Drones, bombers, air strikes, boots on the ground. It doesn't matter what method we use to eradicate these camel phukers, minus letting them be to do what they want wherever they want... everything we do seems to create more jihadists. That is never going to change. What needs to happen is scrap the liberal rules of engagement, and just go in with a search and destroy mentality until we either completely eradicate them, or they turn tale and run for their lives.
We fought these same guys in Iraq for years, when they called themselves AQ in Iraq. We had 100,000 boots on the ground, airpower, armor, drones, and friendly Iraqis giving us intel. It cost us a Trillion fucking dollars, 50,000 casualties and they are still there. It ain't as easy as you think. The only real solution is for the real countries that surround these insurgents to step up to the plate and defeat them. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait and the Gulf States. Perhaps even Egypt, Iran, or Israel. All have been lavishly supplied with weaponry including airpower, they have lots of money, and they have a far larger ground force collectively than ISIS has. Most importantly they have a Superpower as an ally. ISIS has no allies at all. But as long as they think the US and Britain will just solve their problems for them, they will do nothing. ISIS is a FAR bigger threat to them than to us. We can't keep spending our treasure and wasting our lives fighting for people that won't fight for themselves. We need to push these countries into taking some ownership of the problem. That's what we are trying to do, but the friendly Arabs are obstinate, cowardly, and must deal with radical elements amongst them.
I would guess you are actually proud of it, most like you are. Things at McDonalds are good actually, thanks for asking. Since the new menu optimization in 2012 or 2011 I can’t remember, stocks have gone up. Sales are up in the U.S., Europe, Asia and the South Pacific, I got in just before the menu optimization and my only regret is I didn’t buy a little more. If you are referring to working conditions I have no field experience in this arena but I did log a few hundred hours in the drive through while I was at LSU on Saturday mornings, their fries work wonders for hangovers. Things are booming in the Spinal Implant field as well, all my sales reps are producing record numbers while I’m getting ready for a Margarita this afternoon……...in my sandals. To who? You? Perhaps if you thought less of yourself, took a slice of humble pie you’d realize your opinions aren’t scripture or in this case Koran….well maybe Koran. I’ll consider that source and carry on. Oh and I know Japan turned out alright, once we knocked the shit out of them, noone is above an asskicking, including me and you. That sandbox in the middle east needs an atomic asskicking. If the rest of them don't get in line send them one too, but they are total cowards I suspect they would and I'm ready to know for sure. I’d kill the rat and the entire nest from which he came from, brilliant and thorough. If I happen to kill a few spiders, snakes and roaches along the way I had no need for them either. Well I’m sure we have a few billion tied up in drones as well, I’m curious what price you put on a soldiers life and as you stated boots on grounds cost “Trillions”…..push the button, drop a few A-bombs.....problem solved. No, but Kozinski just worked at a University, probably when he wanted to and more than likely wore sandals Comparing these guys to Muslims is not even worth addressing, reaching. As @shane0911 said, they are either a terrorist or future terrorist.
Darlin', the only one here talking about me is you. I'm talking about ISIS in the middle east. You are trying to make it about me instead of the issue, 'cause you are out of ammo. I spent years debating martin, you can't slip that shit by me. Drones are notoriously cheap to manufacture and they are flown by sergeants in Omaha. You can keep repeating that. But nuclear warfare doesn't work that way. Now she is citing Dr. Shane . . .
I think it's important to look at the difference between AQ and ISIS. While their religious ideology may be similar, they are politically separate. AQ has never wanted to be a government or ruling body. Their interest is influence, rule by proxy. Afghanistan is the example. The Taliban provided them overhead, a base of operation. They were able to influence the Taliban, but never saddled themselves with the internal strife of having to govern politically or economically. Basically, their intention is to spread influence from the inside out, region by region. They are fighting those governments that resist their influence. This has a twofold effect. First, they are allowed to plan and organize in the shadows, always under the umbrella of a "legitimate" government. Second, if a foreign power invades, it's the government that's toppled, not the influence behind it, thereby ensuring AQ's survival. Of course, that's not to say AQ doesn't feel the pain, but it does give them the ability to move and reorganize. In Afghanistan, they were able to move freely through the FATA in Pakistan. I realize I'm oversimplifying all of this, but I'm sure you get my point. AQ fucked up in Iraq, they miscalculated. Their attempt to spread influence in Iraq through sectarian violence was soundly defeated by Sunnis who had basically had enough. Sunnis in western Iraq were having none of it, they were not going to be influenced AQ since AQ were the outsiders. Yes, there was still turmoil, but AQI lost all momentum. So they had to look elsewhere, places where they found weakness: Yemen and the Horn of Africa. Fast forward to the Arab Spring. Egyptian and Libyan rebellions really happened too quickly, so their ability to influence those two nations on a large scale was lost. They maintained some influence on a smaller scale, especially in Libya. And then Syria happened. The Syrian government held, the rebellion was prolonged, and a vacuum ensued. In steps AQ to provide assistance. Once the Syrian government is defeated, AQ now has the leverage to exert their influence on whoever takes control. But now there's a problem. ISIS. Where AQ wants to be in the shadows, ISIS is attempting to establish itself as a ruling body, a government that controls land and imposes their will on all within it. Abu Bakr has become the face of the modern caliphate, which flies in the face with what AQ's old timers have long held as the correct doctrine for spreading radical Islam. ISIS has solid backing from despondent Sunnis who have been disillusioned with the political climate in Iraq. They want their own land, their own government, their own power and influence in the region. And this is where the problem lies. This is all about power and influence and will, always has been. It is a religious and cultural ideology that is not mutually exclusive, they are both intertwined. If ISIS is allowed to establish a foothold in the region unopposed, they will continue to spread. Where AQ would have a symbiotic relationship with a government, ISIS is the government. They are free to call their own shots, free to export terrorism wherever they want. They control the military, finances, infrastructure (including airfields), etc. They have their own base of operations to conduct whatever they want. Terrorism is used as a tool. It inspires fear, and that fear is used to manipulate the media, which manipulates a populace into apathy and into thinking, "fuck them, it's not our fight. Let them kill each other". This apathy then translates into votes in western democracies. An apathetic populace translates into apathetic governments who do not possess the will to get involved. Meanwhile, the threat continues to grow. This is exactly what ISIS is doing and will continue to do. I agree regional countries should be more involved, I wish they would. But they've never shown the will to get involved before, so there's nothing that makes me believe they are going to now. The US and European democracies cannot sit around and wait and hope this happens. Waiting and hoping is not a course of action. Sorry for the long post, I know most don't like to read that much. But I hope it provides some perspective. Everyone is free to believe what they want, I only offer a point of view of someone who has spent the last 11 years fighting these fucks.
