It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Leon Panetta - USA Should Brace for Thirty Year War Against ISIS/Emerging Threats

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 11:08 AM
a reply to: olaru12

Got to love cell phone spell check,and those who use grammar as a basis for fallacy. Yes you are dissenting. Your facts have reasons that are apparently oblivious to you. If you understood my language then why did you not attack my argument instead of my spelling . Then you reaffirmed by simply stating, you are right and I am wrong. This is a sighn of failure and lack of retort.
edit on 6-10-2014 by TechniXcality because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 11:10 AM
a reply to: TechniXcality
Achieving this goal by war mongering? lol And for what? Resources? Israel? Talk about effed up ideologies...

So you're pretty much saying: Believe what the US gov says.
War is great and will make the world better after all people who're different from us, are either dead, or bombed into submission with our "ideas".

10-4 big buddy

Talk about speaking like a fool....or a sheep

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 11:21 AM
Don't I have to somehow co-operate/reciprocate with whomever it is that agrees to be my enemy?

I will reciprocate my disdain for you by stealing your milk, should you decide to seat yourself next to me...friend.

Boundaries being respected or not, whether personal- or national...

Could also mean comfort-zone.

edit on (10/6/1414 by loveguy because: more practice needed

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 11:22 AM
a reply to: Fylgje

Very nice simpleton view, its surprising how many think like you and can't see the bigger picture. You know, we're on a floating rock in outer space spinning around a hydrogen ball of fire. Yet you have figured out the most evil force in the cosmos. instead of a natural consequence of survival of the fittest, and yes the lesser of many evils . And made this great conspiracy of evils that far exceeds any time space differences but is inherent in the one percent. You should consider philosophy as a skill oh great thinker.
edit on 6-10-2014 by TechniXcality because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 11:33 AM
a reply to: TechniXcality
Simpleton? thanks for the insult, champ.
I see the picture very clearly, as do the many others who you refer to. Maybe it's you who is a simpleton who can't use basic investigative skills and facts to come to an intelligent decision?

You know, we're on a floating rock in outer space spinning around a hydrogen ball of fire

wow. Thanks for clearing that one up for me, oh wise one. You are clearly a genius and us simpletons should never question authority, or in this case, you.

You talk about "conspiracy of evils" like there isn't any facts to what the US has done and are continuing to do, all in the name of "democracy", or "freedom". Based on actions, I think it's relatively simple to see who is evil and who is not. But I bet you also think "those evil Iranians" are evil, and that "Israel is our friend". amirite?

Oh, and us "great thinkers" use common sense and facts, when they are available, to come to conclusion of reality. Not distorted history or propaganda.

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 11:41 AM
a reply to: FlyersFan

Totally agree. I'd also add that oftentimes it feels like the War on Terror is much like the perpetual war that Oceania faced in 1984. There is no potential resolution for conflicts that are rooted in religious ideology. The harder one group fights against another group's beliefs, the more the tempers flare and it perpetuates itself. Whether the real goal is oil or not, in that light, is irrelevant. The point is that the creation of perpetual war rooted in ideology has been created. How long did the Crusades last? A few hundred years? Panetta's 30 years seems ignorantly optimistic in the face of that as regardless of whether it's for the oil these days, the religious ideology will always be interlaced into it.

God bless Oceania--I mean America....

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 12:10 PM
a reply to: Fylgje

These evils are not exclusive to Americans or any certain group,colour, or creed. You are the black and white thinker, yes I was condescending. Do you truly believe you've discovered the evil of all evils in the American empire? You could look in the mirror and find just as many, as could I. Your idealism lacks practicality that's what I'm suggesting though it seems to go over your head.

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 01:34 PM
This is absolute garbage!

This is still the war on terror, it's just they've just repackaged it. Isis is to Al Qaeda what the iphone 6 is to the iphone 5s. People will still rush out to buy it in droves, even though there is very little fundamental difference between the two. After iphone 6 there will be a new one. But I'm sure right now the iphone 6 is the most advanced and most sophisticated etc...until the new one comes out.

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 01:59 PM

If the world would just put some real resources in this so called war against terrorism it could end in a few months.

Look at the resources they put in the war against the Axis powers.

The US refuses to actually fund a real effort to fight a few thousand nutty terrorists.

It appears this Is a game of some sort that could be done with an adequate force IF THEY REALLY WANTED TO DO IT.

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 02:12 PM
a reply to: Willtell

Agreed, my personal opinion is that most of the modern world has come to the conclusion we wont be able to survive without a one world government, too many people, too many conflicting ideologies and a main goal is the elimination of religion as it is a holdback to our actual survival.

And I agree whole heartedly that the USA could "end" this very quickly

But we wont

Not from some desire to prolong this, but because you need a scapegoat, if the USA goes in or any one else and bombs it out of existence then there is no proof that religion was a worse alternative to government, people will always hold up their religious beliefs above govt

But... Is you create a massive Islamic state that attempts to take down Israel and Israel responds with the bombs you gave it, there is living proof as babies all over the world are born deformed from excess radiation and a Billion people die that religion is the scourge of humanity and the rule of Man across the globe will reign for millennium

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 03:38 PM
a reply to: Willtell

The US refuses to actually fund a real effort to fight a few thousand nutty terrorists.

I agree, see these tanks, use them for gods sake

Turkish tanks are seen along the border with Syria as fighting between Kurdish forces and ISIS militants continues to rage in the nearby Syrian town of Kobane

edit on 033131p://bMonday2014 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 03:44 PM
a reply to: FlyersFan

There will always be a war of some kind. It won't end in 30 years.

Spot on. There will always be war especially in the Middle East. From the beginning of time until the end, for better or worse and it's unfortunate.

Thinking of my sons future scares me, what will the world be like when he becomes an adult? Will his adulthood start with a draft for a never ending war?

a reply to: Kram09

Great analogy! That's exactly what's happening, same war just a new upgraded version.
edit on 6-10-2014 by LucidLucinda because: Additional comment added to post

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 04:24 PM
Here is the real war:

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Ephesians 6:12

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 04:38 PM
War is inevitable in my opinion, you cannot "win" this with effing AIR STRIKES.

Go look at a map and realize that ISIS already controls 50% of Iraq and Syria.

Are we just sitting here and have them actually overrun any more cities until they ACTUALLY established a new ISIS state down there? Do we let them take entire Iraq and Syria? As it looks, they' might be quite interested in Turkey as well.

There is 50,000+ something ISIS members down there controlling the area and their aim is to spread out and OBVIOUSLY IT SEEMS TO WORK.

So yes, let's just sit here and do nothing and let Kurds try to defend cities with outdated weapons.

I am not "pro war" by any means...but if something justifies war it's crazy fanatics down there and they MUST BE STOPPED.

And...getting back to topic: Seeing that ISIS is in fact not "just a bunch of gangs" but instead many 10s of thousands of well equipped fighters, yes this will be a DIFFICULT war which could be as difficult as Vietnam. So I might agree with the OP post that this justifies a war...and this is not a war you can do in two weeks with some air strikes on a few select "Alis" down there. In my opinion, we waited already way too long.
edit on 10/6/2014 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 09:27 PM
I completely understand the conspiracy aspects of statements like the one Panetta made, but there is some practical truth there as well. IF the US is determined to continue with their airstrikes until ISIS is defeated, or if they put boots on the ground with the intention of defeating ISIS, that defeat will take many years. I have stated multiple times in the past my belief that one will get nowhere fighting a battle of attrition against an asymmetrical, or guerilla, force. The US cannot rely on its technological advantages, or the strength of its forces alone, to defeat such an enemy. This is a lesson that the US should have been learning at the very least since Vietnam, or more recently the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is also the experiences of foreign militaries in this type of warfare where experience could be drawn, the most notable and recent being the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan.

It is much easier for such a guerilla force to win an asymmetrical conflict because they only have to wait out the conventional force, and they usually focus on inflicting as many casualties as possible, but while not exposing themselves to being eliminated or suffering too many casualties. They need not win a single battle to win the war. They will understand that the longer they can draw out the conflict, the better they will fare, because the costs for the US when it comes to simply maintaining their forces will continue to mount, whether we meet with any success or not, and eventually the conflict will become untenable. The spending and lives lost will not be justified because of the lack of military gains.

For instance, take Vietnam. The US waged a war of attrition, and that was essentially the whole strategy: eliminate the enemy. It is much easier to accomplish clear objectives such as taking and holding terrain, but this type of conventional war is difficult to wage when your enemy is an insurgency. So in Vietnam the US would "search and destroy," but they never found the enemy. The enemy knew where they were the majority of time, and those horrible tactics stemmed from a failure in strategy. Even though we killed numerous soldiers for every one we lost, it was irrelevant, even though by the method of success set up by the US, we were winning due to this fact. So even if we can kill more of ISIS than they kill of us, it does not matter, as long as they can keep new recruits coming in, which shouldn't be a problem.

It will likely be easier to get troops to come in, those who wish to stand up to the west, and who will see this as a direct attack on their religion of Islam. The only way that a war of this nature can be won is to first establish good and long-term protection for the civilian populations. This is because intelligence becomes the most important factor, and civilians are the best source of intelligence against insurgencies, since insurgents attempt to blend in with the civilian population. The civilians will out these imposters, but only if they know they are fully protected, and that they will be protected for years to come. Therefore having this rapport with the civilian population will ensure that ISIS fighters cannot find a safe haven amongst the regular population, and this will force them away from populated areas, thus actually making them tenable targets for conventional military strikes.

That is basically it. It is simple really, but it requires a long-term commitment by the occupying army. It is not as simple as that of course, but that is the basic understanding in the theory of warfare. The main objective of the US in such a strategy is not to kill ISIS fighters, but to take away their support base, their intelligence sources, their mobility, and everything else that being able to blend with the civilian population affords. But this also requires a very large troop presence, and still puts troops in danger, especially early on. Suffice it to say that the US must make up their minds now as to what they wish to do. If the US is going in for reasons other than defeating ISIS, meaning some of the conspiracy theories are true, then they could purposely choose to fight the war in a way that would not allow them to win. Not totally infeasible. I would like to expand on these ideas from a military perspective, as that is one of my main interests, but I do not have the space, and I doubt that the majority of you guys would wish to read all that anyway. If anyone wants to converse from that angle, PM me, as I am always up for talk of military theory, strategy, tactics, etc., although my main passion is 19th century warfare.

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 09:36 PM
Oceania vs Eurasia.

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”
― George Orwell, 1984

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.”
― George Orwell, 1984

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 09:42 PM
My answer will always be 4.

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 09:46 PM
Nothing we do there will work until we get serious about ending this. And to do that, we are going to have to go all Sherman on their butts.

War is hell - William Tecumseh Sherman

War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over. - William Tecumseh Sherman

If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking. - William Tecumseh Sherman

The scenes on this field would have cured anybody of war. - William Tecumseh Sherman

That's the only kind of war that the Middle East would likely understand.

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 09:51 PM
a reply to: ketsuko

And that's why we'll never see it.

Why have a war that would end in less than a year using the full might of our forces when we can have a war spanning decades that would enable those in power to gain even MORE power?

It's why I'm quoting "1984".

We don't have the stomach for an all-out war.

We don't have the courage for an all-out war.

We lack the ethics that enables us to perpetuate war.

posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 11:24 AM
a reply to: TechniXcality
SMH You're arrogance in thinking that you're going over my head with your "intelligence" is amusing, at best. Thanks for the laugh, though

new topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in