Motherfuckers

[Sbee]

That's because you are just anti-war and never grasped the facts that once the military gained the local citizens trust they were able to reduce the number of skirmishes by thousands per day.

If they had stayed long enough to thoroughly get the government established and the military and police properly seasoned while providing backup support as necessay, ISIL would never had gained ground in Iraq. Syria is a different story, one that is incredibly f'd up and will be a problem after regaining control in Iraq.

They needed to retain a presence, and after all this there will likely be a base or two created for long term support until the threats cease, which will be a very long time. However, the US retained bases throughout Europe for decades and people didn't piss and moan, but leaving unstable Iraq was so important. Absolutely stupid political decision dictated by morons who do not understand the longevity required and cry about the cost but care not about the genocidal practices that will result if leaving too soon. The deaths of the innocent civilians already killed is on YOUR hands.

I have a problem with us having huge military installations in Europe and asia, they can outsource their security to us. No need to have soldiers in over 100 countries either.

As for iraq, this chaos was going to happen whenever we left, if it was last year or 100 years from now. Do we want to endure the costs of large scale nation building? I say no. I don't think secular democracy is attainable in countries that don't want it.

 

[Michchamp]

That's because you are just anti-war and never grasped the facts that once the military gained the local citizens trust they were able to reduce the number of skirmishes by thousands per day.

...

again, I disagree that even happened. And I would question any of your sources that imply it did. And even if it did, it was obviously an isolated event, and does not justify intervention or the mountain of deaths due to aggression and rank incompetence.

Did you ever see Restrepo? If not, you should. That was set in Afghanistan, but there's really no reason to expect Iraq would be any different.

seeing just how tone-deaf, ignorant, and bumbling army officers were when trying to conduct village-level diplomacy explained A LOT of why things didn't improve there in 10+ years. actually THIRTEEN (13) years. And the officers were college-educated 20- or 30- somethings. It's idiotic to expect more from the enlisted men... 18-20 year olds raised on video games, pro-wrestling, and energy drinks may not have the subtlety needed to explain to village elders why they should still trust them after they "accidentally" blew up their houses and turned their goats into swiss cheese with a 0.50 cal.

 

[Michchamp]

Hey, you said it. You think it's time to "rout these motherfuckers".

So get going, grab your boots and helmet and do it.

Or would you just rather others do all the fighting and dying and losing limbs etc. that comes from large scale military incursions and you can just post about it?

Dan Rather just said the same thing:

All of these people on television - some of whom I have enormous respect for - it unsettles me to hear them say, listen, we, the United States, we have to - quote - "do something" in Ukraine, we have to do something in Syria, we have to do something in the waters around China, we have to do something about what is happening in Yemen, we have to do something in Iraq, we have to do something about ISIS, what they are talking about are combat operations.

My first question to anyone who is on television saying, "We have to get tough, we need to put boots on the ground and we need to go to war in one of these places" is, I will hear you out if you tell me you are prepared to send your son, your daughter, your grandson, your granddaughter to that war of which you are beating the drums. If you aren't, I have no patience with you, and don't even talk to me.
​

 

[Michchamp]

it's pretty insane to think about this for a second... we may just go back into Iraq in another knee-jerk reaction to a power vacuum the Bush Administration created in 2003.

things are really starting to spin out of control. it took a couple decades for the country to forget what a disaster war is after the debacle of Vietnam. It's only been 4 years since the 2009 pull out agreement? and of course we've STILL been in Afghanistan the entire time, and took a couple months to turn Libya into a lawless post-apocalyptic wasteland.

 

[jwlcosu]

it's pretty insane to think about this for a second...

What's insane is the reality of the world in 2014. Someone, maybe Churchill, or, more probably, someone writing about Churchill, wrote that great leaders see the world for what it is, rather than what they wish it was. The sane and civilized have to find whatever it takes to deal with the world as it is. Churchill and FDR were great leaders. Who's next? The world needs that person/those persons. I personally think Netanyahu is of that ilk. Flame away.

