · February 24, 2015

Quote
I'm tired of the US always being sidled with the burden of being the world's policeman, or at least always the first string on the filed. Yes, ISIS all deserve to be naped. And their arch-enemy in Syria, Assad, deserves to be tried for his own crimes against humanity and hanged. There are plenty of homicidal warlords and their corrupt politician co-conspirators in Mexico who deserve early dirt naps. And I'm very much the opposite of an isolationist. But on behalf of the baby boomers, I'm sick of American lives being sacrificed to fight local or even regional evil thousands of miles from our shores; and that evil will always be there.

Agreed, and dont take me wrong im talking about a WORLD wide initiative, not another gulf war with the U.S doing all the work.

Quote
"So where do we draw the line?" you'd quite reasonably ask. Well, I realize it's a bit arbitrary, but it's a question of degree. First, ask whether the evil is a threat to American security. Not to the security of American corporate industry, but the security of our children in their beds. That's why, for example, I did support hot pursuit of al-Quaeda into Afghanistan after 9/11. Next, as I said, it's a question of degree. I agree with you (as did Churchill; no I'm not equating you with Churchill Tongue) that the evil of Hitler and Imperial Japan was confronted way too late. So would I draw the line? I guess it's at something less than Hitler, and something more than ISIS.

Ok thanks for the thought out reply. So answer me this right now we have multiple active and effective terrorist groups in the middle east spreading through countries, and expanding, death tolls in the thousands, and they are expanding attacks not just to the middle east but attacks like CH in France.

As Ryoder stated countries with Millions of active duty troops in the middle east right now are solving the problem? No. Well if we do not step up because they are not attacking actual Americans which in part I agree with, how do we spur these fuck nuts to step up and deal with it themselves. As sad as it is even if you do get them to fight I do not believe they will be effective in the type of actions it would take to finally solve the problem. We see how quickly the Iraq security forces surrender and throw down their guns.

Final question before I have to get back to packing up things(were trying to get the house ready to sell). Could you be effective in carving up the area into a half a dozen countries, dividing it equally amongst the Shia, Sunni, and the other major waring factions and tell them look this is your area now. Take it and quit your bullshit, or you will be bombed off of the face of the earth. Sort of an ultimatum to them all tell them this is how it is going to be. And not from an American standpoint. All the countries outside of the middle east standing up and saying this to them.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

jclalor · February 24, 2015

Anvilbrother

Please for god sakes dont start with the bush/obama shit on this.(billvon could you please keep those type of blame comments away /shudder)

I dont think too many people here would disagree that WW2 was justified despite the cost of war. The Holocaust by Hitler, and the Nazi party, and Pearl harbor by japan.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/islamic-state-kidnaps-scores-of-syrian-christians-1424771194
Today its being reported that ISIS has kidnapped up to and over 90 christian civilians, this just on the heels of the beheading of over two dozen egyptians, the burning of the pilot, suicide bombings, mass murders and hundreds of other attacks. Below is an ongoing list of attacks by them alone.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2014.htm

How long do you wait before you decide enough is enough? Looking back Hitler's aims were to expand and included the extermination of whole races and religious groups in the establishment of an empire. The Islamic State, too, aims to spread, exterminate and take over Europe first, and the world. It is true hitler killed more people, but just give ISIS time.

If it were an isolated island like say Australia one could possibly say meh, they are just killing each other, we have tried to fix it, and they are bound to the island with no way to spread to other parts of the globe lets just ignore it, but this is simply not true. At some point you cannot just ignore it. What is that point for you? A hundred thousand civilians dead, a million? How many regions, or countries overthrown? As we sit here thousands of miles away you feel safe to say aww fuck it ISIS is not attacking me at my starbucks let someone else handle it, but for those nearer like today in Syria and those tomorrow closer but still farther away like France, England, what do you say to them?

I always look back and say to myself how the FUCK did the world not see what Hitler was doing before it got to the level of murder and corruption that it did before anyone realized it and stepped in. I sort of think that it is that time for us on ISIS and the middle east.

We know what type of military action we have done in the past doesnt work for this type of enemy. We are not fighting enemies under a state name with uniforms like we did in WW2. We also know trying to fight a politically correct war with minimal civilian casualties, super stringent ROE only allows the enemy to play the game and drag out the conflict until we leave. We also know since we are fighting a enemy that is not formally under a country like Japan, or Germany protections at the end of the war such as in the Treaty of Versailles, the Treaty of San Francisco, and Security Treaties will not be effective. The enemy will simply run and hide, and come back another day, just like we are seeing in Mosul.

