Obama bombs Muslims

[g5000]

Here's the deal.

With all it fiefdoms and kingdoms and whatnot, the Middle East is going to have to go through the same transitional phase Europe had to go through when it was a collection of fiefdoms and kingdoms and whatnot.

There is no avoiding horrible, bloody, messy, awful, protracted warfare to arrive at the final destination of democracy. There just isn't.

So. Our decision has to be how much we want to be involved in that shit.

It's gonna suck. There are going to be war crimes like you wouldn't believe. Innocents are going to be ground up, stomped on, and ripped to shreds.

We need to rescue as many of them as possible while staying out of the fight.

 

[the_human_being]

What is weird is the only solution you offer is hurry up and wait. I assume you have never been in the military?

I'm retired military, and if you think "nuke Islam" is a solution, then you are even more retarded than I thought.

It's an idiot idea for people with the intellectual capacity of a bumper sticker.


I've pointed out many, many times on this forum that if we go after ISIS in Iraq and Syria, it will require a minimum ten year occupation.

Do you want Obama to commit the next two or three Presidents to an occupation?

None of you tards ever answer this question.

You know why? Because if you say no, that means just doing what we are doing while ISIS plots against us. "Hurry up and wait".

If you say yes, then you are committing to another long, long war that you know the American people have no stomach for.

ISIS knows that, too. That's why they are provoking us into one. They know if we come after them, we won't stay long enough to see the job through. They are willing to sacrifice tens of thousands of their lives. We turn and run if we lose a few thousand. So ISIS will win that war, and our defeat/leaving will validate their base territory as a legitimate entity.

And Trump and all his idiot rubes are playing right into their hands.

So...come up with a REAL plan, dispshit.

Well, I'm a veteran and I say give our military the authority and the backing of the Congress and the American people and let them go and win this thing quickly and in a way the terrorists will respect. With overwhelming force.

 

[bendog]

What is weird is the only solution you offer is hurry up and wait. I assume you have never been in the military?

I'm retired military, and if you think "nuke Islam" is a solution, then you are even more retarded than I thought.

It's an idiot idea for people with the intellectual capacity of a bumper sticker.


I've pointed out many, many times on this forum that if we go after ISIS in Iraq and Syria, it will require a minimum ten year occupation.

Do you want Obama to commit the next two or three Presidents to an occupation?

None of you tards ever answer this question.

You know why? Because if you say no, that means just doing what we are doing while ISIS plots against us. "Hurry up and wait".

If you say yes, then you are committing to another long, long war that you know the American people have no stomach for.

ISIS knows that, too. That's why they are provoking us into one. They know if we come after them, we won't stay long enough to see the job through. They are willing to sacrifice tens of thousands of their lives. We turn and run if we lose a few thousand. So ISIS will win that war, and our defeat/leaving will validate their base territory as a legitimate entity.

And Trump and all his idiot rubes are playing right into their hands.

So...come up with a REAL plan, dispshit.

Sadly, even with a partition between the Kurds and the pro-Iran shia, we'd have Sunni areas, and we lost any cred with the Sunnis when both W and Obama sold them down the river to All-ah-mucky. The former al queda, and now ISIS folks, have killed the leaders of the Sunni who Saddam more or less tolerated. Do we want Pakistani troops policing? I don't think so.

Damned if I can see an alternative to some form of the Assad baath party.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, to compare the bombing that was done in Iraq during Desert Storm with the current situation we have with Daesh is a non starter.

The Republican Guard during Desert Storm was out in the open in dug in positions. There were few to zero civilians in the area, and so we knew that we were dealing with combatants and could "carpet bomb" their position.

The situation in Syria is much different. Daesh has blended in with the civilian populace and are using them as human shields, because they know we can't take out civilians because of the Geneva Conventions.

The only way to get rid of Daesh is to have boots on the ground, but if we did that all by ourselves, it would cause the Muslim world to go even harder against us.

The only way to get rid of them is to have a coalition that is led by the Arab nations, with us as support.

And, if the Arab nations don't want to? Screw 'em. Tell them we're tired of doing all the lifting and pull out. And, tell them that we'll help out when they finally get organized and start doing something themselves.

