I'm of two minds on this. One the one hand I'd be glad for the West to roll in and crush the fuckers. On the other, ISIS is more an idea than a physical enemy. As I heard someone say earlier today, to the Daesh, their Caliphate has no borders.
Anybody here remember what happened during the "Arab Spring" reached Libya, or am I the only one? The Republicans in Congres were screaming that we needed to do something about it, right up until the moment Obama said we did, and then they all started saying that it was none of our business and we needed to keep out of it. Put Hillary in the White House with a Republican-controlled Congress, and it'll be a repeat of that. Put Trump in the White House, with a Republican controlled Congress, and it'll be a repeat of when we went into Iraq, where nobody gave a shit, and everything was half-assed, at best. If Hillary has a Democratic-controlled Congress maybe things will be different, but I wouldn't bet on it. Put Trump in the White House with a Democratic-controlled Congress, and we'll have a case where the Dems scream to go to war, right up until the moment Trump says he wants to go to war, and they'll be against it. If the world wants to successfully go to war with ISIS, then they're going to have to do it, we in the US are too busy being dicks to one another to care about anything else.
As Matthew White puts it in “The Great Big Book of Horrible Things” when it comes down to going to war or suffering terrorism, you’re probably better off to tolerate the occasional car bomb or shooting than start a major war. Let’s put it this way. How many do you think are killed on the average in the U.S. and its allies and how often by terrorist attacks? Say about 25 killed roughly every two weeks for a total of 600 a year? Sounds about right to me. How many would be killed I a major ground war waged across several Middle Eastern Countries? How long would it last an how much it would cost? About 10,000 killed on the U.S., U.K. French, German and other nations side or twice as many as the invasion of Iraq sounds reasonable. Probably as many as 500,000 enemy combatants and civilians who get in the way. Call it 5 years at least 100 billion dollars a year. So that is 10,000 dead among the good guys, 500,000 dead among the bad guys and civilians and 500 billion in war costs (and we haven’t even began to talk about rebuilding devastated areas.). All to prevent about 3,000 killed over 5 years in terrorist attacks. Hell, you could pay the families of those killed and wounded in terrorist attacks ONE BILLION dollars each and come out way ahead. The math just doesn’t support a major war. We might just have to endure. Sorry for math in the Red Room.
Here's my take: nothing (and I mean 100 percent of nothing) is 100 percent. We will always have pockets of crazy. But yes a complete all out war on ISIS (since they are the densest concentration of the bad guys and the ones most organized and the only ones who can say they are an actual army) would make Europe much, much safer in the long run. In other words a few terrorist attacks doesn't mean all is lost - because "lone wolf" attacks will never stop - they don't stop here in the US. But an all out war on Europe would really suck. They had that in the past, and most likely they don't want that again. So I see nothing wrong with nipping this thing in the bud - time is not on "our" side. I would recommend it.
[soft whisper] We've secretly swapped the screen names of Dayton and Chup. Will anyone notice? Let's find out! [/sw]
A. In 15 years you've come out with less allied dead than if you didn't go to war. B. With a 50:1 kill ratio, just keep going till you run out of radical Muslims. C. They Syrians have already successfully engineered replacement batteries for Strela shoulder-launched surface to air missiles, of which they have thousands looted from Libya. Those can take down commercial aircraft. When hundreds of them find their way into Europe, European air travel basically ends. D. When Iran or Turkey start supplying nuclear weapons to the various Islamic terror groups, Europe basically ends.
Here's the deal on "the numbers". The US (let's assume they are doing the heavy lifting in any future war with ISIS) loses way, way more on a weekly basis via inner-city violence and car wrecks than we ever lose in combat during the same time period. And let's be honest - you put on a military uniform, you get paid pretty well (yes you earn it) but assume all related risks, as you should. We are the elite (compared to the average civilian) and accept our role. That said if the powers that be are not "in it to win it" then it's just so much shed blood. In other words unless the military powers of our countries agree to go all out and not get political (and let the military do their thing) then nothing will be accomplished. Between the US and western Europe our combined military has the capability to utterly destroy ISIS today. But ISIS knows we don't have the collective will to do this. They know we will accept occasional terrorism from various groups) versus an "all out" war with any tangible threat such as ISIS. Sad really - we know where the "bad guys" are concentrated but worry about letting Muslim immigrants into our backyard. I think that if we totally decimated ISIS and every other concentrated terror group the recent immigrants would lose steam quickly. No sense being a "lone wolf" doing the dirty work for people that don't exist anymore. So let's say occasional terrorist attacks still occur, which they will: taking out the concentration of bad guy will at least keep Europe safe, and by osmosis the US safe. No downside really to 100 percent all-out military force against ISIS while they are still concentrated in one area.
When you are agreeing with the likes of Dayton, gtardo, dinner, and Donald trump you really need to embrace the fact you have gone full Fucking retard. I can.agree that a ground war with a full scale occupation could bring stability to the middle east. This will involve locking down neighborhoods and fighting the extremists as criminals and rooting them out from every corner while taking complete control of these battling countries. It will be expensive, they will hate you for it, you will have to be fascist, and you have not seen anything like the casualties and terrorism that would come from that yet. This will actually fuel terrorism in places like Europe and America. Your best bet is to put Muslims in camps for the generations it will take for them to calm down. I am one who thinks there are plenty of great Muslims, but you are not going to know who is who and if you are going to go full war you need to embrace the cruel and hard way you need to treat your enemies and their people or you will endanger your own people until you do. There are two isis. One is a tribal force fighting in the middle east. The other is an idea that inspires terrorism in other countries. You could probably pound isis the occupying force until it breaks and reforms as something else, but you cannot stop an idea with that sort of force. However if you are so hell bent on it you know where isis is. Get together with your boyfriend Dayton and pick up a dinner and go save us all from a bunch of people we are in no danger of being destroyed by.
But that "ideal" will never...go....away. We have it in the US as well as Europe. But those idealists will never have enough power to bring us to our knees. Think about it - three days after the fact we will forget all about it, especially in the US where we are knee deep in crazy killings. But that ISIS fighting in the middle east actually has the capability, financial funding, and military experience to be an actual threat to Europe and to a lesser level the US.
This is exactly why I do not support a war for the purposes of squashing extremism. I consider the terrorist attacks of Islamic extremism outside of countries controlled by the religion to be criminal acts by specific people or groups. I would consider law enforcement our best bet for internal events. We treat them like gangs and lone wolf killers and use the methods developed to stop them for our security. I am sad for the French people, but there is a reason they have faced such violence and it is because they are open to violent acts. I think that their non Muslim citizens have a purpose for.being peaceful, but the Muslims in the ghettos are not loyal to France and France does not want them. You add to that a lad system where guns and other items are easily obtained and you are going to get conflict from the poor Muslim population as you would any population that is put out like that. Look at blacks in the US. Segregation and prejudice has made them feel separate from our population. This has fueled gang membership because they want something to belong to, and some sort of justice method. This is also an area where they can profit and feed themselves. Ethnic ghettos do not just from on their own. They are a product of prejudice and segregation attitudes of the main populace of a country.
ISIS is attacking our freedom by abusing our freedom to hurt others. That is what we have to concentrate on internally to be victorious.
Black gang membership and other internal problems in the black community has been fueled by something else entirely that you don't have a clue as to what it is.
Yeah. It's that infamous European gun culture. Oh, and Muslim terrorists can always get guns because they're Muslim terrorists.
Although unrealistic, what you really need to do is get russia heavily involved and let them take care of isis, with some support from the west.
No, Tererun is pretty much right on thst account. A lotta wealth left black neighborhoods after segregation ended because we'd been trained to think hanging on the white man's coattails was the way to go. So they rushed into suburbs trying to be respectable and accepted by a culture that wanted none of it. What was left were the working class who couldn't get out as the hippie drug users introduced pot, and then later harder drugs into our communities. And welfare programs that all but discouraged two parent family units.
I think Iran should commit to total war against ISIS. They would be the most effective at beating them and they also have more reason than anyone else to get rid of ISIS. IS represents an existential threat to the Shiite Muslims. Let them fight it out amongst themselves.
Yes, the racist white boy is going to tell me how it is to be black. Please do tell us what your white masters at faux news have told you about black people.
But I should listen to Dayton because he knows better than you do about black people because he is a white racist idiot. I cannot even imagine what the fuck he was thinking when he was saying that shit. I try to listen to and understand the black people I meet. Why on earth would I take dayton's word over the people living it?
You must be confused because I think it is beneath me to mock your creative outlets. Don't start thinking I like you or respect whatever rocks are rolling around in your head. No, you are dumb as a stump. I just don't like mocking a person's creative work unless there is an understanding it is just about comedy. That is just a personal value of mine for anyone. So don't think your Lilly white cowardly racist brainfucked ass is going to be telling me how things are for black people. You do not respect them, and that means you cannot open your mind enough to make a propped attempt to empathise or understand them because you will always trump their ideas with yours or someone else's. You are a terrible person and part of the problem. Yes your mancrush chup can be just as terrible as you are. So please do not think I am any support for you. I just use you to show what an ass chup is, and how stupid making fun of a halfwit's creative work is when they give you so much real shit to work with.
I have noticed that blacks are often a stepping stone for white middle class homeowners to move on up while the previous property loses investment value. For example a new starter neighborhood gets built. A bunch of white people starting off get the new homes. Now a bunch of them are going to upgrade at the same time and move out. Their homes will normally have gained some value. The homes are sold and then eventually there is a falloff as deals are made for blacks. Then the land values drop while the white people who moved up keep a progression of profit on investment because they went to the next stage. Meanwhile the loss of value in those homes means you cannot bargain into the next tier with them. My family got.to the point of being able to buy for cash because of increased home values. This is what made my Italian side able to own businesses and it is why the other side is so wealthy despite not having big time jobs. That gives a family strength to help the next generations do better. However, that has been undermined for the black community by lowering property values of black neighborhoods. The family home has always been an important investment, but if you being you devalue your property that is an amazing hardship. Yes, studies show sales of black people's property are for less overall.
Given our recent history and blowing the shit out of a place and royally fucking up the post-war part, then looking aghast as radical terrorists spring up with an anti-west boner, simply engaging in a ground war won't achieve anything for long. We'd destroy ISIS, and in under 5 years ISIS:TNG would pop up, rinse and repeat ad nauseum. There needs to be something after the war. We learned that after WW1, and after WW2 we mostly didn't repeat the same mistakes. North Africa and the Middle East need a 50 year long occupation, with investment in jobs, infrastructure, social structures like education and, most importantly, governments with an enforced separation of church and state and western social liberal values imposed relentlessly. Make Islam in NA/ME what Christianity is today in most of Europe. And that needs to dovetail with creating temporary state-recognised Muslim institutions in the West, designed purely to modernise Islam and bring it screaming and kicking into the 21st century, ending the likes of faith schools and tackling the metropolitan left's love affair with Islam. It's just another fucking religion, they don't fawn over Christianity, or Judaism (well, unless Madonna is wearing some silly string around her frigging wrist) and Buddhism was soooo last decade dahlink. So lets stop mollycoddling and celebrating it. It can sit in the same corner as all the other silly Bronze Age invisible sky-bloke fairy tales. And that means binning things like arranged marriages, except through those institutions, relentlessly tackling patriarchal and familial pressure, not turning a blind eye to third-world practices being enacted in first-world countries. It'll piss off other religions too, the Jewish community would be hit by some of those restrictions for example, but tough shit. Welcome to the 21st century, don't like it? Fuck off somewhere and build yourself an Amish-stylee Paradise, and we'll let Trump play at wall-building, penning you in for the benefit of everyone who can take a shit without a deity's blessing. And it'll never happen. Reforming NA/ME would be expensive, the left would squeal about imperialism - physical and social, the right would squeal about validating Islam, the Muslims and Jews would finally have a cause to unite over in something threatening their cosy enclaves and, other than France and the UK, Europe is a very inward-looking area, prolly down to the post-imperial hangover. The UK wears a hairshirt about it's imperial past, France still indulges in theirs behind the scenes, and the rest conveniently forget about theirs so they can point fingers without shame, well, point fingers when they're not sitting in their hands doing fuck-nothing that is. Centre-left governments wouldn't want to lose the minority votes, centre-right governments wouldn't want the bad press. Plus, many on the left couldn't condemn the kind of hectoring, bullying, nudge-style pressure religious communities inflict on their children to conform, because it's precisely what they like the state doing too. Just for different outcomes, and they can't deal with the prospect that their means could be a moral grey area, for they have the starchy rod of self-righteousness rammed firmly up their colons. It's like someone went round tuvixing neo-cons and hippies. Others would whine about money, that could be spent in "skoolz'n'ospitals", was being spent on nation building. And many on the right would shit bricks at us spending billions levelling up the area, sour and puckered faces who'd much rather we build a big fence around the country, with signs saying "no one darker than a ginger with sunburn allowed in" than actually benefit from a wider, more stable world. So instead we leave the area to slope towards the Stone Age, whilst importing terrorism, foreign and domestic, and hope the US will ride to the rescue whilst Europe sneers it ersatz superiority at it. Modern western civilisation: we've reached the point where we'd rather die in tranches, live in increasing fear and watch entire faraway nations get devoured by savages than actually do anything meaningful about it ,just drop a few bombs and engage in a bit of hand-wringing to salve the conscience, chuck a fiver to a charidee and watch the Band Aid concert. This pinnacle looks an awful a lot like a nadir from that aspect.
Back in the day, I was very much in the "Fuck 'em, they can clean up" camp after the war, but you nailed exactly why that will not work. That attitude is why we got WWII.
We've lost sight of the long game. From politics to economics, it's all short-termism. And right now we're in a race for technology to reach a point where whatever devastating effects all this short-termism will have (and it will), will be mitigated by whatever doodads we come up with. I'd rather we started taking the long view though, it's safer bet.
