http://www.occupydemocrats.com/obama-i-refuse-to-rush-into-war-like-reckless-bush-cheney/

In the wake of the horrific terrorist attacks in Paris on Friday night, Republicans instantly began howling for war. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John McCain (R-AZ) have already called for a ground invasion of Syria while the FOX News echo chamber instantly began dialing up their propaganda efforts in an attempt to paint President Obama as being “soft” on terror for his refusal to blindly stumble into yet another overseas war. Donald Trump, in a sophisticated statement simply dripping nuance, declared that he would “bomb the sh*t out of them.” That exact kind of knee-jerk reaction is the reason we got into the messes in Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place, and President Obama has sworn to not make the same mistakes that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney made following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

At the G-20 conference in Antalya, Turkey, the President declared that it would be a “serious mistake” to launch a ground invasion of Syria, rightfully pointing out that it would require a long-term occupation. “We would see a repetition of what we’ve seen before, which is if you do not have local populations that are committed to helping combat extremism, the terrorists resurface, unless we are prepared to have a permanent occupation of these countries.”

The President also ripped into his Republican detractors for their wanton and reckless militarism, saying that “some of them seem to think that if I were just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing that that would make a difference because that seems to be the only thing that they’re doing, is talking as if they’re tough. What I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of ‘American leadership’ or ‘America winning’ that has no relationship to what is actually going to work.”

The United States and the international community will certainly have a strong response to these despicable acts of terror, but an Iraq-style ground invasion is one of the more dangerously foolish ideas gaining traction in the media. The key Iraqi border town of Sinjar and an additional twenty-eight villages were liberated from ISIS forces on November 12th by Kurdish peshmerga forces with the help of coalition airstrikes. The Kurdish militia units have formed an uneasy alliance with the Free Syrian Army and are closing in on ISIS “capital” of Raqqa.

Invading Syria is the worst possible thing that we could do. If we really want to stop ISIS, we need to take a long careful look at how our own policies support their existence. We must begin putting pressure on our regional “allies” like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who are using ISIL and other Syrian terrorist groups like Jahbat al-Nusra as part of their proxy war against Iran, Assad’s regime, Iraq, and the Houthi rebels of Yemen. A careful and measured response is nessessary; the expected outbursts of jingoistic delusion from the right-wing only highlights their ignorance. George Bush and Dick Cheney brought us to this point with their cavalier invasions of Muslim nations; it is absolutely critical we don’t make those mistakes again.

i saw some dickhead from the NY Post excoriating him for not going into syria with some hamfisted offensive and naturally re-hashing every other moment he backed off of full-scale war as if more war was the answer. the worst part was that it was posted by a democrat.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

?

>?

Highlights?

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

with him and his strategy. at parts, it seemed like he didn't even believe what he was saying, but felt like he had to stick to his plan to save face. it seems like that's his main defense strategy, half ass it because he said he wouldn't get us into another war. he also seemed pretty defeatist, like there's nothing we could have done better and there's nothing we can do better going forward. this is just how it's going to be.

he was also quite forceful about american safety (troop and civilian) being number one. so basically fuck europe and fuck the whole REGION that WE destabilized and let's wait until they come back here. basically, he's satisfied to play defense, let ISIS hit us first.

he is in a very difficult position but it's surprising that he can lay on the right rhetoric. usually he has a good feel for that. then again a lot of what people want to hear is us versus them, we will win, etc. i dont think he should go that far but he's got to sound a little less passive.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

and that fucked over the moderate Sunni tribes and their leaders

I get why he did it. It was what he campaigned on


but damn that was pretty dumb in retrospect. It basically unraveled all the progress made by Petraeus and "The Awakening."

Sure there was some deep problems with Maliki's govt, but damn those seemed so minor compared to the shit storm that came after our exit.

No brazen prison breaks by Baghdadi's boys to free their homies. No genocide of the Yazidis. AQI doesn't go from being a mostly foreign group to a national one. And they definitely wouldn't have been able to cross over into Syria with swelled ranks.

Sure the history books will point at the Bush/Cheney Administration for going in there in the first place. But Obama dropped the ball here too. It will probably be the biggest criticism of his administration when he leaves office.

sitting Iragi government at the time?


