U.S. signals possible airstrikes in Somalia by asking aid groups for their locations

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?

Eventually you either have a population which realizes that idea will get them killed, or the idea runs out of war bodies to infect. Either way, problem solved through disproportionate response.

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?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

And who helped create them?

Pakistan and It's ISI,China,Europe in response to Russian aggression.

True the US was there, but we sure don't get all the blame.

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?

Same way the last prez did.

In Syria,Iraq,Afghanistan,Somalia, and Yemen.

Somalia has never been a 'stable' country.

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: 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?

We have 1.5 million active duty military and 800,000 reserves. Manpower isn't an issue.

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.)

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: 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.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: missed_gear

And who helped create them?

Nothing like cleaning up your own mess, ya? I've never understood why the "US helped create Islamofascism" argument is used against the present day efforts to eliminate the same. Mistakes were made, sure... but they're as easy to clean up as they were to create.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

What is Syria threat against the US again?

Or can we be honest and call it what it is, a proxy pissing contest.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

If we're so powerful an capable of doing that, than why are we in the midst of the longest war in our history?

The longest war in American history is the War on Poverty.

Second runner up the War on Drugs.

Why terrorism has dragged out so long ?

They aren't fighting the war like a war should be fought.

Political ambitions combined with political hackery combined with political quackery has obfuscated everything to ignoramus proportions.

The war on terror could have already be over and done with if it was actually prosecuted like one.

Kill the enemy.

No holds barred.

Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.

How can anyone expect a war to be won when civilian leaders never take the leash off the war dogs?

a reply to: neo96

How can anyone expect a war to be won when civilian leaders never take the leash off the war dogs?

I suppose you're happy that Trump gave pretty much full decision making to JSOC.

We've won war under civilian leaders before.

While you may think giving generals the ability to strike when they please, they aren't receiving all the Intel a president gets.

So what happens if they accidentally hit a Russian spec ops team because they aren't talking to diplomats?

Looks like the media did a good job of selling war because plenty on this site just blindly support them.

Most of these countries haven't attacked or even threatened us.

Its agendas we may not know that makes these wars.

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.)

Great if its a country you are at war with.


Problem with insurgency us they are not a country and mix in with the civilians of countrys the USA is allied with.

Are you going to drop a nuke on Pairs to kill a few dozen hidden ISIS members?


Dropping a MOAB on a known Insurgent position , fine! But you have to find those positions!

Bombs wont win this war, at least not alone.

Better would be to train SF members as death squads to infiltrate possible Insurgents and kill them in there sleep. Apprently the SAS was doing that to good effect in Iraq before the UK pulled out. Produced a pile of dead terrorists with few civilian. Causalitys and no pissed off Allies.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Why would I be happy ?

The US military hasn't done what it's completely capable of yet.

The only thing Trump has done is let them warm up.

We've won war under civilian leaders before.

The last one I can think of was World War 2.

When the entire country got behind the military effort.

a reply to: crazyewok

Are you going to drop a nuke on Pairs to kill a few dozen hidden ISIS members?

histronics.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Are you going to drop a nuke on Pairs to kill a few dozen hidden ISIS members?

Who in the F has ever suggested such a thing from a position of any authority? Jesus man, why in the hell does the conversation always seem to jump right into nuking non-hostile targets? That's not going to happen and you knew it wouldn't.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

You guys should pay more attention. We've had Special Forces, UAVs, and a large detachment of F-15Es operating in Africa for at least 15 years.

a reply to: neo96

And why would that make you happy?

So let me get this straight. Terrorists kill around 3,000 Americans, so we attack seven or more countries losing far more than we initially lost.

The bill gets picked up by tax payers, and after fifteen years of losing at the casino the "solution" from war hawks is triple down.

Well, at least I know to give up now, no way the sheeple in this country will restore domestic prosperity while we willfully give our children and hard earned money to the war machine.

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.

The missles strike on Syria was a stupid move.

Apart from die hard trump supporters and MIC controlled politicians I have not heard a single person think it was a good idea. Why?

1) trump never presented evidence to say it was Assad.

2) it accomplish nothing but waste $40 million of missles. Syria lost a few planes russia can replace, 6 dead grunts and a airfield that was quickly repaired.

3) ISIS used that attack to launch a counter attack of there own, so trump strike benifited them....Duh.....


If your going to engage in military action FSS make sure younhave the right target and you actually have a plan that will accomplish something....