Total Posts:135|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The deal with ISIS

lannan13
Posts: 23,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 9:19:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Ladies and gentlemen it's time to call an ace an ace and a spade a spade. This wasn't a murder. This was actually a recruitment video. You know all the people going to join ISIS? The one's who've been caught all had a copy of Islam for dummies. They're not a religious organization. They're a violent ideology with a religion to try and justify it. This would be the perfect time for the US to gain support in the middle east by intervening, no not drone strikes, not airstrikes, and not ground troops, but giving weapons to the middle east to help fight. The reason we're so unpopular is that when we try to find terrorist we look for a male with a gun and in the region it's dangerous to the point to where you have to have one. If you want to kill an al qaeda official you blow up a wedding as that's the only time they come out in public, but you kill a lot of innocent people in that which explains a lot of American hatred in the Middle East. http://www.ijreview.com...
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,564
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 9:37:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 9:19:47 AM, lannan13 wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen it's time to call an ace an ace and a spade a spade. This wasn't a murder. This was actually a recruitment video. You know all the people going to join ISIS? The one's who've been caught all had a copy of Islam for dummies. They're not a religious organization. They're a violent ideology with a religion to try and justify it. This would be the perfect time for the US to gain support in the middle east by intervening, no not drone strikes, not airstrikes, and not ground troops, but giving weapons to the middle east to help fight. The reason we're so unpopular is that when we try to find terrorist we look for a male with a gun and in the region it's dangerous to the point to where you have to have one. If you want to kill an al qaeda official you blow up a wedding as that's the only time they come out in public, but you kill a lot of innocent people in that which explains a lot of American hatred in the Middle East. http://www.ijreview.com...

Actually, yes, giving weapons to the Middle East does seem a good idea. (Note: this was NOT sarcasm).
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
lannan13
Posts: 23,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 9:40:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 9:37:39 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/6/2015 9:19:47 AM, lannan13 wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen it's time to call an ace an ace and a spade a spade. This wasn't a murder. This was actually a recruitment video. You know all the people going to join ISIS? The one's who've been caught all had a copy of Islam for dummies. They're not a religious organization. They're a violent ideology with a religion to try and justify it. This would be the perfect time for the US to gain support in the middle east by intervening, no not drone strikes, not airstrikes, and not ground troops, but giving weapons to the middle east to help fight. The reason we're so unpopular is that when we try to find terrorist we look for a male with a gun and in the region it's dangerous to the point to where you have to have one. If you want to kill an al qaeda official you blow up a wedding as that's the only time they come out in public, but you kill a lot of innocent people in that which explains a lot of American hatred in the Middle East. http://www.ijreview.com...

Actually, yes, giving weapons to the Middle East does seem a good idea. (Note: this was NOT sarcasm).

Well only if we arm the right countries, ie Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanan.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
lannan13
Posts: 23,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 9:40:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 9:37:39 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/6/2015 9:19:47 AM, lannan13 wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen it's time to call an ace an ace and a spade a spade. This wasn't a murder. This was actually a recruitment video. You know all the people going to join ISIS? The one's who've been caught all had a copy of Islam for dummies. They're not a religious organization. They're a violent ideology with a religion to try and justify it. This would be the perfect time for the US to gain support in the middle east by intervening, no not drone strikes, not airstrikes, and not ground troops, but giving weapons to the middle east to help fight. The reason we're so unpopular is that when we try to find terrorist we look for a male with a gun and in the region it's dangerous to the point to where you have to have one. If you want to kill an al qaeda official you blow up a wedding as that's the only time they come out in public, but you kill a lot of innocent people in that which explains a lot of American hatred in the Middle East. http://www.ijreview.com...

Actually, yes, giving weapons to the Middle East does seem a good idea. (Note: this was NOT sarcasm).

Well only if we arm the right countries, ie Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanan.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,564
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 9:41:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 9:40:32 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 9:37:39 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/6/2015 9:19:47 AM, lannan13 wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen it's time to call an ace an ace and a spade a spade. This wasn't a murder. This was actually a recruitment video. You know all the people going to join ISIS? The one's who've been caught all had a copy of Islam for dummies. They're not a religious organization. They're a violent ideology with a religion to try and justify it. This would be the perfect time for the US to gain support in the middle east by intervening, no not drone strikes, not airstrikes, and not ground troops, but giving weapons to the middle east to help fight. The reason we're so unpopular is that when we try to find terrorist we look for a male with a gun and in the region it's dangerous to the point to where you have to have one. If you want to kill an al qaeda official you blow up a wedding as that's the only time they come out in public, but you kill a lot of innocent people in that which explains a lot of American hatred in the Middle East. http://www.ijreview.com...

Actually, yes, giving weapons to the Middle East does seem a good idea. (Note: this was NOT sarcasm).

Well only if we arm the right countries, ie Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanan.

