Liberal Narrative Shot To Hell

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

There is a bit of a historical problem with your argument. The kamikazes struck at the start of the war with us and won that day quite soundly.

Methinks you are thinking of the banzai charges. The 'Divine Wind' attacks were at the close of the war.

Yup. There were a few isolated incidents of a badly damaged zero that couldn't make it back to base crashing into another plane. With anecdotal examples of US and British pilots doing the exact same thing.

But Kamikaze attacks where perfectly operational zeros were loaded with explosives so they could be crashed by pilots into allied ships? The return of the 'divine wind'? That propaganda didn't even start until 1944. With the kamikaze attacks not starting until October of 44.

They were a desperation move by a force that was losing catastrophically all while having their infrastructure to wage war destroyed systematically.

Just like ISIS is today.

Japan was eventually nuked. I'm not refuting your analogy, I'm saying it's a great analogy and we should drop the same rice cooker on ISIS to complete the analogy.

And what of US allies Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and Israel share borders or are in the immediate proximity of ISIS controlled territories. Japan was geographically isolated from our allies. We'd be nuking our allies or at the very least, giving them a couples of orders of magnitude increase in birth defects and cancer rates, all while irradiating their farmland and water supply.

And of course, the vaporizing of tens of thousands of women and children would be a superb recruiting tool for extremists. Plus, violating the nuclear taboo would cost us dearly in soft power around the world and in credibility for our allies. With war crimes tribunals being a very real possibility......as many of those international laws were created *in response* to the last time we used nuclear weapons.

Or....we can simply continue to wage conventional warfare and beat ISIS without any of those horrendous costs to ourselves and our allies.

When your opponent is engaged in frantic desperation ploys......your strategy is winning. Just keep it up, and you win.

I just praised your analogy!

Japan was close to China, our ally.

 

[Skylar]

There is a bit of a historical problem with your argument. The kamikazes struck at the start of the war with us and won that day quite soundly.

Methinks you are thinking of the banzai charges. The 'Divine Wind' attacks were at the close of the war.

Yup. There were a few isolated incidents of a badly damaged zero that couldn't make it back to base crashing into another plane. With anecdotal examples of US and British pilots doing the exact same thing.

But Kamikaze attacks where perfectly operational zeros were loaded with explosives so they could be crashed by pilots into allied ships? The return of the 'divine wind'? That propaganda didn't even start until 1944. With the kamikaze attacks not starting until October of 44.

They were a desperation move by a force that was losing catastrophically all while having their infrastructure to wage war destroyed systematically.

Just like ISIS is today.

Japan was eventually nuked. I'm not refuting your analogy, I'm saying it's a great analogy and we should drop the same rice cooker on ISIS to complete the analogy.

And what of US allies Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and Israel share borders or are in the immediate proximity of ISIS controlled territories. Japan was geographically isolated from our allies. We'd be nuking our allies or at the very least, giving them a couples of orders of magnitude increase in birth defects and cancer rates, all while irradiating their farmland and water supply.

And of course, the vaporizing of tens of thousands of women and children would be a superb recruiting tool for extremists. Plus, violating the nuclear taboo would cost us dearly in soft power around the world and in credibility for our allies. With war crimes tribunals being a very real possibility......as many of those international laws were created *in response* to the last time we used nuclear weapons.

Or....we can simply continue to wage conventional warfare and beat ISIS without any of those horrendous costs to ourselves and our allies.

When your opponent is engaged in frantic desperation ploys......your strategy is winning. Just keep it up, and you win.

I just praised your analogy!

Japan was close to China, our ally.

Nope. Hiroshima was about 750 miles away the closest Chinese coastline. Almost all of it open ocean. Or roughly the same distance as Chicago to Dallas. They were no where near each other.

Turkey in comparison is about 7 feet away from ISIS controlled territory, sharing a border with them. Iraq, about 6 feet away. Jordan about 150 miles away, Israel 200 miles......all of it land. With all of these countries sharing the same water sheds. So you'd be eradicating the farmland and water supply of our 4 closest regional allies.