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Movies I need y'all bastids to see so we can discuss:

Five Star - https://goo.gl/jBHbVv
Appro

But looking back, you can see why Maliki and them were so eager for us to leave

They wanted to ramp up the power of their sect ( think it was within days after we left that the Sunni vp was arrested)


Obama has advisors who were in his ear about what would happen. He could've reneged on the agreement


He was just so strong in his conviction to leave there ...

and at what point would we have been able to leave safely? that was the problem with both bush wars, frankly, neither one had a foreseeable end to occupation. helluva business model though.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

we are in the middle east indefinitely with this current strategy.

that is what i am saying, from the outset these were 25+ year occupations. tough position to be in as the guy who inherits that.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

>Sure the history books will point at the Bush/Cheney
>Administration for going in there in the first place. But
>Obama dropped the ball here too. It will probably be the
>biggest criticism of his administration when he leaves office.

Eventually the plug was going to get pulled over there; a fucked up attack on a base by remaining extremists that makes the news here and suddenly its back to "Why we risking our kids for those a-rabs over there".

Colonization is the only way it would have worked and thats its own brand of long term headaches. Im all for the "You broke it, you fixed it" (I remember arguing with my pops about it) but it's not feasible to have an occupying force there for decades.

if he stays, he breaks the existing agreement, he breaks one of his biggest campaign promises, he loses some credibility, (more than with just people who would hate him anyway), and the public hates it more and more, and calls to get out continue to increase.

he withdraws completely, and.. well here we are. but our discourse has no real room for any kind of nuance. one side acts like he shares zero responsibiltiy in this, the other side thinks it's 100% his fault.

-->

is that when he's gonna wake up to the problem?
it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when
you know and I know that ISIS is gonna commit an atrocity like Paris in an American city
I voted for Obama. Twice. But this half ass pussy footing with this apocalyptic death cult has got to stop.

i don't know if they were inspired by al quaeda or isis or who. it's the same anti-western radical muslim movement and there will be more attacks. there have already been more plots thwarted in new york. they are here, they are plotting. more are coming..

The Boston bombing was some kids trying to act grown
I'm talking pros, seasoned vets going ham in a major american city with multiple simultaneous coordinated attacks

Here's a thought: the caliphate claims to be a state right?
so let's treat em like one: declaration of war, NATO strikes since they've committed acts of war in two NATO member states.

Big air war? Ground offensive? Sending Fetty Wap?

This is another war with no clear enemy and no clear front line.

And once this threat is neutralized, who is to say something else doesn't spring up in its place? We have cut the heads off snakes before. You will still have the same conditions that gave rise to each of these groups and you will still have extremism in various forms (Wahhabism, more opportunistic Jihadists, etc).

I am not saying we shouldn't be putting heads on sticks, but I don't think we should be doing it just for the sake of retaliation.

I thought some of what Obeezy said was honest, maybe too honest. We are dealing with people who DGAF about dying. That is its own challenge.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

do nazis still exist? sure
are they in power anywhere? will they rise to power anywhere? are we under mortal threat from nazi groups?

They've been reduced to the extreme fringe of society and have zero credibility outside of their circle jerk

The nazi state and ideology was crazy strong. So strong, a whole nation stood silent as millions were slaughtered.

....

this is about a total reevaluation of the way we fight war in the 21st century.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

the nazis controlled a powerful nation-state and ultimately an alliance of states. the lines were much more clearly defined. further, we actually did a pretty shitty job of eliminating the broader evil of fascism, which still exists today and certainly existed well after World War II (considering the length of Franco's reign in Spain, post-Colonial politics in Africa and South America, etc ... shit we BACKED fascists in several cases).

nazism also came to a head, they became a world power and moved toward world domination. these guys are nowhere near that point. they are already "on the fringe." if we want to push them onto the fringe, OK, look at what happened in germany. they went from a desperate, hungry bunch of bigots to an economic power with loads of guilt. i'll give you a hint, the guilt wasn't the operative agent in the change.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

Fascism may have not been eliminated, but that too was contained to the point where Western Europe and America was safe. That's the main outcome were looking for here, even by obama's standards. He thinks he can do containment minus the war.

Anyway, maybe there is no analogy. That's part of the issue with the war on terror, where previous ideological clashes played out in at least relatively concrete terms, this one is a war with no discernible front line and the enemy is fuzzy, too.

