Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Most of the area has dictators because they are the only ones capable of keeping a lid on the Radical Islamic Sects.......
I've served over there dumb ass.................And if you are referring to Peanut Head which gave birth to the place going to hell in a hand basket then I'd agree. Back then we wanted to go take their asses out for taking our people hostage...........In the 1st Gulf War we wanted to finish it then as well, with 350,000 more troops than the 2nd...................Most of the area has dictators because they are the only ones capable of keeping a lid on the Radical Islamic Sects.......
wrong!! The entire world had been like that forever with liberal groups fighting for control of central govt so they could violently force their will on others. Our liberals are at fault for ME. They have prevented the shot heard around the world from being heard around the world.
Do you understand?
[
They are ruled by Religion..
Give me the history of the Caliphates.............Tell me about 732......................and the Hammer.....................And if you don't think that the current Civil Wars over there aren't driven by religion......then I reaffirm my statement that you are a dumb ass.[
They are ruled by Religion..
so was Europe but the conservative idea of freedom took hold there and in America. Do you understand now?? Liberalism is the evil force in the world, not religion.
I haven't seen any conformation but there's a number of reports of Russia sending troops in Syria. A political solution to Putin means an election that keeps Assad in power or a candidate that Russia can control . Russia has a big investments in Syria, a large naval base that gives them access to the Mediterranean, armament manufacturing, and home for about 40,000 Russians.Russia has not shown a desire to send ground troops and if they can prop up Assad through an air campaign it's doubtful they would. Russia propping up Assad is entirely consistent with their stated position of destroying ISIS for the reasons I previously stated.If it's true that Russia is sending 150,000 troops into Syria then yes, I think we should drop our insistence that Assad must go. However, Russia's primary interest is to secure the Assad regime. That means stopping rebels groups, some working with ISIS and some fighting against ISIS as well as ISIS itself. My guess is they would limit their military campaign to Syria leaving ISIS in Iraq for others to deal with and that is where the US must take the leadership role.At this point the US has only several bad options, lead a coalition to destroy ISIS's will to continue the battle or sit back and bomb the hell out of them and hope someone else in addition to the Kurds puts some boots on the ground which is the key to a militarily victory. Possibly sending 5,000 or 10,000 US special forces working with the Kurds and Iraqis while maintaining US and Russian bombings would be enough to send ISIS fighters back to where they came from. I really don't think there's any real possibility of destroying ISIS. At best we can beat them militarily and end the battle, but of course not the war. They will just disperse into northern Africa or Yemen or someplace else like Al Qaeda has done. Terrorist groups like ISIS are completely mobile. They are not depend on any one country for their support.
The US handcuffs itself in the fight against ISIS by standing firm on its insistence that Assad must go. If the priority is ISIS, and you need boots on the ground, then it must be pointed out that they already exist on the ground in the form of the legitimate governing authority in Syria.
Your point about not being able to defeat the ISIS ideology is an obvious one and indeed they will scatter but you certainly can't allow them to have a foothold in any country such as we see in Iraq, Syria and Libya.
Russia has stated that they would be fine with Assad stepping down so long as it was a political solution and not coerced. I agree, the Syrian people should make the decision, not a contingency of foreign backed jihadists.
Why is it that so many US citizens feel that they retain a right to overthrow foreign governments, it's bizarre? And it always works out so well.
I agree, that is the most expedient method of dealing with ISIS. However, ISIS isn't the only priority for Russia, the US, and the nations in the region. For the US, establishing a democratic form of government is a priority, probably not so for Russia Iraq, Iran, or Turkey.IssacNewton,French President Calls Attacks an 'Act of War'
The French president calls attacks in Paris an 'Act of War'.
That is what it is. Nato needs to mobilize immediately and neutralize this threat with all due hostility. We aren't at terrorism, we are at war. The ENEMY has made it clear.
Nato should convene, tell the member states we need a quarter million troops and all will participate and land troops in Iraq and Syria FOR STARTERS. And it should make clear to the rest of the world get the fuck out of the way.
The real world is harsh and sometimes deadly force is required and right now is one of those times. And be clear, Nato will have forces in that region for decades to come.
