quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Arming factions just leads to long-term problems

So lend/lease was a big mistake.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
And who do you expect to step up and take the lead?

Who says that anybody has to take the lead? There have been plenty of civil wars and internal conflicts over the course of history in which we felt no pressing need to "step up and take the lead"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
So lend/lease was a big mistake.

Apples and oranges, although in the case of Lend-Lease, other countries had already stepped up to take the lead.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


Pick a side

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
I believe I have said current estimates are 3 million Muslims would need to die fighting. That is not all Muslims.

The world has an Islam problem. Not a Buddhism problem, Christianity problem, Judaism problem, or even a Wiccan problem, but an Islam problem. That’s not fear-mongering; it is the demonstrable reality borne out every single day around the world. Anyone who won’t acknowledge this is either in denial or in agreement with the jihadists’ aims.

It really depends on your point of view whether you think other religions pose a problem. There are those who might honestly believe that there's a problem with Christianity, especially some of the more fringe Christian groups. And then there are quite a few Christians who have a very serious problem with the Wiccan religion, although at least they don't burn witches anymore. And then there have been plenty of Christians, Muslims, and others who have had some rather negative attitudes towards Jewish people, some of which involved some rather elaborate conspiracy theories about how Jewish people were planning to take over the whole world - remarkably similar to what you and others are claiming about the Muslims.

Are you seriously suggesting that Christians are currently beheading non-Christians, gunning them down, selling them into sex-slavery, kicking them out of their homes and countries, denying them basic human rights to life, liberty, and property, and embarking on gross violations of women's rights?

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


Pick a side

how's that concept worked for you over the years?
Which side?
When?
For how long?

I guess it'll be the side you want, when you want it, for as long as you want it.

And then the cycle repeats, again and again until......peace!

Before you unload on me I am not excluding the UK from this cycle of bullshit, but it ain't working

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


Pick a side

how's that concept worked for you over the years?
Which side?
When?
For how long?

I guess it'll be the side you want, when you want it, for as long as you want it.

And then the cycle repeats, again and again until......peace!

Before you unload on me I am not excluding the UK from this cycle of bullshit, but it ain't working

How about the side that isn't beheading people, isn't selling them as sex slaves, isn't destroying everyone who isn't 100% in line with them, and hasn't declared you to be their next target? Seems like an easy choice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
And who do you expect to step up and take the lead?

Who says that anybody has to take the lead? There have been plenty of civil wars and internal conflicts over the course of history in which we felt no pressing need to "step up and take the lead"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
So lend/lease was a big mistake.

Apples and oranges, although in the case of Lend-Lease, other countries had already stepped up to take the lead.

Are you actually saying that you think this is only a "civil war" when ISIS has made no secret of the fact that the establishment of a new Caliphate is only the beginning, that the ultimate target is the West?

quote:


Do you honestly believe that if we wait till they consolidate their position that they will suddenly become reasonable and can be "managed" as Obama puts it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
And who do you expect to step up and take the lead?

Who says that anybody has to take the lead? There have been plenty of civil wars and internal conflicts over the course of history in which we felt no pressing need to "step up and take the lead"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
So lend/lease was a big mistake.

Apples and oranges, although in the case of Lend-Lease, other countries had already stepped up to take the lead.

No, we were providing arms to one side. Picked a side and backed them. By the same token the Kurds and others are fighting ISIS. The "moderates" in Syria for example. All arming them would be is helping the people on the ground who are fighting the people who want to attack us after rolling over them. We make them strong enough that our air power can tip the balance without sending in U S ground troops. Doesn't that sound like a good idea. Pick a side and help them without sending in US ground troops if we can avoid it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


Pick a side

how's that concept worked for you over the years?
Which side?
When?
For how long?

I guess it'll be the side you want, when you want it, for as long as you want it.

And then the cycle repeats, again and again until......peace!

Before you unload on me I am not excluding the UK from this cycle of bullshit, but it ain't working

How about the side that isn't beheading people, isn't selling them as sex slaves, isn't destroying everyone who isn't 100% in line with them, and hasn't declared you to be their next target? Seems like an easy choice.

you miss the point as usual, the OP was "The complicated road ahead" not "Bomb the fuckers"

Which side are you arming this time? The anti IS side, yeah I get that, but which side are you picking to fuck up IS?

Iraq? the Kurds? Syria? Iran? others?

Which is less likely to bite you in the ass in years to come or do you not care?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
And who do you expect to step up and take the lead?

Who says that anybody has to take the lead? There have been plenty of civil wars and internal conflicts over the course of history in which we felt no pressing need to "step up and take the lead"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
So lend/lease was a big mistake.

Apples and oranges, although in the case of Lend-Lease, other countries had already stepped up to take the lead.

No, we were providing arms to one side. Picked a side and backed them. By the same token the Kurds and others are fighting ISIS. The "moderates" in Syria for example. All arming them would be is helping the people on the ground who are fighting the people who want to attack us after rolling over them. We make them strong enough that our air power can tip the balance without sending in U S ground troops. Doesn't that sound like a good idea. Pick a side and help them without sending in US ground troops if we can avoid it?

We've picked quite a few sides already; that's part of the problem here. At least with Lend-Lease in WW2, we picked the same side we were on in the previous war. And at the time, Germany, Italy, and Japan had the weapons, equipment, and wherewithal to be a significant threat to the United States, so helping the Allied cause was also necessary for our own defense. This is a completely different situation. ISIS has no large U-boat fleet in the Atlantic, nor do they have any Carriers in the Pacific poised to bomb Pearl Harbor.

Sure, we still have to be on guard against terrorists who might be operating internally or trying to get into the United States, but we'd have to do that anyway, regardless of whatever we do to them in the Middle East. Even if we carpet bomb the whole area occupied by ISIS and blow them all to holy hell, we're still going to have a potential threat of terrorism. There's always going to be survivors of people who will be even more pissed off than the last group - and likely even more desperate, too. This is a blood feud we're talking about, passed on from generation to generation. We've already gotten ourselves involved too deep as it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

Sure, we still have to be on guard against terrorists who might be operating internally or trying to get into the United States, but we'd have to do that anyway, regardless of whatever we do to them in the Middle East. Even if we carpet bomb the whole area occupied by ISIS and blow them all to holy hell, we're still going to have a potential threat of terrorism. There's always going to be survivors of people who will be even more pissed off than the last group - and likely even more desperate, too. This is a blood feud we're talking about, passed on from generation to generation. We've already gotten ourselves involved too deep as it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
They won't quit if we go after them, and they sure won't if we just play defense, remember the Maginot Line? That is the policy you are advocating.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
How many disasters will it take before the Neanderthal neo-con thugs realise that their 'policies' are not only proven failures in the past but also are doomed to failure in the present and future too? Can't they grasp that the goal is not just winning on the ground in a military sense, but winning the peace that follows military engagements? How many Iraqs must occur before these morons accept the most basic and obvious concept that we are dealing with a political not a religious problem and that the only possible viable solution must be a political one?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
How many disasters will it take before the Neanderthal neo-con thugs realise that their 'policies' are not only proven failures in the past but also are doomed to failure in the present and future too? Can't they grasp that the goal is not just winning on the ground in a military sense, but winning the peace that follows military engagements? How many Iraqs must occur before these morons accept the most basic and obvious concept that we are dealing with a political not a religious problem and that the only possible viable solution must be a political one?

I've encountered the kind of mentality you describe most of my life. It's even been parodied in popular culture, such as the characters "Frank Burns" or "Colonel Flagg" from M*A*S*H. Of course, I also keep in mind many of the other policies supported by neo-cons and the kinds of bedfellows they've had around the world, making it clear that their so-called desire to protect America is completely false and disingenuous. Remember, these are the same people who threaten to run off to foreign shores over taxes, so most neo-cons in America have the character and backbone of weaselly mafiosi. They think they can just "muscle" these people or "make hits," as if geopolitics is nothing more than a gang war to them.

quote:

Your post was in response to me, "polite"

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
How many disasters will it take before the Neanderthal neo-con thugs realise that their 'policies' are not only proven failures in the past but also are doomed to failure in the present and future too? Can't they grasp that the goal is not just winning on the ground in a military sense, but winning the peace that follows military engagements? How many Iraqs must occur before these morons accept the most basic and obvious concept that we are dealing with a political not a religious problem and that the only possible viable solution must be a political one?

I've encountered the kind of mentality you describe most of my life. It's even been parodied in popular culture, such as the characters "Frank Burns" or "Colonel Flagg" from M*A*S*H. Of course, I also keep in mind many of the other policies supported by neo-cons and the kinds of bedfellows they've had around the world, making it clear that their so-called desire to protect America is completely false and disingenuous. Remember, these are the same people who threaten to run off to foreign shores over taxes, so most neo-cons in America have the character and backbone of weaselly mafiosi. They think they can just "muscle" these people or "make hits," as if geopolitics is nothing more than a gang war to them.

If it's any consolation I think every country has their own variation on the neo-con theme. The Brits have their Colonel Blimp types. We have more than our fair share of rednecks here - even the PM here would be quite at home at a Tea Party Convention. Such people have never enjoyed a reputation for possessing vision that extends further than the end of their noses.

They all share the same jingoistic nationalism or ultra nationalism, the same nostalgia for a past that never was, the same simplistic 'good vs evil' rhetoric, the same racism lurking just below the surface, the same very limited and self serving view of history and the same ruthless perpetual pursuit of a dollar, no matter the social cost or the costs to others. Your description of them as "weaselly mafiosi' is apt. They're always happy to rush to war but careful to send only other people's kids off to get killed for the neo-cons' dangerous delusions.

It would be nice if there was some place we could send them all and they could swap and share their dangerous delusions among themselves, well away from the rest of us and unable to cause the rest of us any further bother. Antarctica springs to mind as a suitable place .......

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


Pick a side

how's that concept worked for you over the years?
Which side?
When?
For how long?

I guess it'll be the side you want, when you want it, for as long as you want it.

And then the cycle repeats, again and again until......peace!

Before you unload on me I am not excluding the UK from this cycle of bullshit, but it ain't working

How about the side that isn't beheading people, isn't selling them as sex slaves, isn't destroying everyone who isn't 100% in line with them, and hasn't declared you to be their next target? Seems like an easy choice.

you miss the point as usual, the OP was "The complicated road ahead" not "Bomb the fuckers"

Which side are you arming this time? The anti IS side, yeah I get that, but which side are you picking to fuck up IS?

Iraq? the Kurds? Syria? Iran? others?

Which is less likely to bite you in the ass in years to come or do you not care?

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


Pick a side

how's that concept worked for you over the years?
Which side?
When?
For how long?

I guess it'll be the side you want, when you want it, for as long as you want it.

And then the cycle repeats, again and again until......peace!

Before you unload on me I am not excluding the UK from this cycle of bullshit, but it ain't working

How about the side that isn't beheading people, isn't selling them as sex slaves, isn't destroying everyone who isn't 100% in line with them, and hasn't declared you to be their next target? Seems like an easy choice.

you miss the point as usual, the OP was "The complicated road ahead" not "Bomb the fuckers"

Which side are you arming this time? The anti IS side, yeah I get that, but which side are you picking to fuck up IS?

Iraq? the Kurds? Syria? Iran? others?

Which is less likely to bite you in the ass in years to come or do you not care?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
They won't quit if we go after them, and they sure won't if we just play defense, remember the Maginot Line? That is the policy you are advocating.

What makes you such an expert on what "they" will do anyway? The Maginot Line would be analogous only if we shared a common border with Muslim countries. Since we don't, I'm not sure why you think that's a relevant analogy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
They won't quit if we go after them, and they sure won't if we just play defense, remember the Maginot Line? That is the policy you are advocating.

What makes you such an expert on what "they" will do anyway? The Maginot Line would be analogous only if we shared a common border with Muslim countries. Since we don't, I'm not sure why you think that's a relevant analogy.