[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
How exactly does a war in Syria effect Russia directly?
Geography
[/quote]
what map are you looking at? it’s like your saying events in Peru effect us directly because of geography.
Geography has never stopped the Russians from meddling in our back yard regardless.
[/quote]
5000 miles can be covered a few days by car , I can tell you one thing it is a lot farther from the US to Syria than from Russia to Syria
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
How exactly does a war in Syria effect Russia directly?
Geography
[/quote]
what map are you looking at? it’s like your saying events in Peru effect us directly because of geography.
Geography has never stopped the Russians from meddling in our back yard regardless.
[/quote]
5000 miles can be covered a few days by car , I can tell you one thing it is a lot farther from the US to Syria than from Russia to Syria
[/quote]
it actually looks like a couple hundred miles on a map
[quote]Rushdie wrote:
I see lots of support for the airstrikes and also for going to the next step of boots on the ground. I really disagree. I think western intervention is simply prolonging what needs to happen, which is civil wars within the muslim world between the Islamists and the rest of the population.
My stance has both selfish but also altruistic points attached to it:
I saw Bill Maher mentioned this recently and while I don’t think bill is very close to me on most issues, he has a correct stance, in my opinion, on the middle east.
[/quote]
President pat would blow the shit out of ISIS. 100 sorties a day with Daisy Cutters, minimum. Cruise missiles, etc. Ground troops would be sent in to clear the rubble.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
When has a isolationist/reactive foreign policy worked before?
Worked great in Iraq after we withdrew. [/quote]
Yep, Iraq is a great example of the dangers of isolationism. If only we hadn’t been so isolationist. What were we thinking, isolationistically cooking up a phony case for war, toppling a dictator, and igniting a sectarian civil war during which IS developed into what it is today? So stupid, that isolationism.[/quote]
Sorry. The the WAR. The withdrawal.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
When has a isolationist/reactive foreign policy worked before?
Worked great in Iraq after we withdrew. [/quote]
Yep, Iraq is a great example of the dangers of isolationism. If only we hadn’t been so isolationist. What were we thinking, isolationistically cooking up a phony case for war, toppling a dictator, and igniting a sectarian civil war during which IS developed into what it is today? So stupid, that isolationism.[/quote]
Sorry. The the WAR. The withdrawal.
[/quote]
The war, occupation, and aftermath are all part of the same idiotic and adventurist event, causally intrarelated and inseparable from its parts. Furthermore, two consecutive presidents tried to negotiate a SOFA with jurisdictional immunity for US military personnel. This is not isolationism, it’s reality: it is much harder (and it requires much more external, unguaranteed cooperation) to hold something indefinitely together than to break it down. The key is to not wander face-first into walls in the first place.
Stupid, bad-faith decisions like OIF do enormous damage to American interests in part by creating no-win scenarios in which we play either spendthrift peacekeeper or passive witness to disintegration. The great lesson of Iraq and IS is crystal clear and has nothing to do with isolationism. Yes, we should have left some troops there, but this was tried twice and is but one of the foreseeable results of our great, conscious, comedy-of-errors contribution to the situation.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Rushdie wrote:
I see lots of support for the airstrikes and also for going to the next step of boots on the ground. I really disagree. I think western intervention is simply prolonging what needs to happen, which is civil wars within the muslim world between the Islamists and the rest of the population.
My stance has both selfish but also altruistic points attached to it:
I saw Bill Maher mentioned this recently and while I don’t think bill is very close to me on most issues, he has a correct stance, in my opinion, on the middle east.
[/quote]
President pat would blow the shit out of ISIS. 100 sorties a day with Daisy Cutters, minimum. Cruise missiles, etc. Ground troops would be sent in to clear the rubble.[/quote]
Machiavelli’s assertion that the main concern for a prince should be war, or the preparation thereof, comes to mind. The serious study of military matters is rare in this day and age.
The coalition has conducted an average of 143 sorties per day since operation Inherent resolve began.
The BLU-82 (daisy cutter) was retired in 2008 and replaced with the MOAB. You would order the use of MOABs in urban areas?