Know how fast Daesh would crumble if the Arab world turned against them? Quickly I'd suppose.

 

[the_human_being]

Here's the deal.

With all it fiefdoms and kingdoms and whatnot, the Middle East is going to have to go through the same transitional phase Europe had to go through when it was a collection of fiefdoms and kingdoms and whatnot.

There is no avoiding horrible, bloody, messy, awful, protracted warfare to arrive at the final destination of democracy. There just isn't.

So. Our decision has to be how much we want to be involved in that shit.

Well, apparently we want to be involved, both Parties seem to want that. I say quit dragging it out. Get it on and get it over.

 

[g5000]

What is weird is the only solution you offer is hurry up and wait. I assume you have never been in the military?

I'm retired military, and if you think "nuke Islam" is a solution, then you are even more retarded than I thought.

It's an idiot idea for people with the intellectual capacity of a bumper sticker.


I've pointed out many, many times on this forum that if we go after ISIS in Iraq and Syria, it will require a minimum ten year occupation.

Do you want Obama to commit the next two or three Presidents to an occupation?

None of you tards ever answer this question.

You know why? Because if you say no, that means just doing what we are doing while ISIS plots against us. "Hurry up and wait".

If you say yes, then you are committing to another long, long war that you know the American people have no stomach for.

ISIS knows that, too. That's why they are provoking us into one. They know if we come after them, we won't stay long enough to see the job through. They are willing to sacrifice tens of thousands of their lives. We turn and run if we lose a few thousand. So ISIS will win that war, and our defeat/leaving will validate their base territory as a legitimate entity.

And Trump and all his idiot rubes are playing right into their hands.

So...come up with a REAL plan, dispshit.

Sadly, even with a partition between the Kurds and the pro-Iran shia, we'd have Sunni areas, and we lost any cred with the Sunnis when both W and Obama sold them down the river to All-ah-mucky. The former al queda, and now ISIS folks, have killed the leaders of the Sunni who Saddam more or less tolerated. Do we want Pakistani troops policing? I don't think so.

Damned if I can see an alternative to some form of the Assad baath party.

Let the Arabs fight it out and settle on their own borders.

That's what Europe had to do.

 

[bendog]

What is weird is the only solution you offer is hurry up and wait. I assume you have never been in the military?

I'm retired military, and if you think "nuke Islam" is a solution, then you are even more retarded than I thought.

It's an idiot idea for people with the intellectual capacity of a bumper sticker.


I've pointed out many, many times on this forum that if we go after ISIS in Iraq and Syria, it will require a minimum ten year occupation.

Do you want Obama to commit the next two or three Presidents to an occupation?

None of you tards ever answer this question.

You know why? Because if you say no, that means just doing what we are doing while ISIS plots against us. "Hurry up and wait".

If you say yes, then you are committing to another long, long war that you know the American people have no stomach for.

ISIS knows that, too. That's why they are provoking us into one. They know if we come after them, we won't stay long enough to see the job through. They are willing to sacrifice tens of thousands of their lives. We turn and run if we lose a few thousand. So ISIS will win that war, and our defeat/leaving will validate their base territory as a legitimate entity.

And Trump and all his idiot rubes are playing right into their hands.

So...come up with a REAL plan, dispshit.

Well, I'm a veteran and I say give our military the authority and the backing of the Congress and the American people and let them go and win this thing quickly and in a way the terrorists will respect. With overwhelming force.

But you have no answer for who governs the damn place after "victory." And you simply rehash the clusterfuck inflicted by W.

 

[g5000]

If we had energy independence, neither party would give a shit about the Middle East. At all.

 

[Davros]

What is weird is the only solution you offer is hurry up and wait. I assume you have never been in the military?

I'm retired military, and if you think "nuke Islam" is a solution, then you are even more retarded than I thought.

It's an idiot idea for people with the intellectual capacity of a bumper sticker.


I've pointed out many, many times on this forum that if we go after ISIS in Iraq and Syria, it will require a minimum ten year occupation.

Do you want Obama to commit the next two or three Presidents to an occupation?

None of you tards ever answer this question.

You know why? Because if you say no, that means just doing what we are doing while ISIS plots against us. "Hurry up and wait".

If you say yes, then you are committing to another long, long war that you know the American people have no stomach for.

ISIS knows that, too. That's why they are provoking us into one. They know if we come after them, we won't stay long enough to see the job through. They are willing to sacrifice tens of thousands of their lives. We turn and run if we lose a few thousand. So ISIS will win that war, and our defeat/leaving will validate their base territory as a legitimate entity.

And Trump and all his idiot rubes are playing right into their hands.

So...come up with a REAL plan, dispshit.

Well, I'm a veteran and I say give our military the authority and the backing of the Congress and the American people and let them go and win this thing quickly and in a way the terrorists will respect. With overwhelming force.

Overwhelming force against whom? The terrorists melt into the civilian population when faced with American ground troops. Unless you kill them all, killing thousands of civilians with total warfare against the civilian population will only create more terrorists. And what's more, it will enrage Muslims in the west who will become deeply inspired to commit terrorism in much larger numbers than they do today. The Iraq,war proved that military dominance does not make radical Islam go away. It just makes it hide.

 

[bendog]

What is weird is the only solution you offer is hurry up and wait. I assume you have never been in the military?

I'm retired military, and if you think "nuke Islam" is a solution, then you are even more retarded than I thought.

It's an idiot idea for people with the intellectual capacity of a bumper sticker.


I've pointed out many, many times on this forum that if we go after ISIS in Iraq and Syria, it will require a minimum ten year occupation.

Do you want Obama to commit the next two or three Presidents to an occupation?

None of you tards ever answer this question.

You know why? Because if you say no, that means just doing what we are doing while ISIS plots against us. "Hurry up and wait".

If you say yes, then you are committing to another long, long war that you know the American people have no stomach for.

ISIS knows that, too. That's why they are provoking us into one. They know if we come after them, we won't stay long enough to see the job through. They are willing to sacrifice tens of thousands of their lives. We turn and run if we lose a few thousand. So ISIS will win that war, and our defeat/leaving will validate their base territory as a legitimate entity.

And Trump and all his idiot rubes are playing right into their hands.

So...come up with a REAL plan, dispshit.

Sadly, even with a partition between the Kurds and the pro-Iran shia, we'd have Sunni areas, and we lost any cred with the Sunnis when both W and Obama sold them down the river to All-ah-mucky. The former al queda, and now ISIS folks, have killed the leaders of the Sunni who Saddam more or less tolerated. Do we want Pakistani troops policing? I don't think so.

Damned if I can see an alternative to some form of the Assad baath party.

Let the Arabs fight it out and settle on their own borders.

That's what Europe had to do.

Yep. It's a helluva a deal when the Iranians may be the most civilized group involved. But, we're talking an Iranian/Saudi proxy war. And, I've always maintained we actually have more in common with Iran than Saudi Arabia. Not that I'm for picking sides.

 

[g5000]

What is weird is the only solution you offer is hurry up and wait. I assume you have never been in the military?

I'm retired military, and if you think "nuke Islam" is a solution, then you are even more retarded than I thought.

It's an idiot idea for people with the intellectual capacity of a bumper sticker.


I've pointed out many, many times on this forum that if we go after ISIS in Iraq and Syria, it will require a minimum ten year occupation.

Do you want Obama to commit the next two or three Presidents to an occupation?

None of you tards ever answer this question.

You know why? Because if you say no, that means just doing what we are doing while ISIS plots against us. "Hurry up and wait".

If you say yes, then you are committing to another long, long war that you know the American people have no stomach for.

ISIS knows that, too. That's why they are provoking us into one. They know if we come after them, we won't stay long enough to see the job through. They are willing to sacrifice tens of thousands of their lives. We turn and run if we lose a few thousand. So ISIS will win that war, and our defeat/leaving will validate their base territory as a legitimate entity.

And Trump and all his idiot rubes are playing right into their hands.

So...come up with a REAL plan, dispshit.

Sadly, even with a partition between the Kurds and the pro-Iran shia, we'd have Sunni areas, and we lost any cred with the Sunnis when both W and Obama sold them down the river to All-ah-mucky. The former al queda, and now ISIS folks, have killed the leaders of the Sunni who Saddam more or less tolerated. Do we want Pakistani troops policing? I don't think so.

