And to avoid planning for the aftermath, hence the lack of troops despite generals telling Cheney they would need them. If Iraq teaches us anything, it's that going in half-cocked and expecting "shock and awe" to win the day without planning for the day after the victory parade is a dumb idea. Those saying we need to crush the enemy like we did to Germany and Japan - the US had to maintain a military presence in those nations for decades.
There is the "endgame" of destroying the power base of the Islamic State. It's a real endgame, it's a realistic endgame and it's a winnable endgame. It's an endgame which consists of, among other things, removing them from political power in Syria and the Levant, thus rendering them incapable of imposing their utter barbary on the people living there. Now, will this put an end to terror forever? No! Nothing will! But the Islamic State is a cancer on society and its successes are an inspiration to Jihadist cunts everywhere. Outside forces subsidize this terror. They supply these terrorists with arms. They train these terrorists. They pay them for their acts of terror. This also needs to stop. They all need to die. The people in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere supporting these people need to be brought before a war tribunal and executed. Will this happen? No. Clearly this is not in many leaders' interest. But you were asking me what I proposed. What I thought should be done. This is it. Stop pretending there is no solution. Stop saying nothing can be done. Stop saying we are helpless and all we can do is to keep sucking Islamist cock.
The difference between World War 2 and the current conflict is, after the war is over, we helped rebuild. Destroying a country and then leaving it for the dogs does nothing but create a whole new generation of enemies.
Yeah, so, you know, let's not do that. Also let's not train and fund cunts to rebel against the legal government of the country, institute Sharia law and massacre people.
I did not say that there was no solution or that we are helpless. I favour a concerted international effort to remove these people from control of their territory. It wouldn't be all that hard and it doesn't require the kind of enormous operation that you would like. The problem is that right now, TPTB are operating an Alice in Wonderland strategy of pretending to fight ISIS while at the same time aligning against the forces who oppose ISIS (Assad, Iran, PKK) and aligning with the forces who support ISIS (Saudi's, Qatar, Pakistan). This is because they don't really give two fucks and their strategy is aimed not at achieving security but at maintaining control of the regions oil. Do you think that your idea will even decrease terrorism? It doesn't seem to be a consideration. You're treating radical Islamism as a centralised organisation which can be decapitated, like any other state.
*Sigh* Political Islam is not exclusively a centralised organisation which can be decapitated like any other state. And I am saying by any means necessary. If you can reach the goal with five military advisors singing Kumbaya, by all means, do it. If you need two hundred thousand men, send them. Also: Why yes. Yes, I do. I think that killing terrorists reduces the number of terrorists. Your contention that killing ten thousand terrorists would somehow automatically result in the rise of twenty thousand more has no basis in reality. This isn't a fucking popular uprising. This isn't a workers' rebellion. These are disgusting barbarians, to a large extent foreign-funded and of foreign origin, hated by the vast majority of the Syrian population.
Yeah, that's why you said things like: That doesn't recognise that it might be possible to get rid of ISIS with some strategic realignments. It's megalomaniacal bullshit, designed to make you feel better by smashing some skulls.
No, it is not. It is a suggestion that the piecemeal bullshit people have been waging for years now does not work and that we need overwhelming force.
IOW a direct contradiction of Post #338 Also: How many such terrorists were in Iraq before the 2003 invasion? Where did the ones that arose come from?
If the gunmen were well trained they would not all be reloading at the same time. The ones reloading could be "covered" by the ones with adequate ammo in their weapons. But hey, that's just me.
A little off topic but.....has anyone posted a "Yakitty Sax" version video of this incident yet? Because you know it's coming soon.
How so? No, really, I enjoy watching you try to get my tail in a knot. It's just not working. Is it possible that I may have overstated how much force is needed? Sure, by all means, that's possible. Is it absolutely clear that we can't solve this and conclusively annihilate ISIS in Syria and the Levant merely by some "strategic realignment"? Yes. We need an exponential increase in the military force applied. We need a quick and devastating strike. We need to kill as many of these people as possible as quickly as possible to ensure that as few of these people as possible escape.
If you don't understand how "We need XYZ, including thousands of tanks, thousands of bombers, hundreds of thousands of troops and acceptance of collateral damage" is a contradiction of "if it only takes 5 guys singing Kumbaya then fine", I can't help you. I assure you that you did, and that isn't a minor issue when the consequences of employing such force is so far-reaching.
You seem to have a limited capacity for understanding irony. What I am calling for is saturating the airspace over Syria and the Levant and paralyzing ISIS by applying superior force in an attempt to destroy as much of their cadre and kill as many fighters as possible in as short a time as possible and that you need to accept a certain amount of collateral damage as collateral damage can never be completely avoided in a military conflict.
My irony-detector is just fine. I don't interpret your reference to singing Kumbaya as literal, but it is a recognition that we may not in fact need to employ the combined military force of planet earth in subjugating a ragtag group of irregulars with a few stolen tanks.
These people are in control of a vast geographical area. If the Islamist rebels (not just ISIS) were indeed just a "ragtag group of irregulars with a few stolen tanks" then the Syrian Army in conjunction with the Russian expeditionary air force would have destroyed them long ago. The fact that they have not been able to do so yet is conclusive proof that more force is needed. Now, is "the combined military might of Planet Earth" hyperbole? Yes, surely. A better way of putting it would be "as large a military force as is at all feasible to apply given the geographical situation".
You mean like the overwhelming force that was used in Iraq and indirectly led to the situation we have now? Destroying entire chunks of countries and killing a few hundred thousand or million people won't solve anything
The Syrian Army is a crock of shit. If the Turks and Saudi's would stop the flow of money, arms and other goodies, then they'd have been beaten a long time ago. If a moderately competent and equipped military force took them on, they'd also be beaten very quickly. (Although that won't stop terrorism either.) You either don't understand that or are seeking a display of military power for its own sake.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/li...acks-attackers-dead-mass-killing-live-updates At least one of the attackers was home grown and we'll known to police as an Islamic extremist.
People just got down on the ground and supposedly waited as the gunmen spent over and hour walking around shooting people in the head. Everyone should have tried to overwelmingly the half dozen gunmen because you die if you don't. Yes, it is hard to rally people quickly but once one started others would follow.
Bullshit. The Syrian Army may be poorly trained and governed but it comprises hundreds of thousands of men and it has an annual budget of around three billion US dollars. Then you have Hezbollah and other loyalist groups and part of the Russian air force. And then you have the annoying fact that the Turks and the Saudis don't stop their arms flow.
Actually, it's somewhat less than $2 billion, placing them 66th in the world behind such powerhouses as Romania, Ecuador, Peru and Morrocco. In expenditure terms it's even comparable to Ireland and we barely have a military. So, a crock of shit. Then that needs to change, and if the west wishes to affect change, that is where it would apply pressure.
Bystander effect. "Someone else will do something". And, for all the macho "if I'd been there" posturing, that's what terrorists rely on. The 9/11 rush on the hijackers? Came once the passengers realized the plan was to crash the plane. At that point, nothing left to lose. Barring a sudden rearrangement of physical reality so that Superman shows up, you aren't getting off that plane if you stay still. But in a ground hostage scenario? Every chance the cops/special forces are just about to strike. Or that the hostage takers want publicity more than they want to kill. Or any other reason that prevents you being the one to make a move. And say you do? Say you're a hero? Well done, you were the one in a hundred. You get shot. Anyone else in the crowd gonna step forward now? While there's still hope in their head that something else will happen to end this?
