Page 15 of 20 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 200

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

  1. #141
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

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

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    Abandon the ME to the ME.....if they cannot or will not get along, let them kill themselves off up to and including Israel nuking Arab enemies in self defense.
    Abandoning the ME won't get rid of the problem. Then the Problem becomes worse than it already is.

  2. #142
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,189

    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.

    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.



    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.
    I can't agree with your position at all. The Iraqis - the Kurds in particular - have asked for our assistance and you want to just go in and kill all of them, our friends as well. That's about as stupid as burning down your house to get rid of some cockroaches.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  3. #143
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,364

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

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    It's revealing that you think any of the Muslim jihadists whose goal is to kill everyone who does not share their religious beliefs--savages who torment and then execute captured soldiers by the hundreds, decapitate innocent people, including young children, push homosexuals off tall buildings, enslave women, slaughter people just because they are Christians, and have even revived crucifixion--should be allowed to live.

    I can't imagine any target in areas overrun by jihadists that nuclear weapons would be needed to destroy. The conventional bombs of seventy years ago could kill fifty or even one hundred thousand people in a single raid, and I'm sure today's aircraft could do several times that much damage with conventional bombs.

    Of course I would favor the use of this country's nuclear weapons any time our national security required it. If there is no conceivable circumstance under which we would use them, there is no point in having them. President Kennedy was certainly prepared to use nuclear weapons in October, 1962.
    The question is why would we use conventional weapons to do the same thing that a nuclear blast would do quicker and cheaper? Victory on your terms would mean near total annihilation of the native population of Iraq and Syria and Iran and Yemen and Libya and on and on .............. You also forget we dropped more bomb tonnage on Vietnam that all of Germany in WWII and still lost.

  4. #144
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,364

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    It didnt keep them from getting their asses kicked the last time.
    They saved their asses for greener pastures in Syria you mean. They also killed 4000 of us and maimed 20,000 more It is just like Vietnam you can't get the bad guys without wiping out EVERYBODY. They don't wear uniforms and they don't like invaders.

  5. #145
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

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

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    It's revealing that you think any of the Muslim jihadists whose goal is to kill everyone who does not share their religious beliefs--savages who torment and then execute captured soldiers by the hundreds, decapitate innocent people, including young children, push homosexuals off tall buildings, enslave women, slaughter people just because they are Christians, and have even revived crucifixion--should be allowed to live.

    I can't imagine any target in areas overrun by jihadists that nuclear weapons would be needed to destroy. The conventional bombs of seventy years ago could kill fifty or even one hundred thousand people in a single raid, and I'm sure today's aircraft could do several times that much damage with conventional bombs.

    Of course I would favor the use of this country's nuclear weapons any time our national security required it. If there is no conceivable circumstance under which we would use them, there is no point in having them. President Kennedy was certainly prepared to use nuclear weapons in October, 1962.

    We don't need to use any Nukes.....we just need to have about 20k Chinese join in with the hunting, uhm I mean degrading of ISIS.


  6. #146
    Sage
    Fletch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mentor Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    15,269

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

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    They saved their asses for greener pastures in Syria you mean. They also killed 4000 of us and maimed 20,000 more It is just like Vietnam you can't get the bad guys without wiping out EVERYBODY. They don't wear uniforms and they don't like invaders.
    They were beaten badly and driven out of Iraq. If we went back in the same thing would happen to them.

  7. #147
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    10-03-15 @ 09:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    10,734

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus View Post
    ISIS cannot survive without constant war. They need to pull the West into more direct combat in order to thrive as an organization. ISIS has no actual means of maintaining a society in the land they seize. All they do is prep for more combat.

    ISIS is playing the West for fools. Look at how quickly everyone jumped to action once the beheadings started. They didn't even need to crash planes into buildings this time. It's taking less and less to get the hawks riled up.
    Yes they can, without war and conflict they can sell their oil faster and easier to China.

  8. #148
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    10-03-15 @ 09:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    10,734

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

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    The question is why would we use conventional weapons to do the same thing that a nuclear blast would do quicker and cheaper? Victory on your terms would mean near total annihilation of the native population of Iraq and Syria and Iran and Yemen and Libya and on and on .............. You also forget we dropped more bomb tonnage on Vietnam that all of Germany in WWII and still lost.
    We did not lose Vietnam, we left..Never confuse the two.

  9. #149
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,775

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

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    Abandon the ME to the ME.....if they cannot or will not get along, let them kill themselves off up to and including Israel nuking Arab enemies in self defense.
    Which doesn't really help anyone outside of the ME. It wouldn't help the dead cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, the victims of Muslim rape gangs in Sweden, etc. Extremist Islam exists outside of the Middle East, just walling it off and letting them kill each other isn't a solution.
    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!

  10. #150
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,775

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    That's my argument exactly. Unless we deep six all the political correctness nonsense and are willing to win the war and establish peace on our terms, all we accomplish is at best for awhile a slow down of the inevitable. And we leave a truckload of resentment and vengeful spirit and in our wake along with enemies with increased resolve who have all the time in the world to plan their next moves.'

    I do not wish to expend any more of our precious blood and treasure just so we can feel righteous that we did something when in fact we accomplished little or nothing of lasting value.
    My real concern is that we may have created an unwinnable war based on our current failures. When most of this was restricted to the Middle East, we could have gone in and done something about it. Today, it isn't restricted to the Middle East and we can't just fight in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, we have to fight in our own back yard as well. We also no longer have the option of taking our toys and going home, we, and by that I mean the entire western world, has created this monster and now we can't stuff that monster back under the bed and pretend it doesn't exist any more. We have to go after them but we still do not, and probably will never, have the resolve to actually accomplish what needs to be done.
    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!

Page 15 of 20 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... 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
  •