Damned if I can see an alternative to some form of the Assad baath party.

Let the Arabs fight it out and settle on their own borders.

That's what Europe had to do.

Yep. It's a helluva a deal when the Iranians may be the most civilized group involved. But, we're talking an Iranian/Saudi proxy war. And, I've always maintained we actually have more in common with Iran than Saudi Arabia. Not that I'm for picking sides.

The Iranian people could very easily be our friends.

Saudi Arabia's priority right now is not ISIS. They are focused on Al Qaeda in Yemen.

 

[bendog]

If we had energy independence, neither party would give a shit about the Middle East. At all.

I blame Carter (-: But we do, or can have, energy independence without a hell of a lot of disruption. But, but, but .... the govt would have to be involved. And the gop can't have that.

 

[g5000]

If we had energy independence, neither party would give a shit about the Middle East. At all.

I blame Carter (-: But we do, or can have, energy independence without a hell of a lot of disruption. But, but, but .... the govt would have to be involved. And the gop can't have that.

The private sector needs to be involved more than the government.

But until there is enough pain, there won't be any internal pressure in the private sector to do something.

Once there is enough pain, the private sector will solve it overnight.

The government can induce pain with taxes on consumption, as in a carbon tax.

 

[the_human_being]

What is weird is the only solution you offer is hurry up and wait. I assume you have never been in the military?

I'm retired military, and if you think "nuke Islam" is a solution, then you are even more retarded than I thought.

It's an idiot idea for people with the intellectual capacity of a bumper sticker.


I've pointed out many, many times on this forum that if we go after ISIS in Iraq and Syria, it will require a minimum ten year occupation.

Do you want Obama to commit the next two or three Presidents to an occupation?

None of you tards ever answer this question.

You know why? Because if you say no, that means just doing what we are doing while ISIS plots against us. "Hurry up and wait".

If you say yes, then you are committing to another long, long war that you know the American people have no stomach for.

ISIS knows that, too. That's why they are provoking us into one. They know if we come after them, we won't stay long enough to see the job through. They are willing to sacrifice tens of thousands of their lives. We turn and run if we lose a few thousand. So ISIS will win that war, and our defeat/leaving will validate their base territory as a legitimate entity.

And Trump and all his idiot rubes are playing right into their hands.

So...come up with a REAL plan, dispshit.

Well, I'm a veteran and I say give our military the authority and the backing of the Congress and the American people and let them go and win this thing quickly and in a way the terrorists will respect. With overwhelming force.

But you have no answer for who governs the damn place after "victory." And you simply rehash the clusterfuck inflicted by W.

Of course I do. We govern. We took over Japan and Germany for a while after we defeated them. We would need to take over Iraq and recoup our military expenses from their oil supply. This crap of fighting wars for other nations at our own expense has always been a stupid policy.

 

[Davros]

Here's the deal.

With all it fiefdoms and kingdoms and whatnot, the Middle East is going to have to go through the same transitional phase Europe had to go through when it was a collection of fiefdoms and kingdoms and whatnot.

There is no avoiding horrible, bloody, messy, awful, protracted warfare to arrive at the final destination of democracy. There just isn't.

So. Our decision has to be how much we want to be involved in that shit.

Well, apparently we want to be involved, both Parties seem to want that. I say quit dragging it out. Get it on and get it over.

So was the A-bomb photo trolling or not?

Both parties are idiots for wanting to get involved, but dragging it out is the only way to fight them unless you're prepared to cleanse the area of humanity.

This isn't WW2. Massive military force will only cause the Islamists to hide. Ad before, they will wait until the massive military force is gone.

There is no quick and easy way to defeat guerillas without resorting to serious war crimes such as suggested by your first post in this thread.

 

[Davros]

What is weird is the only solution you offer is hurry up and wait. I assume you have never been in the military?

I'm retired military, and if you think "nuke Islam" is a solution, then you are even more retarded than I thought.

It's an idiot idea for people with the intellectual capacity of a bumper sticker.


I've pointed out many, many times on this forum that if we go after ISIS in Iraq and Syria, it will require a minimum ten year occupation.

