Page 13 of 20 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 200

Thread: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E.

  1. #121
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    I don't care how long we wait if going back in means we lose hundreds or thousands more of our young men and women for a poorly defined mission that nobody will know when or if we have accomplished it. We Americans simply have to stop doing that. The cost in blood and treasure is simply unconscionable.

    If we are going to go to war, let's declare it. And let's go with overwhelming force and do whatever we have to do to achieve unconditional surrender. And then give whoever we conquered their country back after they have set up a government and policies to our liking. If there is no way to do that, we shouldn't go at all. The terrorists have infinite time and infinite patience. All they have to do is hide out until the American people once again become too war weary to continue and so we don't finish anything. We just stop fighting the war. We've been doing that since Korea. And utlimately we leave divided countries or situations little or no better than they were to begin with.

    And I sure as heck am no lefty.
    Im saying thats what we are going to need to do-go in balls deep. The current POTUS is pretending the war in Iraq is over, its not-in fact its grown.

    When we tell our enemies when we are leaving this type of thing happens. Obama ceded Iraq to ISIS and Iran.

    Like I said-we are going in, its just a matter of time.

  2. #122
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,577
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Im saying thats what we are going to need to do-go in balls deep. The current POTUS is pretending the war in Iraq is over, its not-in fact its grown.

    When we tell our enemies when we are leaving this type of thing happens. Obama ceded Iraq to ISIS and Iran.

    Like I said-we are going in, its just a matter of time.
    You're probably right that we'll go in, but unless something seriously changes in Washington, we won't go in 'balls deep'. We'll go in half-assed and with no clear mission as we have done in every war since WWII. Just imagine if Truman and the 81st Congress had been willing to do that. What if in 1950 we had joined with our allies and gone in with overwhelming force and had achieved unconditional surrender in North Korea and forced it into a peaceful republic as we did in Germany and Japan. Instead of a divided Korea and a dangerous Kim Jong-un and a totalitarian 'communist' government who are our sworn enemies since the late 1940's, we would likely have a unified Korea, ally, and trading partner as we do now with Germany and Japan.

    Every time since Korea and beyond that we have engaged in military action but have not fought a war to complete surrender, we have left enemies and chaos in our wake. It is time we stop doing that.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  3. #123
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,805

    Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    You're probably right that we'll go in, but unless something seriously changes in Washington, we won't go in 'balls deep'. We'll go in half-assed and with no clear mission as we have done in every war since WWII. Just imagine if Truman and the 81st Congress had been willing to do that. What if in 1950 we had joined with our allies and gone in with overwhelming force and had achieved unconditional surrender in North Korea and forced it into a peaceful republic as we did in Germany and Japan. Instead of a divided Korea and a dangerous Kim Jong-un and a totalitarian 'communist' government who are our sworn enemies since the late 1940's, we would likely have a unified Korea, ally, and trading partner as we do now with Germany and Japan.

    Every time since Korea and beyond that we have engaged in military action but have not fought a war to complete surrender, we have left enemies and chaos in our wake. It is time we stop doing that.
    Unfortunately, we just don't have the balls for it, it comes part and parcel with the liberalization of American society. We've spent 50 years becoming a culture of pussies that refuse to do the job that needs to be done and I don't think there's any going back now. If 9/11 didn't make us willing to go in balls deep, nothing will.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  4. #124
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    You're probably right that we'll go in, but unless something seriously changes in Washington, we won't go in 'balls deep'. We'll go in half-assed and with no clear mission as we have done in every war since WWII. Just imagine if Truman and the 81st Congress had been willing to do that. What if in 1950 we had joined with our allies and gone in with overwhelming force and had achieved unconditional surrender in North Korea and forced it into a peaceful republic as we did in Germany and Japan. Instead of a divided Korea and a dangerous Kim Jong-un and a totalitarian 'communist' government who are our sworn enemies since the late 1940's, we would likely have a unified Korea, ally, and trading partner as we do now with Germany and Japan.

    Every time since Korea and beyond that we have engaged in military action but have not fought a war to complete surrender, we have left enemies and chaos in our wake. It is time we stop doing that.
    Korea was bumbled for several reasons, including an idiotic (but new) UN. We underestimated the communist threat until we were at bayonet range.

    In Vietnam, we were slow to adapt to counter insurgency techniques-and after a largely political loss, the military essentially burned the manual on coin warfare.

    Throughout the cold war-we focused on conventional enemies, and excepting gulf war 1, we never really saw that.

    By 9/11 we still hadn't really changed...and we found ourself in a new (to the current generation) type of war, low intensity, asymmetric, coin. Our drones decimated AQ in Afghanistan (still a striking achievement-even as Obama squanders that victory) and probably prevented us from invading Pakistan.

    My point is we have made huge advancements in the last 14+ years. This type of conflict wont be going away in the foreseeable future (coin), we need to get very good at it now (while retaining the ability to strike conventionally in other conflicts) to prevent us from having to constantly fight these conflicts in the future.

    If you have the time, this segment is excellent-the best weapon right now isnt a bomb or missile-its a knife-we need to have a committed force on the ground that knows who its fighting-that knows the local conditions, thats let both our enemies and friends know its better in the long run to side with us. And we need to establish that we are there for the duration-when we constrain ourselves to deadlines-we are saying we aren't really serious.



    Regardless of how you or I feel-this conflict isn't going away-we can either commit to it now, or commit to it later for a dearer price.

  5. #125
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,408

    Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    Do they? Why would anyone want that?
    I can't believe you would say that after Iraq. Nothing helps the cause of jihad like 1000's of infidels invading Muslim nations.

  6. #126
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    I don't disagree with what you've posted - that doesn't change the fact that a ground force of Americans or Coalition forces would have a very difficult time entering a city, like Mosul as an example, and clearing out the ISIS fanatics, leaving the friendlies alone, and leaving the city in any sense of repair such that it would be inhabitable going forward.
    The U.S. should be concerned first with destroying these jihadists, who are a growing threat to the whole civilized world. That is the main thing. We should not be so concerned about damage to cities where these people are sheltering--Raqaa, for example--that we let it limit our ability to destroy them. The U.S. and Britain believed that to defeat Nazi Germany, it was necessary to invade France. They did not let the fact this unavoidably would cause the deaths of many French civilians--about 40,000 of them as it turned out--prevent them from acting.

    And the allies were even less concerned about the enemy's civilians. About a year later, the U.S. bombed a part of Tokyo where civilians were using shops attached to their houses to make valuable machine parts for the Japanese military, even though this very heavy raid killed as many as 100,000 people and razed a large area of the city.

    This President will never do anything like this, but I hope the next one will be willing to. If heavy bombing raids on jihadist targets in or near a city in Iraq or Syria happened to kill a substantial number of the residents, it is hard to imagine any other city in the area continuing to shelter them. The inhabitants would realize it was safer to drive out the jihadists than risk becoming incidental casualties of bombings aimed at them.

    The precision that was on display in the show attacks with which Mr. Obama kicked off his pinprick camapaign late last summer--pinpoint Tomahawk strikes, or that only one corner of a building had been bombed and the rest left intact, or that only the communications gear on the roof had been destroyed, or all the other exquisite selectivity that was made much of--may have been working against us all along.

    It has been paraded as a way to make Iraqis, or whatever other Muslims are involved, like us. The idea seems to be that once the vast majority who are good, nice Muslims see how friendly and humane we are, we will win their hearts and minds, and they will help us fight that small minority of mean, icky jihadists--who after all, are plaguing them as well as us.

    But the world is not a kindergarten. I have always suspected that was a fable we have let ourselves be comforted by, and probably not for admirable reasons. A lot of people want to believe jihadists are not part of Islam, because the idea that they are--that many ordinary Muslims in a number of countries sympathize with them to some extent--suggests one hell of a lot of killing may be necessary to defend our way of life.

    Not nearly so many Americans today, both because of the softer lives we now lead, and because of forty years of indoctrination in public schools that this country and Western culture are hardly worth defending, have the stomach for that as did in the 1940's or '50's. And there are millions of leftists in the West, some of whom always crop up on sites like this, who detest the U.S. just as much as the jihadists do.

    This must be done, with our assistance, by Iraq troops, Kurdish troops, in the area who readily know who to trust and who not to trust.
    I would like to see a move to retake Mosul as one part of a much larger U.S. effort, although there may not be enough reliable and determined local forces. But then, it would have to wait for another President anyway. I think it would take a substantial force of infantry to retake a city as large as Mosul--say 10,000 men, more or less, depending on how good they were. U.S. and allied servicemen would have to be involved in their training, and quite a few would also have to be leading them, come the day. Of course plenty of artillery, armor, various aircraft, or other heavy weapons could be provided to support an division-sized infantry force.
    Last edited by matchlight; 01-27-15 at 03:26 PM.

  7. #127
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,408

    Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Im saying thats what we are going to need to do-go in balls deep. The current POTUS is pretending the war in Iraq is over, its not-in fact its grown.

    When we tell our enemies when we are leaving this type of thing happens. Obama ceded Iraq to ISIS and Iran.

    Like I said-we are going in, its just a matter of time.
    Iraq is not under control of ISIS and they have lost ground since we started our air war and Maliki was ousted.
    Will you neo-cons never learn? The Muslims need to take charge of their own problems. We cannot stay and babysit them forever.
    Our presence on the ground will just make things worse, like it did in Iraq when we created ISIS.
    Last edited by iguanaman; 01-27-15 at 03:28 PM.

  8. #128
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,408

    Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    The U.S. should be concerned first with destroying these jihadists, who are a growing threat to the whole civilized world. That is the main thing. We should not be so concerned about damage to cities where these people are sheltering--Raqaa, for example--that we let it limit our ability to destroy them. The U.S. and Britain believed that to defeat Nazi Germany, it was necessary to invade France. They did not let the fact this unavoidably would cause the deaths of many French civilians--about 40,000 of them as it turned out--prevent them from acting.

    And the allies were even less concerned about the enemy's civilians. About a year later, the U.S. bombed a part of Tokyo where civilians were using shops attached to their houses to make valuable machine parts for the Japanese military, even though this very heavy raid killed as many as 100,000 people and razed a large area of the city.

    This President will never do anything like this, but I hope the next one will be willing to. If heavy bombing raids on jihadist targets in or near a city in Iraq or Syria happened to kill a substantial number of the residents, it is hard to imagine any other city in the area continuing to shelter them. The inhabitants would realize it was safer to drive out the jihadists than risk becoming incidental casualties of bombings aimed at them.

    The precision that was on display in the show attacks with which Mr. Obama kicked off his pinprick camapaign late last summer--pinpoint Tomahawk strikes, or that only one corner of a building had been bombed and the rest left intact, or that only the communications gear on the roof had been destroyed, or all the other exquisite selectivity that was made much of--may have been working against us all along.

    It has been paraded as a way to make Iraqis, or whatever other Muslims are involved, like us. The idea seems to be that once the vast majority who are good, nice Muslims see how friendly and humane we are, we will win their hearts and minds, and they will help us fight that small minority of mean, icky jihadists--who after all, are plaguing them as well as us.

    But the world is not a kindergarten. I have always suspected that was a fable we have let ourselves be comforted by, and probably not for admirable reasons. A lot of people want to believe jihadists are not part of Islam, because the idea that they are--that many ordinary Muslims in a number of countries sympathize with them to some extent--suggests one hell of a lot of killing may be necessary to defend our way of life.

    And not nearly so many Americans today, both because of the softer lives we now lead, and because of forty years of indoctrination in public schools that this country and Western culture are hardly worth defending, have the stomach for that as did in the 1940's or '50's. And there are now millions of statists in the West, some of whom always crop up on sites like this, who detest the U.S. just as much as the jihadists do.



    I would like to see a move to retake Mosul as one part of a much larger U.S. effort, although there may not be enough reliable and determined local forces. But then, it would have to wait for another President anyway. I think it would take a substantial force of infantry to retake a city as large as Mosul--say 10,000 men, more or less, depending on how good they were. U.S. and allied servicemen would have to be involved in their training, and quite a few would also have to be leading them, come the day. Of course plenty of artillery, armor, various aircraft, or other heavy weapons could be provided to support an division-sized infantry force.
    LOL You answer is kill them all. The easiest way would be to nuke them. Why is that not an option for you?

  9. #129
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    Iraq is not under control of ISIS and they have lost ground since we started our air war and Maliki was ousted.
    Will you neo-cons never learn? The Muslims need to take charge of their own problems. We cannot stay and babysit them forever.
    Our presence on the ground will just make things worse, like it did in Iraq when we created ISIS.
    Heres a newsflash-ISIS is NOT just a muslim problem. Its a world wide issue (all of islamic radicalism).

    Step up to the fight, its not going to leave because you dont like it.

  10. #130
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,577
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: On ‘Face the Nation,’ Senators Feinstein, McCain Call For More U.S. Troops In M.E

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Korea was bumbled for several reasons, including an idiotic (but new) UN. We underestimated the communist threat until we were at bayonet range.

    In Vietnam, we were slow to adapt to counter insurgency techniques-and after a largely political loss, the military essentially burned the manual on coin warfare.

    Throughout the cold war-we focused on conventional enemies, and excepting gulf war 1, we never really saw that.

    By 9/11 we still hadn't really changed...and we found ourself in a new (to the current generation) type of war, low intensity, asymmetric, coin. Our drones decimated AQ in Afghanistan (still a striking achievement-even as Obama squanders that victory) and probably prevented us from invading Pakistan.

    My point is we have made huge advancements in the last 14+ years. This type of conflict wont be going away in the foreseeable future (coin), we need to get very good at it now (while retaining the ability to strike conventionally in other conflicts) to prevent us from having to constantly fight these conflicts in the future.

    If you have the time, this segment is excellent-the best weapon right now isnt a bomb or missile-its a knife-we need to have a committed force on the ground that knows who its fighting-that knows the local conditions, thats let both our enemies and friends know its better in the long run to side with us. And we need to establish that we are there for the duration-when we constrain ourselves to deadlines-we are saying we aren't really serious.



    Regardless of how you or I feel-this conflict isn't going away-we can either commit to it now, or commit to it later for a dearer price.
    I'm not saying that we should not address the threat. But there is no political will to give our 'boots on the ground' permission to do what they have to do to decimate and destroy the enemy. We are forced by political and social forces to fight 'politically correct' wars and woe to anybody who violates the rules in that regard. They will be destroyed either literally via the legal system or in the court of public opinion.

    All I am saying that unless we know in advance what victory will look like and we are willing to let our people win, we should not send them at all.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

Page 13 of 20 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •