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.
MrDwhitey wrote: You see, ISIS is pure evil and deserves to be destroyed, but then claiming that torture methods are "just dumping water on a few faces" makes you look like a fool.
In that case...
<-- Zero Feth Given.
Trying to defend ISIS makes you far more of a fool.
So ISIS has the kind of infrastructure to ramp up a army and weapons to match the US? Or are you guys just worried they'll find the weapons of mass destruction that must still be in Iraq?
It's sad that you lot of blood thirsty savages can only come to a answer of genocide, and that's considered the rational response.
Let me ask you a question: Do you think guys who's treatment of prisoners includes beheading and burning them alive on camera are going to sit down at the peace table and even have a meaningful discussion?
What do you think you can offer them? The US going away isn't going to cut it. So, what will? According to them, the world wide conversion to their brand of Islam, the legalization of the slave trade, and a world wide ban on the education of women. and that's to start. I highly doubt that even it's neighbors, let alone most western countries will sign on with that.
Hell, let's say they do sit down and sign a treaty.
They already are in possession of a nuclear weapons research facility at Deir al-Zor. I figure about ten years before our first thermonuclear suicide bomber.
I'd say that a ruthless approach is frankly the only practical solution to this.
They should take the US's example of how to treat prisoners, and just put a bullet in their head, and dump them in the ocean. the US is in no position to protest how prisoners are treated.
Do you have a source for what they want?
You figure 10 years for that? based on what? Didn't you already blow that place up?
It boggles my mind that some liberals are trying so hard to defend the terrorist, especially when comparing them to the West.
I mean, ya'll are willfully ignoring:
-treatment of women
-killing gays (throwning them off buildings and stoning them)
-actual slavery
-pedofiles
-true barbarism.
But, to some... the fact that we dumped water on a few faces renders our opinion null.
O.o
Forgot executing a bunch of kids for watching a soccer game
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Feth em then. They'll hate us for interfering, and they'll hate us for not interfering. At some point we have to stop playing Jihadi whack-a-mole and tell em it's their turn.
And doing nothing gets us where? Another plane in a building. More subway bombings. More newspapers shot up.
These are people who cut the heads off of children because they don't understand religion. Only a fool thinks that they will stay put once they take over in that region.
The vast majority of which are committed by western citizens, born and raised in western/European cities, not ISIS immigrants.
Please explain to me how bombing people thousands of miles away will stop the home grown terrorists in our own cities? If anything, bombing the Middle East just helps radicalize even more people here. Our "War on Terror" is a god send for the likes of ISIS and Al Qaeda, because its extremely easy to spin into a "War on Islam".
And you honestly think that if we were to simply turn around and play ostrich with our heads in the sand that the radicals would suddenly find all their potential recruits drying up?
Please, they'd simply keep on spouting their hateful filth and instead of preaching about how the evil West is trying to murder all true Muslims, they'd simply go on about how the evil West is guilty of the most heinous crimes such as educating women and living sinful lives full of the freedoms to better ourselves, worship how we choose, etc...
Only a fool thinks that they will stay put once they take over in that region.
Stop straw manning please. I never said that. I KNOW ISIS wants to expand. And I don't care. Its up to the nations in the region to deal with, not us. If need be, we can provide technical, logistical and financial support to those nations (Jordan), hell maybe even send our Special Forces over (because this is what they're for after all) but sending a dedicated combat force to take and hold territory and combat ISIS, like Iraq and Afghanistan? Feth no. I'm sick of America and Europe policing the world, getting our militaries bogged down into endless, un-winnable conflicts that drain our already fragile economies of trillions, that just provide a goldmine of propaganda for jihadi recruiters.
There are enough Islamic extremists at home, theres no need to go picking fights in the world and remaking the mistakes of Iraq.
Only a fool thinks violence solves everything.
And only an even bigger fool thinks that doing nothing and ignoring a spiraling out of control proxy war is somehow going to sort itself out without massive worldwide fallout...
ISIS has captured hundreds, (if not thousands), of pieces of military hardwear from both Iraq & Syrian armed forces. They have planes - we know this, they simply do not yet have the capability to properly support the use of them.
If left completely unchecked by Western aid & intervention, there is the very, very real chance that this current 'insurgent war' can escalate fully into a full blown regional war between the Saudis and Iran. (and by proxy, both the US & Russia who have been longstanding allies to both nations)
If that's allowed to happen, you'll have a a pair of nations who care about 0 gaks for human rights & silly things like the Geneva Convention going toe-to-toe, with two nuclear powers forced into backing their respective sides.
You need to put down the Tom Clancy novels. Proxy war between the US and Russia? Really?
Just send troops to protect the relevant oil facilities if they are threatened but otherwise let them kill each other to their hearts content. The West just spent 10+ years in that hell hole and all that it accomplished is to generate even more ill will. Let the Middle East solve its own problems for once.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/09 18:00:12
And you honestly think that if we were to simply turn around and play ostrich with our heads in the sand that the radicals would suddenly find all their potential recruits drying up? [...}
Do you honestly think repeating the mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan is a wise course of action?
I liked the Matrix Game Resource page at the end of the article as well. It makes me want to explore this type of game further for a less important type of game.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Da krimson barun wrote: Peace?do you mean let them behead in peace?Or kill all of them?What other options are there?
Apparently there's also;
1. burying our collective heads in the sand and hoping the problem will fix itself.
2. hug-a-thug policies and blaming our evil Western ways to excuse Islamism in true apologist fashion.
3. convincing ourselves that if we don't bother Islamic State and leave them be, they'll of course have 0 reason to attack us.
Well played sir.
Whats sad is that it seems that so many people have the same attitudes about the ISIL that they had about the Nazi's in 1938, that if we just ignore them, or try to understand them, that the threat will go away.
Da krimson barun wrote: Peace?do you mean let them behead in peace?Or kill all of them?What other options are there?
Apparently there's also; 1. burying our collective heads in the sand and hoping the problem will fix itself.
2. hug-a-thug policies and blaming our evil Western ways to excuse Islamism in true apologist fashion.
3. convincing ourselves that if we don't bother Islamic State and leave them be, they'll of course have 0 reason to attack us.
Well played sir.
Whats sad is that it seems that so many people have the same attitudes about the ISIL that they had about the Nazi's in 1938, that if we just ignore them, or try to understand them, that the threat will go away.
Not me. My attitude to ISIS is more like America's attitude to Germany pre-Pearl Harbour than it is Neville Chamberlain.
Support our preferred side with supplies etc (the Lend Lease agreement), but why fight the enemy when someone else will do it for us?
Let Jordan, Iraq and Syria send in ground troops. We should just stick to aerial bombing raids and drones.
Do you people really want another 10 year Iraq style occupation?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/09 23:05:12
I think that the people who are reluctant to intervene, at least me, view that pretty strictly though the lens of our recent needless mideast adventures. That being said, the idea that the comparison isn't 2003 Iraq, but 1933 Germany, is a powerful one.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
I think that the people who are reluctant to intervene, at least me, view that pretty strictly though the lens of our recent needless mideast adventures. That being said, the idea that the comparison isn't 2003 Iraq, but 1933 Germany, is a powerful one.
Wait, did Quze just come within spitting distance of admitting I've been on to something for the last..... almost two years now?
Next thing you know, Frazz will complain that the US didn't invade sooner....
...though only after US troops find evidence of the Dachshundcaust.
Da krimson barun wrote: Peace?do you mean let them behead in peace?Or kill all of them?What other options are there?
Apparently there's also;
1. burying our collective heads in the sand and hoping the problem will fix itself.
2. hug-a-thug policies and blaming our evil Western ways to excuse Islamism in true apologist fashion.
3. convincing ourselves that if we don't bother Islamic State and leave them be, they'll of course have 0 reason to attack us.
Well played sir.
Whats sad is that it seems that so many people have the same attitudes about the ISIL that they had about the Nazi's in 1938, that if we just ignore them, or try to understand them, that the threat will go away.
For the record I agree with experiment 626.His list of options are the ones I hate-and the ones half the thread seem to recommend.
Kote!
Kandosii sa ka'rte, vode an.
Coruscanta a'den mhi, vode an.
Bal kote,Darasuum kote,
Jorso'ran kando a tome.
Sa kyr'am nau tracyn kad vode an.
Bal...
Motir ca'tra nau tracinya.
Gra'tua cuun hett su dralshy'a.
Aruetyc talyc runi'la trattok'a.
Sa kyr'am nau tracyn kad, vode an!
Wait, did Quze just come within spitting distance of admitting I've been on to something for the last..... almost two years now?
Next thing you know, Frazz will complain that the US didn't invade sooner....
After more study and whatnot, I'm of the opinion that Bush Jr. really screwed the pooch by removing and killing Saddam.... Daddy Bush realized the power behind "the enemy I know is better than the enemy I don't know" and beat Saddam back into submission, but didn't remove him. Even though Saddam was an unsavory sort, he provided stability in a region where, as we now see... needs "Strong" leadership to force others into submission. The people of that region don't seem to respond well to "get out and vote, it's YOUR destiny" so much as they do, "I am the Boss, now kneel before me!"
BaronIveagh wrote: Wait, did Quze just come within spitting distance of admitting I've been on to something for the last..... almost two years now?
No, I'm still vacillating. I don't think the US can muster the political will it takes to actually defeat ISIL militarily so it's sort of irrelevant anyway.
I'm not sure anything we do really makes a difference in that place.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/10 00:16:18
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, going back to the story posted earlier about Jordan's usefulness in bombing targets with dummy bombs.
I talked to a friend of mine, 17 year veteran on the flight line, dealing with F-16 armaments. He told me (like I guessed), that the guidance units are not attached until after the bombs are loaded. That means that all of the pictures taken while the aircraft are just chilling, just means they were taken before that step.
A quote from him, regarding the story at the link.
Yeah that author is a complete moron. If they had coordinated with USAF PA they would have gotten the much less glamorous story that the Jordanians have smart bombs and all air forces use unguided munitions based on mission parameters.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/10 01:21:42
Wait, did Quze just come within spitting distance of admitting I've been on to something for the last..... almost two years now?
Next thing you know, Frazz will complain that the US didn't invade sooner....
After more study and whatnot, I'm of the opinion that Bush Jr. really screwed the pooch by removing and killing Saddam.... Daddy Bush realized the power behind "the enemy I know is better than the enemy I don't know" and beat Saddam back into submission, but didn't remove him. Even though Saddam was an unsavory sort, he provided stability in a region where, as we now see... needs "Strong" leadership to force others into submission. The people of that region don't seem to respond well to "get out and vote, it's YOUR destiny" so much as they do, "I am the Boss, now kneel before me!"
Naaaa....
The real problem is three fold in my book.
1. We should have never dismantled the Iraqi Army after we defeated them. We took career soldiers and put them out of a job, on their ass. Many of the insurgents were former soldiers, and taught others how to make bombs etc etc. We should have kept them as a army, and re structured the leadership. They could have filled a crucial role in combating the AQ types pouring in from the borders. Also would have saved us a ton of money in re-training a army.
2. We dismantled the administrative...idk...sector...when we toppled the goverment. The folks who did the mundane yet nessesary stuff in maintaining a government I.E. Finance, transportation etc etc. The fear was that their were too many baathist party members in power, but instead of trying to work with them (under ultimatiums of course, the iraq law system is pretty brutal) we threw the baby out with the bathwater. This caused all kinds of chaos.
3. We installed a Shia PM who was clearly bias in favor of the Shia majority, he completely alienated the sunni and purged sunni leadership from the military and administrative ranks. This really pissed off the sunni...who of course happen to be the same sect as the ISIL. Maybe a Bi-partison executive position would have been better (I. E. sharded powers between 2 PM's)
Wait, did Quze just come within spitting distance of admitting I've been on to something for the last..... almost two years now?
Next thing you know, Frazz will complain that the US didn't invade sooner....
After more study and whatnot, I'm of the opinion that Bush Jr. really screwed the pooch by removing and killing Saddam.... Daddy Bush realized the power behind "the enemy I know is better than the enemy I don't know" and beat Saddam back into submission, but didn't remove him. Even though Saddam was an unsavory sort, he provided stability in a region where, as we now see... needs "Strong" leadership to force others into submission. The people of that region don't seem to respond well to "get out and vote, it's YOUR destiny" so much as they do, "I am the Boss, now kneel before me!"
Naaaa....
The real problem is three fold in my book.
1. We should have never dismantled the Iraqi Army after we defeated them. We took career soldiers and put them out of a job, on their ass. Many of the insurgents were former soldiers, and taught others how to make bombs etc etc. We should have kept them as a army, and re structured the leadership. They could have filled a crucial role in combating the AQ types pouring in from the borders. Also would have saved us a ton of money in re-training a army.
2. We dismantled the administrative...idk...sector...when we toppled the goverment. The folks who did the mundane yet nessesary stuff in maintaining a government I.E. Finance, transportation etc etc. The fear was that their were too many baathist party members in power, but instead of trying to work with them (under ultimatiums of course, the iraq law system is pretty brutal) we threw the baby out with the bathwater. This caused all kinds of chaos.
3. We installed a Shia PM who was clearly bias in favor of the Shia majority, he completely alienated the sunni and purged sunni leadership from the military and administrative ranks. This really pissed off the sunni...who of course happen to be the same sect as the ISIL. Maybe a Bi-partison executive position would have been better (I. E. sharded powers between 2 PM's)
I kind of agree with you, but this is all hindsight theory in a way.
Bush and the last administration intention was not to cause this effect. The theory was the democracy and "freedom" will take care itself. The old "guards" must be removed because of their connection to the old ways.
So if Bush did what you suggested... we don't know what could have happens. What Bush thought could happens was...(to go point to point from your statement)
1 - The old army guys will become the new Sadam type it they stays in power. What is the point in taking out guy number 1 to 5, but leave the 6th in there? The 6th guy is just as bad as #1, so Bush went down the list... maybe he wen't too far down.. but that happy number is kind of hard to detect.
2 - Same as 1
3 - The Shia PM could have been a good PM... but he didn't.
My point is, everybody though the solution they used was the best. This was not the outcome intention.
However, I do some what agree with you.
The key to all your points solution was to get the right guy for the job. But we backed or pick the wrong guys or guys who were not competence enough. Like everything, the picking part is one of the hardest part. When it work, it is great. Example.... Western Germany after WW2 and Japan after WW2. They key success of those two countries.. they didn't have other factions powerful enough to challenge the new administration. Iraq had many factions and around that region were many factions ready to take new leadership. You remove one and other none USA interest faction will likely take over.
I really think that the best course of action in the middle east is, first let the out come be what it may be. Yes even if that means, we let ISIL to be an establish nation worst than NAZI Germany. Then if that nation refuse to act as a "good" nation, the we declare war and go from there. We take out ISIL as a nation and hope this time it will turn out good like in Western Germany.
There are many example where we left them alone and the region took care of it self. Because in the end of the day... people are people and all people want peace and love and prosperity. The Viet con did the same to Vietnam and looked very bad from the USA interest. 30 years later, Vietnam is not some crazy place that USA thought it was going to be. Vietnam is ok and doing well, they love USA and the old reds are ok too. Once they have peace... the rifle is put away and people pick up flowers.
At worst, I think ISIL will have a nation... then other nations around it will have walls to block them. There will be a stability (kind of) then ISIL govt. will realize that their way to control a country will not work... and people are not paying taxes to a fanatic govt like that and the country will fall and new better system will take place or the ISIL govt will just change. Kind of like Russia, Vietnam, China, Germany and Japan.
Or at the very worst, it becomes like another North Korea. But in all fairness, I think NK is on life support... it won't last another 50 years. It must change for the better or the people will rise up eventually.
See, the problem is, that the Brits, when they redrew the map of the ME after WW1, didn't give two rats behinds about sects, tribes or any of that.
If you look at the big picture, why did the US do business with Mubarak in Egypt, even knowing he was "evil" and dictatorships are "evil"?? Why does the US continue talking to certain Banana Republic dictators in Central and South America? Sure, we didn't do much with Iraq after whoopin' them in DSDS, but the point still remains:
Saddam was a known quantity. We KNEW who he was, how he acted, and what he did. We kept him in place because Power abhors a vacuum. THIS exact situation, with ISIS the reason why we left Saddam. He kept all this kind of extreme rabble from power. And with the way things were, we legitimately had no real way of knowing WHO would seize power in that vacuum. I'm sure that in the 90s and pre-OIF we had some inkling of the "players" who could take power, if Saddam were removed, but the problem is that there are many more players out there that we DIDNT know about, and THAT is why I think Bush Sr. knew what he was doing when he "allowed" Saddam to remain in power.
The key to all your points solution was to get the right guy for the job. But we backed or pick the wrong guys or guys who were not competence enough. Like everything, the picking part is one of the hardest part. When it work, it is great. Example.... Western Germany after WW2 and Japan after WW2. They key success of those two countries.. they didn't have other factions powerful enough to challenge the new administration. Iraq had many factions and around that region were many factions ready to take new leadership. You remove one and other none USA interest faction will likely take over.
The problem with that is that We (the US) still have bases and military presences in both Germany AND Japan. And if you do some reading, especially on MacArthur, you will see that he was no saint, by a long shot. Seriously, The US Govt asked him to stay in Japan to help with the rebuilding. He wanted to return to the US. Not being allowed to do so, he brought the US to him..... He basically "forced" American culture on the Japanese. It's why Baseball is one of the biggest sports there.
Germany is a bit different as they were already somewhat "similar" to the US in terms of overall cultures (Eastern society vs. Western, etc) Not to mention that the Allies had so thoroughly beaten Germany, combined with their exhaustion from warfare and Hitler's system that they were much more welcoming of new governing systems.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/10 02:47:39
And that's the exact reason certain parties wanted him gone. Saddam was actively engaged in escalating tensions with Iran. He'd already waged war with them once and he'd already invaded other neighbors previously. Those parties (the US intelligence community) did know who they were dealing with and they wanted him gone for the very reason that they fully expected him to start another war in the Mid East. At the time, with the US engaged in Afghanistan, and the rest of the Middle East in a relatively stable state, it's not that outlandish to try and make a move against him in 2004. Bashar al-Assad was actually seen as a positive influence in the ME back in the early 2000's. The US was on good terms (as good as could be expected) with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt and all three of them hated Saddam and wouldn't bat a lash at us getting rid of him.
The Arab Spring completely upset the political balance we were attempting to build in the ME, but no one saw that coming (not even experts in the field of ME geopolitics). I think you really just need to accept that this was not a foreseeable outcome. No matter how much you say it was, it just wasn't.
LordofHats wrote: I think you really just need to accept that this was not a foreseeable outcome. No matter how much you say it was, it just wasn't.
Except that when you get rid of a strong leader, without someone ready to step in, it creates that vacuum. Certainly, the Arab Spring didn't help matters any, but al Maliki really was quite a terrible choice from the get go. What I'm saying, is that in general terms, power abhors a vacuum, and we basically created it.
Would al Maliki have done better without the Arab Spring? I guess we'll never know. But to say that some of these issues were "unforeseeable" is untrue. To say that the extent of the effects these unforeseeable events have gone is very true.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Would al Maliki have done better without the Arab Spring?
Yes. The plan and expectation was that when we left there would be conflict, but that surrounding states would have a vested interest in helping Iraq end it. No one really expected Syira to become embroiled in a Civil War, or for popular uprisings to neuter the response of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon. The Arab Spring itself fed ISIS with dissidents and radical reformists, helping to make it a much stronger force than anyone could have expected.
To say that the extent of the effects these unforeseeable events have gone is very true.
To this standard I can agree.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/10 03:14:08
Ensis Ferrae wrote: See, the problem is, that the Brits, when they redrew the map of the ME after WW1, didn't give two rats behinds about sects, tribes or any of that.
If you look at the big picture, why did the US do business with Mubarak in Egypt, even knowing he was "evil" and dictatorships are "evil"?? Why does the US continue talking to certain Banana Republic dictators in Central and South America? Sure, we didn't do much with Iraq after whoopin' them in DSDS, but the point still remains:
Saddam was a known quantity. We KNEW who he was, how he acted, and what he did. We kept him in place because Power abhors a vacuum. THIS exact situation, with ISIS the reason why we left Saddam. He kept all this kind of extreme rabble from power. And with the way things were, we legitimately had no real way of knowing WHO would seize power in that vacuum. I'm sure that in the 90s and pre-OIF we had some inkling of the "players" who could take power, if Saddam were removed, but the problem is that there are many more players out there that we DIDNT know about, and THAT is why I think Bush Sr. knew what he was doing when he "allowed" Saddam to remain in power.
The key to all your points solution was to get the right guy for the job. But we backed or pick the wrong guys or guys who were not competence enough. Like everything, the picking part is one of the hardest part. When it work, it is great. Example.... Western Germany after WW2 and Japan after WW2. They key success of those two countries.. they didn't have other factions powerful enough to challenge the new administration. Iraq had many factions and around that region were many factions ready to take new leadership. You remove one and other none USA interest faction will likely take over.
The problem with that is that We (the US) still have bases and military presences in both Germany AND Japan. And if you do some reading, especially on MacArthur, you will see that he was no saint, by a long shot. Seriously, The US Govt asked him to stay in Japan to help with the rebuilding. He wanted to return to the US. Not being allowed to do so, he brought the US to him..... He basically "forced" American culture on the Japanese. It's why Baseball is one of the biggest sports there.
Germany is a bit different as they were already somewhat "similar" to the US in terms of overall cultures (Eastern society vs. Western, etc) Not to mention that the Allies had so thoroughly beaten Germany, combined with their exhaustion from warfare and Hitler's system that they were much more welcoming of new governing systems.
Yeah it was "nation building" in Japan and Germany. We tried to do the same in Iraq and it didn't work. The military present in JP and GM has nothing to do with keeping those two country pacified. It was a key military to keep our enemy pacified, like Russia, China, and NK. All with in the context of the time.
GM and Japan welcome USA for the most part. The people didn't enjoy the fascism of the Nazi and the Japanese imperialism. Those govt were very brutal to the normal citizen. I think the Iraq situation for the most part ... the citizen are the same as Japanese and Germans during the end of WW2. They want prosperity and peace. I really feel sorry for the people there. It is all the military power and factions that are fighting and the people are the victims. ISIL and like all power grabbers used propaganda to get what they want. Some create the "great enemy" and some use religion. End of the day, the leader are the fat cow that got what they wanted at the expense of the people.
BTW - USA didn't "forced" American culture on the Japanese after WW2. Japanese are normal people and just like most normal people they enjoy what fun and "good" taste activity . Baseball was different for the Japanese and fun. American didn't tell or forced the kids to play baseball, they must have seen GIs playing baseball and was a fun game to play, so they learn and enjoy it. The key success to the American occupation in Japan was the changing of the Japanese constitution. The new constitution gave a lot of freedom to women and the people. It was less militant.
I also have to say that the US military in Japan is one of the most respected and well behave military army in a foreign soil. The military have zero tolerance for bad "ugly american" or "red neck" behavior in Japan. Most military men there consider themselves lucky to be there and not in freaking in Iraq or Afg. Because of this good record of conduct and behavior of the Military in Japan, the Japanese really welcome the Americans and enjoy the two cultural exchange of the two nations. Because of my job, I visit Yokosuka navy base and Yokota air force base many times a year and those bases are fun to live and work in. The relationship between the Japanese and the servicemen are top notch. I wish Americans tourist and traveler would behave like if they were in the military and we wouldn't receive so much of the terms "ugly American" in Europe and Asia.
In all honesty, I really feel that the "wack a mole" plans is the only working plans that will take a long time and lives. After ISIL, then X, then Y... but finally I hope we end them fist before they get WMD. I am hoping that with ISIL they are the last great enemy. Meaning that ISIL will killed off all the other factions and finally unified as one "evil" faction. They we take them out and there are no more. It was what happened to the Nazi Germany. Hitler took out all his opposition and Hitler / Nazi became the only "evil". We take that out and peace and love was all that is left.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/10 05:12:21
Also, going back to the story posted earlier about Jordan's usefulness in bombing targets with dummy bombs.
I talked to a friend of mine, 17 year veteran on the flight line, dealing with F-16 armaments. He told me (like I guessed), that the guidance units are not attached until after the bombs are loaded. That means that all of the pictures taken while the aircraft are just chilling, just means they were taken before that step.
I wouldn't be so sure. I know one of the guys doing targeteering for the combined effort, and he says not all coalition partners are using guided munitions and they are having to targeteer their missions accordingly.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Assad interview. Watching it at the moment. Thought other people might be interested.
Just finished.
A pretty aggressive and hypocritical interview when talking to a man that's fighting a civil war that's been propped up with foreign aid and foreign fighters.
Best part is when he's asked if he'll work with other countries such as Saudi.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/10 14:29:31
(I organized that game.)
1500pt
2500pt 
)