Do you want Obama to commit the next two or three Presidents to an occupation?

None of you tards ever answer this question.

You know why? Because if you say no, that means just doing what we are doing while ISIS plots against us. "Hurry up and wait".

If you say yes, then you are committing to another long, long war that you know the American people have no stomach for.

ISIS knows that, too. That's why they are provoking us into one. They know if we come after them, we won't stay long enough to see the job through. They are willing to sacrifice tens of thousands of their lives. We turn and run if we lose a few thousand. So ISIS will win that war, and our defeat/leaving will validate their base territory as a legitimate entity.

And Trump and all his idiot rubes are playing right into their hands.

So...come up with a REAL plan, dispshit.

Well, I'm a veteran and I say give our military the authority and the backing of the Congress and the American people and let them go and win this thing quickly and in a way the terrorists will respect. With overwhelming force.

But you have no answer for who governs the damn place after "victory." And you simply rehash the clusterfuck inflicted by W.

Of course I do. We govern. We took over Japan and Germany for a while after we defeated them. We would need to take over Iraq and recoup our military expenses from their oil supply. This crap of fighting wars for other nations at our own expense has always been a stupid policy.

We already tried that in Iraq. It didn't work. The terrorists were prepared to wait as long as necessary, certainly longer than "a while".

 

[bendog]

If we had energy independence, neither party would give a shit about the Middle East. At all.

I blame Carter (-: But we do, or can have, energy independence without a hell of a lot of disruption. But, but, but .... the govt would have to be involved. And the gop can't have that.

The private sector needs to be involved more than the government.

But until there is enough pain, there won't be any internal pressure in the private sector to do something.

Once there is enough pain, the private sector will solve it overnight.

The government can induce pain with taxes on consumption, as in a carbon tax.

There's not going to be pain with Iran and the Saudis creating an oil glut. Tar sands may soon be too expensive compared to good old crude. And the Chinese are occupying their own oil fields.

It's certainly not 1972 all over again. We don't need OPEC. If oil became expensive again, there are just too many alternatives.

The real question is what to do about groups that want to send terrorists here, and radicalize people already here.

 

[the_human_being]

What is weird is the only solution you offer is hurry up and wait. I assume you have never been in the military?

I'm retired military, and if you think "nuke Islam" is a solution, then you are even more retarded than I thought.

It's an idiot idea for people with the intellectual capacity of a bumper sticker.


I've pointed out many, many times on this forum that if we go after ISIS in Iraq and Syria, it will require a minimum ten year occupation.

Do you want Obama to commit the next two or three Presidents to an occupation?

None of you tards ever answer this question.

You know why? Because if you say no, that means just doing what we are doing while ISIS plots against us. "Hurry up and wait".

If you say yes, then you are committing to another long, long war that you know the American people have no stomach for.

ISIS knows that, too. That's why they are provoking us into one. They know if we come after them, we won't stay long enough to see the job through. They are willing to sacrifice tens of thousands of their lives. We turn and run if we lose a few thousand. So ISIS will win that war, and our defeat/leaving will validate their base territory as a legitimate entity.

And Trump and all his idiot rubes are playing right into their hands.

So...come up with a REAL plan, dispshit.

Sadly, even with a partition between the Kurds and the pro-Iran shia, we'd have Sunni areas, and we lost any cred with the Sunnis when both W and Obama sold them down the river to All-ah-mucky. The former al queda, and now ISIS folks, have killed the leaders of the Sunni who Saddam more or less tolerated. Do we want Pakistani troops policing? I don't think so.

Damned if I can see an alternative to some form of the Assad baath party.

Let the Arabs fight it out and settle on their own borders.

That's what Europe had to do.

Isolationism works for me. Rand Paul is pretty much an isolationist. Actually China doesn't get involved the way we do. We do need to make up our collective minds though and do something even if its wrong. Pull our troops back and stay inside our own borders and protect the country itself or go ahead and commit to winning abroad.

 

[boedicca]

Obama has killed way more Muslims than Trump has.

Just sayin'.

 

[g5000]

America has no stomach for loss of life and treasure.

ISIS does, and that is their huge advantage. They know they simply need to outwait us.