How would we treat ISIS or the broader ideals at play in the manner we treated the Nazis? Let's engage your example, sure, what do you mean by that?

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

...and certainly wasn't a threat to the safety of Western Europe or the us unlike hitlers.

Franco and many under him remained in power even beyond his death in 75. And that's in Europe alone, again, look at how fascism thrived throughout the postcolonial world.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

>the nazis controlled a powerful nation-state and ultimately
>an alliance of states. the lines were much more clearly
>defined. further, we actually did a pretty shitty job of
>eliminating the broader evil of fascism, which still exists
>today and certainly existed well after World War II
>(considering the length of Franco's reign in Spain,
>post-Colonial politics in Africa and South America, etc ...
>shit we BACKED fascists in several cases).
>
>nazism also came to a head, they became a world power and
>moved toward world domination. these guys are nowhere near
>that point. i just don't understand your answer, i guess.

so then what should we do wait for them to attach the U.S.?

I think we should go in (along with our NATO partners) and take out ISIS in Iraq and Syria. It will probably increase the terrorism threat in the short term but we are already at war. We could take back their territorial gains probably in 6 months.

We need to put pressure on Russia to get Assad to step down and if he doesn't we should do it and send the refugees back to Syria. And then leave.

If they start up again somewhere else go back and take them out but we can't wait til they get this big and powerful. We need to put pressure on Saudi Arabia for the financing and preaching of the extremism.

We can't root it all out in the short term, but we can't make it easy on them either. We must shut down their safe havens.

dude

Syria is destroyed. There's nothing for them to go back to.

>Syria is destroyed. There's nothing for them to go back to.
>

It's their home. They need to fight for it and rebuild and we should help them.

dude

sunnis are like 85% of the world's muslims, they can find traction elsewhere, too.

what you're saying sounds comprehensive but the outcomes are unpredictable and the actions are not very simple. and of course in the short run we talk physical territory, in the long run we talk ideological territory, and seizing the former by force isn't usually conducive to gaining the latter.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

I urge people to read this, a concise and compelling look at the evolution of war and where it stands now, from someone way smarter and more military minded than I am. Written in 2004, and look how it played out and still applies right today:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/milreview/lind.pdf

This is what I was referring to earlier (I had not yet read this, showed up in my inbox in timely fashion):

"What 'wins' at the tactical and physical levels might lose at the operational, strategic, mental, and moral levels, where Fourth Generation war is decided."

It's a quick read and very informative, at least I thought so. Very intriguing ideas on the aims of war, on the organization of coalition forces and on how far behind we are in recognizing a new means of fighting war not "symmetrically against states" but in an era where states have lost their 350-year-old monopoly on war.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

You're right, a much more powerful nation-state with a modern army and capacity to cause major damage.

Meanwhile, we're still flailing against jihadism, an ideology that does not require a third reich-like military. Apparently the Paris attackers were all born and raised in France, with the exception of one who may or may not have come in as a refugee. Regardless, dudes born and raised in the west, with freedom of speech, democracy, etc, are blowing themselves up for an idea.

As long as we continue to deny that jihadism, like nazism, is an ideology that requires extreme measures to be stopped, expect more 9-11's, Madrid, London, Paris, etc

i don't want to conflate things too much with this nazi example but who denies that jihadism is a destructive force that has to be completely eliminated or at least diminished?

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

problem solved

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

I typed that went to put my hair up and saw the pope on tv saying the same thing.

Reality is they are thinking armegeddon, the apocalypse and preparing for the last days.

It's so beyond ww3.

>I typed that went to put my hair up and saw the pope on tv
>saying the same thing.
>
>Reality is they are thinking armegeddon, the apocalypse and
>preparing for the last days.
>
>It's so beyond ww3.

And that funny hyperbole that's amped up because we hold life (well westerners lives) so dear that any lost is a FUCKING TRAGEDY and we've got a scary news cycle to make us feel like its A FUCKING TRAGEDY.

WWII had 3% of the world's population gone, 60 million people.
This isn't world war 2
If we killed everyone in Syria, it still wouldn't be world war II

....you cant compare because we have drones and huge bombers now.

You have to look at continents and countries involved, govts destabilized or overthrown, migrations, displacements, people affected and by this standard we are very much in WWIII.

the very "small" casualties you are claiming tech like drones and medicine create, is the exact militarized war environs that is fueling the ideology dipshit

we straight killed MILLIONS of men, women and children who were unfortunate to be on the same supposed lands of the terrorist who took the lives of people on 9-11.

why do you want an even more extreme version of that. Americans can hardly handle shit like Paris or 9-11 or the Boston Bombing. you really wanna fuel global conditions to make more disenfranchised youth from various regions across the globe allow ISIL to sell them that fools gold?

>the very "small" casualties you are claiming tech like drones
>and medicine create, is the exact militarized war environs
>that is fueling the ideology dipshit
>
>we straight killed MILLIONS of men, women and children who
>were unfortunate to be on the same supposed lands of the
>terrorist who took the lives of people on 9-11.
>
>why do you want an even more extreme version of that.
>Americans can hardly handle shit like Paris or 9-11 or the
>Boston Bombing. you really wanna fuel global conditions to
>make more disenfranchised youth from various regions across
>the globe allow ISIL to sell them that fools gold?

Obama has said this is the kind of war he's going to step up. You should keep your trap shut until you start paying attention.

Aside from having no idea what Obama said, you also missed the overall point oft post in that you can't compare these wars by looking at casualties numbers.

Then the pope said the same thing on the TV. I so get it now, grandpa!

.

.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

Lets say we do the unthinkable and WIPE out Syria and Iraq, everyone totally dead, and in my hypothetical situation the rest of the middle east is cool with that.

You've still got places like Yemen.
You've still got muslim ghettos in Europe.

And lets not forget how, OUTSIDE OF ISIS, the United States has had quite a year with home grown terrorist attacks. Think a muslim dude can't go buy an AK and go shoot up a college?

Putting troops on the ground makes us feel good, but it's ultimately useless. If you want ground action, you are going to have to call the other muslim countries in, particularly Saudi Arabia, and hold them accountable, have them fight both the troops there AND THE MESSAGE.

The US has ZERO respect in the region, and anything we do there will be seen as an act of aggression not only to ISIS, but the liberal/moderate muslims that we've done a good job of bombing into jihadists over the last few decades. We will have to eventually colonize British Empire style, and will be forced to periodically kill a decent amount of the non-jihadist populace to keep them in line.

.

first off i think overall we are on the same page and that was a very solid post.

but ideologically the saudis are symphathizers of isis, shared religious beliefs and similar tactics. if we start drawing lines in the sand do you think we can count on them for diplomatic or economic reasons? i don't see much that suggests that we can count on them for *shit*. if we were in a war with iran, that would be another story.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

>first off i think overall we are on the same page and that
>was a very solid post.
>
>but ideologically the saudis are symphathizers of isis, shared
>religious beliefs and similar tactics. if we start drawing
>lines in the sand do you think we can count on them for
>diplomatic or economic reasons? i don't see much that suggests
>that we can count on them for *shit*. if we were in a war with
>iran, that would be another story.

Problem is that within the country they've got hella sympathizers with loot and short sighted vision (as if the Islamic State is gonna let em keep their bugati's). The royal family also has ties but in 2015 it's no longer a cute side hobby to spread havoc and religion to non-saudis since they are 'untouchable'; its a de-stablizing agent and they've already starrted to bite the hand that feeds

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/06/middleeast/saudi-arabia-mosque-attack/

>You're right, a much more powerful nation-state with a modern
>army and capacity to cause major damage.
>
>Meanwhile, we're still flailing against jihadism, an ideology
>that does not require a third reich-like military. Apparently
>the Paris attackers were all born and raised in France...

I stopped u here^^^^^.....Just so u can understand why ISIS is an entirely different animal than the Nazis....

U guys don't seem to get it. ISIS is not a military army like the Nazis at its prime. They are not a military structure. They don't have traditional chains of command.

ISIS is basically McDonalds....They are a religious franchise that has the ability to evolve in a myriad of ways....The Paris attacks were done by kids and old ass weapons....This was not some elite army....

ISIS is all about turning on the believers to fight the infidels....ISIS is all about inspiration....They don't need to put together a army to invade America or Europe....They already have cells here and around the globe....

In other words, u can't fight them by traditional means.....

GOAT of his era......long live Prince.....God is alive....

Not the same thing....at all....

GOAT of his era......long live Prince.....God is alive....

and ppl wiser than him

Ppl told him you couldn't say what you will and won't do and give all these time lines.

He's done that and even went so far as not doing what he said he WOULD do.

He went back on his promise that if Assad used biological weapons on his ppl he'd put boots on the ground. .

Basically listen to ppl with military experience and follow through if you're drawing lines in the sand.

>Big air war? Ground offensive? Sending Fetty Wap?
>

I just laugh-coughed up a kidney

Sprout up more terrorist then u really haven't been paying attention. The only thing that will mitigate/protect against the blood lust that those inclined do these attacks is surveillance and covert counterterrorism efforts. And notice I said mitigate. There's no way to 100 percent stop this. Ever

prototype

stand ur ground, believe in urself,
believe in love, prepare urself for love, remove the negativity from ur life, and accept the love u kno u deserve

we've had 15 years to see how that doesnt work.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

We've had 13 yrs and obama's been pussyfooting and talking about pulling out for 9-10 now.

do most americans want to be in the region for decades on end, being a patch over a hole they ripped?

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

>We've had 13 yrs and obama's been pussyfooting and talking
>about pulling out for 9-10 now.



Hey....we haven't been attacked under Obama's watch beyond two kids who made a homemade bomb out of a pressure cooker....

I think the American public would take that rather than having terrorists fly airplanes into buildings....

GOAT of his era......long live Prince.....God is alive....

We inadvertently created Isis as a result of our short-sighted fuck ups, but somehow people think the answer is to get bogged down in another all out war. "We just need a president who's less of a pussy and we'll win this time!" Whenever we do get hit we're so fucked

lol

you know the my big American dick patriotism after 9-11 is exactly what created the monster that is ISIL, right?

this isn't old world wars. these are not nations. they aren't a definable enemy.

but get your "we MUST defeat the bad guys" on or "we will face dire consequences" paranoia on

24 hour news networks would use flawed logic and convince people to push for foreign policy and legislation that is not in their best interests such as:

Another war - kills our budget, creates a deficit, causes state budget cuts
Surveillance (more) - we're already tracked enough
Police Brutality (more) - as cops realize they need to be hard on POC to "stop ISIS".
State budget cuts - to fund lost income from reckless government spending to "fight ISIS".

^^ Basically, an entire repeat of 2000-2008 with worse odds for success.

IMHO, the most sensible solution is a UN coalition that marks a unified attack on ISIS without bombing everything.

We are there. We've been there. We are spending money. Bombing nearly every day. Obama has downplayed it. But the only thing we're not doing is boots on the ground. Operating bombers takes a lot of money, probably more than boots on the ground, esp since they're probably flying in from 3 countries away.

mostly we are there trying to show our presence and intimidate with our firepower. is that an effective means of combating this enemy? i would argue that the answer is a round and resounding NO.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

>mostly we are there trying to show our presence and
>intimidate with our firepower. is that an effective means of
>combating this enemy? i would argue that the answer is a round
>and resounding NO.

Just because it would be wartime we would be forced to treat the local populace like shit, which leads them to resenting us, which leads them to thinking, "Hey, those Isis assholes weren't THAT bad compared to the US, which leads us back to car bombs, and sleeper cells across the world"

Esp after Assad used chemical weapons on people...

because it's actually many conflicts tangled together.

there is no clear ideological winner for us and the other actors involved are many (iran, saudi arabia, russia, turkey and of course much of the west).

you want to go in there and topple assad the way we toppled hussein and impose some sort of democracy? are you so out of touch that you think war is easy?

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

(Quietly) That's the truth. We want to be all day rah pro democracy, which is great, but there's nothing democratic about civilians being bombed, babies starving and a whole generation growing up in refugee camps. It is messed up, but if you can't support the rebels overthrow of the government and properly make that happen, installing a new ruler then your rah rah pro democrat ideology is useless. We've been propping up not so great guys in the Middle East for years realizing they're the lesser of a few evils.

>(Quietly) That's the truth. We want to be all day rah pro
>democracy, which is great, but there's nothing democratic
>about civilians being bombed, babies starving and a whole
>generation growing up in refugee camps. It is messed up, but
>if you can't support the rebels overthrow of the government
>and properly make that happen, installing a new ruler then
>your rah rah pro democrat ideology is useless. We've been
>propping up not so great guys in the Middle East for years
>realizing they're the lesser of a few evils.