The Nato charter states 'any attack on one member nation is an attack on all'. The time for half measures and yammering is now over, for good. Brutal force is now required, not by our choice but by what has been forced on us.
Unless any troops go in on the side of the Syran government, any force would be a waste of lives, money and effort. Let's go allong with the bullshit propaganda that the Syrian leader Assad is a "dictator." Consider this. Tunisia got rid of its "dictator." The result? Chaos. Libya got rid of its dictator. The result? Chaos. Egypt got rid of its dictator. The result? Civil unrest and military rule. We got rid of Iraqs dictator. The result? An ongoing disaster. Clearly helping Assad and attacking both ISIS and the rebels in Syria is the only way to go.
So what will the French do? Go into Syria and Iraq? And then what? This has been done already, and it just got worse.
The French don't exactly have a very good military record.
My guess is that the US should do it for them, like Obama did to remove Gaddafi for them.
Vietnam was lost due to Rules of engagement and not being fought as a War.............You Shall not pass this line..............Kinda like Gandolf in the Lord of the Rings in the Cave...............Had we massed forces and pushed North there was no way in hell the Viet Cong could have stopped us........Their max force was only about 250,000 men..............We fought by their rules which is why they never capitulated....................So what will the French do? Go into Syria and Iraq? And then what? This has been done already, and it just got worse.
The French don't exactly have a very good military record.
My guess is that the US should do it for them, like Obama did to remove Gaddafi for them.
Yeah, the US have a great record, I mean, Vietnam, the French lost there, the US lost there.
Iraq, initial success followed by ineptitude and total and utter failure.
Politicians lose Wars............left to their strategies with sufficient forces............and without the ROEs you would have seen a different outcome.........refusal to Fight these battles as War.........like WWII is why this shit has grown.
You can't kill the ideology...........but you can sure silence some with that ideology.................They are no longer a threat in the Graveyard.............Politicians lose Wars............left to their strategies with sufficient forces............and without the ROEs you would have seen a different outcome.........refusal to Fight these battles as War.........like WWII is why this shit has grown.
The problem is that you can't wage war against a tactic/ideology (terrorism/jihadi nutjobs) the same way as you wage war against a country. The evildoers don't just quit because you destroyed their industrial base, have air superiority, capture the capital etc. They simply don't care about things like that.
The only way to win is to go after the source, that means the wahabi nutjobs in Saudi Arabia and the madrasses they're sponsoring all over the world and the oil sheiks that arm the "moderate jihadis".
But that won't happen because they're your loyal allies after all
You can't kill the ideology...........but you can sure silence some with that ideology.................They are no longer a threat in the Graveyard.............
Will more come........yep.............repeat and recycle..............
History repeats itself..........as it has since the 6th Century.............If you don't control the Caliphates it eventually reaches your door step................Look at the history of the Caliphates.....................You can't kill the ideology...........but you can sure silence some with that ideology.................They are no longer a threat in the Graveyard.............
Will more come........yep.............repeat and recycle..............
And that solves..... what exactly?
And if it turns out to be French nationals who self-radicalized? What, civil war?
It lasts because we play by rules.................and refuse to fight it like a War....................putting ROE's on our forces and getting into trying to install democracy into a Region who has no intentions of embracing our view of Democracy......................And if it turns out to be French nationals who self-radicalized? What, civil war?
and therein lies the problem.
who is the enemy?
what is the military objective? (aside from keeping us embroiled in war for the next 20 years).
Military objective..............same as always.................Kill the enemy or break his will to fight..................And if it turns out to be French nationals who self-radicalized? What, civil war?
and therein lies the problem.
who is the enemy?
what is the military objective? (aside from keeping us embroiled in war for the next 20 years).
He would be ill advised to go in under the current administration.............who fight wars with politics instead of military strategy..............even under Bush they engaged in rules that gave advantage to the enemy............................My son can't believe what cowards these guys are, targeting young people going out to enjoy themselves at a concert, and I think the story of the young American girl who was killed there really struck home for him. He couldn't believe they would kill a young attractive woman like that and thinks they are most cowardly, and he is absolutely right, but I still don't want him to ever have to go over there to that shit hole and die for those assholes.
