Red Mosquito

Strat wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Strat wrote:Who and where do you even attack though? Where is ISIS and what is ISIS exactly? Its like this organic operation that is becoming worldwide. it doesnt need a home base, or at least it wont at some point. how do you destroy an ideology? Its built on extreme martyrdom, anything attack made, or successful kill of a target just proves what they stand on and will only lead to greater recruitment.

We're fucked. Life is over. Trump will be president. Obama is like palpatine and will soon initiate order 66 and we'll all be covering our faces with black masks.

Thing is though, ISIS does at least control part of the map, and has a recognizable army, so they aren't completely like an al qaeda. The fact that they are just sitting there in Syria and Iraq in defiance of most of the world might be why they are recruiting so well. Would they be so successful if that were smashed?

And Obama is a foreign born secret muslim terrorist!

And like stip is saying, its like whack a mole. Okay, "defeat" isis, then who comes in?

Look, Nuke the fucking Mideast and lets get on with it.

Just kidding. Mostly.

Coach wrote:It would take, literally, millions of troops to fight that hand-to-hand combat on the ground in Iraq and Syria. I don't see a coalition of nations up for selling that to the public.

Agree on Putin. Wouldn't be surprised to see him start using chemical weapons through a proxy of some sort.

Simple Torture wrote:I do agree with Coach that chemical weapons are a possibility, especially since they've already been used in Syria. Doubt the US would go that route, but Russia certainly could.

@SkitchP wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:I do agree with Coach that chemical weapons are a possibility, especially since they've already been used in Syria. Doubt the US would go that route, but Russia certainly could.

Yeah. Speaking purely selfishly as someone living in the west, I hope Putin loses his shit, does something crazy, and becomes the focus of the retaliation.

@SkitchP wrote:

Coach wrote:It would take, literally, millions of troops to fight that hand-to-hand combat on the ground in Iraq and Syria. I don't see a coalition of nations up for selling that to the public.

Agree on Putin. Wouldn't be surprised to see him start using chemical weapons through a proxy of some sort.

Well you're obviously not going to be able to go door to door asking every person. Hey, you like ISIS? But the standard airstrikes on perceived "military targets" and such is a much safer route than nukes. With muslims (and a very small percentage of extremists) all over the world, to give them a specific large rallying cry- which a nuke would do- is entirely too dangerous. It would make the events of Paris a virtually weekly occurrence in varying cities across the west.

Coach wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

Coach wrote:It would take, literally, millions of troops to fight that hand-to-hand combat on the ground in Iraq and Syria. I don't see a coalition of nations up for selling that to the public.

Agree on Putin. Wouldn't be surprised to see him start using chemical weapons through a proxy of some sort.

Well you're obviously not going to be able to go door to door asking every person. Hey, you like ISIS? But the standard airstrikes on perceived "military targets" and such is a much safer route than nukes. With muslims (and a very small percentage of extremists) all over the world, to give them a specific large rallying cry- which a nuke would do- is entirely too dangerous. It would make the events of Paris a virtually weekly occurrence in varying cities across the west.

Haven't our policies and procedures and wars already created such a rallying cry? It's only a matter of time before another attack inside the U.S. I don't think it happens as often because of our intelligence efforts, which have prevented a few, coupled w/ a lack of personnel operating within the U.S.

I do agree that nukes would be the largest possible rallying cry, though, and raise the level of danger.

Simple Torture wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:I do agree with Coach that chemical weapons are a possibility, especially since they've already been used in Syria. Doubt the US would go that route, but Russia certainly could.

Yeah. Speaking purely selfishly as someone living in the west, I hope Putin loses his shit, does something crazy, and becomes the focus of the retaliation.

I think the fact that ISIS bombed a Russian jet one week and shot up a western city the next shows that they can focus on both. I also think that Putin "losing his shit" is a bit far-fetched--for a monomaniacal madman, he seems to be extremely cool and collected.

stip wrote:just hang in there, team

Kaius wrote:the more stable nations of the region (Iran,

turned2black wrote:How hilariously ironic would it be if our current deal/relationship with Iran became the "blueprint" for dealing with the mideast.

simple schoolboy wrote:

turned2black wrote:How hilariously ironic would it be if our current deal/relationship with Iran became the "blueprint" for dealing with the mideast.

They minimally comply and we lift sanctions? I think I'm missing something here.

The Jeb! Campaign has been tanking. Why? Because he’s been trying to have it both ways. He wants credit for being part of the Bush dynasty, all that experience, you know, in getting things wrong, and simultaneously NOT being part of the dynasty in that he’s his own man, not like his bother at all, in ways that…well he was always going to get back to us on which those ways were that he was different.

This straddle has not been working out for him. Why not? Americans have short memories, but even Americans have SOME recollection that the George W. Bush administration had possibly the worst record of any president in American history. He managed to both start a pointless war that massively destabilized an entire region and created open-field running for terrorists, AND presided over the worst economic meltdown since 1929. Jeb!, are you either good with that stuff or not?

Well, waffling wasn’t doing the trick for him, so it was time to choose. And now he has. His foreign policy goals are the same as his brother’s. He’s put the tank treads on his tanking campaign. Shock and awe, boots on the ground, and here we go again. Good to know. I’m sure it will turn out completely differently THIS time. Now we’ll find out if the American people remember that other W. contribution to American politics: “There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”

B wrote:“There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”