The Spread of the Caliphate: The [Wannabe] Islamic State

This too shall pass.

Re: US losing the fight against ISIS

Postby Mr. Perfect » Tue Oct 07, 2014 11:20 pm

We are at war with ISIS and losing. When they make benchmark gains, like capturing an airport or Bagdad obama will be forced to Vietnam style escalate in perpetuity. I don't know if you follow the news put top obama aide Leon Panetta says we are in a 30 year war with ISIS. I don't what you like about 30 years wars.

I say go all out, wrap it up in a few months or stay out and let the place burn.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13715
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: US losing the fight against ISIS

Postby Doc » Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:45 am

Mr. Perfect wrote:We are at war with ISIS and losing. When they make benchmark gains, like capturing an airport or Bagdad obama will be forced to Vietnam style escalate in perpetuity. I don't know if you follow the news put top obama aide Leon Panetta says we are in a 30 year war with ISIS. I don't what you like about 30 years wars.

I say go all out, wrap it up in a few months or stay out and let the place burn.


I thin the war needs to wait until after Obama is gone. Perhaps Obama could give a speech for Islamic radicals saying "ITs all America's fault You can all stop fighting and killing now"
The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 7990
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: US losing the fight against ISIS

Postby YMix » Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:28 am

Mr. Perfect wrote:I say go all out, wrap it up in a few months or stay out and let the place burn.


How exactly are you going to wrap it up in a few months?
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
User avatar
YMix
 
Posts: 4346
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here


Re: US losing the fight against ISIS

Postby Parodite » Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:17 am

Mr. Perfect wrote:We are at war with ISIS and losing. When they make benchmark gains, like capturing an airport or Bagdad obama will be forced to Vietnam style escalate in perpetuity. I don't know if you follow the news put top obama aide Leon Panetta says we are in a 30 year war with ISIS. I don't what you like about 30 years wars.

I say go all out, wrap it up in a few months or stay out and let the place burn.


Isn't that a bit cynical. That there is no circumstance thinkable where it is worth it to save even just some tens or hundreds desperate civilians, children...

30 years war btw doesn't need to mean being bogged down with ground troops in total failure of achieving the objectives as in Vietnam.

IMO the objectives are chosen badly in this area of the world. Choosing sides for starters is a bad idea (maybe with the exception of the Kurds). A more modest general flag under which some things can be done IMO is humanitarian intervention. Assad killed many more civilians than ISIS; the outrage over the barbarism of ISIS is justified while the war crimes by Assad are silenced by cynical power politics.
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4220
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: US losing the fight against ISIS

Postby Mr. Perfect » Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:26 am

YMix wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:I say go all out, wrap it up in a few months or stay out and let the place burn.


How exactly are you going to wrap it up in a few months?

Image
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13715
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: US losing the fight against ISIS

Postby Mr. Perfect » Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:27 am

Parodite wrote:Isn't that a bit cynical. That there is no circumstance thinkable where it is worth it to save even just some tens or hundreds desperate civilians, children...

30 years war btw doesn't need to mean being bogged down with ground troops in total failure of achieving the objectives as in Vietnam.

Spoken like Robert McNamara. Look up who he is.

IMO the objectives are chosen badly in this area of the world. Choosing sides for starters is a bad idea (maybe with the exception of the Kurds). A more modest general flag under which some things can be done IMO is humanitarian intervention. Assad killed many more civilians than ISIS; the outrage over the barbarism of ISIS is justified while the war crimes by Assad are silenced by cynical power politics.
[/quote]
Like I said, total war, MD or failure. The Democrats have taken MD and total war off the table, just Bush Cheney McNamara options left (failure).
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13715
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The Spread of the Caliphate: The [Wannabe] Islamic State

Postby Parodite » Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:37 am

Are you saying you wouldn't mind throwing nukes?
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4220
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: The Spread of the Caliphate: The [Wannabe] Islamic State

Postby Mr. Perfect » Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:47 am

I'm always down for nukes.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13715
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The Spread of the Caliphate: The [Wannabe] Islamic State

Postby Parodite » Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:51 am

Mr. Perfect wrote:I'm always down for nukes.


