Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The West, just once, needs to stretch forth it's arm in full might, no moderated and moral highground, but the full force of our technological might. .

So you're ok nuking them? What about the tens of thousands of other crazies. Won't they, lkike not like us and stuff?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
They are crucifying Christians alive, they are beheading small children, they are burying people alive in massed graves, they are enslaving and turning women and children into sex slaves, they are massacring and defiling on a huge scale. This isn't some muddy waters ethical dilemma people, this is 'the bad guys'.

We must stop them utterly and without a shred of mercy, negotiation or reason.

They should be liquidated. Entirely.

They have old AKs and adherence to a lunatic cult, we have flying fething robots and smart missiles.

Erase them. Grind them into dust.

So you kind of have to kill everyone to do that though. Does that make them worse or us worse?

Frazz... it's a delimma... sure.

Ask yourself this... are you repeating what American said before Pearl Harbor was bombed?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
They are crucifying Christians alive, they are beheading small children, they are burying people alive in massed graves, they are enslaving and turning women and children into sex slaves, they are massacring and defiling on a huge scale. This isn't some muddy waters ethical dilemma people, this is 'the bad guys'.

We must stop them utterly and without a shred of mercy, negotiation or reason.

They should be liquidated. Entirely.

They have old AKs and adherence to a lunatic cult, we have flying fething robots and smart missiles.

Erase them. Grind them into dust.

Yes, they are probably even worse than the Nazis (Godwinned!).

No, the West shouldn't do anything about them.

ISIS came out of the ashes of Afghanistan and Iraq, who knows what would come out of the ashes of ISIS if the West became involved again?!

This is simply not our problem. We have proved time and again that we don't have the first clue about how to handle people in that culture. Let the other countries in the region deal with it, issue a ban on all western civilians to stop them from travelling to the region and hire mercenaries to protect western interests over there. Keep the oil flowing but other than that GTFO from that hellhole!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Frazz... it's a delimma... sure.

Ask yourself this... are you repeating what American said before Pearl Harbor was bombed?

ISIS doesn't have the resources to cause any major damage to western nations. It sure as hell doesn't have the same resources and capabilities that pre-WWII Japan had.

 whembly wrote:
Frazz... it's a delimma... sure.

Ask yourself this... are you repeating what American said before Pearl Harbor was bombed?

Except we hadn't already had two wars with Japan, left - watch it fall apart - and have p[eople said we should go back in.

I'm firmly of the mind that tens of thousands of crazies will now flock wherever the other crazies are at.

Not our fight. If it is our fight, you use EVERY weapon you have.
But if you do that, how does it help our long term position?

Also, if you mysteriously wiped out ISIS, what happens with the Syrian dictatorship. You just supported a true Fascist party that kills children, by taking out one of their primary competitors.

PhantomViper wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Frazz... it's a delimma... sure.

Ask yourself this... are you repeating what American said before Pearl Harbor was bombed?

ISIS doesn't have the resources to cause any major damage to western nations. It sure as hell doesn't have the same resources and capabilities that pre-WWII Japan had.

Are you serious? All they need to do is get people in to the country. They are a terrorist organization. Why would you think they couldn't cause major damage to western nations? I believe you are forgetting some important historical incidents.

Now, with that said, I do not condone nuking the middle east like some have suggested. This is a threat that needs to be dealt with quickly. When I say quickly, I mean before Pakistan and India start going at it.

You think that area is bad now, just wait.....

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Are you serious? All they need to do is get people in to the country. They are a terrorist organization. Why would you think they couldn't cause major damage to western nations? I believe you are forgetting some important historical incidents.

Such as?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Frazz... it's a delimma... sure.

Ask yourself this... are you repeating what American said before Pearl Harbor was bombed?

ISIS doesn't have the resources to cause any major damage to western nations. It sure as hell doesn't have the same resources and capabilities that pre-WWII Japan had.

Are you serious? All they need to do is get people in to the country. They are a terrorist organization. Why would you think they couldn't cause major damage to western nations? I believe you are forgetting some important historical incidents.

Now, with that said, I do not condone nuking the middle east like some have suggested. This is a threat that needs to be dealt with quickly. When I say quickly, I mean before Pakistan and India start going at it.

You think that area is bad now, just wait.....

