It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
ISIS is just a new word for Islamic extremists which is an idea.
You can't destroy an idea. And the way we've attempted merely fuels it. The middle east is a far worse landscape than it was before 2001.
If anything we've created the environment in which it can flourish.
So why continue trying to beat something using the same tactics that fueled it?
And who helped create them?
originally posted by: crazyewok
So the USA opens a front in Syria, North korea and Somalia while also still in Afghanistan......so where you going to get this manpower?
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: burdman30ott6
If we're so powerful an capable of doing that, than why are we in the midst of the longest war in our history?
Further more why is the problem worse than when we entered?
If anything your "solution" has proven to have made matters worse.
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: burdman30ott6
So you're proposing we use all out might on countries who haven't attacked us?
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: missed_gear
And who helped create them?
If we're so powerful an capable of doing that, than why are we in the midst of the longest war in our history?
How can anyone expect a war to be won when civilian leaders never take the leash off the war dogs?
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: burdman30ott6
If we're so powerful an capable of doing that, than why are we in the midst of the longest war in our history?
Further more why is the problem worse than when we entered?
If anything your "solution" has proven to have made matters worse.
...because "kinder, gentler" warfare doesn't work. If the US had put once ounce of venom into the fighting of the last 15 years and acted like a country trying to win a war by grounding and pounding their enemy into full submission, the wars would be long over and the region would be too scared to fart, let alone start more crap.
America hasn't fought a war with the direct goal of victory since WW2. We've fought a slew of pissing contests and "draw this out to financially ruin the funding government of the proxy we're fighting" conflicts alongside a ridiculous "let's play nicey-nicey so the locals won't hate us" footsie contest in the Middle East. We need to fight wars to win the wars, claim the spoils, and teach lessons that won't be forgotten for many generations. (see Hiroshima and Nagasaki and how quickly Japan adopted Stockholm Syndrome to ensure the US never had reason to make an example of them again.)
We've won war under civilian leaders before.
originally posted by: crazyewok
Are you going to drop a nuke on Pairs to kill a few dozen hidden ISIS members?
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: burdman30ott6
So you're proposing we use all out might on countries who haven't attacked us?
I'm proposing that we should always use all out might on any country we fight, regardless the backstory. Pre-emptive and mission critical attacks have a place. The missile strike against Syria, for example, was a strategic move. If it saves the US money, time, lives, or resources, then as an American I have no issue with it.