Yeah, I agree with you there too. Last time we gave them weapons, they used them on us years later.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
lannan13
Posts: 23,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 9:46:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 9:41:58 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/6/2015 9:40:32 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 9:37:39 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/6/2015 9:19:47 AM, lannan13 wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen it's time to call an ace an ace and a spade a spade. This wasn't a murder. This was actually a recruitment video. You know all the people going to join ISIS? The one's who've been caught all had a copy of Islam for dummies. They're not a religious organization. They're a violent ideology with a religion to try and justify it. This would be the perfect time for the US to gain support in the middle east by intervening, no not drone strikes, not airstrikes, and not ground troops, but giving weapons to the middle east to help fight. The reason we're so unpopular is that when we try to find terrorist we look for a male with a gun and in the region it's dangerous to the point to where you have to have one. If you want to kill an al qaeda official you blow up a wedding as that's the only time they come out in public, but you kill a lot of innocent people in that which explains a lot of American hatred in the Middle East. http://www.ijreview.com...

Actually, yes, giving weapons to the Middle East does seem a good idea. (Note: this was NOT sarcasm).

Well only if we arm the right countries, ie Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanan.

Yeah, I agree with you there too. Last time we gave them weapons, they used them on us years later.

Well of course we're not arming Yemin, Egypt, Somalia, Syria, or Iran.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,564
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 9:48:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 9:46:16 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 9:41:58 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/6/2015 9:40:32 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 9:37:39 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/6/2015 9:19:47 AM, lannan13 wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen it's time to call an ace an ace and a spade a spade. This wasn't a murder. This was actually a recruitment video. You know all the people going to join ISIS? The one's who've been caught all had a copy of Islam for dummies. They're not a religious organization. They're a violent ideology with a religion to try and justify it. This would be the perfect time for the US to gain support in the middle east by intervening, no not drone strikes, not airstrikes, and not ground troops, but giving weapons to the middle east to help fight. The reason we're so unpopular is that when we try to find terrorist we look for a male with a gun and in the region it's dangerous to the point to where you have to have one. If you want to kill an al qaeda official you blow up a wedding as that's the only time they come out in public, but you kill a lot of innocent people in that which explains a lot of American hatred in the Middle East. http://www.ijreview.com...

Actually, yes, giving weapons to the Middle East does seem a good idea. (Note: this was NOT sarcasm).

Well only if we arm the right countries, ie Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanan.

Yeah, I agree with you there too. Last time we gave them weapons, they used them on us years later.

Well of course we're not arming Yemin, Egypt, Somalia, Syria, or Iran.

Yeah.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 9:52:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 9:40:32 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 9:37:39 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/6/2015 9:19:47 AM, lannan13 wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen it's time to call an ace an ace and a spade a spade. This wasn't a murder. This was actually a recruitment video. You know all the people going to join ISIS? The one's who've been caught all had a copy of Islam for dummies. They're not a religious organization. They're a violent ideology with a religion to try and justify it. This would be the perfect time for the US to gain support in the middle east by intervening, no not drone strikes, not airstrikes, and not ground troops, but giving weapons to the middle east to help fight. The reason we're so unpopular is that when we try to find terrorist we look for a male with a gun and in the region it's dangerous to the point to where you have to have one. If you want to kill an al qaeda official you blow up a wedding as that's the only time they come out in public, but you kill a lot of innocent people in that which explains a lot of American hatred in the Middle East. http://www.ijreview.com...

Actually, yes, giving weapons to the Middle East does seem a good idea. (Note: this was NOT sarcasm).

Well only if we arm the right countries, ie Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanan.

Turkey? They fund and sponsor terrorism. The only group that would appropriate at this point are the Kurdish forces who are directly involved with ISIS. Lebanon is heavily affiliated with Hezbollah, so it's particularly doubtful that arming them would be good idea either.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
lannan13
Posts: 23,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 9:55:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 9:52:41 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 2/6/2015 9:40:32 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 9:37:39 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/6/2015 9:19:47 AM, lannan13 wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen it's time to call an ace an ace and a spade a spade. This wasn't a murder. This was actually a recruitment video. You know all the people going to join ISIS? The one's who've been caught all had a copy of Islam for dummies. They're not a religious organization. They're a violent ideology with a religion to try and justify it. This would be the perfect time for the US to gain support in the middle east by intervening, no not drone strikes, not airstrikes, and not ground troops, but giving weapons to the middle east to help fight. The reason we're so unpopular is that when we try to find terrorist we look for a male with a gun and in the region it's dangerous to the point to where you have to have one. If you want to kill an al qaeda official you blow up a wedding as that's the only time they come out in public, but you kill a lot of innocent people in that which explains a lot of American hatred in the Middle East. http://www.ijreview.com...

Actually, yes, giving weapons to the Middle East does seem a good idea. (Note: this was NOT sarcasm).

Well only if we arm the right countries, ie Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanan.

Turkey? They fund and sponsor terrorism. The only group that would appropriate at this point are the Kurdish forces who are directly involved with ISIS. Lebanon is heavily affiliated with Hezbollah, so it's particularly doubtful that arming them would be good idea either.

