Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good God I think none of you read any history. A good review of the Vietnam War would be in order. The U.S. bombed that country into the stone age for all the good it did.
You've got to have hearts and minds. If you don't have that, you'll never win, no matter how powerful. Without it, you might as well save the expense of fighting.
Two points - 1.) I see little to no comparison in the current conflict with Islamic terrorism and the Vietnam war.
2.) I am unclear who or what you are referencing to. How many are recommending to "bomb into the stone age"...bomb who? bomb what?
It does not matter what we do, or do not do. These people are evil and crazy, and will continue to behave accordingly. They will do so whether or not we "provoke them" or not. There is no win, but we should get out of the Middle East. When they attack our soil again, bomb the hell out of them. Until then, let them kill each other.
Two points - 1.) I see little to no comparison in the current conflict with Islamic terrorism and the Vietnam war.
2.) I am unclear who or what you are referencing to. How many are recommending to "bomb into the stone age"...bomb who? bomb what?
There will be a comparison if the U.S. starts wars or escalates local conflicts into a quagmire war in the middle east.
I'm talking about the "bomb them all" crowd. Or if you will, the people who agree with the sentiment that the U.S. should "bomb the families." Some of the arguments made about the War on Terror sound an awful lot like those who said all the U.S. needed to do in Vietnam was bomb more targets, remove restrictions, etc... That was never the point and those people never understood that.
Even more salient would be the Soviet Union's conflict in Afghanistan.... they tried to force change on the locals - force their version of socialism/communism on them by propping up local rulers who stood to benefit the most. It turned out to be disastrous; indeed, the Afghanistan morass in the 70s & 80s was one of the primary factors that brought about the collapse of the USSR. The United States today is a lot stronger, more prosperous & more cohesive than the USSR was in the 1980s, but the possibility does exist for a middle east quagmire to seriously harm our country.
I don't see the problems with radical Islam as a problem that the military can fix. If anything the military may only make matters worse.
My cousin did some work with energy companies in Qatar. He told me after one of his trips something his Qatari counterpart said to him, and this was before September 11. - "There are people here that will never give up fighting until there are no 'infidels' in the Arabian peninsula. Never."
My solution would be to use more carrots and fewer sticks. In general as much as is prudent, stay out of their countries' business over there. No interventions, no covert ops, no influence peddling, etc... Above board trade incentives, that's it. I don't see ISIS, etc.. as equivalent to Hitler and appeasement... these are non-state actors and they are creating at best a version of Somalia, a failed state before they even get a state started. Ignore it, perhaps use some limited versions of containment. That strategy seems to be working.
That would not completely solve the problem, at least not in the short or medium term, but it would in the long term. Like I said, we will simply have to accept a certain level of insecurity and risk.
We can't solve the problems of the world... it used to be that Europe was a hot mess... they had local conflicts that larger, more powerful countries tried to influence and it literally blew up in the faces, in a VERY bad way. The U.S. had its own civil war and the other powers of the world at the time stayed the hell out of it, and rightly so. We are going to have to accept that certain parts of the middle east are a mess and let them be unless they present direct threats. By direct I mean freaking direct.
Quote:
When they attack our soil again, bomb the hell out of them. Until then, let them kill each other.
Since 9/11 we have not even faced any major international terrorist threats directed by foreign actors. The more pertinent threats are probably our own people at this point. Ie: the attacker of the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester was a British citizen. Who is Britain going to bomb? Manchester itself? That was where the guy was born & grew up.
Our salient threats are probably people who spin themselves up with hate over the internet.
Last edited by redguard57; 05-31-2017 at 12:04 PM..
The world leaders would have to get together, get the terrorists identified and then send assassins to get the job done. An all out assault taking place all at once without warning. Most of the followers aren't really capable of intelligent thought on their own, so taking out the leaders, all of them, is the only way to go.
Just checkin' in--hmmm..I see the nation building concept is dead..and good riddance.
I saw a post about education--many Jihadists are highly educated..especially the leadership..Islam values learning..within limits. Cultural education is another matter...and impossible in the short term....a few generations, maybe.
You can't drone strike an idea...or send a SEAL team in to kill a theology.
More and more..containment seems the way to go--for the Middle East...I still see no problem with the rest of the world's Muslims--as long as our policies don't target them via their religion.
In the Bible, it was prophesied in Genesis 16 (cf 11-16) that a great nation would come from Ishmael (Mohammed's direct ancestor), but would always be 'a wild donkey of a man and never be at peace with anyone.'
Ezekiel 38-39 prophesies an end time during which the nations surrounding Israel (including Gog chief prince of Meshek and Tubal - modern Russia) - would come against Israel as an overwhelming force. But, in one day, they will be utterly and completely destroyed (cf 39:11-16).
Given the absolute historical accuracy of fulfilled Biblical prophecy, one can conclude that radical Islamic terrorism will exist in the Mid-East until the end times, but, will ultimately be supernaturally destroyed. Otherwise, there will not be a conclusive win in the 'war on terror.'
Actually, a "win" would be the furtherance of the goals established by the military-industrial alliance in America, and it's allies. The US and the UK have enjoyed a long and prosperous expansion of their empirical agendas, each having their "client states" around the globe serving the bottom line of the plutocracy which rules in both nations. The middle east is the one place where advanced economies have ran afoul in their determination to "acquire" resources from impoverished peoples. The present theology among the mainly Muslim inhabitants has turned ugly and extremist in so many sectors, but theology is only the "collector" of consensus in most cases, anti US-UK sentiment being the goal, and the theology being the catalyst.
Most of us have little in the way of actual knowledge of our real military goals. The ostensible "war on terror" is a great rallying cry, but, it really doesn't address the need for a better education of history in the middle east. Both the US and it's allies have been worried about the fact of M.E. petroleum being at the top of their foreign policy "to do list," even to the extent that we are now on friendly terms with one of the most vile nations on the planet. And certainly the most prolific supporter of M.E. terrorist groups.
I think the old Marine Corp general Smedley Butler was correct in his assessment of war, and especially his notion that war is a tool for the furthering of capital interests. America and other plutocratic nations have longed for an enemy which can become the basis for raiding the national treasury, getting their hands on government money in order to "protect" the masses has been a long term goal of those who profit from war, and this war is no different in that regard. The citizens of the M.E. and the American citizen are both victimized by the theo-extremist as well as by those who profit from that extremism.
The above link is left-leaning..and I think their numbers of up to 4 million are too soft, and are probably inflated.
That being said, the 1 million figure is supportable..given all the evidence and ancillary information.
So, some questions:
1) We're killing these people wholesale and yet, the pace of terrorist bombings, atrocities and general mayhem, has not slowed notably. How do we win, absent the Genocide option?
2) What constitutes a 'win'? What would satisfy you..and America?
3) Is our conflict still about vengeance, now that Osama is dead? Or, Has it become self-sustaining, its existence becoming its own reason?
My opinion..It takes two to make Peace, but only one to make war. Even if we left the Middle East tomorrow...stopped all military actions against Terrorism, the war would go on..because our enemies would continue to attack..probably imbued with fresh vigor, as they would believe they are winning.
The Jihadi's are in it for the long haul..their stated goal is total victory...nothing less.
Only 1 in thousands is a Jihadist--Do we really want to continue to kill thousands to get one?
Do we have a viable choice?
1) There's no simple answer. It would likely be unwise to carryon the path we've been on. I'd say end our constantly military occupation of the world (this is a good idea regardless) and secure our borders. From there, work with the UN to help those living around the world escape terrorism and avoid falling into their ranks. Work with other nations, particularly those where terrorism is more common, and help them deal with the problem.
2) I think the only rational choice is to reduce the influence of terrorism. Terrorism is just what happens when group A has a huge problem with group B and doesn't have a way to express that except by violence. So 'stopping terrorism' is just childishly stupid, so let's go with reducing it.
3) It's more about maintaining influence in the world.
In the Bible, it was prophesied in Genesis 16 (cf 11-16) that a great nation would come from Ishmael (Mohammed's direct ancestor), but would always be 'a wild donkey of a man and never be at peace with anyone.'
Ezekiel 38-39 prophesies an end time during which the nations surrounding Israel (including Gog chief prince of Meshek and Tubal - modern Russia) - would come against Israel as an overwhelming force. But, in one day, they will be utterly and completely destroyed (cf 39:11-16).
jI repped this post and agree with the Biblical analogy as it applies to the ME; not sure about Russia though. That may be a bridge too far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jghorton
Given the absolute historical accuracy of fulfilled Biblical prophecy, one can conclude that radical Islamic terrorism will exist in the Mid-East until the end times, but, will ultimately be supernaturally destroyed. Otherwise, there will not be a conclusive win in the 'war on terror.'
I don't know if every single Biblical prophecy has come to pass. For example the Jews are not as numerous as the sands. Indeed we are the ultimate minorities.
One clue to the seemingly insolvable problem: The Military and the military defense contractors abhor a vacuum! Peace is the most hated word in their vocabularies!
Big question: Where is ISIS getting their money and supplies?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
