[wmbondurant]

Originally Posted by a175 ↗

A sinking ship indeed, or at least I hope it sinks soon.
They could have saved themselves a good bit of trouble by not joining in the first place.
Seeing that ISIS has no legitimate scholarly support from even Sunni jurisprudence, they shouldn't be surprised that their "jihad" is falling apart.

I read an article the other day stating Isis has in their ranks 31,000 pregnant women . It's a bit staggering to think this crap go on for years to come . We are not going to win minds and hearts in time ( or ever ) to make a difference in this battle . So, it seems we need a sufficient and expedient eradication of this cancer .

[icheerthebull]

Originally Posted by a175 ↗

One thing I'd like to see is if/how their logistical supply chain is being tracked.
The never ending supply of jumpsuits and kit intrigues me. I think I've read that they are manufacturing most of their own stuff now, but the raw materials have to come from somewhere.

The turkish state

[a175]

Originally Posted by wmbondurant ↗

I read an article the other day stating Isis has in their ranks 31,000 pregnant women . It's a bit staggering to think this crap go on for years to come . We are not going to win minds and hearts in time ( or ever ) to make a difference in this battle . So, it seems we need a sufficient and expedient eradication of this cancer .

I wonder how many of them are there on their own accord.
ISIS is a cancer, there is no doubt. But just like a cancer, we need both the cure and the prevention, preferably one that doesn't include genocide.

Our relationships with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and our constant badgering of the Middle East is like a skin-cancer survivor using a tanning bed.

Take these women for example. The chances that they don't want to be there in the first place are pretty decent. The fetuses certainly have no say in the matter. We can deal with the direct threat, which is the radical, violent, hate-filled Salafism pushed by the Saudis. Or we can carpet-bomb the area indiscriminately. The second option carries the risk of radicalizing people that in all likelihood have no ill will towards us by, in a twisted way, confirming the "you are either with us or against us" mindset of Salafism.
The first option is better, but far from easy. It requires serious introspection and some difficult decisions to be made. A complete rehash of who we see and allies and enemies, and a commitment to do what's best for ourselves first rather than what's best for who we think is our friends.
As it stands right now, we are more interested in fighting Assad than fighting ISIS. Assad may very well be an asshole, as are most dictators. But our opposition against him puts us in direct alliance with villains and indirect alliance with terrorists, whether we want to admit it or not.
Part of this is taking a look at how we treat people in their own countries. I'm not saying to open the flood gates and let them come here. But we should, if we are going to insist on remaining in the region, give them something to look forward to.
It's just frustrating, man. All of this was avoidable to a large degree. The warning signs were clear, but we ignored them. Now we are chasing our own tails trying to fix a problem while maintaining the same policies. It's the definition of insanity.
In military terms, we never really conducted an adequate AAR over the last half-century of global conflict.

[bob351]

You dont cure cancer by asking it to go away nicely. You attack the fuck out of both the good and bad cells sometimes with radiation and hope you dont kill too many good cells in the process...

Clearly our surgical removal of the cancer cells via the air force isn't working, it just keeps spreading, so I think drastic measures need to be taken.


So I agree with you, lets treat it like the cancer it is, a nuclear solution is best.


(im kidding)

[wmbondurant]

Originally Posted by a175 ↗

I wonder how many of them are there on their own accord.
ISIS is a cancer, there is no doubt. But just like a cancer, we need both the cure and the prevention, preferably one that doesn't include genocide.

Our relationships with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and our constant badgering of the Middle East is like a skin-cancer survivor using a tanning bed.

Take these women for example. The chances that they don't want to be there in the first place are pretty decent. The fetuses certainly have no say in the matter. We can deal with the direct threat, which is the radical, violent, hate-filled Salafism pushed by the Saudis. Or we can carpet-bomb the area indiscriminately. The second option carries the risk of radicalizing people that in all likelihood have no ill will towards us by, in a twisted way, confirming the "you are either with us or against us" mindset of Salafism.
The first option is better, but far from easy. It requires serious introspection and some difficult decisions to be made. A complete rehash of who we see and allies and enemies, and a commitment to do what's best for ourselves first rather than what's best for who we think is our friends.
As it stands right now, we are more interested in fighting Assad than fighting ISIS. Assad may very well be an asshole, as are most dictators. But our opposition against him puts us in direct alliance with villains and indirect alliance with terrorists, whether we want to admit it or not.
Part of this is taking a look at how we treat people in their own countries. I'm not saying to open the flood gates and let them come here. But we should, if we are going to insist on remaining in the region, give them something to look forward to.
It's just frustrating, man. All of this was avoidable to a large degree. The warning signs were clear, but we ignored them. Now we are chasing our own tails trying to fix a problem while maintaining the same policies. It's the definition of insanity.
In military terms, we never really conducted an adequate AAR over the last half-century of global conflict.

Sadly avoidable , indeed !There was and is an absence of leader ship. It's not one persons or countries but a culmination of poor policy and poor leadership . I want so to blame this one or that one but we are to a point now where that's not prudent , we just need to come together and fix it and in doing so, recognize our policy failures and adjust accordingly ; then we can work on our own indiscretions . Of course , common sense has not been prevailing and most probably will not in the present future .
Meantime, millions of people are suffering and displaced from their homes of choice . The humanitarian crisis is shoved under the rug . Arabs countries turning a blind eye to the turmoil and secretly funding the ongoing hell . Fertilizing the grass then excoriating it for growing . It's a sad joke with no real concrete remedy .

[wmbondurant]

Originally Posted by a175 ↗

I wonder how many of them are there on their own accord.
ISIS is a cancer, there is no doubt. But just like a cancer, we need both the cure and the prevention, preferably one that doesn't include genocide.

Our relationships with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and our constant badgering of the Middle East is like a skin-cancer survivor using a tanning bed.

Take these women for example. The chances that they don't want to be there in the first place are pretty decent. The fetuses certainly have no say in the matter. We can deal with the direct threat, which is the radical, violent, hate-filled Salafism pushed by the Saudis. Or we can carpet-bomb the area indiscriminately. The second option carries the risk of radicalizing people that in all likelihood have no ill will towards us by, in a twisted way, confirming the "you are either with us or against us" mindset of Salafism.
The first option is better, but far from easy. It requires serious introspection and some difficult decisions to be made. A complete rehash of who we see and allies and enemies, and a commitment to do what's best for ourselves first rather than what's best for who we think is our friends.
As it stands right now, we are more interested in fighting Assad than fighting ISIS. Assad may very well be an asshole, as are most dictators. But our opposition against him puts us in direct alliance with villains and indirect alliance with terrorists, whether we want to admit it or not.
Part of this is taking a look at how we treat people in their own countries. I'm not saying to open the flood gates and let them come here. But we should, if we are going to insist on remaining in the region, give them something to look forward to.
It's just frustrating, man. All of this was avoidable to a large degree. The warning signs were clear, but we ignored them. Now we are chasing our own tails trying to fix a problem while maintaining the same policies. It's the definition of insanity.
In military terms, we never really conducted an adequate AAR over the last half-century of global conflict.

I'm all in

[wmbondurant]

Originally Posted by a175 ↗

I wonder how many of them are there on their own accord.
ISIS is a cancer, there is no doubt. But just like a cancer, we need both the cure and the prevention, preferably one that doesn't include genocide.

Our relationships with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and our constant badgering of the Middle East is like a skin-cancer survivor using a tanning bed.

Take these women for example. The chances that they don't want to be there in the first place are pretty decent. The fetuses certainly have no say in the matter. We can deal with the direct threat, which is the radical, violent, hate-filled Salafism pushed by the Saudis. Or we can carpet-bomb the area indiscriminately. The second option carries the risk of radicalizing people that in all likelihood have no ill will towards us by, in a twisted way, confirming the "you are either with us or against us" mindset of Salafism.
The first option is better, but far from easy. It requires serious introspection and some difficult decisions to be made. A complete rehash of who we see and allies and enemies, and a commitment to do what's best for ourselves first rather than what's best for who we think is our friends.
As it stands right now, we are more interested in fighting Assad than fighting ISIS. Assad may very well be an asshole, as are most dictators. But our opposition against him puts us in direct alliance with villains and indirect alliance with terrorists, whether we want to admit it or not.
Part of this is taking a look at how we treat people in their own countries. I'm not saying to open the flood gates and let them come here. But we should, if we are going to insist on remaining in the region, give them something to look forward to.
It's just frustrating, man. All of this was avoidable to a large degree. The warning signs were clear, but we ignored them. Now we are chasing our own tails trying to fix a problem while maintaining the same policies. It's the definition of insanity.
In military terms, we never really conducted an adequate AAR over the last half-century of global conflict.