Yes, this is a shrewd assessment. It's not apathy to ask why every fight in the middle east is our fight. The war in Iraq was a a bad idea. We took council of our fears and now Iraq will end up with several religious strongmen instead of the secular Baathist strongman we deposed. I think it pays to get it right this time. We went into Iraq with no allies and no end game strategy. We need both before going back into it. They showed the will in 1991. They didn't fight very well, but they showed up on the right side and they brought their pocketbooks. Even the Japanese chipped in with some cash. It's worth the effort to do it right if it is possible. No, but prudent planning and the gathering of a coalition is a course of action and takes time. The local allies will never do anything if they think that the US will do it for them every time. They will have to be pressured and some of that pressure is waiting until they give in and step up to the plate. And it is a damned good perspective. But speak clearly. Do you envision putting another ground army in Iraq and taking ISIS on directly? When it devolves into a guerrilla insurgency again, do we leave it to the locals or stay forever? And if we let the vast expense of another such war break our economy, then AQ has achieved one of its aims. Some crab shit on the bottom of the Arabian Sea will be laughing. And fighting ISIS in Syria is really complicated. Not only can we not support Assad and his Iranian-backed Hezbollah allies, but we cannot completely support the non-jihadist rebels because they are affiliated with Al-Nustra, another AQ affiliate. Not one of the parties in that conflict is pro-American, we would be taking on all comers. What is the end game? Who do we leave in charge? What kind of wild card will the Israelis be?
I'm not saying the time to build a coalition has completely passed, but I will say we are damn sure on a compressed timeline with it. And the world is so much different now than it was in 1990-91. The effect of moving from two superpowers to one was not yet completely felt, and Saddam Hussein controlling Kuwait's vast oil fields made it strategically important for everyone. In the end, though, it was still a state on state(s) conflict, making it easier for Arab and middle eastern states to get involved and not allow the balance of power to shift in the region. The proliferation of non-state actors has changed the nature of armed conflict now. The US has not made every fight in the Middle East our fight, wasn't much of ours in Libya or Egypt, wasn't ours in the 60s and 70s when Arabs ganged up on the Israelis, wasn't ours in the Iran-Iraq War, or the muj against the soviets (by ours I'm assuming you mean active military involvement, not just material support). Saying Iraq was a mistake is fine and great, and I'm sure that makes everyone who hates GWB feel wonderful about themselves. But it has nothing to do with the current threat that exists there now. Hindsight is not an excuse to do nothing. Every administration has to deal with what's left behind from the previous, for good or ill. There is no way of knowing what that region would've looked like if Iraq had never happened, especially given everything that has happened since. The world patted themselves on the back after the Great War, never realizing just how bad they fucked things up until after WW II. But that was all in hindsight. I don't make a distinction between ISIS in Syria and ISIS in Iraq. Whatever began with them in Syria is now a part of Iraq, with no international border they recognize. ISIS is taking orders from one person. I won't speculate on what our strategy is. There are a lot smarter folks out there than me who have a lot more intel. And if I had that intel I couldn't share it, anyway. In a general sense, though, yes, I do envision another ground war to defeat ISIS. I have no idea when or what conditions have to be met before that trigger is pulled. What I will say, though, is we are so fucked up right now that there's no way to build a consensus within our own government, much less build a coalition from outside unless something changes. There is no national resolve from either democrats or republicans, and certainly not among each other. I hope it doesn't take a catastrophic event before we finally figure this out.
The point is about rashly making another Trillion dollar mistake, not about Dubya. We actually need the prudence and resolve of the elder Bush right now. The distinction I was making is that in Iraq we are fighting with friendly Kurds and Iraqis against ISIS. In Syria the opponent is the same but the other parties in the fight are our enemies, too. It changes they dynamic. The Kurds and Iraqis are not likely to fight beyond their turf. Party polarization has gotten so bad that I think only the emergence of a national third party in the middle can help. Of course, preventing that from happening is probably the only thing that the Democrats and Republicans can agree on.
Do I really have to reference how many times you've referenced me with "you" and "your".......and the only one noticing it is you, you really can't get over yourself can you? I'm never out or out of ammo, you just can't accept that your opinions aren't fact like you state them and for damn sure some state worker ain't changin my opinion. I'm sure we have a-bombs already made and a few in the corner collecting some dust, time to clean out the closet, throw away some old shoes. We've spent billions on drones and will spend billions more. Plain talk works for me........Muslims=terrorist or future terrorist.
Same old tune. Want to try the topic again? Then shoot them down with some facts. But you really haven't done that, have you? That's why you just try to discredit your opponent. Nobody is fooled. Why not just get Captain Kirk to use photon torpedoes. Or . . . or . . . Captain America! Yeah, that's the ticket. Yes, life is always simple isn't it?
