Can Obama Keep His Generals In Check In The War Against Isis?

[Jroc]

[
How about we seal the damn border genius something you liberals refuse to do

You realize sealing a border is pretty much impossible, right?

No it isn't.. Troops, Fence, electronic surveillance its very possible

Okay, you know, fences can be climbed over, cut through, dug under or gone around. troops can be outwitted. electronic survellience can be foiled. It's done every day when places with guards and cameras are broken into.

But let's live in your fantasy land and say it works. How are you going to pay for it? I mean, we can stop sending money to the Zionists, but we'd need a lot more money that that to completely seal the southern border.

Pay for it? Border security is a basic function of the federal government or do you prefer Obama's open boarder approach? Seal the borders then a guest worker program

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a conservative advocacy group that favors tighter immigration laws, argues that the answer is clear: illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers more than $100 billion each year.

Illegal Immigrants Cost U.S. 100 Billion per Year Conservative Group Says About Illegal Immigration - ABC News

The deployment of 36,000 National Guard troops or state militia on the U.S.-Mexico border would stop the illegal flow of foreigners into America, says a congressional report that credits the Minuteman Project with proving that additional manpower could “dramatically reduce if not virtually eliminate” illegal immigration.

The 33-page report, written by investigators for the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, said the Minutemen — who shut down a 23-mile stretch of the Arizona border last month — served as a model for a government effort to reclaim the southern border of the United States.

Read more: Report urges troops sent to border - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 

[JoeB131]

[

There has to be a point where your realize that sticking your dick in the hornet's nest is always a bad idea.

I like your analogy.

We should definitely take a flame thrower to the hornet's nest.

Okay, somehow, I don't think genocide is the answer. Just saying.

Neither do I.

Your analogy though, of "sticking your dick in the hornet's nest" describes the Strategic US military approach to "interventions," and the invasion of Iraq: a partial commitment, e.g. reluctance to triangulate firepower on enemy positions because they happen to be within civilian populations or religious buildings (mosques). Had this approach been applied to Germany or Japan, they never would have been defeated.

I'm proposing that such an approach cannot be successful either in theory or in practice. The only successful way to use military power is to apply it without reluctance and with total commitment to destroy the enemy. If Americans cannot accept this reality, then they had better prepare for WWIII because that will be the only military conflict where they will be successful, or they should expect more half-ass results like Iraq.

Frankly, if we compare the relative success of defeating Japan and Germany, we also must recognize that there was much more that the atomic bomb at play: Russians, the real "Flame Throwers," to the Hornet's Nest. Both Germany and Japan understood that unlike America, Russians had a certain level of commitment to defeating their enemy that even a country possessing atomic weapons could not match.

I think you make a lot of valid points, but the problem with the WWII analogy is that we are not fighting against opposing governments. We are fighting against criminal gangs operating within countries that are unable or unwilling to deal with them.

The point is, beating Iraq and Afghanistan is easy. We did that in a couple of weeks. Building a country afterwards - something we wisely did with Germany and Japan - is neigh impossible here. Partially because the people themselves have no national identity. We could rebuild Japan because Japan had a culture and history and language. Afghanistan is a spot on the map that exists with its present borders because the British and Russian Empires wanted a buffer zone between them. Iraq is just something the British carved out of the dying carcass of the Ottoman Empire.

The other part of the problem is that when you are dealing with cultures this old, we are just another invader they will drive out eventually. Iraq has seen the British, the Ottomans, the Seljuks, the Parthians, the Romans, the Greeks, the Persians all come and go through their territory.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Pay for it? Border security is a basic function of the federal government or do you prefer Obama's open boarder approach? Seal the borders then a guest worker program

r

I know talking to you is like talking to an angry retard, but you are completely missing the point.

We have a porous border because there's something on the other side of the border they want.

You could solve the "illegal" problem very easily. instead of playing "Catch and release" at the border, you go after the people who hire them in the first place.

Everything from the sweatshop that has them sewing for less than minimum wage to the rich Yuppie assholes who think their nanny Lupe is just like a member of the family. You slap them with huge fines, confiscation of business assets and even jail time for the more noxious offenders like the ones who engage in human trafficking.

But that would be going after rich people. "You can't do this to me, I'm rich!!!"

Come on, the Rich don't want a "Guest Worker" program. Guest workers would have rights. I mean, shit, they might as well pay an American a fair wage if they had to do that.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

OP- Yes. Sure makes him look good, and scares ISIS too...the media has too much time on their hands.

They no doubt laugh at Obama he even looks like a little bitch

At this point, the American public would favor our Generals staging a coup against him. Installing Biden would still be an improvement.