Turkey holds 1/3 of all US nukes. We trust them not to do something batsh*t crazy.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 10:04:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 9:55:04 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 9:52:41 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 2/6/2015 9:40:32 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 9:37:39 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/6/2015 9:19:47 AM, lannan13 wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen it's time to call an ace an ace and a spade a spade. This wasn't a murder. This was actually a recruitment video. You know all the people going to join ISIS? The one's who've been caught all had a copy of Islam for dummies. They're not a religious organization. They're a violent ideology with a religion to try and justify it. This would be the perfect time for the US to gain support in the middle east by intervening, no not drone strikes, not airstrikes, and not ground troops, but giving weapons to the middle east to help fight. The reason we're so unpopular is that when we try to find terrorist we look for a male with a gun and in the region it's dangerous to the point to where you have to have one. If you want to kill an al qaeda official you blow up a wedding as that's the only time they come out in public, but you kill a lot of innocent people in that which explains a lot of American hatred in the Middle East. http://www.ijreview.com...

Actually, yes, giving weapons to the Middle East does seem a good idea. (Note: this was NOT sarcasm).

Well only if we arm the right countries, ie Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanan.

Turkey? They fund and sponsor terrorism. The only group that would appropriate at this point are the Kurdish forces who are directly involved with ISIS. Lebanon is heavily affiliated with Hezbollah, so it's particularly doubtful that arming them would be good idea either.

Turkey holds 1/3 of all US nukes. We trust them not to do something batsh*t crazy.

That may be, they've still financed a large amount of the terrorism in the Middle East. However, in terms of regional countries they're not alone in that list. I definitely don't think that Lebanon would be a good idea, due to Hezbollah.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
TheJesusParadox
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 11:11:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Most of the countries you listed already get military aid. An example is Jordan, in which we just increased their military and economic aid to 1 billion.

What we need to do is truly degrade and destroy ISIL. That will take some boots on the ground from the coalition. At this point the US has allowed ISIL to provoke us too much. Frankly, it's getting old. If we can get some coalition partners to put an equal amount of boots on the ground I would support it.
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 7:18:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 9:40:32 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 9:37:39 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/6/2015 9:19:47 AM, lannan13 wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen it's time to call an ace an ace and a spade a spade. This wasn't a murder. This was actually a recruitment video. You know all the people going to join ISIS? The one's who've been caught all had a copy of Islam for dummies. They're not a religious organization. They're a violent ideology with a religion to try and justify it. This would be the perfect time for the US to gain support in the middle east by intervening, no not drone strikes, not airstrikes, and not ground troops, but giving weapons to the middle east to help fight. The reason we're so unpopular is that when we try to find terrorist we look for a male with a gun and in the region it's dangerous to the point to where you have to have one. If you want to kill an al qaeda official you blow up a wedding as that's the only time they come out in public, but you kill a lot of innocent people in that which explains a lot of American hatred in the Middle East. http://www.ijreview.com...

Actually, yes, giving weapons to the Middle East does seem a good idea. (Note: this was NOT sarcasm).

Well only if we arm the right countries, ie Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanan.

Arming Iraq? Well, that is funny, considering that Iraq's ruling party, the Islamic Dawaa Party (a Shi'ite Islamist party) is partly creating sectarian conflict in the areas. Arming Israel would lead to much more tension in the area: Israel has shown that, through the many raids on Syrian territories, it is more than willing to use it's armed forces against sovereign countries. Arming Saudi Arabia is something that I would highly advise against: several "terrorist" brigades in Syria have been armed by Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia sends those condemned to execution to fight for the Salafists in Syria: Jaysh al-Islam, a Syrian Salafist brigade, is armed with Croat weapons given by the Saudis. This was the same brigade that participated in the massacre of Alawite villagers in '13. However, Saudi Arabia has also been behind funding for what was to be the ISIS movement. The US likes Saudi Arabia because they have oil. I would be fine with arming Lebanon, if they arm Lebanon's armed forces, and not some Islamist militia: Lebanon has a delicate composition which is held together by a thin thread of string. And Jordan: cmon, arming Jordan? They can take care of themselves. Look at the response to the burning of the pilot.

If we want peace in the Middle East, we shouldn't be arming and funding those who create sectarian violence. We should be arming the secular people. The United States has opposed peace in many ways with regards to the ME: they have fractured any remaining hopes of the FSA and the Regime of receiving reconciliation. The implemented democracy in Iraq has failed as the country fell into a period of sectarian violence: if the US secularized the sectarian sentiments of the Hussein government, and reformed the Ba'ath Party, then a better solution to the woes in Iraq would have been presented. And look at Yemen: Houthi militants have taken control of the government. The Houthi flag says "Darn the Jews, Death to America, Glory to Islam!" I think it would be time to say that the United States should stop inciting sectarian conflict, and start the process of secular reconciliation.