 

[zyxt9]

again, I disagree that even happened. And I would question any of your sources that imply it did. And even if it did, it was obviously an isolated event, and does not justify intervention or the mountain of deaths due to aggression and rank incompetence.

Did you ever see Restrepo? If not, you should. That was set in Afghanistan, but there's really no reason to expect Iraq would be any different.

seeing just how tone-deaf, ignorant, and bumbling army officers were when trying to conduct village-level diplomacy explained A LOT of why things didn't improve there in 10+ years. actually THIRTEEN (13) years. And the officers were college-educated 20- or 30- somethings. It's idiotic to expect more from the enlisted men... 18-20 year olds raised on video games, pro-wrestling, and energy drinks may not have the subtlety needed to explain to village elders why they should still trust them after they "accidentally" blew up their houses and turned their goats into swiss cheese with a 0.50 cal.

you disagree because you absolutely hate the US military and only pay attention to any scrap of anti-war, anti-military propaganda that you can sink your teeth into...that's why you disagree. I can post countless links pointing to how the US military worked together with local Iraqi citizens to identify insurgents, but to do so is fruitless when trying to show you any positive things about the military due to your hatred.

the problem in Iraq today stems from the US military being forced out too early in order to appease people who, just like you, are incapable of comprehending the necessity of the troops having at least a couple of bases there that will be capable of quickly supporting the Iraqi military and police from the terrorist threat that obviously still exists...but people like you don't care one bit about those terrorists committing genocide. Not...one...bit.

 

[zyxt9]

What am I supposed to think when you put turning it to glass above keeping the US out? That doesn't give any non-US driven solutions a chance.

Blue, I generally believe you are a person of logic with an ability to comprehend things, so I'm not really sure what part of this you have disconnected from the reality of my stance.

So, to spell it out in more detail...

1. Moderate Islamic leaders seize control of their religion and begin a systematic purging of the Extreme Orthodox Terrorist Muslims. Now they may never be capable of achieving this without outside assistance (from the US or elsewhere); however, MY PREFERENCE would be that they figure out a way to do this without any assistance from outside the Muslim world so that the Extremists are not able to point fingers outside the Muslim religion, thereby creating a rallying cry amongst them.

2. Israel steps up and does the right thing and allows for the creation of a Palestinian state which they do not have any power or influence over AND turn Jerusalem into a 3rd nation that is completely independent from Palestine and Israel, governed by a UN controlled body that is made up only of nations without affiliation with Islam, Judaism, or Christianity.

3. Any additional options you wish to insert that come long before the US does an ounce of involvement. I, despite the opinion of many to the contrary, am not in favor of the US being a controlling entity in the Middle East; however, in today's global world of politics, trade, business, and more, it is undoubtedly a near impossibility for the US to not be involved at some level, even if on a micro level.

X (after any, all other options you wish to place before this point). Turn it to glass.

X+1. Give complete control to the the Extremist Terrorists with zero US interference.


There, hopefully this clarifies my position on the matter enough that we can stop going back and forth over this. As also previously mentioned, the US will not even have to be the entity that turns it to glass, that will be something Israel will do with or without US approval.

 

[zyxt9]

I have a problem with us having huge military installations in Europe and asia, they can outsource their security to us. No need to have soldiers in over 100 countries either.

As for iraq, this chaos was going to happen whenever we left, if it was last year or 100 years from now. Do we want to endure the costs of large scale nation building? I say no. I don't think secular democracy is attainable in countries that don't want it.

You are completely ignorant to all of the reasons why those installations exist(ed) apparently. It doesn't require much historical observation to realize that simply pulling out completely from those regions helped lead to destabilization in those regions and that resulted in WWII. After WWII, while not a perfectly peaceful world, there has yet to be a WWIII. Granted Russia is doing what it can to bring that about these days, but 70 years of relative peace sure beats the hell out of 20. So having those bases all over Europe and Asia actually saved countless lives and money, but because no one will ever be able to put exact numbers to that, all you will ever calculate is the known costs.

