Trucks... My Opionin whats yours

"

Entropic_Fire wrote:

Every terrorist you 'destroy' has brothers, sons, cousins who become radicalized due to his death. It's like playing whack-a-mole dude, you can never win like that unless you take it to total genocide levels. Is that what you mean by stop at nothing?

You don't become a radical islamist or terrorist because of good up-bringing. Those family you mention, are probably radical themselves already. And who cares? You dont stop defending your country, because some terrorist might have family.

Bottom line is, you either go all in, or you don't meddle in foreign affairs at all. Put up a wall, stop immigration and let the middle east kill each other without intervening on any side. The ME will burn anyway, because the sectarian muslim war (sunni vs shia, Saudi vs Iran, radical sunni vs everyone) is only starting.

Currently there's a half-assed attempt to help some "moderate islamists", while fighting other slightly more radical islamists. The US doesnt want ISIS or al-Qaida to take over, but they also dont want the Syrian regime to stay in power or Iran / Russia to get more influence. They'd like to help Kurds, but not anger Turkey at the same time... it's a mess of conflicting interests with no clear good side to stick to.

"

Entropic_Fire wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Bottom line: destroy the terrorists and any who aid or tolerate them. Force the Middle East to choose a side - and woe to those who choose poorly. Make their land ours until they unfuck themselves, then give it back, just like Japan and Germany. Stop at nothing.

Every terrorist you 'destroy' has brothers, sons, cousins who become radicalized due to his death. It's like playing whack-a-mole dude, you can never win like that unless you take it to total genocide levels. Is that what you mean by stop at nothing?

Was WW2 a genocide of the Germans? Maybe, but not total.

The core of my position is this: A coalition, to include the United States, should deliver an ultimatum to Middle East countries - either permanently eliminate the terrorist groups within your borders, or we will conquer you and do it for you. Unless you want to become the 51st state, get with the program.

I get that fake-Islamic terrorism is systemic. I get that, if all you do is kill a few, they're martyrs who make more. But I'm not talking about black ops killing of terrorist cells, aka Team America World Police. A country should police its own damn self. I'm talking about true war, waged against a nation or nations, ending in conquest. I'm talking about holding the people who can control social systems responsible for the abuses and/or neglect which have allowed systemic terrorism to flourish.

The West wont even go after internal threats in force. Radical mosques are left alone, to not anger (supposedly moderate?) muslims. Radical preachers are not deported / arrested. Money from islamic dictatorships is allowed in and brainwash our muslim communities. Especially the left is completely sticking the head into the sand and wont even acknowledge what is the root issue.

The Bataclan massacre mastermind - Salah Abdeslam - was comfortably hiding in a muslim community in Belguim for a month. Hiding among friends and people who most probably share his views. If you want to fight this scurge, then the state should go heavy handed after everyone who is even slightly connected to radical islam & terrorism.

.

"

Entropic_Fire wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Spoiler

Was WW2 a genocide of the Germans? Maybe, but not total.

The core of my position is this: A coalition, to include the United States, should deliver an ultimatum to Middle East countries - either permanently eliminate the terrorist groups within your borders, or we will conquer you and do it for you. Unless you want to become the 51st state, get with the program.

I get that fake-Islamic terrorism is systemic. I get that, if all you do is kill a few, they're martyrs who make more. But I'm not talking about black ops killing of terrorist cells, aka Team America World Police. A country should police its own damn self. I'm talking about true war, waged against a nation or nations, ending in conquest. I'm talking about holding the people who can control social systems responsible for the abuses and/or neglect which have allowed systemic terrorism to flourish.

We can't afford to totally dominate an entire region of the world for any extended period of time, it's just not realistic economically.

I'm confident someone in Big Oil could figure it out.

"

Entropic_Fire wrote:

Even if we could I don't see how it would help. It's one thing to defeat an army, but in this case we need to defeat an ideology that feeds off of the West intervening in situations where it doesn't belong. You can never control every single individual but that's what it would take to stamp out terrorism by force.