Sounds like slang.. what does it mean?
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4220
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: The Spread of the Caliphate: The [Wannabe] Islamic State

Postby Endovelico » Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:54 am

Napalm, fragmentation bombs (in open areas) and even some use of non-lethal gases might slow them down enough...I don't feel very civilized towards IS...
User avatar
Endovelico
 
Posts: 3048
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: The Spread of the Caliphate: The [Wannabe] Islamic State

Postby Mr. Perfect » Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:57 am

Parodite wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:I'm always down for nukes.


Sounds like slang.. what does it mean?

I heartily endorse nuclear weapons. I like Americans alive and American enemies to be dead.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13715
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The Spread of the Caliphate: The [Wannabe] Islamic State

Postby Parodite » Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:01 am

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Parodite wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:I'm always down for nukes.


Sounds like slang.. what does it mean?

I heartily endorse nuclear weapons. I like Americans alive and American enemies to be dead.


Ok. Even at the cost of tens of thousands of civilians that are no US enemies. Check.
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4220
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: The Spread of the Caliphate: The [Wannabe] Islamic State

Postby Mr. Perfect » Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:03 am

Don't hate the playa, hate the game. Think about how many dead innocent or otherwise in 30 year wars.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13715
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The Spread of the Caliphate: The [Wannabe] Islamic State

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:09 am

.


Well,

Mr. Perfect,

Why not help those GIRLS in 3 above posted clips fight those beasts .. why not deliver them some munition and heavy
weapons ? ?

NATO troops, Turkey, watching drama from less than a mile AND "preventing" Kurd fighters joining those brave "girls" fighting to death those animals ? ?

Why America not helping those girls ? ?

Reason is .. Turkey on the side of those animals, Turkey trained them, financing them, resupplies them with ammunition and and

That is what BIDEN said, he said Turkey, Saudi, Qatar and and in reality running ISIS

Come on, you no foolin Ahmadinejaaat

.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8870
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: The Spread of the Caliphate: The [Wannabe] Islamic State

Postby Parodite » Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:14 am

Mr. Perfect wrote:Don't hate the playa, hate the game. Think about how many dead innocent or otherwise in 30 year wars.


I think about the certainty of 10ns if not 100s of thousands that will die, the international escalation that will make it 1000ks victims... if we follow your idiotic advice. There are much better ways to manage this with a much lower cost... you just don't like them.
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4220
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: The Spread of the Caliphate: The [Wannabe] Islamic State

Postby Parodite » Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:16 am

Maybe a miracle.. but I agree with HP on the Kurds.
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4220
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: US losing the fight against ISIS

Postby YMix » Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:37 am

Mr. Perfect wrote:Image


A true "we are dumb, but at least do violence well" made-in-USA answer.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
User avatar
YMix
 
Posts: 4346
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: The Spread of the Caliphate: The [Wannabe] Islamic State

Postby Mr. Perfect » Wed Oct 08, 2014 11:41 am

Heracleum Persicum wrote:.
Well,

Mr. Perfect,

Why not help those GIRLS in 3 above posted clips fight those beasts .. why not deliver them some munition and heavy
weapons ? ?

Because right after that we'll be accused of soiling holy muslim lands and people will issue fatwas.

Why doesn't Canada send military? Or Romania. Why not the Netherlands.

NATO troops, Turkey, watching drama from less than a mile AND "preventing" Kurd fighters joining those brave "girls" fighting to death those animals ? ?

Why America not helping those girls ? ?

It's not our business, with 6 years of Bush I was told by screaming, dirty infidel get out of holy muslim lands, so I'm fine getting out.

Reason is .. Turkey on the side of those animals, Turkey trained them, financing them, resupplies them with ammunition and and

That is what BIDEN said, he said Turkey, Saudi, Qatar and and in reality running ISIS

Come on, you no foolin Ahmadinejaaat

.

Biden is Democrat, I do not have any explanation for him. Talk to Tinker, Zack Morris.
Last edited by Mr. Perfect on Wed Oct 08, 2014 11:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13715
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: US losing the fight against ISIS

Postby Mr. Perfect » Wed Oct 08, 2014 11:42 am

YMix wrote:A true "we are dumb, but at least do violence well" made-in-USA answer.

Better than obama "we are dumb and do violence poorly".
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13715
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The Spread of the Caliphate: The [Wannabe] Islamic State

Postby Mr. Perfect » Wed Oct 08, 2014 11:46 am

Parodite wrote:I think about the certainty of 10ns if not 100s of thousands that will die, the international escalation that will make it 1000ks victims... if we follow your idiotic advice. There are much better ways to manage this with a much lower cost... you just don't like them.

We've done it the Bush-Parodite-obama way for over a decade, hundreds of thousands of dead, no end in sight. We'll end up with millions dead your way. Hundreds of thousands my way, or none at our hands with the MD.

Your way has the most dead bodies, costs the most, and is assured of failure. I am against failure, against costs, and want the low body option. So I have to oppose you vehemently. You want the high failure, high cost, no chance of success option.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13715
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The Spread of the Caliphate: The [Wannabe] Islamic State

Postby Parodite » Wed Oct 08, 2014 12:04 pm

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Parodite wrote:I think about the certainty of 10ns if not 100s of thousands that will die, the international escalation that will make it 1000ks victims... if we follow your idiotic advice. There are much better ways to manage this with a much lower cost... you just don't like them.

We've done it the Bush-Parodite-obama way for over a decade, hundreds of thousands of dead, no end in sight. We'll end up with millions dead your way. Hundreds of thousands my way, or none at our hands with the MD.

Your way has the most dead bodies, costs the most, and is assured of failure. I am against failure, against costs, and want the low body option. So I have to oppose you vehemently. You want the high failure, high cost, no chance of success option.


You getting all mixed up now. We were talking about your willingness to throw nukes, not the MD.

Btw the MD is not without the risk of a nuclear escalation either. The ME is rife crazy hot heads.
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4220
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: US losing the fight against ISIS

Postby YMix » Wed Oct 08, 2014 12:58 pm

Mr. Perfect wrote:Better than obama "we are dumb and do violence poorly".


Since both approaches are ineffective, I can't see how one could be better than the other.

Since 1980, writes Andrew Bacevich, the United States has invaded, occupied or bombed 14 nations in the Greater Middle East — Iran, Libya, Lebanon, Kuwait, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Kosovo, Yemen, Pakistan and now Syria.

The cost: Tens of thousands of U.S. dead and wounded, trillions of dollars lost, hundreds of thousands of Muslim dead and wounded, millions of refugees, Christians foremost among them. And for what?

Are we better off now than we were 30 years ago, with the Middle East today on fire with civil, sectarian, tribal and terrorist wars?


http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/can-america-fight-a-thirty-years-war/
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
User avatar
YMix
 
Posts: 4346
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: The Spread of the Caliphate: The [Wannabe] Islamic State

Postby kmich » Wed Oct 08, 2014 1:09 pm

Why stop at Isis when we could bomb the whole Muslim world? - George Monbiot

Let’s bomb the Muslim world – all of it – to save the lives of its people. Surely this is the only consistent moral course? Why stop at Islamic State (Isis), when the Syrian government has murdered and tortured so many? This, after all, was last year’s moral imperative. What’s changed?

How about blasting the Shia militias in Iraq? One of them selected 40 people from the streets of Baghdad in June and murdered them for being Sunnis. Another massacred 68 people at a mosque in August. They now talk openly of “cleansing” and “erasure” once Isis has been defeated. As a senior Shia politician warns, “we are in the process of creating Shia al-Qaida radical groups equal in their radicalisation to the Sunni Qaida”.

What humanitarian principle instructs you to stop there? In Gaza this year, 2,100 Palestinians were massacred: including people taking shelter in schools and hospitals. Surely these atrocities demand an air war against Israel? And what’s the moral basis for refusing to liquidate Iran? Mohsen Amir-Aslani was hanged there last week for making “innovations in the religion” (suggesting that the story of Jonah in the Qur’an was symbolic rather than literal). Surely that should inspire humanitarian action from above? Pakistan is crying out for friendly bombs: an elderly British man, Mohammed Asghar, who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, is, like other blasphemers, awaiting execution there after claiming to be a holy prophet. One of his prison guards has already shot him in the back.

Is there not an urgent duty to blow up Saudi Arabia? It has beheaded 59 people so far this year, for offences that include adultery, sorcery and witchcraft. It has long presented a far greater threat to the west than Isis now poses. In 2009 Hillary Clinton warned in a secret memo that “Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban … and other terrorist groups”. In July, the former head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, revealed that Prince Bandar bin Sultan, until recently the head of Saudi intelligence, told him: “The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally ‘God help the Shia’. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them.” Saudi support for extreme Sunni militias in Syria during Bandar’s tenure is widely blamed for the rapid rise of Isis. Why take out the subsidiary and spare the headquarters?

The humanitarian arguments aired in parliament last week, if consistently applied, could be used to flatten the entire Middle East and west Asia. By this means you could end all human suffering, liberating the people of these regions from the vale of tears in which they live.

Perhaps this is the plan: Barack Obama has now bombed seven largely Muslim countries, in each case citing a moral imperative. The result, as you can see in Libya, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan,Yemen, Somalia and Syria, has been the eradication of jihadi groups, of conflict, chaos, murder, oppression and torture. Evil has been driven from the face of the Earth by the destroying angels of the west.

Now we have a new target, and a new reason to dispense mercy from the sky, with similar prospects of success. Yes, the agenda and practices of Isis are disgusting. It murders and tortures, terrorises and threatens. As Obama says, it is a “network of death”. But it’s one of many networks of death. Worse still, a western crusade appears to be exactly what Isis wants.

Already Obama’s bombings have brought Isis and Jabhat al-Nusra, a rival militia affiliated to al-Qaida, together. More than 6,000 fighters have joined Isis since the bombardment began. They dangled the heads of their victims in front of the cameras as bait for war planes. And our governments were stupid enough to take it.

And if the bombing succeeds? If – and it’s a big if – it manages to tilt the balance against Isis, what then? Then we’ll start hearing once more about Shia death squads and the moral imperative to destroy them too – and any civilians who happen to get in the way. The targets change; the policy doesn’t. Never mind the question, the answer is bombs. In the name of peace and the preservation of life, our governments wage perpetual war.

While the bombs fall, our states befriend and defend other networks of death. The US government still refuses – despite Obama’s promise – to release the 28 redacted pages from the joint congressional inquiry into 9/11, which document Saudi Arabian complicity in the US attack. In the UK, in 2004 the Serious Fraud Office began investigating allegations of massive bribes paid by the British weapons company BAE to Saudi ministers and middlemen. Just as crucial evidence was about to be released, Tony Blair intervened to stop the investigation. The biggest alleged beneficiary was Prince Bandar. The SFO was investigating a claim that, with the approval of the British government, he received £1bn in secret payments from BAE.

And still it is said to go on. Last week’s Private Eye, drawing on a dossier of recordings and emails, alleges that a British company has paid £300m in bribes to facilitate weapons sales to the Saudi national guard. When a whistleblower in the company reported these payments to the British Ministry of Defence, instead of taking action it alerted his bosses. He had to flee the country to avoid being thrown into a Saudi jail.

There are no good solutions that military intervention by the UK or the US can engineer. There are political solutions in which our governments could play a minor role: supporting the development of effective states that don’t rely on murder and militias, building civic institutions that don’t depend on terror, helping to create safe passage and aid for people at risk. Oh, and ceasing to protect, sponsor and arm selected networks of death. Whenever our armed forces have bombed or invaded Muslim nations, they have made life worse for those who live there. The regions in which our governments have intervened most are those that suffer most from terrorism and war. That is neither coincidental nor surprising.

Yet our politicians affect to learn nothing. Insisting that more killing will magically resolve deep-rooted conflicts, they scatter bombs like fairy dust.
User avatar
kmich
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: The Spread of the Caliphate: The [Wannabe] Islamic State

Postby YMix » Wed Oct 08, 2014 1:39 pm

kmich wrote:Now we have a new target, and a new reason to dispense mercy from the sky, with similar prospects of success. Yes, the agenda and practices of Isis are disgusting. It murders and tortures, terrorises and threatens. As Obama says, it is a “network of death”. But it’s one of many networks of death. Worse still, a western crusade appears to be exactly what Isis wants.

Already Obama’s bombings have brought Isis and Jabhat al-Nusra, a rival militia affiliated to al-Qaida, together. More than 6,000 fighters have joined Isis since the bombardment began. They dangled the heads of their victims in front of the cameras as bait for war planes. And our governments were stupid enough to take it.


Yep.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
User avatar
YMix
 
Posts: 4346
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

PreviousNext

Return to Current Events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests