| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Sad world
ISIL has reportedly beheaded another American journalist.
|
Sad world
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
ISIL has reportedly beheaded another American journalist. Says they do not care what the world thinks about them. Makes them even scarier to a sane person. |
Sad world
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 14:04:09 -0500, Califbill
wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: ISIL has reportedly beheaded another American journalist. Says they do not care what the world thinks about them. Makes them even scarier to a sane person. === Yes but it will also make it easier to marshall world opinion against them. No civilized society goeas around beheading journalists. They are not exactly an invincible force if everyone stands fast against them. Somewhere they have a source of funding and supplies. Without that they could not last long. If nothing else it should be relatively easy to kill their telecom, media and internet. Where do they go after that, carrier pigeons? |
Sad world
On 9/2/2014 1:31 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
ISIL has reportedly beheaded another American journalist. Time to turn some home towns into parking lots... |
Sad world
On 9/2/2014 3:26 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 14:04:09 -0500, Califbill wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: ISIL has reportedly beheaded another American journalist. Says they do not care what the world thinks about them. Makes them even scarier to a sane person. === Yes but it will also make it easier to marshall world opinion against them. No civilized society goeas around beheading journalists. They are not exactly an invincible force if everyone stands fast against them. Somewhere they have a source of funding and supplies. Without that they could not last long. If nothing else it should be relatively easy to kill their telecom, media and internet. Where do they go after that, carrier pigeons? Where do Pigeons sit? PARKING LOTS seria, iraq, etc |
Sad world
|
Sad world
On 9/2/14 3:40 PM, KC wrote:
On 9/2/2014 1:31 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: ISIL has reportedly beheaded another American journalist. Time to turn some home towns into parking lots... That's just naive and stupid. |
Sad world
On 9/2/14 4:38 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/2/2014 4:24 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 9/2/14 3:53 PM, wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:26:29 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 14:04:09 -0500, Califbill wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: ISIL has reportedly beheaded another American journalist. Says they do not care what the world thinks about them. Makes them even scarier to a sane person. === Yes but it will also make it easier to marshall world opinion against them. No civilized society goeas around beheading journalists. They are not exactly an invincible force if everyone stands fast against them. Somewhere they have a source of funding and supplies. Without that they could not last long. If nothing else it should be relatively easy to kill their telecom, media and internet. Where do they go after that, carrier pigeons? I like the line from "Alien". "Nuke them from orbit" Unfortunately, we didn't learn the lessons of Vietnam and we didn't learn from the Russian disaster in Afghanistan. These modern-day terrorists have no real hometown or territory anymore. They might take a town for a while, and then they'll give it up for another town. If you bomb the town into the stone age (where it probably is already), you end up killing lots of non-combatants and you make lots of converts. The only real way to fight these guys is to have the folks whose towns they take over fight back. But then you don't know what you are ending up with. Unfortunately air strikes alone won't help much other than providing a minor moral booster to those locals willing to fight, IMO. It's going to require "boots on the ground" at some point. Many "expert" commentators claim the USA lacks the "stomach" for a serious, boots on the ground retaliation. I'd suggest they survey those who would actually do the fighting ... namely members of the US armed forces. I'll bet the answer would be unanimous. Ideally it should be a multi-national coalition, but the USA needs to lead the way. Boot on the ground was a failed policy in Afghanistan for Russia and the United States, and it was a failed policy in Iraq for the United States. Toppling Saddam only made Iraq worse than it was. |
Sad world
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/2/14 3:53 PM, wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:26:29 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 14:04:09 -0500, Califbill wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: ISIL has reportedly beheaded another American journalist. Says they do not care what the world thinks about them. Makes them even scarier to a sane person. === Yes but it will also make it easier to marshall world opinion against them. No civilized society goeas around beheading journalists. They are not exactly an invincible force if everyone stands fast against them. Somewhere they have a source of funding and supplies. Without that they could not last long. If nothing else it should be relatively easy to kill their telecom, media and internet. Where do they go after that, carrier pigeons? I like the line from "Alien". "Nuke them from orbit" Unfortunately, we didn't learn the lessons of Vietnam and we didn't learn from the Russian disaster in Afghanistan. These modern-day terrorists have no real hometown or territory anymore. They might take a town for a while, and then they'll give it up for another town. If you bomb the town into the stone age (where it probably is already), you end up killing lots of non-combatants and you make lots of converts. The only real way to fight these guys is to have the folks whose towns they take over fight back. But then you don't know what you are ending up with. As I stated earlier. We do not have the stomach for this fight. If we want to win, every time there is a large group of them, we blast them. Lots of collateral damage, but eventually the word will get out that they better not let ISIS in, or the cure is worse. |
Sad world
On 9/2/2014 4:47 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 16:24:22 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 9/2/14 3:53 PM, wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:26:29 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 14:04:09 -0500, Califbill wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: ISIL has reportedly beheaded another American journalist. Says they do not care what the world thinks about them. Makes them even scarier to a sane person. === Yes but it will also make it easier to marshall world opinion against them. No civilized society goeas around beheading journalists. They are not exactly an invincible force if everyone stands fast against them. Somewhere they have a source of funding and supplies. Without that they could not last long. If nothing else it should be relatively easy to kill their telecom, media and internet. Where do they go after that, carrier pigeons? I like the line from "Alien". "Nuke them from orbit" Unfortunately, we didn't learn the lessons of Vietnam and we didn't learn from the Russian disaster in Afghanistan. These modern-day terrorists have no real hometown or territory anymore. They might take a town for a while, and then they'll give it up for another town. If you bomb the town into the stone age (where it probably is already), you end up killing lots of non-combatants and you make lots of converts. The only real way to fight these guys is to have the folks whose towns they take over fight back. But then you don't know what you are ending up with. The difference is ISIS has intentions of actually becoming a state with assets. BTW that was just metaphor, meaning I am not sure we should really be that involved. I am not sure we really have a policy that would be very effective, unless we just propped up Assad and left it to him. All you have to do to "prop up Assad" is to give him a bottle of Viagra.. Comeon, you gotta' admit, the guy does look like a huge penis with a suit on, doesn't he? |
Sad world
On 9/2/14 6:41 PM, KC wrote:
On 9/2/2014 4:47 PM, wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 16:24:22 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 9/2/14 3:53 PM, wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:26:29 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 14:04:09 -0500, Califbill wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: ISIL has reportedly beheaded another American journalist. Says they do not care what the world thinks about them. Makes them even scarier to a sane person. === Yes but it will also make it easier to marshall world opinion against them. No civilized society goeas around beheading journalists. They are not exactly an invincible force if everyone stands fast against them. Somewhere they have a source of funding and supplies. Without that they could not last long. If nothing else it should be relatively easy to kill their telecom, media and internet. Where do they go after that, carrier pigeons? I like the line from "Alien". "Nuke them from orbit" Unfortunately, we didn't learn the lessons of Vietnam and we didn't learn from the Russian disaster in Afghanistan. These modern-day terrorists have no real hometown or territory anymore. They might take a town for a while, and then they'll give it up for another town. If you bomb the town into the stone age (where it probably is already), you end up killing lots of non-combatants and you make lots of converts. The only real way to fight these guys is to have the folks whose towns they take over fight back. But then you don't know what you are ending up with. The difference is ISIS has intentions of actually becoming a state with assets. BTW that was just metaphor, meaning I am not sure we should really be that involved. I am not sure we really have a policy that would be very effective, unless we just propped up Assad and left it to him. All you have to do to "prop up Assad" is to give him a bottle of Viagra.. Comeon, you gotta' admit, the guy does look like a huge penis with a suit on, doesn't he? Yeah, I remember the 7th grade, too, but I got promoted. |
Sad world
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 18:43:28 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:
All you have to do to "prop up Assad" is to give him a bottle of Viagra.. Comeon, you gotta' admit, the guy does look like a huge penis with a suit on, doesn't he? Yeah, I remember the 7th grade, too, but I got promoted. === Anti-socially promoted? |
Sad world
On 9/2/2014 4:52 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/2/14 4:38 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/2/2014 4:24 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 9/2/14 3:53 PM, wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:26:29 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 14:04:09 -0500, Califbill wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: ISIL has reportedly beheaded another American journalist. Says they do not care what the world thinks about them. Makes them even scarier to a sane person. === Yes but it will also make it easier to marshall world opinion against them. No civilized society goeas around beheading journalists. They are not exactly an invincible force if everyone stands fast against them. Somewhere they have a source of funding and supplies. Without that they could not last long. If nothing else it should be relatively easy to kill their telecom, media and internet. Where do they go after that, carrier pigeons? I like the line from "Alien". "Nuke them from orbit" Unfortunately, we didn't learn the lessons of Vietnam and we didn't learn from the Russian disaster in Afghanistan. These modern-day terrorists have no real hometown or territory anymore. They might take a town for a while, and then they'll give it up for another town. If you bomb the town into the stone age (where it probably is already), you end up killing lots of non-combatants and you make lots of converts. The only real way to fight these guys is to have the folks whose towns they take over fight back. But then you don't know what you are ending up with. Unfortunately air strikes alone won't help much other than providing a minor moral booster to those locals willing to fight, IMO. It's going to require "boots on the ground" at some point. Many "expert" commentators claim the USA lacks the "stomach" for a serious, boots on the ground retaliation. I'd suggest they survey those who would actually do the fighting ... namely members of the US armed forces. I'll bet the answer would be unanimous. Ideally it should be a multi-national coalition, but the USA needs to lead the way. Boot on the ground was a failed policy in Afghanistan for Russia and the United States, and it was a failed policy in Iraq for the United States. Toppling Saddam only made Iraq worse than it was. ISIL is holding an American female captive. Will you feel the same if they behead her as well? |
Sad world
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 9/2/2014 4:52 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 9/2/14 4:38 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/2/2014 4:24 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 9/2/14 3:53 PM, wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:26:29 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 14:04:09 -0500, Califbill wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: ISIL has reportedly beheaded another American journalist. Says they do not care what the world thinks about them. Makes them even scarier to a sane person. === Yes but it will also make it easier to marshall world opinion against them. No civilized society goeas around beheading journalists. They are not exactly an invincible force if everyone stands fast against them. Somewhere they have a source of funding and supplies. Without that they could not last long. If nothing else it should be relatively easy to kill their telecom, media and internet. Where do they go after that, carrier pigeons? I like the line from "Alien". "Nuke them from orbit" Unfortunately, we didn't learn the lessons of Vietnam and we didn't learn from the Russian disaster in Afghanistan. These modern-day terrorists have no real hometown or territory anymore. They might take a town for a while, and then they'll give it up for another town. If you bomb the town into the stone age (where it probably is already), you end up killing lots of non-combatants and you make lots of converts. The only real way to fight these guys is to have the folks whose towns they take over fight back. But then you don't know what you are ending up with. Unfortunately air strikes alone won't help much other than providing a minor moral booster to those locals willing to fight, IMO. It's going to require "boots on the ground" at some point. Many "expert" commentators claim the USA lacks the "stomach" for a serious, boots on the ground retaliation. I'd suggest they survey those who would actually do the fighting ... namely members of the US armed forces. I'll bet the answer would be unanimous. Ideally it should be a multi-national coalition, but the USA needs to lead the way. Boot on the ground was a failed policy in Afghanistan for Russia and the United States, and it was a failed policy in Iraq for the United States. Toppling Saddam only made Iraq worse than it was. ISIL is holding an American female captive. Will you feel the same if they behead her as well? Yes. We're not going to beat ISIS with American boots on the ground there unless we can send Herring, Bertie and FlatulentJim. -- Posted from my iPhone |
Sad world
On 9/2/2014 6:29 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 9/2/2014 4:52 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 9/2/14 4:38 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/2/2014 4:24 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 9/2/14 3:53 PM, wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:26:29 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 14:04:09 -0500, Califbill wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: ISIL has reportedly beheaded another American journalist. Says they do not care what the world thinks about them. Makes them even scarier to a sane person. === Yes but it will also make it easier to marshall world opinion against them. No civilized society goeas around beheading journalists. They are not exactly an invincible force if everyone stands fast against them. Somewhere they have a source of funding and supplies. Without that they could not last long. If nothing else it should be relatively easy to kill their telecom, media and internet. Where do they go after that, carrier pigeons? I like the line from "Alien". "Nuke them from orbit" Unfortunately, we didn't learn the lessons of Vietnam and we didn't learn from the Russian disaster in Afghanistan. These modern-day terrorists have no real hometown or territory anymore. They might take a town for a while, and then they'll give it up for another town. If you bomb the town into the stone age (where it probably is already), you end up killing lots of non-combatants and you make lots of converts. The only real way to fight these guys is to have the folks whose towns they take over fight back. But then you don't know what you are ending up with. Unfortunately air strikes alone won't help much other than providing a minor moral booster to those locals willing to fight, IMO. It's going to require "boots on the ground" at some point. Many "expert" commentators claim the USA lacks the "stomach" for a serious, boots on the ground retaliation. I'd suggest they survey those who would actually do the fighting ... namely members of the US armed forces. I'll bet the answer would be unanimous. Ideally it should be a multi-national coalition, but the USA needs to lead the way. Boot on the ground was a failed policy in Afghanistan for Russia and the United States, and it was a failed policy in Iraq for the United States. Toppling Saddam only made Iraq worse than it was. ISIL is holding an American female captive. Will you feel the same if they behead her as well? Yes. We're not going to beat ISIS with American boots on the ground there unless we can send Herring, Bertie and FlatulentJim. We served our time. Now it's your turn. |
Sad world
On 9/2/2014 7:29 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 9/2/2014 4:52 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 9/2/14 4:38 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/2/2014 4:24 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 9/2/14 3:53 PM, wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:26:29 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 14:04:09 -0500, Califbill wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: ISIL has reportedly beheaded another American journalist. Says they do not care what the world thinks about them. Makes them even scarier to a sane person. === Yes but it will also make it easier to marshall world opinion against them. No civilized society goeas around beheading journalists. They are not exactly an invincible force if everyone stands fast against them. Somewhere they have a source of funding and supplies. Without that they could not last long. If nothing else it should be relatively easy to kill their telecom, media and internet. Where do they go after that, carrier pigeons? I like the line from "Alien". "Nuke them from orbit" Unfortunately, we didn't learn the lessons of Vietnam and we didn't learn from the Russian disaster in Afghanistan. These modern-day terrorists have no real hometown or territory anymore. They might take a town for a while, and then they'll give it up for another town. If you bomb the town into the stone age (where it probably is already), you end up killing lots of non-combatants and you make lots of converts. The only real way to fight these guys is to have the folks whose towns they take over fight back. But then you don't know what you are ending up with. Unfortunately air strikes alone won't help much other than providing a minor moral booster to those locals willing to fight, IMO. It's going to require "boots on the ground" at some point. Many "expert" commentators claim the USA lacks the "stomach" for a serious, boots on the ground retaliation. I'd suggest they survey those who would actually do the fighting ... namely members of the US armed forces. I'll bet the answer would be unanimous. Ideally it should be a multi-national coalition, but the USA needs to lead the way. Boot on the ground was a failed policy in Afghanistan for Russia and the United States, and it was a failed policy in Iraq for the United States. Toppling Saddam only made Iraq worse than it was. ISIL is holding an American female captive. Will you feel the same if they behead her as well? Yes. We're not going to beat ISIS with American boots on the ground there unless we can send Herring, Bertie and FlatulentJim. Your attempt at humor escapes me tonight. I think you will soon see a deployment of up to 5,000 troops in Iraq with a mission to hunt down and kill any or all ISIS members. Syria is a different problem and will require some more behind the scenes negotiations. |
Sad world
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 9/2/2014 7:29 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 9/2/2014 4:52 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 9/2/14 4:38 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/2/2014 4:24 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 9/2/14 3:53 PM, wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:26:29 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 14:04:09 -0500, Califbill wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: ISIL has reportedly beheaded another American journalist. Says they do not care what the world thinks about them. Makes them even scarier to a sane person. === Yes but it will also make it easier to marshall world opinion against them. No civilized society goeas around beheading journalists. They are not exactly an invincible force if everyone stands fast against them. Somewhere they have a source of funding and supplies. Without that they could not last long. If nothing else it should be relatively easy to kill their telecom, media and internet. Where do they go after that, carrier pigeons? I like the line from "Alien". "Nuke them from orbit" Unfortunately, we didn't learn the lessons of Vietnam and we didn't learn from the Russian disaster in Afghanistan. These modern-day terrorists have no real hometown or territory anymore. They might take a town for a while, and then they'll give it up for another town. If you bomb the town into the stone age (where it probably is already), you end up killing lots of non-combatants and you make lots of converts. The only real way to fight these guys is to have the folks whose towns they take over fight back. But then you don't know what you are ending up with. Unfortunately air strikes alone won't help much other than providing a minor moral booster to those locals willing to fight, IMO. It's going to require "boots on the ground" at some point. Many "expert" commentators claim the USA lacks the "stomach" for a serious, boots on the ground retaliation. I'd suggest they survey those who would actually do the fighting ... namely members of the US armed forces. I'll bet the answer would be unanimous. Ideally it should be a multi-national coalition, but the USA needs to lead the way. Boot on the ground was a failed policy in Afghanistan for Russia and the United States, and it was a failed policy in Iraq for the United States. Toppling Saddam only made Iraq worse than it was. ISIL is holding an American female captive. Will you feel the same if they behead her as well? Yes. We're not going to beat ISIS with American boots on the ground there unless we can send Herring, Bertie and FlatulentJim. Your attempt at humor escapes me tonight. I think you will soon see a deployment of up to 5,000 troops in Iraq with a mission to hunt down and kill any or all ISIS members. Syria is a different problem and will require some more behind the scenes negotiations. Do the ISIS fellas wear special armbands? -- Posted from my iPhone |
Sad world
|
Sad world
On 9/2/2014 8:34 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 9/2/2014 7:29 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 9/2/2014 4:52 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 9/2/14 4:38 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/2/2014 4:24 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 9/2/14 3:53 PM, wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:26:29 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 14:04:09 -0500, Califbill wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: ISIL has reportedly beheaded another American journalist. Says they do not care what the world thinks about them. Makes them even scarier to a sane person. === Yes but it will also make it easier to marshall world opinion against them. No civilized society goeas around beheading journalists. They are not exactly an invincible force if everyone stands fast against them. Somewhere they have a source of funding and supplies. Without that they could not last long. If nothing else it should be relatively easy to kill their telecom, media and internet. Where do they go after that, carrier pigeons? I like the line from "Alien". "Nuke them from orbit" Unfortunately, we didn't learn the lessons of Vietnam and we didn't learn from the Russian disaster in Afghanistan. These modern-day terrorists have no real hometown or territory anymore. They might take a town for a while, and then they'll give it up for another town. If you bomb the town into the stone age (where it probably is already), you end up killing lots of non-combatants and you make lots of converts. The only real way to fight these guys is to have the folks whose towns they take over fight back. But then you don't know what you are ending up with. Unfortunately air strikes alone won't help much other than providing a minor moral booster to those locals willing to fight, IMO. It's going to require "boots on the ground" at some point. Many "expert" commentators claim the USA lacks the "stomach" for a serious, boots on the ground retaliation. I'd suggest they survey those who would actually do the fighting ... namely members of the US armed forces. I'll bet the answer would be unanimous. Ideally it should be a multi-national coalition, but the USA needs to lead the way. Boot on the ground was a failed policy in Afghanistan for Russia and the United States, and it was a failed policy in Iraq for the United States. Toppling Saddam only made Iraq worse than it was. ISIL is holding an American female captive. Will you feel the same if they behead her as well? Yes. We're not going to beat ISIS with American boots on the ground there unless we can send Herring, Bertie and FlatulentJim. Your attempt at humor escapes me tonight. I think you will soon see a deployment of up to 5,000 troops in Iraq with a mission to hunt down and kill any or all ISIS members. Syria is a different problem and will require some more behind the scenes negotiations. Do the ISIS fellas wear special armbands? Plenty of Iraqi's will be pointing them out. |
Sad world
On 9/2/14 9:19 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/2/2014 8:34 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 9/2/2014 7:29 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 9/2/2014 4:52 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 9/2/14 4:38 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/2/2014 4:24 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 9/2/14 3:53 PM, wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:26:29 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 14:04:09 -0500, Califbill wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: ISIL has reportedly beheaded another American journalist. Says they do not care what the world thinks about them. Makes them even scarier to a sane person. === Yes but it will also make it easier to marshall world opinion against them. No civilized society goeas around beheading journalists. They are not exactly an invincible force if everyone stands fast against them. Somewhere they have a source of funding and supplies. Without that they could not last long. If nothing else it should be relatively easy to kill their telecom, media and internet. Where do they go after that, carrier pigeons? I like the line from "Alien". "Nuke them from orbit" Unfortunately, we didn't learn the lessons of Vietnam and we didn't learn from the Russian disaster in Afghanistan. These modern-day terrorists have no real hometown or territory anymore. They might take a town for a while, and then they'll give it up for another town. If you bomb the town into the stone age (where it probably is already), you end up killing lots of non-combatants and you make lots of converts. The only real way to fight these guys is to have the folks whose towns they take over fight back. But then you don't know what you are ending up with. Unfortunately air strikes alone won't help much other than providing a minor moral booster to those locals willing to fight, IMO. It's going to require "boots on the ground" at some point. Many "expert" commentators claim the USA lacks the "stomach" for a serious, boots on the ground retaliation. I'd suggest they survey those who would actually do the fighting ... namely members of the US armed forces. I'll bet the answer would be unanimous. Ideally it should be a multi-national coalition, but the USA needs to lead the way. Boot on the ground was a failed policy in Afghanistan for Russia and the United States, and it was a failed policy in Iraq for the United States. Toppling Saddam only made Iraq worse than it was. ISIL is holding an American female captive. Will you feel the same if they behead her as well? Yes. We're not going to beat ISIS with American boots on the ground there unless we can send Herring, Bertie and FlatulentJim. Your attempt at humor escapes me tonight. I think you will soon see a deployment of up to 5,000 troops in Iraq with a mission to hunt down and kill any or all ISIS members. Syria is a different problem and will require some more behind the scenes negotiations. Do the ISIS fellas wear special armbands? Plenty of Iraqi's will be pointing them out. As we learned during Dubya's wars, Iraqis and Afhanis will point anyone out and we'lll believe them because we want to believe them. |
Sad world
On 9/2/2014 9:28 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/2/14 9:19 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/2/2014 8:34 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 9/2/2014 7:29 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 9/2/2014 4:52 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 9/2/14 4:38 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/2/2014 4:24 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 9/2/14 3:53 PM, wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:26:29 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 14:04:09 -0500, Califbill wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: ISIL has reportedly beheaded another American journalist. Says they do not care what the world thinks about them. Makes them even scarier to a sane person. === Yes but it will also make it easier to marshall world opinion against them. No civilized society goeas around beheading journalists. They are not exactly an invincible force if everyone stands fast against them. Somewhere they have a source of funding and supplies. Without that they could not last long. If nothing else it should be relatively easy to kill their telecom, media and internet. Where do they go after that, carrier pigeons? I like the line from "Alien". "Nuke them from orbit" Unfortunately, we didn't learn the lessons of Vietnam and we didn't learn from the Russian disaster in Afghanistan. These modern-day terrorists have no real hometown or territory anymore. They might take a town for a while, and then they'll give it up for another town. If you bomb the town into the stone age (where it probably is already), you end up killing lots of non-combatants and you make lots of converts. The only real way to fight these guys is to have the folks whose towns they take over fight back. But then you don't know what you are ending up with. Unfortunately air strikes alone won't help much other than providing a minor moral booster to those locals willing to fight, IMO. It's going to require "boots on the ground" at some point. Many "expert" commentators claim the USA lacks the "stomach" for a serious, boots on the ground retaliation. I'd suggest they survey those who would actually do the fighting ... namely members of the US armed forces. I'll bet the answer would be unanimous. Ideally it should be a multi-national coalition, but the USA needs to lead the way. Boot on the ground was a failed policy in Afghanistan for Russia and the United States, and it was a failed policy in Iraq for the United States. Toppling Saddam only made Iraq worse than it was. ISIL is holding an American female captive. Will you feel the same if they behead her as well? Yes. We're not going to beat ISIS with American boots on the ground there unless we can send Herring, Bertie and FlatulentJim. Your attempt at humor escapes me tonight. I think you will soon see a deployment of up to 5,000 troops in Iraq with a mission to hunt down and kill any or all ISIS members. Syria is a different problem and will require some more behind the scenes negotiations. Do the ISIS fellas wear special armbands? Plenty of Iraqi's will be pointing them out. As we learned during Dubya's wars, Iraqis and Afhanis will point anyone out and we'lll believe them because we want to believe them. Too bad. That's the way it goes. |
Sad world
On 9/3/14 3:11 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/2/2014 9:28 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 9/2/14 9:19 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/2/2014 8:34 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 9/2/2014 7:29 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 9/2/2014 4:52 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 9/2/14 4:38 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/2/2014 4:24 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 9/2/14 3:53 PM, wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:26:29 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 14:04:09 -0500, Califbill wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: ISIL has reportedly beheaded another American journalist. Says they do not care what the world thinks about them. Makes them even scarier to a sane person. === Yes but it will also make it easier to marshall world opinion against them. No civilized society goeas around beheading journalists. They are not exactly an invincible force if everyone stands fast against them. Somewhere they have a source of funding and supplies. Without that they could not last long. If nothing else it should be relatively easy to kill their telecom, media and internet. Where do they go after that, carrier pigeons? I like the line from "Alien". "Nuke them from orbit" Unfortunately, we didn't learn the lessons of Vietnam and we didn't learn from the Russian disaster in Afghanistan. These modern-day terrorists have no real hometown or territory anymore. They might take a town for a while, and then they'll give it up for another town. If you bomb the town into the stone age (where it probably is already), you end up killing lots of non-combatants and you make lots of converts. The only real way to fight these guys is to have the folks whose towns they take over fight back. But then you don't know what you are ending up with. Unfortunately air strikes alone won't help much other than providing a minor moral booster to those locals willing to fight, IMO. It's going to require "boots on the ground" at some point. Many "expert" commentators claim the USA lacks the "stomach" for a serious, boots on the ground retaliation. I'd suggest they survey those who would actually do the fighting ... namely members of the US armed forces. I'll bet the answer would be unanimous. Ideally it should be a multi-national coalition, but the USA needs to lead the way. Boot on the ground was a failed policy in Afghanistan for Russia and the United States, and it was a failed policy in Iraq for the United States. Toppling Saddam only made Iraq worse than it was. ISIL is holding an American female captive. Will you feel the same if they behead her as well? Yes. We're not going to beat ISIS with American boots on the ground there unless we can send Herring, Bertie and FlatulentJim. Your attempt at humor escapes me tonight. I think you will soon see a deployment of up to 5,000 troops in Iraq with a mission to hunt down and kill any or all ISIS members. Syria is a different problem and will require some more behind the scenes negotiations. Do the ISIS fellas wear special armbands? Plenty of Iraqi's will be pointing them out. As we learned during Dubya's wars, Iraqis and Afhanis will point anyone out and we'lll believe them because we want to believe them. Too bad. That's the way it goes. By "anyone," of course, I meant anyone, whether they had anything to do with terrorism or military action or not. I assume you understood that, and if your response simply is "that's the way it goes," well, then, *you* are part of the problem. When we attack or imprison non-combatants, or blow up weddings, or kill innocent civilians. it just helps create more terrorists. We shouldn't be surprised by terrorists acting like terrorists. These terrorists don't have a regular army and when they are ****ed off, they cannot do what we do, militarily. They do what they are able to do. |
Sad world
On 9/3/2014 5:34 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/3/14 3:11 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/2/2014 9:28 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 9/2/14 9:19 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/2/2014 8:34 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 9/2/2014 7:29 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 9/2/2014 4:52 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 9/2/14 4:38 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/2/2014 4:24 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 9/2/14 3:53 PM, wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:26:29 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 14:04:09 -0500, Califbill wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: ISIL has reportedly beheaded another American journalist. Says they do not care what the world thinks about them. Makes them even scarier to a sane person. === Yes but it will also make it easier to marshall world opinion against them. No civilized society goeas around beheading journalists. They are not exactly an invincible force if everyone stands fast against them. Somewhere they have a source of funding and supplies. Without that they could not last long. If nothing else it should be relatively easy to kill their telecom, media and internet. Where do they go after that, carrier pigeons? I like the line from "Alien". "Nuke them from orbit" Unfortunately, we didn't learn the lessons of Vietnam and we didn't learn from the Russian disaster in Afghanistan. These modern-day terrorists have no real hometown or territory anymore. They might take a town for a while, and then they'll give it up for another town. If you bomb the town into the stone age (where it probably is already), you end up killing lots of non-combatants and you make lots of converts. The only real way to fight these guys is to have the folks whose towns they take over fight back. But then you don't know what you are ending up with. Unfortunately air strikes alone won't help much other than providing a minor moral booster to those locals willing to fight, IMO. It's going to require "boots on the ground" at some point. Many "expert" commentators claim the USA lacks the "stomach" for a serious, boots on the ground retaliation. I'd suggest they survey those who would actually do the fighting ... namely members of the US armed forces. I'll bet the answer would be unanimous. Ideally it should be a multi-national coalition, but the USA needs to lead the way. Boot on the ground was a failed policy in Afghanistan for Russia and the United States, and it was a failed policy in Iraq for the United States. Toppling Saddam only made Iraq worse than it was. ISIL is holding an American female captive. Will you feel the same if they behead her as well? Yes. We're not going to beat ISIS with American boots on the ground there unless we can send Herring, Bertie and FlatulentJim. Your attempt at humor escapes me tonight. I think you will soon see a deployment of up to 5,000 troops in Iraq with a mission to hunt down and kill any or all ISIS members. Syria is a different problem and will require some more behind the scenes negotiations. Do the ISIS fellas wear special armbands? Plenty of Iraqi's will be pointing them out. As we learned during Dubya's wars, Iraqis and Afhanis will point anyone out and we'lll believe them because we want to believe them. Too bad. That's the way it goes. By "anyone," of course, I meant anyone, whether they had anything to do with terrorism or military action or not. I assume you understood that, and if your response simply is "that's the way it goes," well, then, *you* are part of the problem. When we attack or imprison non-combatants, or blow up weddings, or kill innocent civilians. it just helps create more terrorists. We shouldn't be surprised by terrorists acting like terrorists. These terrorists don't have a regular army and when they are ****ed off, they cannot do what we do, militarily. They do what they are able to do. You make me sick. |
Sad world
On 9/3/2014 6:17 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
Not the sort of job for a grunt in a uniform but the sort of work for personnel who repeatedly make ISIS leadership disappear without fanfare or announcements or news conferences. I take it that you disapprove of O'Bama's circus that was the Bin Laden assassination? And, of course you would be right. Mebbe O'Bama could hire you to organize his next assasination. |
Sad world
|
Sad world
On 9/3/2014 11:18 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... I think you will soon see a deployment of up to 5,000 troops in Iraq with a mission to hunt down and kill any or all ISIS members. Syria is a different problem and will require some more behind the scenes negotiations. Why 5,000? It took 166,000 U.S. troops to quell unrest in '07. You think the IED'S, snipers, suicide bombers won't kill and maim U.S. troops in 2014? Besides, there' over 1200 U.S. troops in Baghdad now, just to protect the embassy and airport. Hunting down of ISIS will be done with air strikes or special force teams. They're just criminals, and will be destroyed. Their beheading of Americans is simply suicide by another name. Of course they don't care, being criminals with a death wish. Evidence points to a rapper doing the actual beheadings. Figures. Rappers with guns, IED's, and knives for the easy stuff, The Arabs can kill civilians without our help, and without the sacrifice of our troops to no good end. I saw an Iraqi "man on the street" interview recently about this ISIS "crisis." Neatly dressed man verging on middle-age with a couple kids. He didn't want U.S. troops there. Hope he gets his wish. Like the "British rapper" he is an Arab infected with Muslimism. It's a worse disease than Ebola. Until they get the disease under control, they need Saddams, Qaddafis and Assads. Any idea how many innocent Iraqis, Syrians and who knows who else have been slaughtered so far by ISIS? I don't know what the estimated total is but it's a pretty large number. There are unconfirmed reports of killing off children simply because they had Christian parents. The "rapper" isn't doing all the killing by himself. |
Sad world
|
Sad world
wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 10:42:30 -0500, Califbill wrote: We have seen this scenario before. Took a couple crusades to push back then. Muslim, called Mohammedan's until about 1950, spread their religion via war and terror almost to Paris. History repeating? We don't really want to emulate the crusades too much. In the end the west lost the crusades and that led to the Ottoman empire that controlled that whole region for 500 years. If they had not chosen the wrong side in WWI, they still might. The British would not have taken over Palestine and Islam would simply be our gas station. I am not supporting new crusades. Just pointing out that the Muslim religion has pretty much used violence to expand. Harry thinks it is all new. Bad liberal arts education. Dang Yale. |
Sad world
Califbill wrote:
wrote: On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 10:42:30 -0500, Califbill wrote: We have seen this scenario before. Took a couple crusades to push back then. Muslim, called Mohammedan's until about 1950, spread their religion via war and terror almost to Paris. History repeating? We don't really want to emulate the crusades too much. In the end the west lost the crusades and that led to the Ottoman empire that controlled that whole region for 500 years. If they had not chosen the wrong side in WWI, they still might. The British would not have taken over Palestine and Islam would simply be our gas station. I am not supporting new crusades. Just pointing out that the Muslim religion has pretty much used violence to expand. Harry thinks it is all new. Bad liberal arts education. Dang Yale. Or was that Kansas that failed him? |
Sad world
In article ,
says... Any idea how many innocent Iraqis, Syrians and who knows who else have been slaughtered so far by ISIS? I don't know what the estimated total is but it's a pretty large number. There are unconfirmed reports of killing off children simply because they had Christian parents. The "rapper" isn't doing all the killing by himself. Here's one account of Iraq civilian casualties. http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...an-death-toll- 5500-2014-isis Of course I don't know what's considered "civilian" over there. War is pretty "natural" to Arab Muslims. They don't need guns - stones will do. I wonder if you did a poll over there about whether stoning to death for adultery, dressing out of "code," etc, what the results would be. |
Sad world
|
Sad world
On 9/3/14 1:32 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 12:02:54 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Unfortunately these drone strikes are not nearly as surgical as the government would have you believe. We are creating far more militants than we kill. And far less than troops on the ground. Pick your poison. I just think the psychological effect of drones is the opposite of what we want. We act like there is some kind of Yamamoto out there that will seriously degrade their capability if we kill him. The reality is the knowledge is pretty freely disseminated among the gangs and there is no one single leader or mechanic who is key to the operation. We only make martyrs. When we take out a bunch of innocents, it is just a recruiting tool. I suppose we can just kill them all but there is over a billion of them world wide That is correct. Having the biggest, baddest military in the world is not relevant anymore. |
Sad world
On 9/3/2014 12:39 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 10:18:55 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... I think you will soon see a deployment of up to 5,000 troops in Iraq with a mission to hunt down and kill any or all ISIS members. Syria is a different problem and will require some more behind the scenes negotiations. Why 5,000? It took 166,000 U.S. troops to quell unrest in '07. You think the IED'S, snipers, suicide bombers won't kill and maim U.S. troops in 2014? Besides, there' over 1200 U.S. troops in Baghdad now, just to protect the embassy and airport. Hunting down of ISIS will be done with air strikes or special force teams. They're just criminals, and will be destroyed. Their beheading of Americans is simply suicide by another name. Of course they don't care, being criminals with a death wish. Evidence points to a rapper doing the actual beheadings. Figures. Rappers with guns, IED's, and knives for the easy stuff, The Arabs can kill civilians without our help, and without the sacrifice of our troops to no good end. I saw an Iraqi "man on the street" interview recently about this ISIS "crisis." Neatly dressed man verging on middle-age with a couple kids. He didn't want U.S. troops there. Hope he gets his wish. Like the "British rapper" he is an Arab infected with Muslimism. It's a worse disease than Ebola. Until they get the disease under control, they need Saddams, Qaddafis and Assads. Unfortunately these drone strikes are not nearly as surgical as the government would have you believe. We are creating far more militants than we kill. Bigger bombs, less militants created.... It's a cancer, and the people who are living among ISIS, and not trying to kill them, are just supporting them and need to go too... |
Sad world
On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 12:13:22 -0500, Califbill
wrote: I am not supporting new crusades. Just pointing out that the Muslim religion has pretty much used violence to expand. Harry thinks it is all new. Bad liberal arts education. Dang Yale. Or was that Kansas that failed him? === Since there's not a shred of evidence to indicate that Harry ever set foot inside of Yale other than perhaps as a hod carrier on a brick laying team, I'd have to conclude that it was Kansas that failed him. |
Sad world
On 9/3/14 2:49 PM, KC wrote:
On 9/3/2014 12:57 PM, wrote: On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 10:42:29 -0500, Califbill wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: It was a response to your "Well, that might be the answer you mustered out old military farts want,but it sure as hell hasn't worked so far, has it?" comment. Yes, it has worked. Our policies may be flawed but the military has done everything asked of it and more. Off the subject, but I often reflect on my military time and compare it to my career as a civilian. My experiences are somewhat unique (I think) in the respect that I was military for the first 11 years of my adult life before ditching the uniform for a suit and tie in a civilian career that eventually included owning and running a small company consisting of about 100 people. Contrary to what you may think, the US military is incredibly efficient. The schools, equipment and methodology used to train people with no previously acquired skills or formal education still amazes me. Unlike the civilian world there are no office politics, no special privileges to a select few. It is a true, equal opportunity employer with "opportunity" underscored. I've said many times that I received more in knowledge, education and experience than I gave in return during the 9 years of active duty and 2 years in the reserves. Most of our failures regards the military and perceived failures are more likely to be followed back to some liberal arts grad, who went in to politics. And told the military what to do do and micro managed the military. How many of LBJ and his advisors were not liberal arts grads? Yeah Harry loves those liberal arts majors, like Rumsfeld (Princeton BA PoliSci) Cheney (Univ Wyoming MA in PoliSci) Wolfowitz (Univ Chicago BA PoliSci) GW Bush (Yale BA History) GHW Bush (Yale BA economics) Harry went to Yale with them and thinks he has come a lot further and touched more lives than any of them... kind of like the way he bitches about Steve Doocey, one of the most liked guys in TV... The anti-intellectualism expressed here by you righties is just frippin' hilarious. Human intel gathering is best done by humans with liberal arts educations. Of course, few of you even know what a liberal arts education encompasses. Hell, most of you righties can't even follow a thread without drifting way off course. I was discussing our failures in human intel, *not* waving the flag for the wonderful accomplishments of military personnel. Bilious Bill as usual cannot follow any conversation without tripping over it. Fretwell throws in neocons and their college majors, and, of course, the newsgroup psychotic is off in outer space, as usual. I'm not talking about photo interpretation, or about figuring out what scientific data means...I'm talking about using knowledge of language, history, personality analysis, cultural differences...the tools a field agent uses to gather human intel. You know, the kind of stuff that indicates where Osama might have been hiding, or what was on his mind, or who he spoke with, or who he slept with, or what he liked to eat for dinner, or who he trusted...the sort of info you get via human interaction, the sort of info you do not get by waterboarding, the sort of data you do get via effective practice of tradecraft. Steve Doocey...he has a fan here. snerk |
Sad world
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/3/14 2:49 PM, KC wrote: On 9/3/2014 12:57 PM, wrote: On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 10:42:29 -0500, Califbill wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: It was a response to your "Well, that might be the answer you mustered out old military farts want,but it sure as hell hasn't worked so far, has it?" comment. Yes, it has worked. Our policies may be flawed but the military has done everything asked of it and more. Off the subject, but I often reflect on my military time and compare it to my career as a civilian. My experiences are somewhat unique (I think) in the respect that I was military for the first 11 years of my adult life before ditching the uniform for a suit and tie in a civilian career that eventually included owning and running a small company consisting of about 100 people. Contrary to what you may think, the US military is incredibly efficient. The schools, equipment and methodology used to train people with no previously acquired skills or formal education still amazes me. Unlike the civilian world there are no office politics, no special privileges to a select few. It is a true, equal opportunity employer with "opportunity" underscored. I've said many times that I received more in knowledge, education and experience than I gave in return during the 9 years of active duty and 2 years in the reserves. Most of our failures regards the military and perceived failures are more likely to be followed back to some liberal arts grad, who went in to politics. And told the military what to do do and micro managed the military. How many of LBJ and his advisors were not liberal arts grads? Yeah Harry loves those liberal arts majors, like Rumsfeld (Princeton BA PoliSci) Cheney (Univ Wyoming MA in PoliSci) Wolfowitz (Univ Chicago BA PoliSci) GW Bush (Yale BA History) GHW Bush (Yale BA economics) Harry went to Yale with them and thinks he has come a lot further and touched more lives than any of them... kind of like the way he bitches about Steve Doocey, one of the most liked guys in TV... The anti-intellectualism expressed here by you righties is just frippin' hilarious. Human intel gathering is best done by humans with liberal arts educations. Of course, few of you even know what a liberal arts education encompasses. Hell, most of you righties can't even follow a thread without drifting way off course. I was discussing our failures in human intel, *not* waving the flag for the wonderful accomplishments of military personnel. Bilious Bill as usual cannot follow any conversation without tripping over it. Fretwell throws in neocons and their college majors, and, of course, the newsgroup psychotic is off in outer space, as usual. I'm not talking about photo interpretation, or about figuring out what scientific data means...I'm talking about using knowledge of language, history, personality analysis, cultural differences...the tools a field agent uses to gather human intel. You know, the kind of stuff that indicates where Osama might have been hiding, or what was on his mind, or who he spoke with, or who he slept with, or what he liked to eat for dinner, or who he trusted...the sort of info you get via human interaction, the sort of info you do not get by waterboarding, the sort of data you do get via effective practice of tradecraft. Steve Doocey...he has a fan here. snerk Seeing you are out of step with everyone here, except maybe JPS, maybe you are under massive illusions. |
Sad world
On 9/3/2014 3:11 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/3/14 2:49 PM, KC wrote: On 9/3/2014 12:57 PM, wrote: On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 10:42:29 -0500, Califbill wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: It was a response to your "Well, that might be the answer you mustered out old military farts want,but it sure as hell hasn't worked so far, has it?" comment. Yes, it has worked. Our policies may be flawed but the military has done everything asked of it and more. Off the subject, but I often reflect on my military time and compare it to my career as a civilian. My experiences are somewhat unique (I think) in the respect that I was military for the first 11 years of my adult life before ditching the uniform for a suit and tie in a civilian career that eventually included owning and running a small company consisting of about 100 people. Contrary to what you may think, the US military is incredibly efficient. The schools, equipment and methodology used to train people with no previously acquired skills or formal education still amazes me. Unlike the civilian world there are no office politics, no special privileges to a select few. It is a true, equal opportunity employer with "opportunity" underscored. I've said many times that I received more in knowledge, education and experience than I gave in return during the 9 years of active duty and 2 years in the reserves. Most of our failures regards the military and perceived failures are more likely to be followed back to some liberal arts grad, who went in to politics. And told the military what to do do and micro managed the military. How many of LBJ and his advisors were not liberal arts grads? Yeah Harry loves those liberal arts majors, like Rumsfeld (Princeton BA PoliSci) Cheney (Univ Wyoming MA in PoliSci) Wolfowitz (Univ Chicago BA PoliSci) GW Bush (Yale BA History) GHW Bush (Yale BA economics) Harry went to Yale with them and thinks he has come a lot further and touched more lives than any of them... kind of like the way he bitches about Steve Doocey, one of the most liked guys in TV... The anti-intellectualism expressed here by you righties is just frippin' hilarious. Human intel gathering is best done by humans with liberal arts educations. Of course, few of you even know what a liberal arts education encompasses. Hell, most of you righties can't even follow a thread without drifting way off course. I was discussing our failures in human intel, *not* waving the flag for the wonderful accomplishments of military personnel. Bilious Bill as usual cannot follow any conversation without tripping over it. Fretwell throws in neocons and their college majors, and, of course, the newsgroup psychotic is off in outer space, as usual. I'm not talking about photo interpretation, or about figuring out what scientific data means...I'm talking about using knowledge of language, history, personality analysis, cultural differences...the tools a field agent uses to gather human intel. You know, the kind of stuff that indicates where Osama might have been hiding, or what was on his mind, or who he spoke with, or who he slept with, or what he liked to eat for dinner, or who he trusted...the sort of info you get via human interaction, the sort of info you do not get by waterboarding, the sort of data you do get via effective practice of tradecraft. this is funny as hell. |
Sad world
|
Sad world
On 9/3/2014 2:49 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/3/14 1:32 PM, wrote: On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 12:02:54 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Unfortunately these drone strikes are not nearly as surgical as the government would have you believe. We are creating far more militants than we kill. And far less than troops on the ground. Pick your poison. I just think the psychological effect of drones is the opposite of what we want. We act like there is some kind of Yamamoto out there that will seriously degrade their capability if we kill him. The reality is the knowledge is pretty freely disseminated among the gangs and there is no one single leader or mechanic who is key to the operation. We only make martyrs. When we take out a bunch of innocents, it is just a recruiting tool. I suppose we can just kill them all but there is over a billion of them world wide That is correct. Having the biggest, baddest military in the world is not relevant anymore. Why is Russia spending whatever it can on revitalizing and expanding it's military? Why is China investing heavily into an expanded and modern Navy and Air Force? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:51 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com