It wouldn't be the West intervening anymore, it would be the West owning. It's a pivotal difference. I'm not taking about working with local governments, but being local governments - unless they do the job themselves, without our intervention.

.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Entropic_Fire wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Spoiler

Was WW2 a genocide of the Germans? Maybe, but not total.

The core of my position is this: A coalition, to include the United States, should deliver an ultimatum to Middle East countries - either permanently eliminate the terrorist groups within your borders, or we will conquer you and do it for you. Unless you want to become the 51st state, get with the program.

I get that fake-Islamic terrorism is systemic. I get that, if all you do is kill a few, they're martyrs who make more. But I'm not talking about black ops killing of terrorist cells, aka Team America World Police. A country should police its own damn self. I'm talking about true war, waged against a nation or nations, ending in conquest. I'm talking about holding the people who can control social systems responsible for the abuses and/or neglect which have allowed systemic terrorism to flourish.

We can't afford to totally dominate an entire region of the world for any extended period of time, it's just not realistic economically.

I'm confident someone in Big Oil could figure it out.

"

Entropic_Fire wrote:

Even if we could I don't see how it would help. It's one thing to defeat an army, but in this case we need to defeat an ideology that feeds off of the West intervening in situations where it doesn't belong. You can never control every single individual but that's what it would take to stamp out terrorism by force.

It wouldn't be the West intervening anymore, it would be the West owning. It's a pivotal difference. I'm not taking about working with local governments, but being local governments - unless they do the job themselves, without our intervention.

With all due respect but have not we learned we cant fight ourselves out of this problem? Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are lost. Terrorism is getting worse. Why not try another approach?

https://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Hubris-West-Losing-Terror/dp/1597971596


Basically this book by x-cia head of bin laden desk (and bin laden himself agreed with) goes on to say
-stop meddling in Middle east
-stop supporting ruthless dictators including Saudi Arabia and Israel.
-remove US troops from middle east

USA also supports some really bad guys when it suits them
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36835678
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157.html

So really I'm not even sure the government really cares to win them or stop terrorism. Seems to me these wars are about profit for arms makers, think tanks, contractors and so on. Some call it perpetual war.

Either way we dont stand up for what is right and justice supporting these bad regimes like Saudi Arabia and programs at times and send very mixed messages.

So, we leave the middle east... and ISIS just lays down its arms?

Is that the fantasy world you're trying to paint, here?

I will say that leaving the Middle East completely alone makes a lot more sense than the wimpy interventionism we've employed thus far. It was fantastic advice 20 years ago (and, ironically, part of the W's original campaign platform). I don't think it's good advice any longer. As a result of such intervention, they've declared war on us. They're not going to just forget what we've done.

It's kind of like telling me after I got attacked by that crazy guy "don't call the police, just avoid smoking in nonsmoking areas." A little late for that shit.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I will say that leaving the Middle East completely alone makes a lot more sense than the wimpy interventionism we've employed thus far. It was fantastic advice 20 years ago (and, ironically, part of the W's original campaign platform). I don't think it's good advice any longer. As a result of such intervention, they've declared war on us. They're not going to just forget what we've done.

It's kind of like telling me after I got attacked by that crazy guy "don't call the police, just avoid smoking in nonsmoking areas." A little late for that shit.

soon. these interventions were all about a global oil market, having people in charge of the countries that were willing to trade oil. Russia made it clear right from the start they were not going to both respect sovereignty in Europe\world and trade oil with Europe/world. It is important to note that USA never colonized any areas, never took over the peoples, never took the resources, always traded.

We soon will be moving from an oil based infrastructure to a natural gas based infrastructure. Which is why so much is happening in the world currently, everybody wants/needs to secure natural gas into the future, which is located under the Sinai penisula. USA wants to trade with gas extractors, Russia wants to nationalize the gas extraction under the Mediterranean. Call it evil if you will.