BULL CRAP..... asshole!

Prove me wrong. He has 78% disapproval rating. The American public is sorry they ever elected that asshole. ISIS is staged to attack the homeland and all Dear Leader thinks about is his next golf outing.

 

[Samson]

[

There has to be a point where your realize that sticking your dick in the hornet's nest is always a bad idea.

I like your analogy.

We should definitely take a flame thrower to the hornet's nest.

Okay, somehow, I don't think genocide is the answer. Just saying.

Neither do I.

Your analogy though, of "sticking your dick in the hornet's nest" describes the Strategic US military approach to "interventions," and the invasion of Iraq: a partial commitment, e.g. reluctance to triangulate firepower on enemy positions because they happen to be within civilian populations or religious buildings (mosques). Had this approach been applied to Germany or Japan, they never would have been defeated.

I'm proposing that such an approach cannot be successful either in theory or in practice. The only successful way to use military power is to apply it without reluctance and with total commitment to destroy the enemy. If Americans cannot accept this reality, then they had better prepare for WWIII because that will be the only military conflict where they will be successful, or they should expect more half-ass results like Iraq.

Frankly, if we compare the relative success of defeating Japan and Germany, we also must recognize that there was much more that the atomic bomb at play: Russians, the real "Flame Throwers," to the Hornet's Nest. Both Germany and Japan understood that unlike America, Russians had a certain level of commitment to defeating their enemy that even a country possessing atomic weapons could not match.

I think you make a lot of valid points, but the problem with the WWII analogy is that we are not fighting against opposing governments. We are fighting against criminal gangs operating within countries that are unable or unwilling to deal with them.

The point is, beating Iraq and Afghanistan is easy. We did that in a couple of weeks. Building a country afterwards - something we wisely did with Germany and Japan - is neigh impossible here. Partially because the people themselves have no national identity. We could rebuild Japan because Japan had a culture and history and language. Afghanistan is a spot on the map that exists with its present borders because the British and Russian Empires wanted a buffer zone between them. Iraq is just something the British carved out of the dying carcass of the Ottoman Empire.

The other part of the problem is that when you are dealing with cultures this old, we are just another invader they will drive out eventually. Iraq has seen the British, the Ottomans, the Seljuks, the Parthians, the Romans, the Greeks, the Persians all come and go through their territory.

The Japanese culture is very old, and they surrendered. Why?

Part of the reason was the A-bomb. The other part was that the Soviet Union was prepared to attack Japan, occupy Japan, and kill every single Japanese. How did they know this? Because the Soviet Union had demonstrated their willingness to do it: Russians had not only defeated Germany, but had invaded and occupied (not "liberated") half of Europe.

The concept that some Germans or Japanese might not be the enemy was ridiculous. "Criminal gangs operating within countries" was not even a remote consideration: The ENTIRE POPULATION of the country was attacked, regardless of the reality that not ALL were Nazis, or equally committed to a "Heavenly Sovereign." This is the only successful approach to using military power, and anything less, e.g. a "police action" will not be successful. Iraq is no different. The fact that it has been occupied in the past is irrelevant. It, and Syria, can be occupied AGAIN, and unless the USA is committed to this and the ruthless, indiscriminate destruction of any hint of opposition, then the US military will not be successful.

 

[JoeB131]

[

The Japanese culture is very old, and they surrendered. Why?

Part of the reason was the A-bomb. The other part was that the Soviet Union was prepared to attack Japan, occupy Japan, and kill every single Japanese. How did they know this? Because the Soviet Union had demonstrated their willingness to do it: Russians had not only defeated Germany, but had invaded and occupied (not "liberated") half of Europe.

The concept that some Germans or Japanese might not be the enemy was ridiculous. "Criminal gangs operating within countries" was not even a remote consideration: The ENTIRE POPULATION of the country was attacked, regardless of the reality that not ALL were Nazis, or equally committed to a "Heavenly Sovereign." This is the only successful approach to using military power, and anything less, e.g. a "police action" will not be successful. Iraq is no different. The fact that it has been occupied in the past is irrelevant. It, and Syria, can be occupied AGAIN, and unless the USA is committed to this and the ruthless, indiscriminate destruction of any hint of opposition, then the US military will not be successful.

The Japanese surrendered because at a certain point, they knew continuing the war was pointless. they were just looking for the best terms they could get.

Now, yes, we could invade Iraq and Syria. We would need to institute a draft go get a large enough army to pacify both countries, we would have to raise taxes to pay for it, we'd have to ration gasoline in order to deal with the disruption in supplies that would result.

Is any of that worth it? Does ISIL present an existential threat to the US that a victorious Axis might have?

I'd honestly say, no. It doesn't. Yes, it's sad that journalists are being beheaded and we will have to be more vigilant about terrorism in the future, but the kind of transformational war we'd have to fight would change us as well... and I'm not sure I want to go there.

 

[Samson]

[

The Japanese culture is very old, and they surrendered. Why?

Part of the reason was the A-bomb. The other part was that the Soviet Union was prepared to attack Japan, occupy Japan, and kill every single Japanese. How did they know this? Because the Soviet Union had demonstrated their willingness to do it: Russians had not only defeated Germany, but had invaded and occupied (not "liberated") half of Europe.

The concept that some Germans or Japanese might not be the enemy was ridiculous. "Criminal gangs operating within countries" was not even a remote consideration: The ENTIRE POPULATION of the country was attacked, regardless of the reality that not ALL were Nazis, or equally committed to a "Heavenly Sovereign." This is the only successful approach to using military power, and anything less, e.g. a "police action" will not be successful. Iraq is no different. The fact that it has been occupied in the past is irrelevant. It, and Syria, can be occupied AGAIN, and unless the USA is committed to this and the ruthless, indiscriminate destruction of any hint of opposition, then the US military will not be successful.

The Japanese surrendered because at a certain point, they knew continuing the war was pointless. they were just looking for the best terms they could get.

Now, yes, we could invade Iraq and Syria. We would need to institute a draft go get a large enough army to pacify both countries, we would have to raise taxes to pay for it, we'd have to ration gasoline in order to deal with the disruption in supplies that would result.

Is any of that worth it? Does ISIL present an existential threat to the US that a victorious Axis might have?

I'd honestly say, no. It doesn't. Yes, it's sad that journalists are being beheaded and we will have to be more vigilant about terrorism in the future, but the kind of transformational war we'd have to fight would change us as well... and I'm not sure I want to go there.

Agreed.

Let's just consider for a moment though, that in 1933, the USA looked over at the Jewish population in Germany, and the executions of journalists expressing views opposing Brown Shirts, and decided that there were "criminal gangs operating within" Germany.

While we're fantasizing, lets say that in 1933 the USA could "intervene" against the Nazi, "criminal gangs."

What might have been the outcome?

 

[JoeB131]

[

Agreed.

Let's just consider for a moment though, that in 1933, the USA looked over at the Jewish population in Germany, and the executions of journalists expressing views opposing Brown Shirts, and decided that there were "criminal gangs operating within" Germany.

While we're fantasizing, lets say that in 1933 the USA could "intervene" against the Nazi, "criminal gangs."

What might have been the outcome?

Probably the same. Except that instead of the NSDAP, some other Right Wing Party would have come to power in Germany and done the same damned thing.

You see, Hitler never would have been anything more than a thug if Germany's Military-Industrial Complex hadn't thought he was a guy they could work with.

 

[Samson]

[

Agreed.

Let's just consider for a moment though, that in 1933, the USA looked over at the Jewish population in Germany, and the executions of journalists expressing views opposing Brown Shirts, and decided that there were "criminal gangs operating within" Germany.

While we're fantasizing, lets say that in 1933 the USA could "intervene" against the Nazi, "criminal gangs."

What might have been the outcome?

Probably the same. Except that instead of the NSDAP, some other Right Wing Party would have come to power in Germany and done the same damned thing.

You see, Hitler never would have been anything more than a thug if Germany's Military-Industrial Complex hadn't thought he was a guy they could work with.

In the context of the Theory that Military Power cannot succeed unless it is completely committed, the outcome may have been WORSE. We would have begun fucking around in 1933, and we would still be fucking around in 1953...or LONGER.

On the other hand, there would never have been any Nazi Fixed Assets, e.g. concentration camps, aircraft factories, etc. No need for a Dunkirk, D-Day landing, Battle of Brittan.

 

[Care4all]

OP- Yes. Sure makes him look good, and scares ISIS too...the media has too much time on their hands.

They no doubt laugh at Obama he even looks like a little bitch

At this point, the American public would favor our Generals staging a coup against him. Installing Biden would still be an improvement.

BULL CRAP..... asshole!

Prove me wrong. He has 78% disapproval rating. The American public is sorry they ever elected that asshole. ISIS is staged to attack the homeland and all Dear Leader thinks about is his next golf outing.

It's TREASON for the Military to install a coup against the Commander and Chief, as you are suggesting...PERIOD. And to imply such, IS bull crap....at its best.