I suggest reading "Team of Teams" by General Stanley McChrystal. Quote "ISIS is using frightening tactics and digital communication" to bring constantly changing modern warfare to the Middle East.

And very socially savvy trying to recruit our young ones

Originally Posted by Guest

And very socially savvy trying to recruit our young ones

I really think you need to add the word disenfranchised to our young for this to be true. That segment is growing.

I haven't read the book. I have it on order. With all the comment I see about ISIS and our involvement in the fight with them, I thought it might be interesting to read about how to deal with the enemy. The "lock and load" and "bomb them all and let God sort them out" mentality doesn't work in the real world and we are paying the price in taxpayer dollars and American lives.

In my opinion they are embldened knowing that the USA will not come to the rescue of those they continue to slaughter.

We and the rest of the world are literally standing by and allowing them to evolve from a rag tag 20 or 30,000 to a fairly sopisticated, intelligently run force. They have graduated to become holders of substantial portions of entire countries.

They are generating such a fear that American trained Iraqi forces lay down their weapons and run!?!?!

At some point it will be too late. I do believe what does not get stated often enough is the fact they are sworn to kill Americans and cripple the USA. They have vowed to aquire to obtain nuclear devices to do so.

Given our current mindset toward Muslim terrorism in general and ISIS in specific we will continue to do nothing until we are attacked here at home.....we should all pray to our God this does not ever happen.....and especially to not happen during Obama's remaining term.

Originally Posted by Guest

In my opinion they are embldened knowing that the USA will not come to the rescue of those they continue to slaughter.

We and the rest of the world are literally standing by and allowing them to evolve from a rag tag 20 or 30,000 to a fairly sopisticated, intelligently run force. They have graduated to become holders of substantial portions of entire countries.

They are generating such a fear that American trained Iraqi forces lay down their weapons and run!?!?!

At some point it will be too late. I do believe what does not get stated often enough is the fact they are sworn to kill Americans and cripple the USA. They have vowed to aquire to obtain nuclear devices to do so.


Given our current mindset toward Muslim terrorism in general and ISIS in specific we will continue to do nothing until we are attacked here at home.....we should all pray to our God this does not ever happen.....and especially to not happen during Obama's remaining term.

I believe you are sadly misguided thinking this can be solved with military might. We will run out of bullets, troops, and money before these kind of uprisings are stopped. It is not about religion it is economics. We won the cold war when the Soviet Union bankrupted themselves trying to match our military spending, a lesson we did not learn but our enemies have.

Originally Posted by Guest

I believe you are sadly misguided thinking this can be solved with military might. We will run out of bullets, troops, and money before these kind of uprisings are stopped. It is not about religion it is economics. We won the cold war when the Soviet Union bankrupted themselves trying to match our military spending, a lesson we did not learn but our enemies have.

In a small part I think you speak the truth, but allow me to correct your recollection of history.

The cold war as you mention was about MILITARY MIGHT. An attitude conveyed, knowing that the USA was in the mix, and would protect freedom all over the world. That attitude was the reason for the military buildup, and that is not a guess, but fact of history.

Secondly, it does not seem to be about economics at all with ISIS. They seem pretty fat with money, have oil fields, etc. I will not argue with you on this but would ask you to support that premise, which is something I have never ever heard of before.

In my opinion, most do not want us to have troops on the ground, but want us to at least be in a position to take a leadership role in the world, even if it means military. We showed the world with Syria that children can die by gassing and we will do nothing. We continue to show the world that we will not step up despite the atrocities in Africa. We continue to negotiate, and I DO understand negotiation, but we are talking with a country that CONTINUES TO ACT WITH AND SUPPORT TERRORISM throughout the region. We are negotiation with a country that makes fun of all of us. Now, and not sure how serious it might be, Russia ignores us DESPITE ECONOMIC SANCTIONS.

I would really need to hear your premise for saying this is economic. How do you propose to stop ISIS with economics ?

Unfortunately this thread is a microcosm of the total NATIONAL debate. The debate should not be if we should or shouldn't, the debate should focus on how much force we NEED to throw at them. We need to exterminate these vermin because they are destroying innocent people lives and will do so until they are stopped. If we wait it will only be more difficult WWII should have taught us all of that.

Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

Unfortunately this thread is a microcosm of the total NATIONAL debate. The debate should not be if we should or shouldn't, the debate should focus on how much force we NEED to throw at them. We need to exterminate these vermin because they are destroying innocent people lives and will do so until they are stopped. If we wait it will only be more difficult WWII should have taught us all of that

I hear you but wars are not fought on convenional front lines anymore. The foreign troops mix in with the civilian population when they have struck and fought.

It basically sounds as if your solution would be to blow up the entire area to get rid of the evil forces - but the amount of civilian casualities would reach the tens of thousands. We would be responsible for destroying the innocent people as well as the ones who need destroying.

How do you resolve that situation?

Anybody remember the Vietnam War? We are using the same mentality in a different era. More of everything will win the war? China doesn't have these problems. Wonder why.
I suggest again read the book I suggested in the opening post. Someone has an understanding of what works against the enemy in 2015. Cruise missiles, bunker busters and smart bombs ain't gonna do it this time.

Originally Posted by Guest

I hear you but wars are not fought on convenional front lines anymore. The foreign troops mix in with the civilian population when they have struck and fought.

It basically sounds as if your solution would be to blow up the entire area to get rid of the evil forces - but the amount of civilian casualities would reach the tens of thousands. We would be responsible for destroying the innocent people as well as the ones who need destroying.

How do you resolve that situation?

Dear Guest: I hear you too. You are referring to a "just war" one where the moral imperative is invoked to cause no harm to the innocence. It is a concept deeply espoused by the left. (From Joe Angione recent column)

Such an idea is peaceful indeed but war is by nature ugly. So a "just war" is an oxymoron. I do not say this lightly and without compassion but if we follow a strict adherence to this "just war" concept then we will create substantially more loss of live because we will allow evil to continue to grow and fester.

America and Americans need to regain the resolve we had during WWII. We let down our men in Vietnam and we did so with Iraq

As ugly as it is the only way to fight a war is to fight to win. The human race's history has demonstrated that over and over and that's the human experience and that's the limit of nature which some people just can't grasp

Finally remember ISIS has no such restriction and eat their own. It becomes the lesser of the two evils. Will America re-learn that lesson before it becomes too late? How many more innocent people will die needlessly because our leaders don't have the guts to do their jobs? Is it they like the prestige and the perks but can't make the decisions they were hired for?

Personal Best Regards

It is easy for those who are disconnected or have no investment to continue to vouch for the merits of it is not our fight, let them sort it out.
With that same attitude where could we have wound up with the Geror the Japanese? We would be speaking one of those languages....perhaps.

Why perhaps? Because maybe, just maybe, when they finally show up on a doorstep of a friend or family member it just might start to register what is at risk.

These people need to research and see those being slaughtered....and that is not just a poetic phrase....they are being slaughtered.
Check out those running for their lives....old folks like us, little kids like our grand children and great grand children and thousands the age of our children.

Given a choice, I would do what Teddy Roosevelt did in Cuba....take the fight to the enemy. DO NOT wait for them to drag one of your family members out of a bombed out mall or movie theatre or school or theme park.

Doing nothing for the past year has proven how much progress ISIS has made in their quest.

How can a bigger stronger ISIS any circumstance be allowed to continue?

Let us review our history in warfare over the last hundred years:

WWI - Helped to defeat the Wehrmacht, then stood by as they grew into an even greater military power in twenty years.

WWII - Helped defeat the Axis and Japan, then assisted the formation of the Soviet Union followed by forty years of cold war.

Korea - Helped contain the North Koreans who continue to be an unstable and worrisome dictator state.

Vietnam - Lost to Communist North Vietnam at a tremendous cost in lives and money.

Iraq - Beat them in Desert Storm quickly then back to business as usual.

Iraq II - Got rid of the dictator, then stayed way too long at a huge cost in lives and money, leaving the country destabilized.

Afghanistan - Eventually got Bin-Laden but accomplished little else. The Taliban is still strong and we fostered additional hatred among Islamic fundamentalists.

Now you say we need to go to war to fight an enemy that is indistinguishable from the general population, who are more than willing to die to take American lives, and who believe they are ordained by their God to kill infidels. NO THANKS!

Originally Posted by Guest

Let us review our history in warfare over the last hundred years:

WWI - Helped to defeat the Wehrmacht, then stood by as they grew into an even greater military power in twenty years.

WWII - Helped defeat the Axis and Japan, then assisted the formation of the Soviet Union followed by forty years of cold war.

Korea - Helped contain the North Koreans who continue to be an unstable and worrisome dictator state.

Vietnam - Lost to Communist North Vietnam at a tremendous cost in lives and money.

Iraq - Beat them in Desert Storm quickly then back to business as usual.

Iraq II - Got rid of the dictator, then stayed way too long at a huge cost in lives and money, leaving the country destabilized.

Afghanistan - Eventually got Bin-Laden but accomplished little else. The Taliban is still strong and we fostered additional hatred among Islamic fundamentalists.

Now you say we need to go to war to fight an enemy that is indistinguishable from the general population, who are more than willing to die to take American lives, and who believe they are ordained by their God to kill infidels. NO THANKS!

Just a few corrections on your recitation of history as you see it.

At the end of WW II, there were two super powers in the world. The U.S. And Russia. The Soviet Union was NOT formed after WW II, but in fact was formed right after the turn of the century (1917?). Added to that existing USSR, was the countries overtaken by Russia during their victories over the Nazi's thus became satellite states. Europe was always considered to stop at Russia, so if those countries that they annexed by defeating Germany are considered by you as the USA helping to form what was already an extremely powerful force, then your interpretation of history is much different from mine. The Warsaw Pact is the actual beginning of the Cold War. There were many differences in culture involved and Russia wanted to maintain sovereignty over these countries, and the USA and allies were trying to insure peace to Europe, thus came the Warsaw Pact.

Not quite as simple as you make it, and this war was the single biggest and most significant event in the world in relationship to what is going on today. Russia was our ally and a darn good one. They deserved to be considered a super power.

The treaties were necessary because of the large differences in societies ( socialism, communism, democracy's)

Korea was a United Nation action in response to an invasion by North Korea. The UN troops pushed N Korea almost into China. A significant landmark relative to the point you are trying to make. President Truman fired Mccarthur because Mccarthur wanted to follow them into China to finish it off. Truman would not allow it, and China eventually pushed the UN troops back, an agreement was struck and had we not stayed there, you can pretty much figure how that would have worked out. Again, not quite as simple as you say.

Vietnam was the U.S. Trying to do something we were not prepared to do and really did not want to do, thus the carnage. Not sure how this would have worked out had we untied our hands.

Iraq....we beat nobody as you say. It was a UN mission that was required to cease by UN mandate once we drove Iraq from Kuwait. We stopped once again, by UN mandate

Second invasion does not need to be revisited. Congress overwhelmingly authorized the invasion, which in hinsight was based on faulty intelligence. We left despite sten warnings and statements by military and political leaders. As far as being not stabilized, President Obama, based on his comments would totally disagree with your comment.

Afghan was simply a failed attempt at avenging the attack in the U.S., and which I might add was supported by NATO

Bottom line is this, Iraq is a very important ally to the U.S. However ISIS got there is really not relevant. They are there and growing into many other countries and need to be stopped.

How to do it, I do not know. Our military make suggestions, but are rebuffed or so it seems. The USA, as you can see has a history of being the worlds policeman. You can argue that all you want, but if our military and security folks NOT OUR POLIICAL BODIES, think they are a potential threat to our country, then I say do whatever it takes.

Problem for me personally, I am not satisfied that those who,"know" are being heeded. I do not think I will ever get over seeing pics and reading accounts if CHILDREN STACKED IN THE STREETS, gassed dead in Syria and we did NOTHING..NADA for a year, and then we had Russia step in to help out, and now they are back with the gassing.

Do we need troops on the ground ? Military folks think so. When you hear that the air missions cannot even do much because of lack of ground support...well.

Again, I keep asking...SIXTY nation coalition. Where, what

Originally Posted by Guest

Let us review our history in warfare over the last hundred years:

WWI - Helped to defeat the Wehrmacht, then stood by as they grew into an even greater military power in twenty years.

WWII - Helped defeat the Axis and Japan, then assisted the formation of the Soviet Union followed by forty years of cold war.

Korea - Helped contain the North Koreans who continue to be an unstable and worrisome dictator state.

Vietnam - Lost to Communist North Vietnam at a tremendous cost in lives and money.

Iraq - Beat them in Desert Storm quickly then back to business as usual.

Iraq II - Got rid of the dictator, then stayed way too long at a huge cost in lives and money, leaving the country destabilized.

Afghanistan - Eventually got Bin-Laden but accomplished little else. The Taliban is still strong and we fostered additional hatred among Islamic fundamentalists.

Now you say we need to go to war to fight an enemy that is indistinguishable from the general population, who are more than willing to die to take American lives, and who believe they are ordained by their God to kill infidels. NO THANKS!

Eloquent, albeit misguided post. You forcefully argue for doing nothing until you see a mushroom cloud go off in a US city. That's in effect what you are prescribing for our kids and grandkids. No thanks.

We're best off if we go and get the job done ... but I know America won't do that until we're backed into it so your strategy will prevail ... until it doesn't.