Never fear though, having pulled out of Iraq and allowing it to become destabilized along with ISIS/ISIL providing a very poignant example of what happens in these destabilized regions, well now you can start counting the deaths of innocent people by the thousands, and soon far more than that. And you will be able to get new data points on how much more it will cost the US and others to retake those lands, along with even more innocent civilians being killed.

And while you are tallying up those costs, particularly the genocidal deaths of innocent civilians, just remember one thing...there were many who explained this was going to happen but people like you, champ, thumb, Obama and all of his followers, well frankly...you...just...did...not...care. Those death's are on the hands of all those who proclaimed "peace" would only come by the immediate removal of the US forces from the region. So...how does your "peace" look these days?

Oh right, you prefer we remain out so that the genocidal practices may continue unchecked.

 

[Monster]

I see no good way of handling this. No matter who started this or put us in this position, ISIS has to be taken care of. It'd be nice if Iraq and Syria and their neighbors would find common ground enough to come together to do it themselves. Does anyone really believe that will happen though?

The problem becomes, do we let ISIS take over those two countries? Would they actually pose more of a threat as a large country with access to more resources and military equipment half a world a way or a small group that hits wherever it will hurt the most, possibly including American soil? Would they give up on the idea of destroying the U.S. and its allies? Can we sit around and watch them kill people for their own religious ideas?

 

[jwlcosu]

turn Jerusalem into a 3rd nation that is completely independent from Palestine and Israel, governed by a UN controlled body that is made up only of nations without affiliation with Islam, Judaism, or Christianity....

Putting the UN in charge of a third nation called Jerusalem means just another enemy at Israel's doorstep.

 

[jwlcosu]

My first question to anyone who is on television saying, "We have to get tough, we need to put boots on the ground and we need to go to war in one of these places" is, I will hear you out if you tell me you are prepared to send your son, your daughter, your grandson, your granddaughter to that war of which you are beating the drums. If you aren't, I have no patience with you, and don't even talk to me.[/B]
[/INDENT]

So before Obama authorizes the next strike, he should announce his daughter's intention to enlist?

 

[Sbee]

You are completely ignorant to all of the reasons why those installations exist(ed) apparently. It doesn't require much historical observation to realize that simply pulling out completely from those regions helped lead to destabilization in those regions and that resulted in WWII. After WWII, while not a perfectly peaceful world, there has yet to be a WWIII. Granted Russia is doing what it can to bring that about these days, but 70 years of relative peace sure beats the hell out of 20. So having those bases all over Europe and Asia actually saved countless lives and money, but because no one will ever be able to put exact numbers to that, all you will ever calculate is the known costs.

Never fear though, having pulled out of Iraq and allowing it to become destabilized along with ISIS/ISIL providing a very poignant example of what happens in these destabilized regions, well now you can start counting the deaths of innocent people by the thousands, and soon far more than that. And you will be able to get new data points on how much more it will cost the US and others to retake those lands, along with even more innocent civilians being killed.

And while you are tallying up those costs, particularly the genocidal deaths of innocent civilians, just remember one thing...there were many who explained this was going to happen but people like you, champ, thumb, Obama and all of his followers, well frankly...you...just...did...not...care. Those death's are on the hands of all those who proclaimed "peace" would only come by the immediate removal of the US forces from the region. So...how does your "peace" look these days?

Oh right, you prefer we remain out so that the genocidal practices may continue unchecked.

this kind of uprising was going to happen whenever we left, if it was in a decade or a century and I don't think we were willing to endure that cost. this blood is again on our hands but there's nothing we could have done about it other than occupying the country for generations.

also, the peace since WWII is not largely due to a US military presence but economic growth and international commerce. higher levels of prosperity and global integration make warmongering a risky venture

 

[Sbee]

So before Obama authorizes the next strike, he should announce his daughter's intention to enlist?

I think he should if he decides to invade another country based on assumptions and faulty intelligence.

I know you want to turn this into a left vs right argument but a lot of us that lean left are critical of obama and his attitude towards war. it was good that he didn't get us deeply involved in Syria and other conflicts, but he has been slow to leave Iraq and Afghanistan.