Cruise missiles (such as the U.S. Tomahawk) are traditionally used at the beginning of bombing campaigns to hit multiple high-value targets simultaneously while avoiding radar detection and maintaining the element of surprise. It would generally be inappropriate to employ them at this stage in targeted strikes against ISIL. Why spend $1.59 million for 1,000 pounds of high explosive when a couple of $25,000 of 500 pound JDAMs will suffice?
Ground troops? Of what composition? Of what number?
Along with targeted strikes against ISIL, the United States should pursue deligitimization. Delegitimization suggests that states and substate actors can use the religious or ideological rationale that informs terrorist behavior to influence it. In the case of ISIL, the organization has carefully elaborated a robust metanarrative that has proved to be remarkably successful as a recruitment tool, in identity formation for adherents, as public apologia and interpretation of the Koran, and as a weapon of war -the so-called media jihad. . Delegitimization would have the United States and its friends and allies use ISIL’s own narrative against it by targeting and degrading the ideological motivation that guides support for and participation in terrorism.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Rushdie wrote:
I see lots of support for the airstrikes and also for going to the next step of boots on the ground. I really disagree. I think western intervention is simply prolonging what needs to happen, which is civil wars within the muslim world between the Islamists and the rest of the population.
My stance has both selfish but also altruistic points attached to it:
I saw Bill Maher mentioned this recently and while I don’t think bill is very close to me on most issues, he has a correct stance, in my opinion, on the middle east.
[/quote]
President pat would blow the shit out of ISIS. 100 sorties a day with Daisy Cutters, minimum. Cruise missiles, etc. Ground troops would be sent in to clear the rubble.[/quote]
Machiavelli’s assertion that the main concern for a prince should be war, or the preparation thereof, comes to mind. The serious study of military matters is rare in this day and age.
The coalition has conducted an average of 143 sorties per day since operation Inherent resolve began.
The BLU-82 (daisy cutter) was retired in 2008 and replaced with the MOAB. You would order the use of MOABs in urban areas?
Cruise missiles (such as the U.S. Tomahawk) are traditionally used at the beginning of bombing campaigns to hit multiple high-value targets simultaneously while avoiding radar detection and maintaining the element of surprise. It would generally be inappropriate to employ them at this stage in targeted strikes against ISIL. Why spend $1.59 million for 1,000 pounds of high explosive when a couple of $25,000 of 500 pound JDAMs will suffice?
Ground troops? Of what composition? Of what number? [/quote]
Again the subtlties of hyperbole escapes you.
If your social skills lack this greatly in real life you best stay behind a desk with books and charts.
My statements where simply another way of saying I would be more aggressive. That I would have a clear objective and would consult the military as to the best way to meet that objective as quickly as possible.
This is certainly better then Obama’s declaration to the world that he had no plan to deal with ISIS. Then comes up later with a half assed coalition who by all practical measures does not really exist to degrade and roll them back.
Oh I know, all we have to do is show them the data that they are losing and they will throw up their hands, give up their weapons and release the land and the population they enjoy murdering with reckless abandon. Their losing they just don’t know it yet, they need to see SIPOC chart. Then they’ll get it.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
How exactly does a war in Syria effect Russia directly?
[/quote]
Geography
[/quote]
And they are spending their (Russian) money
[quote]pat wrote:
Oh I know, all we have to do is show them the data that they are losing and they will throw up their hands, give up their weapons and release the land and the population they enjoy murdering with reckless abandon. Their losing they just don’t know it yet, they need to see SIPOC chart. Then they’ll get it.[/quote]
lol ^
Medieval savages are not going to response to modern data and common sense.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
How exactly does a war in Syria effect Russia directly?
[/quote]
Geography
[/quote]
And they are spending their (Russian) money
[/quote]
Russia supports Assad > Assad kills his own people > people flee to western Europe > Russia destabilizes western Europe with no troops or shots fired
I don’t support it. They know they don’t have the weaponry or man power to defeat a Super Such as the United States. The only way they can possibly win is by luring us into another dragged out war, which would cripple us economically. The American people will begin to resent the government more and then comes the eventual collapse. Similar thing happened to Rome. This is why you see them really trying to get a reaction out of people by destroying ancient artifacts. They wants us there to fight and go bankrupt. We need a coalition and a plan that’ll actually work, something along the lines education and jobs.
Can we please just Nuke everything from the Western border of China to the Mediterranian sea ?
It would make life just so much easier !!
[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
Can we please just Nuke everything from the Western border of China to the Mediterranian sea ?
It would make life just so much easier !![/quote]
My fear is we deal with immigration (BEYOND) our imagination or we start killing the ZOMBIES ( HOMELESS) people . I , for the record am for immigration reform
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
How exactly does a war in Syria effect Russia directly?
[/quote]
Geography
[/quote]
And they are spending their (Russian) money
[/quote]
Russia supports Assad > Assad kills his own people > people flee to western Europe > Russia destabilizes western Europe with no troops or shots fired
[/quote]
America supports Al Qaeda , kills too many people
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Rushdie wrote:
I see lots of support for the airstrikes and also for going to the next step of boots on the ground. I really disagree. I think western intervention is simply prolonging what needs to happen, which is civil wars within the muslim world between the Islamists and the rest of the population.
My stance has both selfish but also altruistic points attached to it:
I saw Bill Maher mentioned this recently and while I don’t think bill is very close to me on most issues, he has a correct stance, in my opinion, on the middle east.
[/quote]
President pat would blow the shit out of ISIS. 100 sorties a day with Daisy Cutters, minimum. Cruise missiles, etc. Ground troops would be sent in to clear the rubble.[/quote]
Machiavelli’s assertion that the main concern for a prince should be war, or the preparation thereof, comes to mind. The serious study of military matters is rare in this day and age.
The coalition has conducted an average of 143 sorties per day since operation Inherent resolve began.
The BLU-82 (daisy cutter) was retired in 2008 and replaced with the MOAB. You would order the use of MOABs in urban areas?
Cruise missiles (such as the U.S. Tomahawk) are traditionally used at the beginning of bombing campaigns to hit multiple high-value targets simultaneously while avoiding radar detection and maintaining the element of surprise. It would generally be inappropriate to employ them at this stage in targeted strikes against ISIL. Why spend $1.59 million for 1,000 pounds of high explosive when a couple of $25,000 of 500 pound JDAMs will suffice?
Ground troops? Of what composition? Of what number? [/quote]
Again the subtlties of hyperbole escapes you.
If your social skills lack this greatly in real life you best stay behind a desk with books and charts.
My statements where simply another way of saying I would be more aggressive. That I would have a clear objective and would consult the military as to the best way to meet that objective as quickly as possible.
This is certainly better then Obama’s declaration to the world that he had no plan to deal with ISIS. Then comes up later with a half assed coalition who by all practical measures does not really exist to degrade and roll them back.
Oh I know, all we have to do is show them the data that they are losing and they will throw up their hands, give up their weapons and release the land and the population they enjoy murdering with reckless abandon. Their losing they just don’t know it yet, they need to see SIPOC chart. Then they’ll get it.[/quote]
Nothing is subtle about your sloppy ignorance of elementary military matters (e.g., your erroneous assertion that military officers are enlisted personnel). You’re content to literally make shit up and put forth an assertive position, only to retreat with cries of “only hyperbole” when someone calls you out. This is at least the third instance of such behavior.
The purpose of providing combat data was straightforward. You made a bullshit claim that Operation Inherent Resolve amounted to a slap on the wrist, and I provided evidence that showed that it was militarily significant. A group cannot lose that amount of hardware and personnel without being affected operationally, which is self-evident to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of military science and the balance of forces in the region. Your bullshit solution was to employ retired and incredibly expensive munitions while flying significantly fewer sorties than the coalition is currently deploying. When you got called out on it, you didn’t own up to your mistake. You moved the goal posts. “Oh, that was only hyperbole. If you were unable to see that (despite this being the internet and despite my prescriptive posts) you have Asperger’s. The same goes for the NPT. And Syria.”