Thomas Paine much?
praise the lord Chin Chin
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 10:25:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Our problem is that the terms of this war are being dictated by popular opinion in America. The air strikes are a PR stunt which will never fully cripple ISIS, and create the false impression that we have a grip on the situation. We won't put boots on the ground, and we shouldn't; we've lost too much blood and treasure in the Middle East as it is. Frankly, these people aren't worth our time and money, and they definitely aren't worth our soldiers' lives. We need to do two things. We need to realize that our support for the rebels in Syria and our opposition to ISIS are contradictory. If we are going to oppose ISIS we need to support Assad, or at the very least cease to undermine him by supporting rebels. It's an ugly decision, and people whose knowledge in the Middles East extends to 'Assad bad. Hit with rock. Durrr' will be very upset by this, but it needs to be done. Secondly, we need to stop the air strikes and withdraw completely from the region. The second we do this, ISIS becomes a direct threat to the three biggest powers in the regions: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. The current tepid 'meh' agreement between the three countries will transform very quickly when it becomes apparent that the US will not stop ISIS for them, and you will see a real coalition form, and THEY will put boots on the ground. We need to realize that ISIS does not pose a direct threat to us, but it does pose one to them. We also need to realize that just because we have a giant f*cking hammer, that doesn't mean that every problem is a nail. This one certainly isn't.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 4:50:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 9:40:32 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 9:37:39 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/6/2015 9:19:47 AM, lannan13 wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen it's time to call an ace an ace and a spade a spade. This wasn't a murder. This was actually a recruitment video. You know all the people going to join ISIS? The one's who've been caught all had a copy of Islam for dummies. They're not a religious organization. They're a violent ideology with a religion to try and justify it. This would be the perfect time for the US to gain support in the middle east by intervening, no not drone strikes, not airstrikes, and not ground troops, but giving weapons to the middle east to help fight. The reason we're so unpopular is that when we try to find terrorist we look for a male with a gun and in the region it's dangerous to the point to where you have to have one. If you want to kill an al qaeda official you blow up a wedding as that's the only time they come out in public, but you kill a lot of innocent people in that which explains a lot of American hatred in the Middle East. http://www.ijreview.com...

Actually, yes, giving weapons to the Middle East does seem a good idea. (Note: this was NOT sarcasm).

Well only if we arm the right countries, ie Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanan.

Forget Saudi Arabia and Lebanon. The US and NATO should arm and finance the other countries you mentioned--especially the Kurdish forces in the region--and bring pressure on those regimes not only to become more secular and democratic--Israel is the only truly secular and democratic state in the region--and join the US and NATO in a coalition to wipe ISIS off the surface of the Earth. Furthermore, instead of relying on the oil of Saudi Arabia--a trecherous and tyrannical state--the West should turn Iraq into its main source of oil in the region.

This is all the fault of Western pacifists really. The US and those NATO countries which participated in the liberation of Iraq did not stay long enough, and did not invest enough, in Iraq; as they should have done and did in Germany and Japan after WWII.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 5:08:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
We need to ask ourselves what is the nature of the problem in the Middle East, if there is a problem.

We need to look at 9/11 and ask ourselves, "how did we let that occur" and fix that problem.

We need to look at Saddam and ask ourselves "were we really going to let him preside over Iraq with or without 9/11?"

We need to look at Iran and ask ourselves "were we ever going to trust them?"

The overarching answer to all of these questions is simple - we didn't control the area, so many things occurred that, had we controlled the Middle East, would not have occurred. 9/11 would have been prevented. Saddam would have stepped down a long time ago. We would have prevented Iran from developing WMDs (and this one is NOT a hoax).

We thus need to figure out how to control the area, and if establishing control is possible. This will absolutely require a military presence, and we will absolutely need to get Saudi Arabia to support our presence in the region. We will need to dramatically increase our military sperm count in order for this to occur, and we will need to understand that democratization/political stability takes time, effort, treasure, and blood to establish.

If we can't do this, someone else will, and that will not be in America's interests.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 5:10:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
How is my prior post relevant to ISIS?

As many people have pointed out, supporting ISIS was at one point one of our top priorities. Now, it's become the opposite.

The point is that backing horses in the Middle East has been a rather piss-poor strategy. Better we just bring in our own cavalry and take it from there. Again, if we can't do that, someone else will, and we're not going to like the results.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 5:14:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 4:50:48 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 2/6/2015 9:40:32 AM, lannan13 wrote:

This is all the fault of Western pacifists really. The US and those NATO countries which participated in the liberation of Iraq did not stay long enough, and did not invest enough, in Iraq; as they should have done and did in Germany and Japan after WWII.

It is this exact mentality that we need more of, fully agree.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 5:23:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 5:14:05 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/7/2015 4:50:48 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 2/6/2015 9:40:32 AM, lannan13 wrote:

This is all the fault of Western pacifists really. The US and those NATO countries which participated in the liberation of Iraq did not stay long enough, and did not invest enough, in Iraq; as they should have done and did in Germany and Japan after WWII.

It is this exact mentality that we need more of, fully agree.