At the same time, its too broken to 'double down' now; that time has already passed.

Russia is doing a fine job of that themselves. If we didn't have a dog in the fight, why bother getting involved?

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

Their ability to operate, sell oil, tax people etc. That's how they're getting their money to recruit people, get bigger and plan attacks. We were able to disrupt extremists in Iraq and establish a democratic government, but unfortunately left too soon.

and at whatever point we left, the same thing would happen.

you're looking at this with real rose colored glasses, i feel like i'm listening to some frat douche tell me about his confidence in tommy thompson in 2002. our interference there has *damaged* our standing in the region, before and during these wars. continuing to blow shit up and impose our will is not winning this battle. this is not a war of attrition anymore.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

>and at whatever point we left, the same thing would happen.

We have nearly 200k troops in Germany, Japan and korea. Not leaving after a major war popped off is not a new thing. To think we were ever going to leave was a mistake. We broke it, we bought it. To not think of this as being major as any of he world wars or Korea where we'd have to have long term involvement was wrong headed. This half adding effort is getting us nowhere.

And waiting for forever to go into, standing by while people were bent massacred for years, certainly didn't endear us to any Syrians. Then they went in tried to train some rebels and none of them wanted anything to do with the Americans.

You have to remember we hadn't done much of anything before sept 11th. There was the first gulf invasion. But in the 80s when my father worked down at the wtc there were several bombing plots. That was bfr the first gulf invasion. This radical Islam thing has been brewing for awhile. The idea if we sit back and relax it'll ease up is false. well have another extremist group to rival isis in 5 yrs.

you cite those numbers in germany, japan, korea (it's about half that number, but OK) as if having bases there means we are actively occupying these countries. we didn't create stability in iraq, we destroyed it, and no matter if we left when we did or forty years later, the same thing was going to fall apart. it was a country held together by a hairpin of a dictatorship, the very type of dictatorship you are advocating propping up in another post in this thread (in discussing potentially backing assad). it wasn't one country, it was (at least) three countries bound together arbitrarily and held together by force. first hussein was the force, then we were and overall there wasn't a lot of support from anyone in iraq that we stay a whole lot longer. and again, are we to conflate the power struggle in syria with the sum total of what is at play here? this is an international organization and part of a broader threat that is ideological and militarized, but not a state entity or an official military.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

And massacring Shias and others in the region. I mean what happens when they hit the u.s?

They draw strength from having a safe haven in Iraq and Syria. They are able to financially support their actions by taxing the local population and with the oil, they are able to attract more to their cause by stating they are a caliphate.

The local forces aren't strong enough to defeat that, nor is air power. Can we totally stop terrorism by just defeating Isis, no but it would be a huge blow against them.

They were essentially defeated before but were able to find strength through fighting in Syria and malikis oppressive actions against Sunnis, we must defeat Isi and aggressively manage those areas to deny the terrorists a safe haven.

Continuing on this current course will only bring more refugees and more terror attacks which could destabilize other regions. Right now Isis is attacking with impunity,, which gives them more strength and popularity, we must send a message that if you attack us or our allies you will be destroyed.

dude

>They draw strength from having a safe haven in Iraq and Syria.
>They are able to financially support their actions by taxing
>the local population and with the oil, they are able to
>attract more to their cause by stating they are a caliphate.

True.

>The local forces aren't strong enough to defeat that, nor is
>air power. Can we totally stop terrorism by just defeating
>Isis, no but it would be a huge blow against them.

But could we take over Syria/Iraq as an occupying force successfully? Yes and no; true during the later era Iraqi surge we were able to maintain somewhat a semblance of peace (with a car bomb here and there). The problem is we cannot run a government ourselves and one of the reasons we are dealing with ISIL in 2015 is because we were forced to deal with people who purposely inflamed sectarian violence off ancient beef.

BEST CASE scenario is we magically get rid of all of isis (without us fucking up and creating new jihadists ourselves as an occupying power) and even then we would still have problems. All that would happen is it would be wack a mole, with them popping up in whatever islamic focused country that has a weak government; Somalia, Yemen, etc. Between the middle east and North Africa you've got so many states that are still 'states' just by threads.

>we must send a
>message that if you attack us or our allies you will be
>destroyed.

This enemy has a hard on for being 'destroyed' and going out in a blaze of glory. It's why I don't think you guys are clearly thinking about invading. Since NDIB's is a WWII bluff apparently there's a reason why the US dropped the nuke instead of moving into Japan. Its why I said above if we wiped Syria and Iraq off the face off the map totally all that would happen is they would sprout somewhere else. REMEMBER, that while having a 'state' is enabling them to make headway in building borders and infrastructure, these western attacks are dirt ass cheap to pull off. They don't need a 'state' to buy a couple of AK's and put some recruitment videos on the internet.

>>They draw strength from having a safe haven in Iraq and
>Syria.
>>They are able to financially support their actions by taxing
>>the local population and with the oil, they are able to
>>attract more to their cause by stating they are a caliphate.
>
>True.
>
>>The local forces aren't strong enough to defeat that, nor is
>>air power. Can we totally stop terrorism by just defeating
>>Isis, no but it would be a huge blow against them.
>
>But could we take over Syria/Iraq as an occupying force
>successfully? Yes and no; true during the later era Iraqi
>surge we were able to maintain somewhat a semblance of peace
>(with a car bomb here and there). The problem is we cannot
>run a government ourselves and one of the reasons we are
>dealing with ISIL in 2015 is because we were forced to deal
>with people who purposely inflamed sectarian violence off
>ancient beef.
>
>BEST CASE scenario is we magically get rid of all of isis
>(without us fucking up and creating new jihadists ourselves as
>an occupying power) and even then we would still have
>problems. All that would happen is it would be wack a mole,
>with them popping up in whatever islamic focused country that
>has a weak government; Somalia, Yemen, etc. Between the
>middle east and North Africa you've got so many states that
>are still 'states' just by threads.
>
>>we must send a
>>message that if you attack us or our allies you will be
>>destroyed.
>
>This enemy has a hard on for being 'destroyed' and going out
>in a blaze of glory. It's why I don't think you guys are
>clearly thinking about invading. Since NDIB's is a WWII bluff
>apparently there's a reason why the US dropped the nuke
>instead of moving into Japan. Its why I said above if we
>wiped Syria and Iraq off the face off the map totally all that
>would happen is they would sprout somewhere else. REMEMBER,
>that while having a 'state' is enabling them to make headway
>in building borders and infrastructure, these western attacks
>are dirt ass cheap to pull off. They don't need a 'state' to
>buy a couple of AK's and put some recruitment videos on the
>internet.
>
>

Good points, fair enough

dude

I think people need to chill with the Nazis comparisons.....

It makes little sense.....

Nazis cared about dying....Have u ever heard of Nazis suicide bombers (plural)????

Nazis were more concentrated in one spot (they were based in Germany with a few numbers sprinkled here and there across the globe that supported them)....it wasn't hard to keep tabs on them. Nazis had a traditional army; traditional war powers; a tradition military structure.....Nazis were some sick evil bastards that believed that Jews did not deserve to breathe....They killed millions. BUT.....They also kept prisoners of war...

This ^^^^^^ ain't ISIS....

ISIS is essentially a religious death cult....Like I said in another post, they are a McDonalds franchise....They are an idea...An ideology that can be found in France, America, Indonesia, Africa, the UK, Brussels, not to mention the fucking Middle East......U don't fight a traditional war against an idea.....U have to approach this war with intelligence.....Bombing them and putting boots on the ground is just for starters.....U need intelligence; u need Middle Eastern countries to fight for themselves; you need Russia, France and other countries to pull their own weight....

This ain't a video game......U have to fight them with a completely different war that goes beyond bombing the hell out of them....Because there is no THEM....

GOAT of his era......long live Prince.....God is alive....

Bring a plan. And some Vaseline for your face.

https://www.soundcloud.com/jxcannon/pop-off-ft-barack-obama

fuck you.

.

1. Always question authority (not just when they aren't who you vote for)

2. There are many experts on both sides of the issues

3. The recent terrorist attack are valid reason to second guess whether the current strategy is working

4. I support Obama ( and pray that his strategy works) but he isn't God

5. Obviously I can't see Obama to express my opinions he's pretty busy,, that's why I come here to discuss. If someone provides a good counter to my argument (like Big Reg) I will acknowledge that I'm a reasonable man. I'm not so much interested in winning my argument but finding the right answer.

dude

Go see him. He wants it.

fuck you.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

fuck you.

making it worse.