Will a WW3 type war end this type of enemy? At what point do you say countries of the world, lets eliminate all of this, band together and engage in the type of war that will finally eliminate this threat, and divide the area up where we can finally have stability. The people of the world have gotten soft physically, and in a war mentality. Do we have the guts anymore to stop being politically correct, and realize people of all types military, civilian, terrorist will all die in mass numbers to finally get this fixed. Say it takes a million deaths, well if you wait long enough you might get that million on its own in the form of ISIS hostages.

So at what point do you say enough is enough?

I guarantee you grammar issues so don't even start with that also.

What's your exit strategy?

Anvilbrother · February 24, 2015

Agreed, and that is what I have also asked further down a few posts. Would a WW3 type war work in completely stabilizing the area(complete wiping out of bad guys) then carving up the area(new countries) and dividing it up equally for the remaining players, then enforce it.

Or could you try before any war and have all the countries of the world uniting together and dividing the area up and basically tell them this is your country now, live in it or get bombed.

I know its simplistic, but attempts at a technical approach to salvaging the area multiple times has never worked long term.

Again under this discussion im assuming that terrorism like ISIS is not going to get better on its own, and will spread through the world killing hundreds of thousands before someone eventually says no. My question is when? Who and how can be thrown out there, but an answer that you can give is when would you be fed up with it, and finally be ok with a global initiative to ending terrorism in the middle east.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

Hjeada · February 24, 2015

Anvilbrother
Could you be effective in carving up the area into a half a dozen countries, dividing it equally amongst the Shia, Sunni, and the other major waring factions and tell them look this is your area now. Take it and quit your bullshit, or you will be bombed off of the face of the earth. Sort of an ultimatum to them all tell them this is how it is going to be. And not from an American standpoint. All the countries outside of the middle east standing up and saying this to them.

This hasn't worked so well with Israel, I would expect it to work about the same the next time around. Third parties carving out countries for another area of the world is not the best approach and won't solve any fighting in my opinion, and will most likely lead to even more resentment of the western world.

Dudeist Skydiver #0511

Anvilbrother · February 24, 2015

Read up a couple of posts, I have thrown out a few ideas that I am SURE will not work, but just spitballing them because that is not the intent of this discussion.

I am asking when would you finally give the green light. When ISIS/Boko/etc migrates to europe? Half a million people burned or beheaded? Another actual attack on US soil like 9-11 that was verified to be done by ISIS?

I understand the hows and whats after are not easy, or will never be effective, but at what point would you be ok with the world finally coming together and saying fuck this has to end now. So far its been, America, and a few others in limited numbers(not knocking anyone's contribution or deaths, just comparing it to a world war type initiative).

Im gathering you(and I) would be ok if someone actually came up with an exit strategy. Say someone does have a solid plan, do you go now, or wait till the above mentioned happens?

Like I said before its all about when would you finally be ok with some type of extreme action possibly a world war?

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

Anvilbrother · February 24, 2015

Quote
This hasn't worked so well with Israel, I would expect it to work about the same the next time around. Third parties carving out countries for another area of the world is not the best approach and won't solve any fighting in my opinion, and will most likely lead to even more resentment of the western world.

I agree, but is there a better approach with more land and better boundaries, and enforcement. Having Israel and Palestine smashed next to eachother, and only having them and the UN dealing with it is not a good example. Once again the how to part of this is not my main point, we can discuss what might work and why it probably wont, but my question is when would you be ok with finally doing whatever it took to fix the region, and stop the mass murders, beheading, burnings, and shootings? What circumstances would trigger your button.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

rehmwa · February 24, 2015

Andy9o8
I'd take each example on a case by case basis. And if I was going to send someone else's American children in harm's way on behalf of World Human Decency, I'd insist on an equal contribution of other nations' (like our closest Western allies, not just the Third World ones) blood and treasure, too. I don't know about you, but I'm sick of our blood and treasure carrying our European allies' load. The Europeans are scared of Russia, worried about China, fed up with Greece and envious of Germany. And in the meantime they're all willing to combat world evil right down to the last American. Fuck that.

this ^^

If we go in right off, we're empire building and power hungry cowboys.

If we wait, for any reason, we're selfish, greedy, and uncaring.

But if we wait until the U.N. gets fed up and ASKS us, then we sure could demand equal participation and risk from the other countries that also share this planet, but seem happy to stand behind a tree and watch us and play monday morning quarterback.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

wmw999 · February 24, 2015

You asked when I thought we should go. I said after we were attacked; I gave the example of Bush going to Afghanistan as the right way -- after attack. I wasn't trying to point blame; it was an example.

We sat aside while untold numbers of people were killed in other countries before entering WW1 and WW2. We sat aside while untold numbers of people were killed in countries like Rwanda, Cambodia, and Congo. Why should we step into this particular area before we have a well-defined and identifiable enemy, and a way to determine that we've "won?"

Right now the only exit strategy we have is a negotiated one with some random authority that we've picked -- there isn't a national state that will "surrender," and killing everyone who looks like a Muslim isn't going to be very popular, either. It's the problem that Israel has with the Palestinians -- there isn't a single central authority that can, in fact, control everyone. The social structure and mores aren't like ours, with strong allegiance to a nation, and obedience to it.

If we're invited in (yes, after many more deaths), then we can take direction from an entity that can identify a coherent enemy, and figure out a way to tell who's won. Those are important, I think. Of course, I'm not a military expert, but there aren't a lot of those on dz.com are there?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Anvilbrother · February 24, 2015

Fair enough, and I like where this is all going. So why hasnt the UN done anything substantial? Knowing how pussy footed they are with their sanctions, and resolutions. What does it take to get a UN to call for a stop to all the bullshit in the middle east. You cant just go after an "ISIS" type, about half way to whipping their ass they disband, go in hiding, and come out with another name, or split into half a dozen other chicken shit organizations.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

kallend · February 24, 2015

Andy9o8

******Emotionally, I'd love to always be able to step in and stop all of that. Why didn't the US step in and stop Pol Pot from murdering 1 million Cambodians? What about Idi Amin killing hundreds of thousands of his own people? How about... well, you know all the historical examples, even if we start at no earlier than, say, 1946.

I'm tired of the US always being sidled with the burden of being the world's policeman, or at least always the first string on the filed. Yes, ISIS all deserve to be naped. And their arch-enemy in Syria, Assad, deserves to be tried for his own crimes against humanity and hanged. There are plenty of homicidal warlords and their corrupt politician co-conspirators in Mexico who deserve early dirt naps. And I'm very much the opposite of an isolationist. But on behalf of the baby boomers, I'm sick of American lives being sacrificed to fight local or even regional evil thousands of miles from our shores; and that evil will always be there.

"So where do we draw the line?" you'd quite reasonably ask. Well, I realize it's a bit arbitrary, but it's a question of degree. First, ask whether the evil is a threat to American security. Not to the security of American corporate industry, but the security of our children in their beds. That's why, for example, I did support hot pursuit of al-Quaeda into Afghanistan after 9/11. Next, as I said, it's a question of degree. I agree with you (as did Churchill; no I'm not equating you with Churchill ) that the evil of Hitler and Imperial Japan was confronted way too late. So would I draw the line? I guess it's at something less than Hitler, and something more than ISIS.

So on a scale of 100, you'd draw your line somewhere less than 100, and somewhere more than 15? Is that about right?

I'd take each example on a case by case basis. And if I was going to send someone else's American children in harm's way on behalf of World Human Decency, I'd insist on an equal contribution of other nations' (like our closest Western allies, not just the Third World ones) blood and treasure, too. I don't know about you, but I'm sick of our blood and treasure carrying our European allies' load. The Europeans are scared of Russia, worried about China, fed up with Greece and envious of Germany. And in the meantime they're all willing to combat world evil right down to the last American. Fuck that.

Britain played world policeman from roughly the French revolution until June 1941 when Hitler invaded the USSR. Look what it did for the British.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Anvilbrother · February 24, 2015

Quote

You asked when I thought we should go. I said after we were attacked; I gave the example of Bush going to Afghanistan as the right way -- after attack. I wasn't trying to point blame; it was an example.

Ok fair enough I did not read it that way but I understand now. So we were attacked by Al-Qaeda and you say that is a justification, but did we defeat them? Do they not still exist? Is ISIS not the worst part of Al-Qaeda that was forced to split off last Feburary? So in fact we are still fighting those responsible for 9/11 and they are worse now than 2001.