Than you Mr (or Miss/Mrs?) Wrich, glad to see you here.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 5:35:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 5:08:01 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
We need to ask ourselves what is the nature of the problem in the Middle East, if there is a problem.

We need to look at 9/11 and ask ourselves, "how did we let that occur" and fix that problem.

We need to look at Saddam and ask ourselves "were we really going to let him preside over Iraq with or without 9/11?"

We need to look at Iran and ask ourselves "were we ever going to trust them?"

The overarching answer to all of these questions is simple - we didn't control the area, so many things occurred that, had we controlled the Middle East, would not have occurred. 9/11 would have been prevented. Saddam would have stepped down a long time ago. We would have prevented Iran from developing WMDs (and this one is NOT a hoax).

I don't think that Al-Qaeda could have been prevented, it is the offspring of a fascist ideology that would have surfaced sooner or later, though I agree that 9/11 could have been prevented.

As for Hussein... he shouldn't have been helped into power by Kissinger and his acolytes in the White House. (Side issue: Kissinger should be brought to trial).

Iran was the result of irresponsible policies, we should have fostered democratic elements in Iran, and we should do this now.

We thus need to figure out how to control the area, and if establishing control is possible. This will absolutely require a military presence, and we will absolutely need to get Saudi Arabia to support our presence in the region. We will need to dramatically increase our military sperm count in order for this to occur, and we will need to understand that democratization/political stability takes time, effort, treasure, and blood to establish.

Like I said below, it is much better and easier to just replace Saudi Arabia with Iraq for the moment. And it is going to be hard to convince the citizens of western countries who have grown weak and cowardly with the post-war peace, to be willing to sacrifice some lives in exchange for a better future--I mean, remember the outcry over the 3000 KIA in Iraq?

If we can't do this, someone else will, and that will not be in America's interests.

There are people for whom that would be an improvement. I have come across deluded pseudo-leftists (the chomsky-bots for instance) who seem to think that the world would be much better off if it was controlled by China and Russia.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 6:13:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 5:35:36 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 2/7/2015 5:08:01 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

We thus need to figure out how to control the area, and if establishing control is possible. This will absolutely require a military presence, and we will absolutely need to get Saudi Arabia to support our presence in the region. We will need to dramatically increase our military sperm count in order for this to occur, and we will need to understand that democratization/political stability takes time, effort, treasure, and blood to establish.

Like I said below, it is much better and easier to just replace Saudi Arabia with Iraq for the moment. And it is going to be hard to convince the citizens of western countries who have grown weak and cowardly with the post-war peace, to be willing to sacrifice some lives in exchange for a better future--I mean, remember the outcry over the 3000 KIA in Iraq?

Saudi Arabia is far too important to the region:

1) Medina and Mecca
2) It produces about as much oil as the rest of the Middle East combined.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 7:43:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 10:04:52 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 2/6/2015 9:55:04 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 9:52:41 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 2/6/2015 9:40:32 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 9:37:39 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/6/2015 9:19:47 AM, lannan13 wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen it's time to call an ace an ace and a spade a spade. This wasn't a murder. This was actually a recruitment video. You know all the people going to join ISIS? The one's who've been caught all had a copy of Islam for dummies. They're not a religious organization. They're a violent ideology with a religion to try and justify it. This would be the perfect time for the US to gain support in the middle east by intervening, no not drone strikes, not airstrikes, and not ground troops, but giving weapons to the middle east to help fight. The reason we're so unpopular is that when we try to find terrorist we look for a male with a gun and in the region it's dangerous to the point to where you have to have one. If you want to kill an al qaeda official you blow up a wedding as that's the only time they come out in public, but you kill a lot of innocent people in that which explains a lot of American hatred in the Middle East. http://www.ijreview.com...

Actually, yes, giving weapons to the Middle East does seem a good idea. (Note: this was NOT sarcasm).

Well only if we arm the right countries, ie Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanan.

Turkey? They fund and sponsor terrorism. The only group that would appropriate at this point are the Kurdish forces who are directly involved with ISIS. Lebanon is heavily affiliated with Hezbollah, so it's particularly doubtful that arming them would be good idea either.

Turkey holds 1/3 of all US nukes. We trust them not to do something batsh*t crazy.

That may be, they've still financed a large amount of the terrorism in the Middle East. However, in terms of regional countries they're not alone in that list. I definitely don't think that Lebanon would be a good idea, due to Hezbollah.

I would point out that the CIA has sponsored more terrorism than any other nation on earth. That a state sponsors terrorism is not a valid argument against us trusting them. What matters more is whether or not supporting them furthers US interests. If it does, then that's what is going to matter to us. If they don't...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 8:56:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Don't risk any American lives unless fully committed to win! If there is a number of dead that is too many, then one dead is too many. When risking the lives of American military personnel don't let any death be in vain. An enemy must understand that they have no chance of victory to be defeated. America has showed that a few dead American service members can force a withdrawal, that is Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 9:46:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 8:56:47 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Don't risk any American lives unless fully committed to win! If there is a number of dead that is too many, then one dead is too many. When risking the lives of American military personnel don't let any death be in vain. An enemy must understand that they have no chance of victory to be defeated. America has showed that a few dead American service members can force a withdrawal, that is Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq.