Thats an argument for securing our borders, not Operation Linebacker III.
How does one tell an ISIS member from your average farmer?
I mean the lefties love to shout "bazillions of Iraqis are dead and its all YOUR fault!" They include all the dead from insurgent IEDs.
How are we going to tell ISIS from your average Iraqi? How are we not going to get that thrown in our face and thousands more crazies come to kill us.

Its like throwing blood in a river full or piranhas.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Are you serious? All they need to do is get people in to the country. They are a terrorist organization. Why would you think they couldn't cause major damage to western nations? I believe you are forgetting some important historical incidents.

Such as?

At this point, not sure if you are trolling or not.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

At this point, not sure if you are trolling or not.

I'm not.

Please tell me what are these incidents of foreign terrorism that managed to cause major damage to a western nation because I can't think of a single one.

And in the of chance that you are referring to 9/11, without wanting to belittle the very real tragedy that was 9/11 in any way, but that cannot be considered major damage.

Especially considering that the US lost a comparable amount of servicemen and suffered much, much higher economic damages with the Afghanistan war that followed it (and I'm not even counting Iraq in these numbers).

So you wan't to commit your country to a probably even costlier war, both in economic and in human lives, simply on the very small chance that some terrorist organization manages to pull of a similar blow?

How on earth is getting us involved in a tribal conflict a good thing?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/11/13/363804421/in-a-back-and-forth-battle-an-iraqi-town-splits-on-ethnic-lines

PhantomViper wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

At this point, not sure if you are trolling or not.

I'm not.

Please tell me what are these incidents of foreign terrorism that managed to cause major damage to a western nation because I can't think of a single one.

And in the of chance that you are referring to 9/11, without wanting to belittle the very real tragedy that was 9/11 in any way, but that cannot be considered major damage.

Especially considering that the US lost a comparable amount of servicemen and suffered much, much higher economic damages with the Afghanistan war that followed it (and I'm not even counting Iraq in these numbers).

So you wan't to commit your country to a probably even costlier war, both in economic and in human lives, simply on the very small chance that some terrorist organization manages to pull of a similar blow?

"9/11 doesn't count because more was lost in the War on Terror that followed", ah ...what?

Ah, and I think I'll just enter and leave this thread at that. Eugh, OT.

 Wyrmalla wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

At this point, not sure if you are trolling or not.

I'm not.

Please tell me what are these incidents of foreign terrorism that managed to cause major damage to a western nation because I can't think of a single one.

And in the of chance that you are referring to 9/11, without wanting to belittle the very real tragedy that was 9/11 in any way, but that cannot be considered major damage.

Especially considering that the US lost a comparable amount of servicemen and suffered much, much higher economic damages with the Afghanistan war that followed it (and I'm not even counting Iraq in these numbers).

So you wan't to commit your country to a probably even costlier war, both in economic and in human lives, simply on the very small chance that some terrorist organization manages to pull of a similar blow?

"9/11 doesn't count because more was lost in the War on Terror that followed", ah ...what?

Ah, and I think I'll just enter and leave this thread at that. Eugh, OT.

Bye.

I find the ISIS situation very frustrating. However, they are small potatoes try to hit way above their weight. Russia and China those are real threats to the US, not annoying mosquitoes like ISIS.

The only way ISIS becomes a real threat is if we actually try to engage them in a conventional way. Then, the threat is that we destroy ourselves battling them. They can;t harm us, only we can harm ourselves.

However much it pains me, the best way to deal with ISIS is local proxies within Syria/Iraq doing the dirty work with limited US support, and leading a ME containment coalition including people we don't normally like to deal with.

I see this as a huge diplomatic opportunity to broaden and strengthen our hand in the ME at "relatively" little cost*.



*= Althought to many individuals the cost is already very, very high.

If we were playing ME realpolitik this would be an excellent way to get close to Syria and thaw relations with Iran, while at the same time creating a Kurdestan state.

 Frazzled wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The West, just once, needs to stretch forth it's arm in full might, no moderated and moral highground, but the full force of our technological might. .

So you're ok nuking them? What about the tens of thousands of other crazies. Won't they, lkike not like us and stuff?

Actually, wasn't talking about nukes. I was referring to every other weapon we had, up to and including chemical.

