OK, Can we talk here i mean me.
from different country very far in distance is it safe

 

Very few people were true Nazis,

I would argue that that narrative is incorrect today.

Most major religions have barbaric traits in them that today's practitioners of those religions have abandoned, with the exception of islam. There is a far larger issue that most muslims consider practicing of those barbaric acts acceptable today.

That issue is made worse under the disguise of multi-culturalism in today's west. Our tolerance towards islamic intolerance essentially fanned the spread of those extremist activities.

 

Latest post on who in the U.S. government armed ISIS.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/wh...ad-u-s-military-feeds-syrian-govt-intel-isis/

Maybe they got to thinking about how well it has worked out getting rid of the last two dictators?

 

If this is not a political discussion, I can't read.

That is not to say that I am against political discussions; I am not against them, and have taken part in them. But if they are going to be permitted, the TOS should be changed.

Nah, both political parties have these different views within them. That's what makes it so interesting.

Let's hear it for @WBahn for his work!

 

Politics is not confined to two political parties nor to the USA.

 

OK, Can we talk here i mean me.
from different country very far in distance is it safe

Well, your pretty close to Pakistan. But, I think they are a little more moderate. They seemed to easily push the Taliban back into the northwest when they got to frisky.
What do you fell? Do you feel safe?

 

Politics is not confined to two political parties nor to the USA.

Yes, I suppose your right.

It can be a huge headache, for sure. What we tend to primarily look for is tempers flaring and flaming starting.

I gotta say though, I'm fascinated by the different views.
I would be even more fascinated by the views of any of the countries involved. But to me that would be more political.
May be we have gotten all we can get from this thread.
I think we only have 3 ideas:
1- Draw lines based on religion and help defend those borders.
2- Get out of it and let them fight it out.
3- Return for a full blown war. I'm not sure anyone has actually stated this, but many have hinted at it.

I haven't heard anyone say stay the course, but maybe there are some. If so speak up.

Any more? Did I miss any?

 

3- Return for a full blown war. I'm not sure anyone has actually stated this, but many have hinted at it.

It's either now or later. I'd prefer to wait till we have a decent CIC.

 

What type of policy is it?

"Incoherent" is probably the best description, though "Incompetent" is an apt choice, too.

 

 

Nah, both political parties have these different views within them. That's what makes it so interesting.

Let's hear it for @WBahn for his work!

As I stated before, I tend to be pretty tolerant (do I get a PC prize?) as long as the discourse remains civil. I haven't been following this thread ultra close (since if incivility flares up we can usually count on someone reporting it). Other mods may take a stricter stance and shut down threads that appear to have the potential for getting heated. Who's to say which approach is better. In gray areas we usually back the actions of the mod that takes action, though we discuss it and, on occasion, come to a consensus to take a different tact.

 

View attachment 97114

I thought we were still bombing Al-Qaeda.

 

It's either now or later. I'd prefer to wait till we have a decent CIC.

Okay, I'll put you down for go to war, but wait for Hillary. Just kidding.

What kind of losses would you expect?
How much do you think it would cost?
How many forces to hold the cities?

 

It's either now or later. I'd prefer to wait till we have a decent CIC.

What is, "CIC"? Competent Intelligence Community?
If so, just turn on your cell phone and speak clearly. They are listening.

 

What is, "CIC"? Competent Intelligence Community?
If so, just turn on your cell phone and speak clearly. They are listening.

I'm reminded of a joke e-mail in which the NSA gives a puzzle as a pre-screening for potential applicants. At the end, it says that if you think you've solved the problem, to e-mail the solution to your mother and, if correct, they will be in touch to set up an on-site interview.

 

 

What kind of losses would you expect?
How much do you think it would cost?
How many forces to hold the cities?

Each of those factors are indeterminate. The best laid plans go to shit when the bullets start flying.

Why would you put constraints on something like that? Do you think the Roosevelt Administration thought twice when spending 4 dollars for every dollar in revenue during WWII? Did they know when it would end? If Truman didn't drop the bombs, there would have been at least another 500,000 Americans killed trying to take Japan, according to the best estimates at that time.

What are the acceptable loss of life number? What about acceptable collateral damages? Holding cities is stage one of Nation building, how long should we commit troops to holding a city? We should not be in the business of nation building.

The nation may agree at the beginning on getting the job done, but when time is factored in, there will be factions of people complaining about the topics you broached. The political wherewithal of the nation is truly reflected in the politics of the elected officials.

There were dissents during WWII.

 

Okay, I'll put you down for go to war...

Don't put words in my mouth. I am not in favor of war. But as a realist, I recognize that at times war is necessary.

What kind of losses would you expect?
How much do you think it would cost?
How many forces to hold the cities?

My definition of war is not the same as yours, I think. When a nation goes to war, it should go to War, with a capital W. As in, kill people and break things until the enemy is completely humiliated and has lost the will to continue fighting -- and begs for peace. Think Japan and Germany.

Leave them to recover themselves. They already live in rock huts...no need for us to build them Hiltons afterward.

 

@joeyd999
You can do that if you are the US. Just let any smaller country do that and the very moral UN will immediately condemn it.

 

="JoeJester, post: 939855, member: 2940"]

Each of those factors are indeterminate. The best laid plans go to shit when the bullets start flying.

I would disagree. Many of the cities held by ISIS in Iraq we have captured several times. So we have plenty of data. The reason we have fought there several times is because the Iraq government either couldn't or didn't have the will to hold those cities. So If we are not prepared to stay there for years to come I see no reason to do it all again.

Why would you put constraints on something like that? Do you think the Roosevelt Administration thought twice when spending 4 dollars for every dollar in revenue during WWII? Did they know when it would end? If Truman didn't drop the bombs, there would have been at least another 500,000 Americans killed trying to take Japan, according to the best estimates at that time.

Yes, but it took him a couple of years. He got in only when we were attacked.
Maybe the better question is would you raise taxes to pay for it or do you think our credit is good for another round.
During the WWII, Americans purchased approximately $186 billion worth of war bonds, accounting for nearly three quarters of total federal spending from 1941-1945. Today, we don't have the savings to pay for our current spending, let alone any significant expansions .

What are the acceptable loss of life number? What about acceptable collateral damages? Holding cities is stage one of Nation building, how long should we commit troops to holding a city? We should not be in the business of nation building.

I have no idea. That's why I ask the question. But last time thru Iraq killed about 170,000 Iraqis, 60 to 70,000 civilians.
4,000 plus US solders.

The nation may agree at the beginning on getting the job done, but when time is factored in, there will be factions of people complaining about the topics you broached. The political wherewithal of the nation is truly reflected in the politics of the elected officials.

Do you think Congress would authorize a real war?
I bet not, but I could be wrong.