While I agree with the reasoning here, "winning" and "casualties" aren't necessarily causally linked. We could run a carpet-bombing campaign that would destroy the enemy with little to no casualties for us. There would be little to no chance of resistance if we went this route. We've done it before...with enough ordnance we can force a surrender. It bears keeping in mind that this is a viable option with precedence.

The thing is, the current climate in America prioritizes civilian lives, and so such indiscriminate killing is not going to fly like it once did, so the second, riskier option is to send an invasion force. Regardless, once the invasion is complete, with an adequate occupational force, we can minimize casualties while maximizing effectiveness and chance at victory. Our mistake in Iraq 2003 was putting trust in a negligent president who did not listen to his generals' advice about the requisite size of occupational forces. The military had no choice but to obey the orders of an incompetent commander in chief when their advice was rebuffed.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 10:25:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 9:46:27 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/7/2015 8:56:47 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Don't risk any American lives unless fully committed to win! If there is a number of dead that is too many, then one dead is too many. When risking the lives of American military personnel don't let any death be in vain. An enemy must understand that they have no chance of victory to be defeated. America has showed that a few dead American service members can force a withdrawal, that is Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq.

While I agree with the reasoning here, "winning" and "casualties" aren't necessarily causally linked. We could run a carpet-bombing campaign that would destroy the enemy with little to no casualties for us. There would be little to no chance of resistance if we went this route. We've done it before...with enough ordnance we can force a surrender. It bears keeping in mind that this is a viable option with precedence.

The thing is, the current climate in America prioritizes civilian lives, and so such indiscriminate killing is not going to fly like it once did, so the second, riskier option is to send an invasion force. Regardless, once the invasion is complete, with an adequate occupational force, we can minimize casualties while maximizing effectiveness and chance at victory. Our mistake in Iraq 2003 was putting trust in a negligent president who did not listen to his generals' advice about the requisite size of occupational forces. The military had no choice but to obey the orders of an incompetent commander in chief when their advice was rebuffed.

Winning and casualties are not even correlated, but American casualties and withdrawal have a direct causation relationship. In Somalia, America lost 18 and killed between 1000 - 5000 yet that battle was viewed as a defeat. America was not committed to the objective. Iraq and Afghanistan are much the same, US Army decisively defeats enemies on a battlefield, but Americans view a few casualties as a defeat and want Soldiers home.

Wars are won by an infantryman standing where an enemy once stood.

No war can be won from the air, limited objectives can be met, like in Kosovo. Under prefect conditions, military operations will have unanticipated failures. In a carpet bombing scenario, planes will crash in a target country, and rescue team will be killed in attempts to recover aircrews, without full commitment to the mission, politicians will be calling for an end to the bombing. It only takes a handful of dead Americans to change public opinion. If America is not willing to use ground troops do not use aircraft.

When a country is only willing to drop bombs, that country is not trying to defeat an enemy.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 10:30:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 10:25:22 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/7/2015 9:46:27 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/7/2015 8:56:47 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Don't risk any American lives unless fully committed to win! If there is a number of dead that is too many, then one dead is too many. When risking the lives of American military personnel don't let any death be in vain. An enemy must understand that they have no chance of victory to be defeated. America has showed that a few dead American service members can force a withdrawal, that is Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq.

While I agree with the reasoning here, "winning" and "casualties" aren't necessarily causally linked. We could run a carpet-bombing campaign that would destroy the enemy with little to no casualties for us. There would be little to no chance of resistance if we went this route. We've done it before...with enough ordnance we can force a surrender. It bears keeping in mind that this is a viable option with precedence.

The thing is, the current climate in America prioritizes civilian lives, and so such indiscriminate killing is not going to fly like it once did, so the second, riskier option is to send an invasion force. Regardless, once the invasion is complete, with an adequate occupational force, we can minimize casualties while maximizing effectiveness and chance at victory. Our mistake in Iraq 2003 was putting trust in a negligent president who did not listen to his generals' advice about the requisite size of occupational forces. The military had no choice but to obey the orders of an incompetent commander in chief when their advice was rebuffed.

Winning and casualties are not even correlated, but American casualties and withdrawal have a direct causation relationship. In Somalia, America lost 18 and killed between 1000 - 5000 yet that battle was viewed as a defeat. America was not committed to the objective. Iraq and Afghanistan are much the same, US Army decisively defeats enemies on a battlefield, but Americans view a few casualties as a defeat and want Soldiers home.

Again, fully agree with above logic.

Wars are won by an infantryman standing where an enemy once stood.