Quote

We sat aside while untold numbers of people were killed in other countries before entering WW1 and WW2. We sat aside while untold numbers of people were killed in countries like Rwanda, Cambodia, and Congo.

I understand that, and its the question I also initially asked, why did we wait so long to stop Hitler from all the atrocities he was doing.

Quote

Why should we step into this particular area before we have a well-defined and identifiable enemy, and a way to determine that we've "won?"

Thats the sort of questions im asking. Wendy your not helping

I want you to tell me these anwers.

Quote

Right now the only exit strategy we have is a negotiated one with some random authority that we've picked -- there isn't a national state that will "surrender," and killing everyone who looks like a Muslim isn't going to be very popular, either. It's the problem that Israel has with the Palestinians -- there isn't a single central authority that can, in fact, control everyone. The social structure and mores aren't like ours, with strong allegiance to a nation, and obedience to it.

And if we do finally reach a world initiate to finally end the problem this will be the same situation, once again your stating what I am, but in a better worded way :). I even brought up the security treatys after WW2 and how the will not apply here due to what we are saying. Im asking for answers, first when do you go in is the main one, and how would you deal with the end?

Quote

If we're invited in (yes, after many more deaths), then we can take direction from an entity that can identify a coherent enemy, and figure out a way to tell who's won. Those are important, I think. Of course, I'm not a military expert, but there aren't a lot of those on dz.com are there?

Ok thanks, so you want an identifiable enemy, and for someone to initiate the action, and have us as an ally.

Obviously were not experts, and cant answer perfectly how to win or what would you do as an exit strategy, but we can all say when we would be finally fed up, and what it would actually take for us to give the green light on a plan that would work.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

Anvilbrother · February 24, 2015

Ok I have got to run, I will be back around 1700 Central time, thanks for following along, and please keep up the discussion.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

jclalor · February 24, 2015

Anvilbrother
Read up a couple of posts, I have thrown out a few ideas that I am SURE will not work, but just spitballing them because that is not the intent of this discussion.

I am asking when would you finally give the green light. When ISIS/Boko/etc migrates to europe? Half a million people burned or beheaded? Another actual attack on US soil like 9-11 that was verified to be done by ISIS?

I understand the hows and whats after are not easy, or will never be effective, but at what point would you be ok with the world finally coming together and saying fuck this has to end now. So far its been, America, and a few others in limited numbers(not knocking anyone's contribution or deaths, just comparing it to a world war type initiative).

Im gathering you(and I) would be ok if someone actually came up with an exit strategy. Say someone does have a solid plan, do you go now, or wait till the above mentioned happens?

Like I said before its all about when would you finally be ok with some type of extreme action possibly a world war?

There has to be a responses to ISIS. The major problem is that all responses have major pitfalls, that as westerners, we can't even begin to fathom what they are.

I think a very large exclusin zone that encircles the conflicted are. This zone should allow no one in - and no one out. Thousands of armed drones patrolng daily. All ISIS communication in this area should be jammed.

Although I personally entered into syria from turky, it seemed like that it was flat defendable terrain, oI think we should contract out some work to those who will recruit fighters to ISIS.
And when they show up in turkey, bullets to the head, with ISIS claiming they were spies and needed to spot.

Andy9o8 · February 24, 2015

I appreciate the maxim of "Take the fight to the enemy", but on a practical level, that's a formula for constant engagement in foreign war, and that's unacceptable. I'd say, if the threat is potentially big enough - like Russia and China today, for example, our security requires that they be faced and contained globally. But as for the rest of them, concentrate on impenetrable security at home first.

You know, like the force field we have at the Rio Grande.

Sign In

Sign In

At what point would you be ok with stepping in and finishing this?

Recommended Posts

Anvilbrother 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

BillyVance 35

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Anvilbrother 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

wmw999 2,583

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

ryoder 1,590

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Andy9o8 2

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

turtlespeed 226

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Anvilbrother 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Anvilbrother 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Stumpy 284

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Andy9o8 2

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Anvilbrother 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

jclalor 12

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Anvilbrother 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Hjeada 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Anvilbrother 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Anvilbrother 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

rehmwa 2

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

wmw999 2,583

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites