damnotagain
Well-Known Member
Joined: Oct 19, 2012 21:18:44 GMT -5
Posts: 1,211
|
Post by damnotagain on Aug 21, 2014 13:04:50 GMT -5
Might work better than JSOC! Give it a try!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 21, 2014 14:15:06 GMT -5
since 911 my position has been and will continue to be that if we are dealing with foreign nationals that are not supported by governments, there is no justification for "WAR". this should be conducted as a law enforcement activity. you find your suspects, and you go and apprehend them. if you can't do it civilly, you do it by force. but capturing suspects is not a military activity. it might be PARAMILITARY- and i have no objection to that idea. in fact, i think it would be very wise to come up with a branch or division of the military that is entirely made up of these types of people- stealthy, and cellular. if you look at terrorism in the US, what is the typical response? is it military? if you look at the typical results, are they better or worse than Iraq? i think both answers are really obvious. i find it deeply disturbing that this is not the way MOST people think. I don't disagree with what you are saying- as far as it goes. However this group is in fact becoming very much akin to a state. It holds territory. It has a large number of men under arms. Whether other descriptors of a state apply or not we could debate, but they do in fact hold territory with a military force. (if you wish to call it paramilitary, fine, I do think the distinction becomes very fine)
My determination- and it is still evolving- is becoming that this group must be faced and brought to justice. In this case the effort to do so will need to be concerted, and military in nature.
I also felt hat (sic) it was entirely legitimate to go into Afghanistan with military force to go after bin Ladin. There are many times- a majority of times- that the actions required to apprehend terrorists is a law enforcement endeavor, and I agree with you that our emphasis on a "war" on terror is misplaced. However, this group is bigger than a bunch of stateless suspects.
dem- we can't declare war on a group of individuals who have no government, and no state. the fact that they are "becoming" something is, as much as i hate to say it, none of our God-d(*mned business. if we are to get involved in the internal affairs of nations, there are a dozen that should be of far greater concern than this one from a humanitarian POV. and if that is NOT our concern, then we really need to, even more, question why we are there. conclusion: we need to stop this nonsense of declaring war on stateless things, and address actual groups and individuals we are @ war with. but TTBOMK, Isis not only is stateless, but also has never attacked us, and poses no real threat to us. i suspect that many here will disagree. that's fine. disagree. but i stand by that, and would challenge you to consider the implications of declaring war on all individuals that wave their guns around and ask us to.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 21, 2014 14:16:45 GMT -5
i will add one thing:
i never objected to going into Afghanistan in the first place. but the longer we are there, the more i am inclined to do so.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 21, 2014 16:14:54 GMT -5
dem- we can't declare war on a group of individuals who have no government, and no state. the fact that they are "becoming" something is, as much as i hate to say it, none of our God-d(*mned business. if we are to get involved in the internal affairs of nations, there are a dozen that should be of far greater concern than this one from a humanitarian POV. and if that is NOT our concern, then we really need to, even more, question why we are there. ISIL (Islamic State in the Levant) are a state. They have territory and an army. Call it what you will- war or a paramilitary action- we can indeed fight them. I am proposing above that we do so largely with our proxies, and air and material support. And there is very little humanitarian interest involved. This is in our interest.conclusion: we need to stop this nonsense of declaring war on stateless things, and address actual groups and individuals we are @ war with. but TTBOMK, Isis not only is stateless, but also has never attacked us, and poses no real threat to us. i suspect that many here will disagree. that's fine. disagree. but i stand by that, and would challenge you to consider the implications of declaring war on all individuals that wave their guns around and ask us to. Obviously we disagree on exactly what ISIL/ ISIS is at this point, and whether we should oppose them.
i don't disagree that we should oppose them, only that there is no government to declare war with. and i think i disagree about HOW we should do that, as well. but no. i am not for simply walking away.
You do offer a viable alternative. There is no doubt in my mind that sooner or later the Sunni's subjected to their rule would get sick of them. My questions are how long, and more importantly to us, at what cost??
i think the US works best supporting rebels that are aligned with democratic interests. we do it so rarely that i feel weird even suggesting it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 12:33:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2014 17:06:28 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 21, 2014 17:49:33 GMT -5
Perhaps the US should have supported "some of" the rebels in Syria? I don't know - in part because I don't know enough about the Syrian rebels to know which to support, and I am a bit doubtful that the gov't did either- which may be why they didn't do it.
Regarding a declaration of war- that is a formality that we haven't actually done since what, WWII? What I proposed above, btw, was military action by a broad coalition of local players with skin in the game, supported by US air strikes and material support. While this may be my pipe dream on how to contain the ISIL threat, it was what I proposed. No DoW is necessary, and few US boots on the ground. My pipedream accomplishes a few things in addition to backing ISIL into the corner. It forces the Saudis to step up and effectively reject extremism, it supports a strengthened Kurdish area in a way that the Turks can't very well object, and it sees a stronger Iraq. Is it likely? No. But it is my pipedream.
What is more likely is something similar to that from the Kurds, some Iraqi help, the amount TBD, and a festering ISIL control zone in the wastes between Syria and Iraq. The US will continue to oppose them as well, both with aid to the Kurds, and air strikes when they can be justified. Other local states will oppose them, but probably with little practical efforts. Certainly whackos from around the world would continue to gravitate to them. Certainly they will continue their provocations in their bid to be "heard". Business as usual in the Middle East, I guess. it would surprise me if we were far apart on this, but just to be clear: how do you feel about sending 150,000 of our troops in to solve this problem?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 12:33:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2014 18:41:57 GMT -5
Props for actually providing a link (finally)... now... how about showing the giving in to demands of hostage takers and/or terrorists that you suggest happened. What you posted doesn't show that. this is why i didn't post the link, Richard. i provided you everything i needed to support my statement in the bolded post. if you need some direction here, try looking at the specific statements about Osama Bin Laden in that post. his KEY DEMAND was that we get out of Mecca. what did we do in the first month of the invasion of Iraq? we got out of Mecca. we gave into the key demand of the world's most wanted terrorist. those are the facts. interpret them as you like. if you don't want to call giving in to the top demand of the most wanted terrorist in our lifetimes "appeasement" of an almost Chamberlain proportion, that is your prerogative. No you didn't. Nothing in your post supported your conclusion. It could be SPUN to LOOK that way, but it could also be SPUN to look several different ways... depending on the presenter. Think of it like this: If I have concluded my business in a store (whether I bought something or not), and am ready to leave, and am in fact leaving... if a store employee tells me to "get out", am I leaving because I was told to... or because I was leaving anyway. Now... if YOU want to see that as appeasement... you are more than welcome to. Doesn't mean you are right... but you are free to see things as you please.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 21, 2014 21:51:06 GMT -5
this is why i didn't post the link, Richard. i provided you everything i needed to support my statement in the bolded post. if you need some direction here, try looking at the specific statements about Osama Bin Laden in that post. his KEY DEMAND was that we get out of Mecca. what did we do in the first month of the invasion of Iraq? we got out of Mecca. we gave into the key demand of the world's most wanted terrorist. those are the facts. interpret them as you like. if you don't want to call giving in to the top demand of the most wanted terrorist in our lifetimes "appeasement" of an almost Chamberlain proportion, that is your prerogative. No you didn't. Nothing in your post supported your conclusion. um...yes it did. edit: for the record, i was not the one who reached that conclusion. i am merely repeating it. i just happen to agree with it. if you don't, that's fine. edit2: in addition, invading Iraq was great for OBL, as well. i have long concluded that OBL and Bush were on the same team, whether he was clever enough to know it, or more likely, not. in other words, if there were a way to win the terror war, Bush's strategy was the furthest thing from it. Obama has not done much better, but he couldn't possibly have done worse.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 12:33:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2014 22:07:09 GMT -5
No you didn't. Nothing in your post supported your conclusion. um...yes it did. edit: for the record, i was not the one who reached that conclusion. i am merely repeating it. i just happen to agree with it. if you don't, that's fine. edit2: in addition, invading Iraq was great for OBL, as well. i have long concluded that OBL and Bush were on the same team, whether he was clever enough to know it, or more likely, not. in other words, if there were a way to win the terror war, Bush's strategy was the furthest thing from it. Obama has not done much better, but he couldn't possibly have done worse.The bolded, I will agree with.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 21, 2014 22:16:26 GMT -5
i am not here to build consensus, for the record. but it is nice when it happens.
|
|