You think we couldn't have flown in and dropped a fully capable army on that mountain where the Yazidis were trapped and being slowly murdered off, or immediately have reinforced and then led the Kurdish on a sweep into ISIS controlled ground?

We have the most ridiculously expensive killing machine on the planet, not by a few degrees, but by degrees of magnitude, and we're paying for it all to sit idle? Take the fething nations and make them protectorates. Seize them and bring them to peaceful compliance, stop acting like a world police and just remake the fething world in our image.

We want their oil etc etc, want to invest billions attacking etc etc then withdraw and leave it turn back to gak? No, bring it enlightenment.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The West, just once, needs to stretch forth it's arm in full might, no moderated and moral highground, but the full force of our technological might. .

So you're ok nuking them? What about the tens of thousands of other crazies. Won't they, lkike not like us and stuff?

Actually, wasn't talking about nukes. I was referring to every other weapon we had, up to and including chemical.

You think we couldn't have flown in and dropped a fully capable army on that mountain where the Yazidis were trapped and being slowly murdered off, or immediately have reinforced and then led the Kurdish on a sweep into ISIS controlled ground?

We have the most ridiculously expensive killing machine on the planet, not by a few degrees, but by degrees of magnitude, and we're paying for it all to sit idle? Take the fething nations and make them protectorates. Seize them and bring them to peaceful compliance, stop acting like a world police and just remake the fething world in our image.

We want their oil etc etc, want to invest billions attacking etc etc then withdraw and leave it turn back to gak? No, bring it enlightenment.

How are chemical weapons better?
Then what? I now you were an anti Bushite. But thats what we did since 2004. Now you want to do it some more?

Hey in 2004 I was like you. I learned.

The longer I think about ISIS, the more I am convinced that the US really should act.

Consider the following:

We decide not to act based on our understanding that we have three major players in the region:

Saudi Arabia, Iran and Israel.

I am skeptical about Saudi Arabia because that nation already beheads people on state television and is Sunni. There's a chance it might actually ally itself with ISIS.

However, not a snowball's chance in hell will Iran ally with ISIS - they are Shia, and thus arch enemies of the ISIS movement.

And then we have Israel. Their armed forces are one of the toughest S.O.Bs in the world. And they have nukes - just in case.

So if ISIS continued to expand, the biggest victory they could possibly achieve is defeating Iraq, Jordan and possibly Kuwait. If they then allied with the Saudi people and toppled the Saudi monarchy, then its Christmas and Easter at the same time for them. Especially because they then control Mekka and Medina. But they have said they will destroy these places of shirk...which in turn would enkindle the full wrath of the international ummah (unless they did a 180 on their policy). Maybe Yemen and Oman, Qatar and Kuwait could also fall...but then what? Causasus? That might be as far as they'll ever get.

However, they have supporters in Libya too. By this time, Libya might be fully radicalized...and then it's just a cats leap to Algeria. And despite having Sisi, Egypt is now cornered. Israel and Iran are then the only other powers in the region capable of stopping ISIS. Where will Turkey be in this situation? Erdogan is a closet extremist. For the past decade he has slowly been sliding his country back into Islamic conservatism, favoring the analphabetic, numerically superior people of the anatolian highlands to the liberal intellectuals of Istanbul and Ankara.

Now regarding the option of nuking:

The United States nuked Japan.

Twice.

Do the Japanese hate us? Did they spend the next few decades screaming for American blood?

No.

They are allies now.

And speaking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki...are they wastelands of radioactive rubble?

No. They are blooming centres of commerce today.

So that's the "nuke Raqqa" argument.

Now, moving on:

Occupation.

For 10 years, Germany and Austria were under allied administration. Not partial, like post 2003 Iraq, but complete. Did Germans and Austrians violently protest to this state of occupation and go to great lengths to martyr themselves in bomb attacks against the "evil oppressors"? No. Did pockets of post-war nazi cells erupt all across the lands? No.

So if we send in ground troops and exterminate ISIS through a war of attrition that make Afghanistan and Iraq look like Basic, and if we then remained there for an unspecified amount of time till the people there learn to adapt secular ideals, IT WILL WORK.

Sorry, but colonialism is the only answer. Will it unite all Muslims against America? No. That's just talk and little else. All the muslims can do is rant on the internet about how evil America is. But while Daesh is busy slicing the necks of fellow muslims and selling women as sex slaves is muslim countries, the inhabitants of these muslim countries rather throw a hissy fit everytime something happens in Israel than in their own back yard.

Why doesn't Austria go? We'll sell you all the military hardware you need.

After all, the Turks never attempted to besiege Washington.

 Frazzled wrote:
Why doesn't Austria go? We'll sell you all the military hardware you need.

After all, the Turks never attempted to besiege Washington.

I am all for the EU being more active in international military policy. Anybody who suggests a unification of all EU member armies into one force has my 100% backing.

But right now fact of the matter is that the US is the only guy in the world who can turn words into deeds and clean house. It would also give the largest military in the world that otherwise just patrols around on taxpayer money an opportunity to flex their muscles and earn their pay.

No I meant Austria, not the commercial enterprise that is the EU.

You're fine offering up Americans to die. Turnabout. you go, and go full bore. Tell us how it turns out.

It would also give the largest military in the world that otherwise just patrols around on taxpayer money to flex their muscles and earn their pay.

Dear God what planet on you from. The US has been in active combat for THIRTEEN YEARS. We Were in two wars and multiple "peace actions" in the decade before that. WE're still in Afghanistan, Bonsia, freaking Asia and Europe. We're fething DONE.

 Frazzled wrote:
No I meant Austria, not the commercial enterprise that is the EU.

You're fine offering up Americans to die. Turnabout. you go, and go full bore. Tell us how it turns out.

It would also give the largest military in the world that otherwise just patrols around on taxpayer money to flex their muscles and earn their pay.

Dear God what planet on you from. The US has been in active combat for THIRTEEN YEARS. We Were in two wars and multiple "peace actions" in the decade before that. WE're still in Afghanistan, Bonsia, freaking Asia and Europe. We're fething DONE.

No. No, you're not "DONE".

Last time I checked, it wasn't Austria that decided to topple a country relatively stable under a dictator in the name of Iraqi Freedom. The United States created this mess in the first place and as such, it should be her moral obligation to FINISH what she started.

I understand the American public doesnt get the implications of their government's post 9/11 foreign policy and think the best idea is to get all soldiers home and call it a day, but wouldnt the world be an awesome place to live if things were that simple?

If you decide to liberate a people and lead them into a better way of life, you should stay put until you achieve your goals. Either that, or dont decide to improve their lives in the first place. But prematurely leaving is a worse deed than remaining.

If you decide to liberate a people and lead them into a better way of life, you should stay put until you achieve your goals. Either that, or dont decide to improve their lives in the first place. But prematurely leaving is a worse deed than remaining.

I know right. Killing their murdering dictator, and trying to hold the country together since 2003 we're just completely the bad guys.

ISIS wasn't then when we left. Even if they were, so what? They weren't in Syria. But now you want to kill all of them. Thats an excellent option. And replace them with whom?

Again, you go. Tell us how it works out.

 Frazzled wrote:

Dear God what planet on you from. The US has been in active combat for THIRTEEN YEARS. We Were in two wars and multiple "peace actions" in the decade before that. WE're still in Afghanistan, Bonsia, freaking Asia and Europe. We're fething DONE.

Sadly, Frazz, he has a point. *most* wars through out history have run for decades, some as long as a century. The United States has been very lucky in that most of their wars have been relatively brief, and fairly one sided. There's a reason a lot of the Europeans in the room are looking at us and wondering why we're whining so much when their wars have been, statistically, about twice this in length, and among recent ones, about ten times as bloody.

I'm reminded, looking at the Calender, that the US casualties have also been very light, compared to any other conflict of this duration in history. Between 19 September, 1944, and the Battle of the Bulge, the US lost a comparable number of men WIA/KIA in about two months fighting in the Hürtgen Forest in an effort to keep the Germans from reinforcing Aachen, to the entire war in Iraq.

If the US had gone in earlier *cough* we would not be in this position. As I've been saying for more than a year now, the longer the US allows this to go on, the worse it will be when they finally get dragged into it regardless of what anyone wants.

 Frazzled wrote:

How are chemical weapons better?

Not having to wait ten thousand years before resettling? Not irradiating everyone downwind for thousands of miles?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

How are chemical weapons better?

Not having to wait ten thousand years before resettling? Not irradiating everyone downwind for thousands of miles?

The fact people are currently living right where the Bombs in Japan went off says its not really that long.

 BaronIveagh wrote:


I'm reminded, looking at the Calender, that the US casualties have also been very light, compared to any other conflict of this duration in history. Between 19 September, 1944, and the Battle of the Bulge, the US lost a comparable number of men WIA/KIA in about two months fighting in the Hürtgen Forest in an effort to keep the Germans from reinforcing Aachen, to the entire war in Iraq.

Our methods, technology and medical care have all progressed light years since then.

That's not to say the pattern for US military conflicts doesn't still hold true, it's just that the scale changes with each conflict

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Our methods, technology and medical care have all progressed light years since then.

They have advanced, but not as much as a lot of people might think. The big reasons were actually that the Germans were able to fight the US army on equal terms rather than an insurgency fighting a army.

Battlefield medicine is the biggest advance. Otherwise, we've more or less copied Germany's approach (better tech, smaller numbers of better trained and equipped professional soldiers, focus on quickly overwhelming opposition at the expense of potential staying power, trying make every aircraft a fighter AND a ground support, overly expensive tanks, and pocket battleships .... this list goes on...)

 Grey Templar wrote:

The fact people are currently living right where the Bombs in Japan went off says its not really that long.

Three reasons that those cities could be recovered: the relatively low yields of the bombs in question, the materials used, and the fact they were both air-bursts, and the general clean up effort removing a LOT of surface contaminants. Cancer levels were high into the 1950s even with the relatively light amount of residual radiation. Most modern nukes have a much higher yield which in turn leads to a much higher level of contamination.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Three reasons that those cities could be recovered: the relatively low yields of the bombs in question, the materials used, and the fact they were both air-bursts, and the general clean up effort removing a LOT of surface contaminants. Cancer levels were high into the 1950s even with the relatively light amount of residual radiation. Most modern nukes have a much higher yield which in turn leads to a much higher level of contamination.

Actually, that's not quite true.

Modern nukes are hydrogen bombs, which only needs a fraction of the fission material used in WW2 to initiate the fusion stage.

I'm talking about the tactical fusion nukes... not the mother of all M.A.D.D warheads we have on ICBM/Sub.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
They have old AKs and adherence to a lunatic cult, we have flying fething robots and smart missiles.

The Vietcong had old AKs and pajamas and adherence to a political ideology, and we had dramatically better technology then as well. The Vietcong still won the war.

Technological superiority obviously makes a huge difference in winning battles, but winning wars takes political will; something we do not have.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

At this point, not sure if you are trolling or not.

I'm not.

Please tell me what are these incidents of foreign terrorism that managed to cause major damage to a western nation because I can't think of a single one.

And in the of chance that you are referring to 9/11, without wanting to belittle the very real tragedy that was 9/11 in any way, but that cannot be considered major damage.

Especially considering that the US lost a comparable amount of servicemen and suffered much, much higher economic damages with the Afghanistan war that followed it (and I'm not even counting Iraq in these numbers).

So you wan't to commit your country to a probably even costlier war, both in economic and in human lives, simply on the very small chance that some terrorist organization manages to pull of a similar blow?

Wait wait wait. Hold on a second here. I said they need to be dealt with. Nowhere did I say we needed to get in to another war. But, words in mouth help win arguments!

Anyways, back to the baffling part of what you posted, at what point do you consider it major damage? I mean, they only destroyed two iconic buildings in the largest city in the US. They also caused so much damage, people are still dying from the attacks. (Cancer and the such) They also flew a plane in to the Pentagon and they were attempting to fly a plane in to the white house. This provoked us in to a long and costly war that has divided our nation.

At what point do you consider it major damage?

 whembly wrote:

Actually, that's not quite true.

Modern nukes are hydrogen bombs, which only needs a fraction of the fission material used in WW2 to initiate the fusion stage.

So was Castle Bravo, and Rongelap Atoll down wind of the test is still contaminated to the point of being unlivable.

On the tac nukes: yes, but tac nukes are not what you use to flatten cities. Thier yeilds are generally very small comparitivly.