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.
If it happens I pray we carpet bomb the ISIL Territory. This must stop. Period.Militants say Kassig, from Indiana, will be next western hostage to die unless US stops its bombing campaign against Isis
Peter Kassig Isis hostage threatened with death was captured on aid mission World news theguardian.com
This is why Americans should stay where Americans belong........ IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Other than military personnel on active combat duty I have no sympathy for anything that happens to any US citizen who chooses to leave our borders.
Killing the enemy, which is ISIS currently is blowing shit up. aka Killing them.I liked those videos. Blowing shit up is cool. The problem is that blowing shit up is not a military strategy. Sure, it kills people, it destroys weapons, but what goal is sought and achieved.
-What should we do?
-Let's go and blow shit up.
-Awesome.
That's US foreign policy at the moment.
rikurzhen said:I liked those videos. Blowing shit up is cool.
Killing the enemy, which is ISIS currently is blowing shit up. aka Killing them.I liked those videos. Blowing shit up is cool. The problem is that blowing shit up is not a military strategy. Sure, it kills people, it destroys weapons, but what goal is sought and achieved.
-What should we do?
-Let's go and blow shit up.
-Awesome.
That's US foreign policy at the moment.
One side or the other has to win in Syria......too many have died for any other outcome. Taking out both sides would leave a vacuum afterwards which is dumb as well. ISIS are pond scum and Assad is a lesser version of pond scum.
Either way, we don't receive any long term benefit from killing them other than revenge for beheading our people.
Iraq.......The strategy should be to destroy the enemy even if it includes putting back the troops. To allow it to go down after the price already payed is stupid............but at the same time this forces us to remain afterwards.........
This whole area is a Giant Clusterfuck. Always has been and always will be.
I understand your point and agree with pretty much all of it. But the long term picture is the radial movement itself.........The same movement that created the environment for going to War to Begin with.Killing the enemy, which is ISIS currently is blowing shit up. aka Killing them.I liked those videos. Blowing shit up is cool. The problem is that blowing shit up is not a military strategy. Sure, it kills people, it destroys weapons, but what goal is sought and achieved.
-What should we do?
-Let's go and blow shit up.
-Awesome.
That's US foreign policy at the moment.
One side or the other has to win in Syria......too many have died for any other outcome. Taking out both sides would leave a vacuum afterwards which is dumb as well. ISIS are pond scum and Assad is a lesser version of pond scum.
Either way, we don't receive any long term benefit from killing them other than revenge for beheading our people.
Iraq.......The strategy should be to destroy the enemy even if it includes putting back the troops. To allow it to go down after the price already payed is stupid............but at the same time this forces us to remain afterwards.........
This whole area is a Giant Clusterfuck. Always has been and always will be.
I've lived and worked throughout MENA, so believe me, when you say that whole area is a Giant Clusterfuck, I'm right there with you.
To Iraq. Keep in mind the following:
Many people have strong misgivings about "wasting" resources (loss aversion). In the above example involving a non-refundable movie ticket, many people, for example, would feel obliged to go to the movie despite not really wanting to, because doing otherwise would be wasting the ticket price; they feel they've passed the point of no return. This is sometimes referred to as the sunk cost fallacy. Economists would label this behavior "irrational": it is inefficient because it misallocates resources by depending on information that is irrelevant to the decision being made. Colloquially, this is known as "throwing good money after bad". . . . .What does it take to fix Iraq. It doesn't matter what we've already spent, that blood and treasure is done with. Desiring to prevent men from dying in vain is going to have a cost of more men dying. How many future lives have to be sacrificed in order to justify past lives lost?
A second example is R&D costs. Once spent, such costs are sunk and should have no effect on future pricing decisions. So a pharmaceutical company’s attempt to justify high prices because of the need to recoup R&D expenses is fallacious. The company will charge market prices whether R&D had cost one dollar or one million dollars.[8] However, R&D costs, and the ability to recoup those costs, are a factor in deciding whether to spend the money on R&D.
The sunk cost fallacy is in game theory sometimes known as the "Concorde Fallacy",[9] referring to the fact that the British and French governments continued to fund the joint development of Concorde even after it became apparent that there was no longer an economic case for the aircraft. The project was regarded privately by the British government as a "commercial disaster" which should never have been started, and was almost cancelled, but political and legal issues had ultimately made it impossible for either government to pull out.
I don't see a way to salvage Iraq. ISIS is an organic outgrowth of what some people in the region actually want. It's also what many Muslims in the West also want, hence the flow of Western Muslims to join ISIS. What's going on in the region needs to be fixed by those with the greatest interest in fixing. Those people are staying on the sidelines because Americans are willing to die to fix the problems. Better to let American boys die fighting to fix Iraq/Syria than good Muslim boys. So long as Americans are willing to have the blood of their sons spilled, Muslims won't fix their own back yard.
It's the job of our military to blow shit up.I liked those videos. Blowing shit up is cool. The problem is that blowing shit up is not a military strategy. Sure, it kills people, it destroys weapons, but what goal is sought and achieved.
-What should we do?
-Let's go and blow shit up.
-Awesome.
That's US foreign policy at the moment.
The media should not be reporting on ANYTHING by Jihadi John.
All I want to hear about him is when he is killed.
I understand your point and agree with pretty much all of it. But the long term picture is the radial movement itself.........The same movement that created the environment for going to War to Begin with.Killing the enemy, which is ISIS currently is blowing shit up. aka Killing them.I liked those videos. Blowing shit up is cool. The problem is that blowing shit up is not a military strategy. Sure, it kills people, it destroys weapons, but what goal is sought and achieved.
-What should we do?
-Let's go and blow shit up.
-Awesome.
That's US foreign policy at the moment.
One side or the other has to win in Syria......too many have died for any other outcome. Taking out both sides would leave a vacuum afterwards which is dumb as well. ISIS are pond scum and Assad is a lesser version of pond scum.
Either way, we don't receive any long term benefit from killing them other than revenge for beheading our people.
Iraq.......The strategy should be to destroy the enemy even if it includes putting back the troops. To allow it to go down after the price already payed is stupid............but at the same time this forces us to remain afterwards.........
This whole area is a Giant Clusterfuck. Always has been and always will be.
I've lived and worked throughout MENA, so believe me, when you say that whole area is a Giant Clusterfuck, I'm right there with you.
To Iraq. Keep in mind the following:
Many people have strong misgivings about "wasting" resources (loss aversion). In the above example involving a non-refundable movie ticket, many people, for example, would feel obliged to go to the movie despite not really wanting to, because doing otherwise would be wasting the ticket price; they feel they've passed the point of no return. This is sometimes referred to as the sunk cost fallacy. Economists would label this behavior "irrational": it is inefficient because it misallocates resources by depending on information that is irrelevant to the decision being made. Colloquially, this is known as "throwing good money after bad". . . . .What does it take to fix Iraq. It doesn't matter what we've already spent, that blood and treasure is done with. Desiring to prevent men from dying in vain is going to have a cost of more men dying. How many future lives have to be sacrificed in order to justify past lives lost?
A second example is R&D costs. Once spent, such costs are sunk and should have no effect on future pricing decisions. So a pharmaceutical company’s attempt to justify high prices because of the need to recoup R&D expenses is fallacious. The company will charge market prices whether R&D had cost one dollar or one million dollars.[8] However, R&D costs, and the ability to recoup those costs, are a factor in deciding whether to spend the money on R&D.
The sunk cost fallacy is in game theory sometimes known as the "Concorde Fallacy",[9] referring to the fact that the British and French governments continued to fund the joint development of Concorde even after it became apparent that there was no longer an economic case for the aircraft. The project was regarded privately by the British government as a "commercial disaster" which should never have been started, and was almost cancelled, but political and legal issues had ultimately made it impossible for either government to pull out.
I don't see a way to salvage Iraq. ISIS is an organic outgrowth of what some people in the region actually want. It's also what many Muslims in the West also want, hence the flow of Western Muslims to join ISIS. What's going on in the region needs to be fixed by those with the greatest interest in fixing. Those people are staying on the sidelines because Americans are willing to die to fix the problems. Better to let American boys die fighting to fix Iraq/Syria than good Muslim boys. So long as Americans are willing to have the blood of their sons spilled, Muslims won't fix their own back yard.
Radical Islam is an external threat and ISIL could well be another element on the Terrorism problem This problem has spread around the globe and at some point we have to take the gloves off and make them pay a severe price for their actions in the region and the possible after effects of allowing them to win the region.
I, like you, am tired of our boys dying on foreign battlefields along with the high cost of fighting wars. But I understand that global Jihad is still on the table in the hell hole called the middle east.
I'm for taking off the gloves, and taking their butts out again. I'm also ticked at the Iraqi military for running instead of fighting when ISIL showed up after we had trained and armed them.
It all sucks.
The media should not be reporting on ANYTHING by Jihadi John.
All I want to hear about him is when he is killed.
So sorry, no boots on the ground...
I understand your point and agree with pretty much all of it. But the long term picture is the radial movement itself.........The same movement that created the environment for going to War to Begin with.Killing the enemy, which is ISIS currently is blowing shit up. aka Killing them.I liked those videos. Blowing shit up is cool. The problem is that blowing shit up is not a military strategy. Sure, it kills people, it destroys weapons, but what goal is sought and achieved.
-What should we do?
-Let's go and blow shit up.
-Awesome.
That's US foreign policy at the moment.
One side or the other has to win in Syria......too many have died for any other outcome. Taking out both sides would leave a vacuum afterwards which is dumb as well. ISIS are pond scum and Assad is a lesser version of pond scum.
Either way, we don't receive any long term benefit from killing them other than revenge for beheading our people.
Iraq.......The strategy should be to destroy the enemy even if it includes putting back the troops. To allow it to go down after the price already payed is stupid............but at the same time this forces us to remain afterwards.........
This whole area is a Giant Clusterfuck. Always has been and always will be.
I've lived and worked throughout MENA, so believe me, when you say that whole area is a Giant Clusterfuck, I'm right there with you.
To Iraq. Keep in mind the following:
Many people have strong misgivings about "wasting" resources (loss aversion). In the above example involving a non-refundable movie ticket, many people, for example, would feel obliged to go to the movie despite not really wanting to, because doing otherwise would be wasting the ticket price; they feel they've passed the point of no return. This is sometimes referred to as the sunk cost fallacy. Economists would label this behavior "irrational": it is inefficient because it misallocates resources by depending on information that is irrelevant to the decision being made. Colloquially, this is known as "throwing good money after bad". . . . .What does it take to fix Iraq. It doesn't matter what we've already spent, that blood and treasure is done with. Desiring to prevent men from dying in vain is going to have a cost of more men dying. How many future lives have to be sacrificed in order to justify past lives lost?
A second example is R&D costs. Once spent, such costs are sunk and should have no effect on future pricing decisions. So a pharmaceutical company’s attempt to justify high prices because of the need to recoup R&D expenses is fallacious. The company will charge market prices whether R&D had cost one dollar or one million dollars.[8] However, R&D costs, and the ability to recoup those costs, are a factor in deciding whether to spend the money on R&D.
The sunk cost fallacy is in game theory sometimes known as the "Concorde Fallacy",[9] referring to the fact that the British and French governments continued to fund the joint development of Concorde even after it became apparent that there was no longer an economic case for the aircraft. The project was regarded privately by the British government as a "commercial disaster" which should never have been started, and was almost cancelled, but political and legal issues had ultimately made it impossible for either government to pull out.
I don't see a way to salvage Iraq. ISIS is an organic outgrowth of what some people in the region actually want. It's also what many Muslims in the West also want, hence the flow of Western Muslims to join ISIS. What's going on in the region needs to be fixed by those with the greatest interest in fixing. Those people are staying on the sidelines because Americans are willing to die to fix the problems. Better to let American boys die fighting to fix Iraq/Syria than good Muslim boys. So long as Americans are willing to have the blood of their sons spilled, Muslims won't fix their own back yard.
Radical Islam is an external threat and ISIL could well be another element on the Terrorism problem This problem has spread around the globe and at some point we have to take the gloves off and make them pay a severe price for their actions in the region and the possible after effects of allowing them to win the region.
I, like you, am tired of our boys dying on foreign battlefields along with the high cost of fighting wars. But I understand that global Jihad is still on the table in the hell hole called the middle east.
I'm for taking off the gloves, and taking their butts out again. I'm also ticked at the Iraqi military for running instead of fighting when ISIL showed up after we had trained and armed them.
It all sucks.
No boots on the ground = No winners.The media should not be reporting on ANYTHING by Jihadi John.
All I want to hear about him is when he is killed.
So sorry, no boots on the ground...
