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.
Like sending MORE US forces where they don't belong? THAT's different HOW?
You seem to have great ability to ignore things that are inconvenient. Go back and read my first post that you responded to, which caused you to start yammering about Bush. You will have your answer.
How do you destroy an ideology? You can kill people, you can kill the leaders, but more will take up the banner and fight on.
ISIS is a country. Like the USA or Russia. It is a territory under political, and economic control like the Ukraine or Crimea.
Is the USA merely an ideology?
ISIS stands for something like--off the top of my head from memory--Islamic State of Syria and the Levant. Something like that. And they have been trying to expand their territory. You know, like Nazi Germany did and how the fools among the Hillary Democrats and McCain Republicans keep claiming Russia is doing (which it is not).
ISIS has been trying to expand to take over the whole of Syria. And Obama and Hillary were pretty much helping them.
But let's be clear. They intend on expanding their boarders further and further and eventually into Spain and then England and then expand into the USA. Maybe take Florida first and keep trying to expand further into the US, as in physical territory and not just some intellectual ideology. They want physical ground.
When you take territory as the US empire, British empire, Soviet empire, and as ISIS will do you take control of that territories resources and economy. You force the young men to fight for you in continued wars of expansion.
So, if you have a crazed gorilla, then it is better to kill it when it is a young babe rather than wait until it turns into a 400 pound adult behemoth.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
Yet you constantly fight the one candidate who railed against it and won.
i.e. Talk is cheap.
Yes and HIS talk was amongst the cheapest. Just HOW is running as a MEMBER of one of the parties you claim to rally against fighting anything? IF the man had any TRUE desire to change anything he would have run as an (I), as it is his alleged fight against politics as usual brands him a poseur, nothing else.
Not clear since the latest immigration executive order cites Syria and Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism. So the ultimate objective will be to finish ISIS, Assad and then Iran. Paranoid it may sound, but still possible.
Something else has occurred to me in regards to having to actually land a forward artillery force. Naval gunfire has been declared obsolete. They had the battlewagons out for a while back in the 80s and they stayed at sea till the 90s. In many cases our forces could still very effectively bring the rain on targets without having to land artillery. With Naval guns. I wouldn't choose battleships for this, I'd bring out cruisers. With 8 inch guns instead of 16. It sounds like the 16s would be better, but pound for pound with the 8s they are not. Cruisers can lay down some serious s*** from a considerable distance out. Far cheaper and just as effectively as missiles and aircraft. Hell, bring some cruisers out of mothballs and let them off the leash.
I'm not sure we have any "gun cruisers" left in Susin Bay or other such places. I presume your referring to something like the Baltimore class or the Des Moines class? I believe the last of the Baltimore class were scrapped in the mid 1990s. There is one Des Moines class cruiser (Salem) left as a museum ship in Boston I think although I read that she is in bad shape via the World of Warships online game forum (the Des Moines class is the highest 'level' USN cruiser in the game - and let me tell ya, shes a beauty).
I have long advocated a sort of modern battleship or heavy cruiser as I believe the armor would make them more or less impervious to missiles. They would literally bounce right off.
Yes and HIS talk was amongst the cheapest. Just HOW is running as a MEMBER of one of the parties you claim to rally against fighting anything? IF the man had any TRUE desire to change anything he would have run as an (I), as it is his alleged fight against politics as usual brands him a poseur, nothing else.
Talk is cheap.
I make a point about Obama, and your response is to counter with Bush. (no doubt because you assumed I support Bush since he is a Republican) Proof enough.
i.e. You say you are against the entrenched position of the two parties but you demonstrate that you have bought into it hook line and sinker. You are fooling nobody.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
You seem to have great ability to ignore things that are inconvenient. Go back and read my first post that you responded to, which caused you to start yammering about Bush. You will have your answer.
Oh please, you said it was time to get things over with and bring the troops home when there's NO good reason to send them in the first place. That's no answer, it's an excuse.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
Talk is cheap.
I make a point about Obama, and your response is to counter with Bush. (no doubt because you assumed I support Bush since he is a Republican) Proof enough.
The point you lamely attempted to make was to blame Obama for involvement that started long before him. That was cheap talk indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
i.e. You say you are against the entrenched position of the two parties but you demonstrate that you have bought into it hook line and sinker. You are fooling nobody.
I've done no such thing but glad to see your imagination is so vivid.
Yes and HIS talk was amongst the cheapest. Just HOW is running as a MEMBER of one of the parties you claim to rally against fighting anything? IF the man had any TRUE desire to change anything he would have run as an (I), as it is his alleged fight against politics as usual brands him a poseur, nothing else.
I have so many friend lost their lives fighting this war.
Many believe they fought for a good cause. The people who have seen combat have all said those people are savages. They did terrible things to their own people. I know saying this will make me a bad person, but, oh well.
I know my friends died for a reason. They did not fight a meaningless war. (It is not worth it, but it is not completely meaningless)
The chinese are Eyeing Afghanistan's estimated $1 trillion worth of unexploited minerals; we have lost so many lives, we should at least take the oil.
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.
