http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/...n-for-isi/
Around and around we go as the cycle of death continues. We bomb, we kill, we destroy, terrorists bomb, terrorists kill, terrorists destroy, we bomb, we kill, we destroy.
I think there is an argument to be made for invading FULL FORCE to eliminate ISIS (although we helped create them in the first place). This half-[BLEEP] approach is not going to do the people of our country any favors. It just prolongs the cycle. Either go in, wipe them out completely or stay out of it, protect your borders. That's my view anyway.
Any time your primary retaliatory tool is a drone strike, you run the risk of mistakes like this.
The truth is, if you're in a war like we are with ISIS, there's going to be collateral damage simply based on the fact that in most instances, these terrorist hide among the civilian population. While that doesn't appear to be the case in this instance, there are always going to be mistakes made during wars where innocents get caught in the crossfire.
During WW2, it's estimated that there were around 30 million civilian casualties on all sides. That's like saying the entire Texas was completely snuffed out during WW2. Pretty staggering figures, but then again, we weren't fighting a war in the era of political correctness where we must fight an antiseptic war where only the bad guys die. That's not reality.
It's a shame that this happened, and I have no doubt that someone's head is going to roll for allowing a strike that killed 60 civilians. This will no doubt lead to even heavier restrictions on the rules of engagement in the region.
I don't know that wiping them out is an option at this point. By killing one, we create two more. By killing civilians, we create hundreds. Conversely, whatever we're doing is an abject failure. It's easy to say train and arm our allies then walk away, but that's what we did in Vietnam and Afghanistan (1980's and 2000's), and look where it got us.
I don't know that there's a solution to the problem. Any course of action has serious consequences for us and benefits for ISIS. I have some ideas, none of them popular and all of them with huge drawbacks. The easiest one would be simple: no new immigrants accepted for the time being, no visas issued to anyone hailing from our with family ties to the Middle East. Isolationist? Yep, but until we figure out exactly what we're up against--and I'm not sure that we really know--isolationism is a key part of stemming the tide.
Let's not forget that congress needs to weigh in here...
We can't really go invading countries without a declaration..
Also, it's kinda complicated in Syria because of Russia's support of Assad...
The whole thing is awful and heart breaking... as you mentioned.
If you want to go full on isolationist, does that include leaving the middle east and removing all influence thereof?
Quote:If you want to go full on isolationist, does that include leaving the middle east and removing all influence thereof?
End all foreign support for middle eastern nations, yes. Businesses can still do as they please, but the US should no longer play protectorate with the middle east.
Quote:End all foreign support for middle eastern nations, yes. Businesses can still do as they please, but the US should no longer play protectorate with the middle east.
Right, because Western busenesses currently operating in the Middle East and who rely on American political power are really going to accept that.
Quote:Right, because Western busenesses currently operating in the Middle East and who rely on American political power are really going to accept that.
I was asked what I think should happen. I think an end to playing favorites in the middle east would be a strong start.
Quote:If you want to go full on isolationist, does that include leaving the middle east and removing all influence thereof?
Quote:Right, because Western busenesses currently operating in the Middle East and who rely on American political power are really going to accept that.
Quote:If you want to go full on isolationist, does that include leaving the middle east and removing all influence thereof?
Quote:End all foreign support for middle eastern nations, yes. Businesses can still do as they please, but the US should no longer play protectorate with the middle east.
The problem is....the Salafists want a complete Islamic state. They want the literal lifestyle of Mohammed. They want to take over Saudi Arabia, although the Wahabbists don't totally agree, they are similar. But it's the oil belt. It's also a strategic land area for multiple reasons. The Russians didn't invade due to terrorism, or to push their communist agenda...it was strategic.
It is very complex. I too, think, get the piss outta there and let them have at it. Hopefully, the moderate and so called allies can beat them.
We don't create allies or sympathies when there's collateral damage, a fancy word to say innocents were harmed.
So? Get rid of them once and for all? Boots on the ground? Where? Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq,Iran, Somalia..Etc..
IF they get their caliphate, will they be content? No. They'll have access to oil..therefor money and eventually a possible...probable nuke.
Killing Bin Laden slowed down his organization, but like a snake with its head cut off it still wiggles...or more like a worm that grows another appendage. But it's a start. Focus on leadership. And sadly, monitor places like mosques and the mullahs, imans,etc...and yes..here as well.
Quote:End all foreign support for middle eastern nations, yes. Businesses can still do as they please, but the US should no longer play protectorate with the middle east.
Does that include you know who?
Quote:Does that include you know who?
To paraphrase the great Samuel L. Jackson, "Did I stutter?".
Nope stay out, end the foreing aid even if it's temporary stop funding middle eastern oil and secure the boarders. Let Europe and Middle East fix their own problems. The EU wanted to bring muslins in by the thousands go ahead now you deal with the fallout I'm done.
While I don't support banning immigration based on a religion or race I absolutely agree with closing the boarders to specific nations. Close our embassy's and make it clear business with the united states is over until they get their act together and we don't care how they do it.
Quote:Does that include you know who?
Of course Isreal along with the rest of the middle East can either learn to pay their own way or compromise with their neighbors.
Quote:Right, because Western busenesses currently operating in the Middle East and who rely on American political power are really going to accept that.
That's the problem when did it become the states role to protect the interest of selected private business?
Quote:If you want to go full on isolationist, does that include leaving the middle east and removing all influence thereof?
Isolationism is to broad of a term, not funding foreign nations isn't isolationism. It would be isolation if we closed all trade exports and imports closed all foreing military bases, all immigration and communication no one's advocating that.
Quote:Let's not forget that congress needs to weigh in here...
We can't really go invading countries without a declaration..
Also, it's kinda complicated in Syria because of Russia's support of Assad...
The whole thing is awful and heart breaking... as you mentioned.
So what let Russia have its puppet state, if we end dependency on foreign oil want difference does it make?
Quote:To paraphrase the great Samuel L. Jackson, "Did I stutter?".
To quote literally millions,
"good luck with that".
Quote:Any time your primary retaliatory tool is a drone strike, you run the risk of mistakes like this.
The truth is, if you're in a war like we are with ISIS, there's going to be collateral damage simply based on the fact that in most instances, these terrorist hide among the civilian population. While that doesn't appear to be the case in this instance, there are always going to be mistakes made during wars where innocents get caught in the crossfire.
During WW2, it's estimated that there were around 30 million civilian casualties on all sides. That's like saying the entire Texas was completely snuffed out during WW2. Pretty staggering figures, but then again, we weren't fighting a war in the era of political correctness where we must fight an antiseptic war where only the bad guys die. That's not reality.
It's a shame that this happened, and I have no doubt that someone's head is going to roll for allowing a strike that killed 60 civilians. This will no doubt lead to even heavier restrictions on the rules of engagement in the region.
World War II embodies the kind of strategy I would actually be in favor of. Civilian casualties were much greater, but everybody was playing for keeps. There was no holding back, no proxy wars, no flying helicopters into a hornets nest with no real mission. When the war was over, there was no remnant of the enemy. The stuff we do today like arming mercenaries in Syria (who may join ISIS the next day) is so stupid. Vietnam was stupid. The way we fought in Afghanistan and Iraq was stupid. If you go in, go in and completely take control.
Did we do that with Japan? I think we did. We completely infused our culture into their own, gaining an ally. In that case, we did drop the bomb. But the job was at least finished. The war ended. It didn't drag on forever.
Part of the problem with our government is they have no desire to actually achieve peace. They have an agenda, and it doesn't have our best interests at heart. They dont want to eliminate terrorists. They need people to cause havoc. That way they have an excuse to make more war and take away rights of the people to gain power.
George Washington's farewell warned about getting involved in European and Asian affairs. His desire for the nation was to remain neutral. Welp, that ship has sailed.
Then you also have the famous Eisenhower speech about the military industrial complex. Yup, he was right.
You could certainly power a few small cities with the energy created from rising fuel prices.