If you love warmongering, big defense budgets, building equipment to fight the wars of 1940 in the year 2025, and interventionalist policies, you'll love Hillary Clinton

 

[Gulo Blue]

If you love warmongering, big defense budgets, building equipment to fight the wars of 1940 in the year 2025, and interventionalist policies, you'll love Hillary Clinton

...or whoever runs against her.

 

[Spartanmack]

...or whoever runs against her.

unless its Rand Paul...

 

[Gulo Blue]

unless its Rand Paul...

I'm even skeptical of that.

 

[zyxt9]

I think he should if he decides to invade another country based on assumptions and faulty intelligence.

I know you want to turn this into a left vs right argument but a lot of us that lean left are critical of obama and his attitude towards war. it was good that he didn't get us deeply involved in Syria and other conflicts, but he has been slow to leave Iraq and Afghanistan.

If you love warmongering, big defense budgets, building equipment to fight the wars of 1940 in the year 2025, and interventionalist policies, you'll love Hillary Clinton

"lean left"??? lol, come on sbee...I'm trying to find anything in this post that even puts you anywhere but firmly in the left and leaning toward being Moderate Left.

 

[zyxt9]

this kind of uprising was going to happen whenever we left, if it was in a decade or a century and I don't think we were willing to endure that cost. this blood is again on our hands but there's nothing we could have done about it other than occupying the country for generations.

also, the peace since WWII is not largely due to a US military presence but economic growth and international commerce. higher levels of prosperity and global integration make warmongering a risky venture

This I fully support and would love to see the region come out of their beleaguered financial situation. Unfortunately, the money the oil has brought in has only ended up in the pockets of a few while the vast majority suffer from extreme poverty. That definitely is a recipe for the masses to revolt.

The problem with their revolt though is their goals. This isn't about overthrowing a dictator or other governing body. It isn't about killing the billionaires so that the masses can have better living conditions. This is purely about religious ideology, and that never results in anything positive, which is why they are promoting genocidal practices.

 

[zyxt9]

Putting the UN in charge of a third nation called Jerusalem means just another enemy at Israel's doorstep.

This is incredibly untrue. A state of Jerusalem controlled by the UN would not have a military arsenal, but instead be an agreed upon neutral entity that is without a militaristic force, only a local police presence. It would come with the understanding that any nation or entity that invades it will have the entire world against it. Such a state would not have the capabilities to attack Israel and therefore would not be another enemy at their door.

Yes, I get that this is purely an educational exercise; however, it is one that must be explored one day in order for peace to exist in the region. The problem is getting all of the Extremists - whether Muslim, Jew, or Christian - to recognize the rights of others to peacefully worship in the area. Further challenges may result as a peaceful Jerusalem will likely need to expand its area to accommodate an in flux of people desiring to move or visit.

Imagine that, people willingly moving to a place of peace and willing to honor and respect everyone else in the same place. Difficult, I know, but back in my day it was also difficult to envision the Berlin Wall coming down in a relatively peaceful way.

 

[Spartanmack]

This is incredibly untrue. A state of Jerusalem controlled by the UN would not have a military arsenal, but instead be an agreed upon neutral entity that is without a militaristic force, only a local police presence. It would come with the understanding that any nation or entity that invades it will have the entire world against it. Such a state would not have the capabilities to attack Israel and therefore would not be another enemy at their door.

Yes, I get that this is purely an educational exercise; however, it is one that must be explored one day in order for peace to exist in the region. The problem is getting all of the Extremists - whether Muslim, Jew, or Christian - to recognize the rights of others to peacefully worship in the area. Further challenges may result as a peaceful Jerusalem will likely need to expand its area to accommodate an in flux of people desiring to move or visit.

Imagine that, people willingly moving to a place of peace and willing to honor and respect everyone else in the same place. Difficult, I know, but back in my day it was also difficult to envision the Berlin Wall coming down in a relatively peaceful way.

I think his point is that the UN could never be neutral to Israel. Your idea sounds good in theory but based on the UN Security Council's and UN Committee on Human Rights' voting history, it's hard to see where the UN could even be impartial let alone ever put the might of world against anyone who moves against Israel.