Along with all the other costs. Why would we want to do any of this when the strategy we're employing now is already clearly winning?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Methinks you are thinking of the banzai charges. The 'Divine Wind' attacks were at the close of the war.

Yup. There were a few isolated incidents of a badly damaged zero that couldn't make it back to base crashing into another plane. With anecdotal examples of US and British pilots doing the exact same thing.

But Kamikaze attacks where perfectly operational zeros were loaded with explosives so they could be crashed by pilots into allied ships? The return of the 'divine wind'? That propaganda didn't even start until 1944. With the kamikaze attacks not starting until October of 44.

They were a desperation move by a force that was losing catastrophically all while having their infrastructure to wage war destroyed systematically.

Just like ISIS is today.

Japan was eventually nuked. I'm not refuting your analogy, I'm saying it's a great analogy and we should drop the same rice cooker on ISIS to complete the analogy.

And what of US allies Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and Israel share borders or are in the immediate proximity of ISIS controlled territories. Japan was geographically isolated from our allies. We'd be nuking our allies or at the very least, giving them a couples of orders of magnitude increase in birth defects and cancer rates, all while irradiating their farmland and water supply.

And of course, the vaporizing of tens of thousands of women and children would be a superb recruiting tool for extremists. Plus, violating the nuclear taboo would cost us dearly in soft power around the world and in credibility for our allies. With war crimes tribunals being a very real possibility......as many of those international laws were created *in response* to the last time we used nuclear weapons.

Or....we can simply continue to wage conventional warfare and beat ISIS without any of those horrendous costs to ourselves and our allies.

When your opponent is engaged in frantic desperation ploys......your strategy is winning. Just keep it up, and you win.

I just praised your analogy!

Japan was close to China, our ally.

Nope. Hiroshima was about 750 miles away the closest Chinese coastline. Almost all of it open ocean. Or roughly the same distance as Chicago to Dallas. They were no where near each other.

Turkey in comparison is about 7 feet away from ISIS controlled territory, sharing a border with them. Iraq, about 6 feet away. Jordan about 150 miles away, Israel 200 miles......all of it land. With all of these countries sharing the same water sheds. So you'd be eradicating the farmland and water supply of our 4 closest regional allies.

Along with all the other costs. Why would we want to do any of this when the strategy we're employing now is already clearly winning?

Send them MOPP gear.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Japan was eventually nuked. I'm not refuting your analogy, I'm saying it's a great analogy and we should drop the same rice cooker on ISIS to complete the analogy.

As long as it is not a nuclear rice cooker, lol.

We can defeat ISIS conventionally in Syria and Iraq, then also in Libyua and Yemen if the POTUS would just unleash the military to do its damned job.

No one can ever win a war if it is fought by todays PC standards.

Had FDR done what he did to defeat the Nazis, Fascists and Japanese today, the left would impeach him for being a meany, when a meany is what you need to lead in a war.

General Patton types wins wars, not Mr Rogers.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Methinks you are thinking of the banzai charges. The 'Divine Wind' attacks were at the close of the war.

Yup. There were a few isolated incidents of a badly damaged zero that couldn't make it back to base crashing into another plane. With anecdotal examples of US and British pilots doing the exact same thing.

But Kamikaze attacks where perfectly operational zeros were loaded with explosives so they could be crashed by pilots into allied ships? The return of the 'divine wind'? That propaganda didn't even start until 1944. With the kamikaze attacks not starting until October of 44.

They were a desperation move by a force that was losing catastrophically all while having their infrastructure to wage war destroyed systematically.

Just like ISIS is today.

Japan was eventually nuked. I'm not refuting your analogy, I'm saying it's a great analogy and we should drop the same rice cooker on ISIS to complete the analogy.

And what of US allies Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and Israel share borders or are in the immediate proximity of ISIS controlled territories. Japan was geographically isolated from our allies. We'd be nuking our allies or at the very least, giving them a couples of orders of magnitude increase in birth defects and cancer rates, all while irradiating their farmland and water supply.

And of course, the vaporizing of tens of thousands of women and children would be a superb recruiting tool for extremists. Plus, violating the nuclear taboo would cost us dearly in soft power around the world and in credibility for our allies. With war crimes tribunals being a very real possibility......as many of those international laws were created *in response* to the last time we used nuclear weapons.

Or....we can simply continue to wage conventional warfare and beat ISIS without any of those horrendous costs to ourselves and our allies.

When your opponent is engaged in frantic desperation ploys......your strategy is winning. Just keep it up, and you win.

I just praised your analogy!

Japan was close to China, our ally.

Nope. Hiroshima was about 750 miles away the closest Chinese coastline. Almost all of it open ocean. Or roughly the same distance as Chicago to Dallas. They were no where near each other.

Turkey in comparison is about 7 feet away from ISIS controlled territory, sharing a border with them. Iraq, about 6 feet away. Jordan about 150 miles away, Israel 200 miles......all of it land. With all of these countries sharing the same water sheds. So you'd be eradicating the farmland and water supply of our 4 closest regional allies.

Along with all the other costs. Why would we want to do any of this when the strategy we're employing now is already clearly winning?

It isn't working. Did you miss it when our intelligence leadership warned that the capacity for ISIS to wage unconventional warfare has not diminished? Until there is no ISIS to inspire terrorists, we will keep getting hit.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Japan was eventually nuked. I'm not refuting your analogy, I'm saying it's a great analogy and we should drop the same rice cooker on ISIS to complete the analogy.

As long as it is not a nuclear rice cooker, lol.

We can defeat ISIS conventionally in Syria and Iraq, then also in Libyua and Yemen if the POTUS would just unleash the military to do its damned job.

No one can ever win a war if it is fought by todays PC standards.

Had FDR done what he did to defeat the Nazis, Fascists and Japanese today, the left would impeach him for being a meany, when a meany is what you need to lead in a war.

General Patton types wins wars, not Mr Rogers.

A nuclear rice cooker is precisely what I had in mind.

 

[dannyboys]

Methinks you are thinking of the banzai charges. The 'Divine Wind' attacks were at the close of the war.

Yup. There were a few isolated incidents of a badly damaged zero that couldn't make it back to base crashing into another plane. With anecdotal examples of US and British pilots doing the exact same thing.

But Kamikaze attacks where perfectly operational zeros were loaded with explosives so they could be crashed by pilots into allied ships? The return of the 'divine wind'? That propaganda didn't even start until 1944. With the kamikaze attacks not starting until October of 44.

They were a desperation move by a force that was losing catastrophically all while having their infrastructure to wage war destroyed systematically.

Just like ISIS is today.

Japan was eventually nuked. I'm not refuting your analogy, I'm saying it's a great analogy and we should drop the same rice cooker on ISIS to complete the analogy.

And what of US allies Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and Israel share borders or are in the immediate proximity of ISIS controlled territories. Japan was geographically isolated from our allies. We'd be nuking our allies or at the very least, giving them a couples of orders of magnitude increase in birth defects and cancer rates, all while irradiating their farmland and water supply.

And of course, the vaporizing of tens of thousands of women and children would be a superb recruiting tool for extremists. Plus, violating the nuclear taboo would cost us dearly in soft power around the world and in credibility for our allies. With war crimes tribunals being a very real possibility......as many of those international laws were created *in response* to the last time we used nuclear weapons.

Or....we can simply continue to wage conventional warfare and beat ISIS without any of those horrendous costs to ourselves and our allies.

When your opponent is engaged in frantic desperation ploys......your strategy is winning. Just keep it up, and you win.

I just praised your analogy!

Japan was close to China, our ally.

Nope. Hiroshima was about 750 miles away the closest Chinese coastline. Almost all of it open ocean. Or roughly the same distance as Chicago to Dallas. They were no where near each other.

Turkey in comparison is about 7 feet away from ISIS controlled territory, sharing a border with them. Iraq, about 6 feet away. Jordan about 150 miles away, Israel 200 miles......all of it land. With all of these countries sharing the same water sheds. So you'd be eradicating the farmland and water supply of our 4 closest regional allies.

Along with all the other costs. Why would we want to do any of this when the strategy we're employing now is already clearly winning?

"Clearly winning"? Tell THAT bullshit delusion to the victims of all the recent Islamofascist terror attacks around the world.
The ONLY way to beat ISIS is to totally exterminate them wherever they are.
They are vermin.
President Trump is going to untie the hand that Obama tied behind the back of the US military and command the military to 'take the fucking garbage out!
We don't need nuclear bombs you jerk! A thousand MOABS will do just fine.

 

[Skylar]

Yup. There were a few isolated incidents of a badly damaged zero that couldn't make it back to base crashing into another plane. With anecdotal examples of US and British pilots doing the exact same thing.

But Kamikaze attacks where perfectly operational zeros were loaded with explosives so they could be crashed by pilots into allied ships? The return of the 'divine wind'? That propaganda didn't even start until 1944. With the kamikaze attacks not starting until October of 44.

They were a desperation move by a force that was losing catastrophically all while having their infrastructure to wage war destroyed systematically.

Just like ISIS is today.

Japan was eventually nuked. I'm not refuting your analogy, I'm saying it's a great analogy and we should drop the same rice cooker on ISIS to complete the analogy.

And what of US allies Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and Israel share borders or are in the immediate proximity of ISIS controlled territories. Japan was geographically isolated from our allies. We'd be nuking our allies or at the very least, giving them a couples of orders of magnitude increase in birth defects and cancer rates, all while irradiating their farmland and water supply.

And of course, the vaporizing of tens of thousands of women and children would be a superb recruiting tool for extremists. Plus, violating the nuclear taboo would cost us dearly in soft power around the world and in credibility for our allies. With war crimes tribunals being a very real possibility......as many of those international laws were created *in response* to the last time we used nuclear weapons.

Or....we can simply continue to wage conventional warfare and beat ISIS without any of those horrendous costs to ourselves and our allies.

When your opponent is engaged in frantic desperation ploys......your strategy is winning. Just keep it up, and you win.

I just praised your analogy!

Japan was close to China, our ally.

Nope. Hiroshima was about 750 miles away the closest Chinese coastline. Almost all of it open ocean. Or roughly the same distance as Chicago to Dallas. They were no where near each other.

Turkey in comparison is about 7 feet away from ISIS controlled territory, sharing a border with them. Iraq, about 6 feet away. Jordan about 150 miles away, Israel 200 miles......all of it land. With all of these countries sharing the same water sheds. So you'd be eradicating the farmland and water supply of our 4 closest regional allies.

Along with all the other costs. Why would we want to do any of this when the strategy we're employing now is already clearly winning?

"Clearly winning"? Tell THAT bullshit delusion to the victims of all the recent Islamofascist terror attacks around the world.

So when the Kamikaze pilots would crash into a US ship as their nation was being bombed and their infrastructure destroyed........the US wasn't winning? History would contradict you. You're offering an emotional argument, equating the ability to inflict pain with the ability to win a war.

They're losing. They're growing increasing brutal because they are losing resources, territory, money, momentum and men. The stronger they are, the less of these attacks occur. These are desperation moves.....and a clear sign of how badly things have gone for ISIS.

 

[Skylar]

Yup. There were a few isolated incidents of a badly damaged zero that couldn't make it back to base crashing into another plane. With anecdotal examples of US and British pilots doing the exact same thing.

But Kamikaze attacks where perfectly operational zeros were loaded with explosives so they could be crashed by pilots into allied ships? The return of the 'divine wind'? That propaganda didn't even start until 1944. With the kamikaze attacks not starting until October of 44.

They were a desperation move by a force that was losing catastrophically all while having their infrastructure to wage war destroyed systematically.

Just like ISIS is today.

Japan was eventually nuked. I'm not refuting your analogy, I'm saying it's a great analogy and we should drop the same rice cooker on ISIS to complete the analogy.

And what of US allies Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and Israel share borders or are in the immediate proximity of ISIS controlled territories. Japan was geographically isolated from our allies. We'd be nuking our allies or at the very least, giving them a couples of orders of magnitude increase in birth defects and cancer rates, all while irradiating their farmland and water supply.

And of course, the vaporizing of tens of thousands of women and children would be a superb recruiting tool for extremists. Plus, violating the nuclear taboo would cost us dearly in soft power around the world and in credibility for our allies. With war crimes tribunals being a very real possibility......as many of those international laws were created *in response* to the last time we used nuclear weapons.

Or....we can simply continue to wage conventional warfare and beat ISIS without any of those horrendous costs to ourselves and our allies.

When your opponent is engaged in frantic desperation ploys......your strategy is winning. Just keep it up, and you win.

I just praised your analogy!

Japan was close to China, our ally.

Nope. Hiroshima was about 750 miles away the closest Chinese coastline. Almost all of it open ocean. Or roughly the same distance as Chicago to Dallas. They were no where near each other.

Turkey in comparison is about 7 feet away from ISIS controlled territory, sharing a border with them. Iraq, about 6 feet away. Jordan about 150 miles away, Israel 200 miles......all of it land. With all of these countries sharing the same water sheds. So you'd be eradicating the farmland and water supply of our 4 closest regional allies.

Along with all the other costs. Why would we want to do any of this when the strategy we're employing now is already clearly winning?

It isn't working. Did you miss it when our intelligence leadership warned that the capacity for ISIS to wage unconventional warfare has not diminished? Until there is no ISIS to inspire terrorists, we will keep getting hit.

Laughing.....and you think nuking the middle east is going to end 'ISIS inspired terrorism'? You'll have handed them the greatest recruiting tool since Pearl Harbor. Millions will flood their ranks or be inspired to attack.

Look at the *purpose* of their attacks. They're militarily inconsequential. Some gay college kid being shot in a bathroom stall doesn't grant ISIS an inch of territory or restore any of their resources. ISIS is desperately trying to provoke a grossly disproportionate response in their enemies to use as a recruiting tool.

And as if you were an ISIS recruiter yourself, you're advocating we do everything we can to insure ISIS has far more men to fight.

Um, no. They're losing. They're desperate. They're hitting soft targets because we've eliminated much of their ability to hit hard ones. They're losing territory. They're losing men. They're losing revenue. They're losing oil.

Which is why they're engaged in desperation tactics. And why we *shouldn't* give them exactly what they're trying to provoke. But continue with the tactics that have weakened them and stripped them of resources.

 

[Skylar]

We have seen it on this very site liberals claiming that truck driver was nothing but a drunk but the truth is coming out.

"No, Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel was not a lone wolf, he had accomplices. No, he wasn’t depressed because of a divorce. No, he wasn’t a French citizen, he was Tunisian. No, he was not mentally unstable and his father was a member of a Tunisian extremist Islamic party. His attack was meticulously planned and well thought out, not a case of sudden jihad syndrome. No, it was not an isolated incident, it was Islamic jihad."


FINALLY, THE TRUTH comes out about the Muslim who massacred 84 people and wounded more in Nice, France

Liberals, THEY lie YOU die.

Fury

I'm still waiting for you to show me the same information in those 'translations' from any source that isn't 'Vlad from Youtube'.

Can I take it from your abandonment of the thread that you couldn't find it either?

 

[DarkFury]

We have seen it on this very site liberals claiming that truck driver was nothing but a drunk but the truth is coming out.

"No, Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel was not a lone wolf, he had accomplices. No, he wasn’t depressed because of a divorce. No, he wasn’t a French citizen, he was Tunisian. No, he was not mentally unstable and his father was a member of a Tunisian extremist Islamic party. His attack was meticulously planned and well thought out, not a case of sudden jihad syndrome. No, it was not an isolated incident, it was Islamic jihad."


FINALLY, THE TRUTH comes out about the Muslim who massacred 84 people and wounded more in Nice, France

Liberals, THEY lie YOU die.

Fury

I'm still waiting for you to show me the same information in those 'translations' from any source that isn't 'Vlad from Youtube'.

Can I take it from your abandonment of the thread that you couldn't find it either?

I have not looked yet, your "guesses" to its being real don't warrant that as yet. And the world is under attack once again this morning in Germany. 15 dead so far.

 

[Skylar]

We have seen it on this very site liberals claiming that truck driver was nothing but a drunk but the truth is coming out.

"No, Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel was not a lone wolf, he had accomplices. No, he wasn’t depressed because of a divorce. No, he wasn’t a French citizen, he was Tunisian. No, he was not mentally unstable and his father was a member of a Tunisian extremist Islamic party. His attack was meticulously planned and well thought out, not a case of sudden jihad syndrome. No, it was not an isolated incident, it was Islamic jihad."


FINALLY, THE TRUTH comes out about the Muslim who massacred 84 people and wounded more in Nice, France

Liberals, THEY lie YOU die.

Fury

I'm still waiting for you to show me the same information in those 'translations' from any source that isn't 'Vlad from Youtube'.

Can I take it from your abandonment of the thread that you couldn't find it either?

I have not looked yet, your "guesses" to its being real don't warrant that as yet. And the world is under attack once again this morning in Germany. 15 dead so far.

Of course you're not looking. You don't give a shit if the 'translations' are actually accurate. Even when presented with extremely compelling evidence that they are most likely the creation of 'Vlad from Youtube'......you continue to polish your little turd of an argument. You prefer ignorance.

Every foreign video that Vlad offered used the same black background, san serif font, and yellow color. Even when they were different channels, different countries, different languages. For crying out loud, the BILD video that Vlad put up actually has his subtitles OVER the subtitles of the actual show. Something BILD would never do.

The 'translations' are from some dude named Vlad. Not the sources you're citing.

You can't factually establish that the translations are accurate, you can't find any other source backing any of your right wing narrative, and you don't even care to verify the shit you've been swallowing is fact.

Ladies and Gentleman.....I give you a Trump supporter.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Japan was eventually nuked. I'm not refuting your analogy, I'm saying it's a great analogy and we should drop the same rice cooker on ISIS to complete the analogy.

And what of US allies Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and Israel share borders or are in the immediate proximity of ISIS controlled territories. Japan was geographically isolated from our allies. We'd be nuking our allies or at the very least, giving them a couples of orders of magnitude increase in birth defects and cancer rates, all while irradiating their farmland and water supply.

And of course, the vaporizing of tens of thousands of women and children would be a superb recruiting tool for extremists. Plus, violating the nuclear taboo would cost us dearly in soft power around the world and in credibility for our allies. With war crimes tribunals being a very real possibility......as many of those international laws were created *in response* to the last time we used nuclear weapons.

Or....we can simply continue to wage conventional warfare and beat ISIS without any of those horrendous costs to ourselves and our allies.

When your opponent is engaged in frantic desperation ploys......your strategy is winning. Just keep it up, and you win.

I just praised your analogy!

Japan was close to China, our ally.

Nope. Hiroshima was about 750 miles away the closest Chinese coastline. Almost all of it open ocean. Or roughly the same distance as Chicago to Dallas. They were no where near each other.

Turkey in comparison is about 7 feet away from ISIS controlled territory, sharing a border with them. Iraq, about 6 feet away. Jordan about 150 miles away, Israel 200 miles......all of it land. With all of these countries sharing the same water sheds. So you'd be eradicating the farmland and water supply of our 4 closest regional allies.

Along with all the other costs. Why would we want to do any of this when the strategy we're employing now is already clearly winning?

It isn't working. Did you miss it when our intelligence leadership warned that the capacity for ISIS to wage unconventional warfare has not diminished? Until there is no ISIS to inspire terrorists, we will keep getting hit.

Laughing.....and you think nuking the middle east is going to end 'ISIS inspired terrorism'? You'll have handed them the greatest recruiting tool since Pearl Harbor. Millions will flood their ranks or be inspired to attack.

Look at the *purpose* of their attacks. They're militarily inconsequential. Some gay college kid being shot in a bathroom stall doesn't grant ISIS an inch of territory or restore any of their resources. ISIS is desperately trying to provoke a grossly disproportionate response in their enemies to use as a recruiting tool.

And as if you were an ISIS recruiter yourself, you're advocating we do everything we can to insure ISIS has far more men to fight.

Um, no. They're losing. They're desperate. They're hitting soft targets because we've eliminated much of their ability to hit hard ones. They're losing territory. They're losing men. They're losing revenue. They're losing oil.

Which is why they're engaged in desperation tactics. And why we *shouldn't* give them exactly what they're trying to provoke. But continue with the tactics that have weakened them and stripped them of resources.

I'm going to borrow a phrase Hillary Clinton and you Democrats used when General Petrayus came out with his report on the effects of the surge strategy. "Rose colored glasses". You're wearing them right now. You think in spite of what your own government is telling you about the growing reach and striking capacity of ISIS, that they're really on the decline because that's what the Obama Bin Lyin told you. Even the major Left wing cable news networks are appalled by the glaring dichotomy between what defense experts are saying and what President Chimp is saying, a dichotomy you're deliberately ignoring.

Just like when you thought the Islamic radicalization of Egypt was an "Arab Spring".

In fact, you Leftists mischaracterize and underestimate what's going on in the world time and time again and when called on your frequent errors you find some way to blame Bush, some schmuck who's been out of the White House for the last 8 years.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And what of US allies Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and Israel share borders or are in the immediate proximity of ISIS controlled territories. Japan was geographically isolated from our allies. We'd be nuking our allies or at the very least, giving them a couples of orders of magnitude increase in birth defects and cancer rates, all while irradiating their farmland and water supply.

And of course, the vaporizing of tens of thousands of women and children would be a superb recruiting tool for extremists. Plus, violating the nuclear taboo would cost us dearly in soft power around the world and in credibility for our allies. With war crimes tribunals being a very real possibility......as many of those international laws were created *in response* to the last time we used nuclear weapons.

Or....we can simply continue to wage conventional warfare and beat ISIS without any of those horrendous costs to ourselves and our allies.

When your opponent is engaged in frantic desperation ploys......your strategy is winning. Just keep it up, and you win.

I just praised your analogy!

Japan was close to China, our ally.

Nope. Hiroshima was about 750 miles away the closest Chinese coastline. Almost all of it open ocean. Or roughly the same distance as Chicago to Dallas. They were no where near each other.

Turkey in comparison is about 7 feet away from ISIS controlled territory, sharing a border with them. Iraq, about 6 feet away. Jordan about 150 miles away, Israel 200 miles......all of it land. With all of these countries sharing the same water sheds. So you'd be eradicating the farmland and water supply of our 4 closest regional allies.

Along with all the other costs. Why would we want to do any of this when the strategy we're employing now is already clearly winning?

It isn't working. Did you miss it when our intelligence leadership warned that the capacity for ISIS to wage unconventional warfare has not diminished? Until there is no ISIS to inspire terrorists, we will keep getting hit.

Laughing.....and you think nuking the middle east is going to end 'ISIS inspired terrorism'? You'll have handed them the greatest recruiting tool since Pearl Harbor. Millions will flood their ranks or be inspired to attack.

Look at the *purpose* of their attacks. They're militarily inconsequential. Some gay college kid being shot in a bathroom stall doesn't grant ISIS an inch of territory or restore any of their resources. ISIS is desperately trying to provoke a grossly disproportionate response in their enemies to use as a recruiting tool.

And as if you were an ISIS recruiter yourself, you're advocating we do everything we can to insure ISIS has far more men to fight.

Um, no. They're losing. They're desperate. They're hitting soft targets because we've eliminated much of their ability to hit hard ones. They're losing territory. They're losing men. They're losing revenue. They're losing oil.

Which is why they're engaged in desperation tactics. And why we *shouldn't* give them exactly what they're trying to provoke. But continue with the tactics that have weakened them and stripped them of resources.

I'm going to borrow a phrase Hillary Clinton and you Democrats used when General Petrayus came out with his report on the effects of the surge strategy. "Rose colored glasses". You're wearing them right now. You think in spite of what your own government is telling you about the growing reach and striking capacity of ISIS, that they're really on the decline because that's what the Obama Bin Lyin told you. Even the major Left wing cable news networks are appalled by the glaring dichotomy between what defense experts are saying and what President Chimp is saying, a dichotomy you're deliberately ignoring.

Just like when you thought the Islamic radicalization of Egypt was an "Arab Spring".

In fact, you Leftists mischaracterize and underestimate what's going on in the world time and time again and when called on your frequent errors you find some way to blame Bush, some schmuck who's been out of the White House for the last 8 years.

 

[Skylar]

And what of US allies Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and Israel share borders or are in the immediate proximity of ISIS controlled territories. Japan was geographically isolated from our allies. We'd be nuking our allies or at the very least, giving them a couples of orders of magnitude increase in birth defects and cancer rates, all while irradiating their farmland and water supply.

And of course, the vaporizing of tens of thousands of women and children would be a superb recruiting tool for extremists. Plus, violating the nuclear taboo would cost us dearly in soft power around the world and in credibility for our allies. With war crimes tribunals being a very real possibility......as many of those international laws were created *in response* to the last time we used nuclear weapons.

Or....we can simply continue to wage conventional warfare and beat ISIS without any of those horrendous costs to ourselves and our allies.

When your opponent is engaged in frantic desperation ploys......your strategy is winning. Just keep it up, and you win.

I just praised your analogy!

Japan was close to China, our ally.

Nope. Hiroshima was about 750 miles away the closest Chinese coastline. Almost all of it open ocean. Or roughly the same distance as Chicago to Dallas. They were no where near each other.

Turkey in comparison is about 7 feet away from ISIS controlled territory, sharing a border with them. Iraq, about 6 feet away. Jordan about 150 miles away, Israel 200 miles......all of it land. With all of these countries sharing the same water sheds. So you'd be eradicating the farmland and water supply of our 4 closest regional allies.

Along with all the other costs. Why would we want to do any of this when the strategy we're employing now is already clearly winning?

It isn't working. Did you miss it when our intelligence leadership warned that the capacity for ISIS to wage unconventional warfare has not diminished? Until there is no ISIS to inspire terrorists, we will keep getting hit.

Laughing.....and you think nuking the middle east is going to end 'ISIS inspired terrorism'? You'll have handed them the greatest recruiting tool since Pearl Harbor. Millions will flood their ranks or be inspired to attack.

Look at the *purpose* of their attacks. They're militarily inconsequential. Some gay college kid being shot in a bathroom stall doesn't grant ISIS an inch of territory or restore any of their resources. ISIS is desperately trying to provoke a grossly disproportionate response in their enemies to use as a recruiting tool.

And as if you were an ISIS recruiter yourself, you're advocating we do everything we can to insure ISIS has far more men to fight.

Um, no. They're losing. They're desperate. They're hitting soft targets because we've eliminated much of their ability to hit hard ones. They're losing territory. They're losing men. They're losing revenue. They're losing oil.

Which is why they're engaged in desperation tactics. And why we *shouldn't* give them exactly what they're trying to provoke. But continue with the tactics that have weakened them and stripped them of resources.

I'm going to borrow a phrase Hillary Clinton and you Democrats used when General Petrayus came out with his report on the effects of the surge strategy. "Rose colored glasses". You're wearing them right now.

Says the soul that summarily ignores the consequences of nuking the middle east, including irradiating the water supply and farmland of many of our closest allies in the region.....and providing ISIS with a world class recruiting tool to replenish its depleted ranks.

Just because you ignore those consequences does not mean they magically disappear. We can achieve the same goals without the use of nuclear weapons, without poisioning the lands of our allies, without war crimes tribunals, without providing ISIS with a massive recruiting tool.

And how do you resolve the massive holes in your reasoning or the consequences and costs of the actions you propose? You ignore them, pretending they don't exist.

Alas, we don't have that luxury.