I'm all in on an ISIS genocide , wipe Thier asses off the face of the earth . Given the chance ,they would do the same to all of us that didn't succumb to Thier will .

[a175]

Originally Posted by wmbondurant ↗

I'm all in on an ISIS genocide , wipe Thier asses off the face of the earth . Given the chance ,they would do the same to all of us that didn't succumb to Thier will .

I'm with you there. I was referring to a genocide based on religious/ethnic characteristics and such.

Let me give you an example of just how f'd up this whole thing is... Hezbollah (including their Christian and mixed-faith units, and supported by Iran) and Russia are now doing more to stop ISIS than the "good guys" are. Turkey is busy fighting Kurds and Assad loyalists, both of whom are fighting ISIS. Therefore, even without their covert direct support for ISIS, they are indirectly aiding them by killing their enemies. The same with Saudi Arabia and some of the other Gulf Arab states. Israel, who by all rights should be freaking the hell out right now, is on the same side as the Saudis... which is ironic a.f. because the Saudi state's Wahhabis aren't exactly fans of the Jews. America and Europe have been playing almost the same game as Turkey, except it seems like we've been on everyone's team at one point.

It's like the culmination of nearly a century of bad decisions. The "coyote ugly" of geopolitics.

I swear, man. Next time somebody tells us they need our help because there is a big bad evil dictator, we need to just send some beans and rice and a "best wishes" Hallmark card. No more military aid. No more advisors. We just need to sit the next few rounds out and work on our own messes for awhile.

[wmbondurant]

Originally Posted by a175 ↗

I'm with you there. I was referring to a genocide based on religious/ethnic characteristics and such.

Let me give you an example of just how f'd up this whole thing is... Hezbollah (including their Christian and mixed-faith units, and supported by Iran) and Russia are now doing more to stop ISIS than the "good guys" are. Turkey is busy fighting Kurds and Assad loyalists, both of whom are fighting ISIS. Therefore, even without their covert direct support for ISIS, they are indirectly aiding them by killing their enemies. The same with Saudi Arabia and some of the other Gulf Arab states. Israel, who by all rights should be freaking the hell out right now, is on the same side as the Saudis... which is ironic a.f. because the Saudi state's Wahhabis aren't exactly fans of the Jews. America and Europe have been playing almost the same game as Turkey, except it seems like we've been on everyone's team at one point.

It's like the culmination of nearly a century of bad decisions. The "coyote ugly" of geopolitics.

I swear, man. Next time somebody tells us they need our help because there is a big bad evil dictator, we need to just send some beans and rice and a "best wishes" Hallmark card. No more military aid. No more advisors. We just need to sit the next few rounds out and work on our own messes for awhile.

Exactly there's a good reason they need to be ruled with an iron fist .lol. All the democratic state building was a huge disaster . they will sort it out eventually .
"From the ashes she will rise "

[a175]

Originally Posted by wmbondurant ↗

Exactly there's a good reason they need to be ruled with an iron fist .lol. All the democratic state building was a huge disaster . they will sort it out eventually .
"From the ashes she will rise "

There's some truth to that. I wouldn't say I'm pro-dictator and anti-democratic state, we just need to be prepared what votes will bring and not rush to change the leadership if it's not who we want.
It's reminiscent of "he may be a bastard, but he's our bastard".
There are some dictators that have done a better job of governing than an elected government, but then again there have been leaders elected who never really had a chance because they were overthrown.
Take Egypt for example. Hosni Mubarak was an asshole, and our support of his dictatorship was one of the prime motivations of Sunni extremists calling us the "far enemy" and the "head of the snake". Every time they raised legitimate grievances, they were shut down, often brutally. They saw us as being the force that kept Mubarak in power, so they changed their tactics to fighting us instead of just him. Eventually they had their Arab Spring, which ended with the Muslim Brotherhood winning the election. That lasted about as long as you could imagine. We supported El-Sisi's coup in which Morsi was deposed and Tantawi installed.
Iran is another example.

That's kind of our m.o. We support brutal dictatorships as long as we're making a buck. When our pocketbooks are threatened, we smash them and plant the seeds of democracy (well, not the democracy we use in America, but what we feel is acceptable for them). If they have the balls to elect someone who's good for them but not for us, we smash them.

We really, really need to get out of that business.