No war can be won from the air

We won against Japan by eliciting an unconditional surrender without one soldier stepping foot in Japan. Again, there is precedence for bombing eliciting surrender.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 5:27:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 10:30:26 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/7/2015 10:25:22 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/7/2015 9:46:27 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/7/2015 8:56:47 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Don't risk any American lives unless fully committed to win! If there is a number of dead that is too many, then one dead is too many. When risking the lives of American military personnel don't let any death be in vain. An enemy must understand that they have no chance of victory to be defeated. America has showed that a few dead American service members can force a withdrawal, that is Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq.

While I agree with the reasoning here, "winning" and "casualties" aren't necessarily causally linked. We could run a carpet-bombing campaign that would destroy the enemy with little to no casualties for us. There would be little to no chance of resistance if we went this route. We've done it before...with enough ordnance we can force a surrender. It bears keeping in mind that this is a viable option with precedence.

The thing is, the current climate in America prioritizes civilian lives, and so such indiscriminate killing is not going to fly like it once did, so the second, riskier option is to send an invasion force. Regardless, once the invasion is complete, with an adequate occupational force, we can minimize casualties while maximizing effectiveness and chance at victory. Our mistake in Iraq 2003 was putting trust in a negligent president who did not listen to his generals' advice about the requisite size of occupational forces. The military had no choice but to obey the orders of an incompetent commander in chief when their advice was rebuffed.

Winning and casualties are not even correlated, but American casualties and withdrawal have a direct causation relationship. In Somalia, America lost 18 and killed between 1000 - 5000 yet that battle was viewed as a defeat. America was not committed to the objective. Iraq and Afghanistan are much the same, US Army decisively defeats enemies on a battlefield, but Americans view a few casualties as a defeat and want Soldiers home.

Again, fully agree with above logic.

Wars are won by an infantryman standing where an enemy once stood.

No war can be won from the air

We won against Japan by eliciting an unconditional surrender without one soldier stepping foot in Japan. Again, there is precedence for bombing eliciting surrender.

A land invasion of Japan was not needed because Japanese leadership understood that American ground forces would eventually follow after prolonged bombing. If America had stated something like, ground troops are off the table to attack Japanese home islands, the Pacific War would have continued for a much longer time. In warfare, everything should be keep on the table.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 6:02:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 5:27:30 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/7/2015 10:30:26 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/7/2015 10:25:22 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/7/2015 9:46:27 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/7/2015 8:56:47 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Don't risk any American lives unless fully committed to win! If there is a number of dead that is too many, then one dead is too many. When risking the lives of American military personnel don't let any death be in vain. An enemy must understand that they have no chance of victory to be defeated. America has showed that a few dead American service members can force a withdrawal, that is Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq.

While I agree with the reasoning here, "winning" and "casualties" aren't necessarily causally linked. We could run a carpet-bombing campaign that would destroy the enemy with little to no casualties for us. There would be little to no chance of resistance if we went this route. We've done it before...with enough ordnance we can force a surrender. It bears keeping in mind that this is a viable option with precedence.

The thing is, the current climate in America prioritizes civilian lives, and so such indiscriminate killing is not going to fly like it once did, so the second, riskier option is to send an invasion force. Regardless, once the invasion is complete, with an adequate occupational force, we can minimize casualties while maximizing effectiveness and chance at victory. Our mistake in Iraq 2003 was putting trust in a negligent president who did not listen to his generals' advice about the requisite size of occupational forces. The military had no choice but to obey the orders of an incompetent commander in chief when their advice was rebuffed.

Winning and casualties are not even correlated, but American casualties and withdrawal have a direct causation relationship. In Somalia, America lost 18 and killed between 1000 - 5000 yet that battle was viewed as a defeat. America was not committed to the objective. Iraq and Afghanistan are much the same, US Army decisively defeats enemies on a battlefield, but Americans view a few casualties as a defeat and want Soldiers home.

Again, fully agree with above logic.

Wars are won by an infantryman standing where an enemy once stood.

No war can be won from the air

We won against Japan by eliciting an unconditional surrender without one soldier stepping foot in Japan. Again, there is precedence for bombing eliciting surrender.

A land invasion of Japan was not needed because Japanese leadership understood that American ground forces would eventually follow after prolonged bombing. If America had stated something like, ground troops are off the table to attack Japanese home islands, the Pacific War would have continued for a much longer time. In warfare, everything should be keep on the table.

Regardless, we won that war without an invasion. It is possible to win wars with just an air campaign...however, it takes a high tolerance for collateral damage.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 2:10:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 6:13:29 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/7/2015 5:35:36 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 2/7/2015 5:08:01 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

We thus need to figure out how to control the area, and if establishing control is possible. This will absolutely require a military presence, and we will absolutely need to get Saudi Arabia to support our presence in the region. We will need to dramatically increase our military sperm count in order for this to occur, and we will need to understand that democratization/political stability takes time, effort, treasure, and blood to establish.

Like I said below, it is much better and easier to just replace Saudi Arabia with Iraq for the moment. And it is going to be hard to convince the citizens of western countries who have grown weak and cowardly with the post-war peace, to be willing to sacrifice some lives in exchange for a better future--I mean, remember the outcry over the 3000 KIA in Iraq?

Saudi Arabia is far too important to the region:

1) Medina and Mecca

True, but I was talking mostly about the economic aspect.

2) It produces about as much oil as the rest of the Middle East combined.

But is that because they have a) more oil reserves? or b) because they just drill and export more? (I am not an expert on oil) If b) then we can hope to use other countries to supply us with the oil that Saudi Arabia does at the moment, like Iran and Iraq, for instance, as well as Libya.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 2:19:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 6:02:32 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/8/2015 5:27:30 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/7/2015 10:30:26 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/7/2015 10:25:22 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/7/2015 9:46:27 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/7/2015 8:56:47 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Don't risk any American lives unless fully committed to win! If there is a number of dead that is too many, then one dead is too many. When risking the lives of American military personnel don't let any death be in vain. An enemy must understand that they have no chance of victory to be defeated. America has showed that a few dead American service members can force a withdrawal, that is Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq.

While I agree with the reasoning here, "winning" and "casualties" aren't necessarily causally linked. We could run a carpet-bombing campaign that would destroy the enemy with little to no casualties for us. There would be little to no chance of resistance if we went this route. We've done it before...with enough ordnance we can force a surrender. It bears keeping in mind that this is a viable option with precedence.

The thing is, the current climate in America prioritizes civilian lives, and so such indiscriminate killing is not going to fly like it once did, so the second, riskier option is to send an invasion force. Regardless, once the invasion is complete, with an adequate occupational force, we can minimize casualties while maximizing effectiveness and chance at victory. Our mistake in Iraq 2003 was putting trust in a negligent president who did not listen to his generals' advice about the requisite size of occupational forces. The military had no choice but to obey the orders of an incompetent commander in chief when their advice was rebuffed.

Winning and casualties are not even correlated, but American casualties and withdrawal have a direct causation relationship. In Somalia, America lost 18 and killed between 1000 - 5000 yet that battle was viewed as a defeat. America was not committed to the objective. Iraq and Afghanistan are much the same, US Army decisively defeats enemies on a battlefield, but Americans view a few casualties as a defeat and want Soldiers home.

Again, fully agree with above logic.

Wars are won by an infantryman standing where an enemy once stood.

No war can be won from the air

We won against Japan by eliciting an unconditional surrender without one soldier stepping foot in Japan. Again, there is precedence for bombing eliciting surrender.

A land invasion of Japan was not needed because Japanese leadership understood that American ground forces would eventually follow after prolonged bombing. If America had stated something like, ground troops are off the table to attack Japanese home islands, the Pacific War would have continued for a much longer time. In warfare, everything should be keep on the table.

Regardless, we won that war without an invasion. It is possible to win wars with just an air campaign...however, it takes a high tolerance for collateral damage.

The US Army and the Marine Corps might not have invaded the Japanese mainland, but they did fight land battles, did they not, during the entire campaign in the Pacific?
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 3:16:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 2:10:52 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 2/7/2015 6:13:29 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Saudi Arabia is far too important to the region:

2) It produces about as much oil as the rest of the Middle East combined.

But is that because they have a) more oil reserves? or b) because they just drill and export more? (I am not an expert on oil) If b) then we can hope to use other countries to supply us with the oil that Saudi Arabia does at the moment, like Iran and Iraq, for instance, as well as Libya.

My understanding is that Saudi oil has the largest proven reserves and is the least costly to extract in the world, a lot cheaper than even other Middle Eastern oil producers. I'm fairly certain this takes more into account than just security issues.

You're right in that production is not necessarily relevant to those factors, but the Sauds have all of these in their favor, too.

Regardless, we won that war without an invasion. It is possible to win wars with just an air campaign...however, it takes a high tolerance for collateral damage.

The US Army and the Marine Corps might not have invaded the Japanese mainland, but they did fight land battles, did they not, during the entire campaign in the Pacific?

Yes, but the killing blow was dealt via air power. Most people operate under the assumption that air power cannot win wars, and would point to Vietnam and Korea. The reality is that with enough bombing and enough disregard for human rights, air power can easily win wars. People forget that in this age of "moralistic" warfare. A lot of people balk at this kind of language, but a lot of people would balk at warfare in general. If you're going to do it, like chang29 said above, you should keep all options on the table. I know in the military they take the Geneva conventions very seriously, but the fact is that we've completely disregarded international law especially by invading Iraq, so I would put far less emphasis on such standards of rules of engagement if it became evident that it was in our interests to break them.

I mean, air power isn't a function of casualties for us...it's much more a function of industrial production...because of our technological advantage, our air superiority is almost impossible to contest, so it's just a matter of manufacturing enough ordnance and acquiring enough fuel for our planes to do the job. Add in some shelling and surface-surface cruise missiles, and there would be nothing left to contest our air power. From my experience, the main limitation to air power has been availability of existing assets...there's too little to go around. Casualties are almost non-existent...the Air Force's most lethal killer is not combat, but suicides...and the suicide rate in the Air Force is far below what it is in America as a whole.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?