• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

You read it here first . . .

Cerberus

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Messages
375
Location
Southeast coast of England
Basic Beliefs
Right-wing, atheist, and idealist
Barak and Dave are on the case - one believes he can bomb IS into submission, and the other believes he can bring a halt to its recruitment effort (no prize for guessing who believes what!
4chsmu1.gif
). What a time for our destinies to be determined by a couple of delusional, failed politicians!
smiley-shocked032.gif
frantic.gif
 
Our destinies?

IS is a local threat. And support for Iran makes IS a smaller threat.

ME terrorism is a greater threat in the US because of our violent actions in the region.

We will not end that threat through non-stop violence.
 
Yeah, what an asshole Obama is. Why wouldn't he embroil the U.S. in yet another hopeless ME grinder just because we wouldn't really know who we were fighting and for what purpose.

Real men would have had 50,000 troops on the ground by now, fighting what may or may not be ISIS fighters one day and, well, who the fuck knows the next day? Further, real men don't need to have a purpose when they start flinging around American military might. They are secure in the wisdom that just shooting at a bunch of motherfuckers in the Middle East will make everything right.

It doesn't matter that ISIS poses no threat to U.S. security of any kind. We just need to get over there and start killin' shit.

"Long term consequences"? I don't know what that means. I speak American, not Pussy-ese.

But seriously, Americans don't have the stomach to do what needs to be done to win a war anymore. The ME could be utterly subdued in a couple of years if approached WW2 style. The Japanese were way more fanatical, better trained, better equipped, and better organized. Yet through Total War that culture was changed to such a degree that they still don't want their military to step outside the nation's boundaries.

So are Americans willing to kill millions of civilians--on purpose? None of this collateral damage horseshit. I mean millions of tons of ordnance dropped on population centers for the purpose of killing everything on the ground. Strictly enforced Marshall law where people really are shot on site just for being out past dark. Until one is willing to do that, they need to shut the fuck up about going to war again.

Or else the U.S. government can do what it's doing now: let the damn thing sort itself out with little cost to the the U.S.
 
We will not end that threat through non-stop violence.

What about with intermittent violence broken up with periodic disco dance parties?

Geez. Read "Pinker's Our better Angels". You'll find that elites dictate how populations behave. Guild elites and you guide nations, regions, whatever. We're seeing an example of that principle playing out right now in the south! Its as simple as understanding human social nature. Recalibrate based on this knowledge. Go forward to finding the best way to do in regressive nationalism.

We are no longer dependent on the ME. So if they need help we give it to them in doses of humanistic reorganization. Continue.....
 
Our destinies?

IS is a local threat. And support for Iran makes IS a smaller threat.

ME terrorism is a greater threat in the US because of our violent actions in the region.

We will not end that threat through non-stop violence.

Have you not noticed how IS is spreading into other Muslim lands?
 
Yeah, what an asshole Obama is. Why wouldn't he embroil the U.S. in yet another hopeless ME grinder just because we wouldn't really know who we were fighting and for what purpose.

Real men would have had 50,000 troops on the ground by now, fighting what may or may not be ISIS fighters one day and, well, who the fuck knows the next day? Further, real men don't need to have a purpose when they start flinging around American military might. They are secure in the wisdom that just shooting at a bunch of motherfuckers in the Middle East will make everything right.

It doesn't matter that ISIS poses no threat to U.S. security of any kind. We just need to get over there and start killin' shit.

"Long term consequences"? I don't know what that means. I speak American, not Pussy-ese.

But seriously, Americans don't have the stomach to do what needs to be done to win a war anymore. The ME could be utterly subdued in a couple of years if approached WW2 style. The Japanese were way more fanatical, better trained, better equipped, and better organized. Yet through Total War that culture was changed to such a degree that they still don't want their military to step outside the nation's boundaries.

So are Americans willing to kill millions of civilians--on purpose? None of this collateral damage horseshit. I mean millions of tons of ordnance dropped on population centers for the purpose of killing everything on the ground. Strictly enforced Marshall law where people really are shot on site just for being out past dark. Until one is willing to do that, they need to shut the fuck up about going to war again.

Or else the U.S. government can do what it's doing now: let the damn thing sort itself out with little cost to the the U.S.

Loren is super disappointed, he was so going to volunteer for this war, finally his time to shine taken away by Obama.
 
Loren is super disappointed, he was so going to volunteer for this war, finally his time to shine taken away by Obama.
We should have a rule that only retired military or active duty personal can advocate for military intervention.
 
Yeah, what an asshole Obama is. Why wouldn't he embroil the U.S. in yet another hopeless ME grinder just because we wouldn't really know who we were fighting and for what purpose.

Real men would have had 50,000 troops on the ground by now, fighting what may or may not be ISIS fighters one day and, well, who the fuck knows the next day? Further, real men don't need to have a purpose when they start flinging around American military might. They are secure in the wisdom that just shooting at a bunch of motherfuckers in the Middle East will make everything right.

It doesn't matter that ISIS poses no threat to U.S. security of any kind. We just need to get over there and start killin' shit.

"Long term consequences"? I don't know what that means. I speak American, not Pussy-ese.

But seriously, Americans don't have the stomach to do what needs to be done to win a war anymore. The ME could be utterly subdued in a couple of years if approached WW2 style. The Japanese were way more fanatical, better trained, better equipped, and better organized. Yet through Total War that culture was changed to such a degree that they still don't want their military to step outside the nation's boundaries.

So are Americans willing to kill millions of civilians--on purpose? None of this collateral damage horseshit. I mean millions of tons of ordnance dropped on population centers for the purpose of killing everything on the ground. Strictly enforced Marshall law where people really are shot on site just for being out past dark. Until one is willing to do that, they need to shut the fuck up about going to war again.

Or else the U.S. government can do what it's doing now: let the damn thing sort itself out with little cost to the the U.S.

Not only America but the entire Western world, and I've used the phrase 'we don't have the stomach for the fight' ever since IS first came on the scene a year ago. We're sleep-walking into an unstoppable nightmare, and we ain't seen nothin' yet.

- - - Updated - - -

Our destinies?

IS is a local threat. And support for Iran makes IS a smaller threat.

ME terrorism is a greater threat in the US because of our violent actions in the region.

We will not end that threat through non-stop violence.

Yes, at the moment it is!!?? Watch this space, as they say.
 
Yes, at the moment it is!!?? Watch this space, as they say.

IS is a local threat, and it is a threat because it has US weapons and Iraqi military leadership. That is, it's military leadership is made up of people the US put out of work with it's invasion.

US weapons and leadership available because of a US invasion.

The US is responsible for the current strength of IS. US blundering and violent interference made IS in its current form possible.

Of course for many the only solution is more US violence and destruction.

It is the only thing the US is better than others at. So it becomes the solution to all problems.
 
Yes, at the moment it is!!?? Watch this space, as they say.

IS is a local threat, and it is a threat because it has US weapons and Iraqi military leadership. That is, it's military leadership is made up of people the US put out of work with it's invasion.

US weapons and leadership available because of a US invasion.

The US is responsible for the current strength of IS. US blundering and violent interference made IS in its current form possible.

Of course for many the only solution is more US violence and destruction.

It is the only thing the US is better than others at. So it becomes the solution to all problems.

When you said that IS is 'a local threat' (in your earlier post), I thought you meant it will be contained in the middle east but not 'go global'; I was just saying that it will. What you say above is perfectly true, and one only has to watch Bitter Lake to see what an abject fiasco Afghanistan has turned out to be, as well as Iraq. If you have a situation in a given country, send in the yanks and the brits and they'll make it worse!
 
IS is a local threat, and it is a threat because it has US weapons and Iraqi military leadership. That is, it's military leadership is made up of people the US put out of work with it's invasion.

US weapons and leadership available because of a US invasion.

The US is responsible for the current strength of IS. US blundering and violent interference made IS in its current form possible.

Of course for many the only solution is more US violence and destruction.

It is the only thing the US is better than others at. So it becomes the solution to all problems.

When you said that IS is 'a local threat' (in your earlier post), I thought you meant it will be contained in the middle east but not 'go global'; I was just saying that it will.
It won't.

Like most revolutionary organizations, it is only as successful as it is because it has to operate on a wartime footing that leaves little room for dissent or original thinking. History has shown that soldiers and revolutionaries are much better at overthrowing governments than they are at running them.

ISIS is perfectly capable of overthrowing Syria, Iraq, maybe even Kuwait. They can consolidate their power and maintain a vicelike grip on civil order, crush dissent and suppress rebellion. But running a successful economy takes intelligence, nuance, understanding, a willingness to compromise and use workable solutions rather than the blunt force of violence or the empty ritual of religion. You cannot, for example, machinegun the banks into giving you more money; you can't torture factory workers into being more productive; you can't intimidate scientists into being smarter. It is, in other words, a lot easier to destroy a powerful country than it is to create one.

Really, ISIS is all set to become the Taliban of the Levant, which will probably lead to an uneasy alliance between Iran and Saudi Arabia for the sake of border security and anti-terrorism efforts. It's a regional conflict in the making, one that will preoccupy local militaries for decades to come. It's also mostly America's fault for letting that particular genie out of the bottle in the first place. But the damage is done, and now it's just a matter of cleaning up the mess that ISIS represents.

If you have a situation in a given country, send in the yanks and the brits and they'll make it worse!
If you want the problem studied, send the Swedes
If you want the problem shot, send the Americans
If you want the problem made worse, send the British AND the Americans
If you want the problem ignored, send the French
If you want the problem commoditized, send the Germans
If you want the problem taken out back and quietly "disappeared," call Russia
If you want the problem solved, STAY THE HELL OUT OF IT
 
It won't.

Well I hope you're right!

Like most revolutionary organizations, it is only as successful as it is because it has to operate on a wartime footing that leaves little room for dissent or original thinking. History has shown that soldiers and revolutionaries are much better at overthrowing governments than they are at running them.

Humankind hasn't seen any revolutionary organizations like this one before.

ISIS is perfectly capable of overthrowing Syria, Iraq, maybe even Kuwait. They can consolidate their power and maintain a vicelike grip on civil order, crush dissent and suppress rebellion. But running a successful economy takes intelligence, nuance, understanding, a willingness to compromise and use workable solutions rather than the blunt force of violence or the empty ritual of religion. You cannot, for example, machinegun the banks into giving you more money; you can't torture factory workers into being more productive; you can't intimidate scientists into being smarter. It is, in other words, a lot easier to destroy a powerful country than it is to create one.

Name me a Western economy which is successful, ie doesn't live on debt? And in the case of radical Islam (Wahabbism), don't make the mistake of underestimating the empty rituals of religion. The Islamic State movement means business!!

Really, ISIS is all set to become the Taliban of the Levant, which will probably lead to an uneasy alliance between Iran and Saudi Arabia for the sake of border security and anti-terrorism efforts. It's a regional conflict in the making, one that will preoccupy local militaries for decades to come. It's also mostly America's fault for letting that particular genie out of the bottle in the first place. But the damage is done, and now it's just a matter of cleaning up the mess that ISIS represents.

If you have a situation in a given country, send in the yanks and the brits and they'll make it worse!
If you want the problem studied, send the Swedes
If you want the problem shot, send the Americans
If you want the problem made worse, send the British AND the Americans
If you want the problem ignored, send the French
If you want the problem commoditized, send the Germans
If you want the problem taken out back and quietly "disappeared," call Russia
If you want the problem solved, STAY THE HELL OUT OF IT

But I couldn't agree more with the last paragraph of your post and the summing-up.
 
Loren is super disappointed, he was so going to volunteer for this war, finally his time to shine taken away by Obama.
We should have a rule that only retired military or active duty personal can advocate for military intervention.

No, just not pathetic Chickenhawks that never get closer to combat then CoD Modern Necbeard but Act like they are military specialists and have a hard-on for killing brown people.
 
Back
Top Bottom