Should ISIL be stopped, right now?

preoccupied · Post by **preoccupied** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 12:06 pm

I think ISIL incursion of Iraq should be met with immediate retaliation. I don't recommend a Bush administration style war. Instead, I think there can be a US soldier casualty free war by using mostly distance weapons and letting psychological tactics work themselves. I think it best that President Barack Obama begin bombing outside of the cities, anything that moves, to eliminate movement. Drop leaflets instruction of how and when they can leave the cities and that they are to delivery weaponry outside of the city and then move back to into the city area. In exchange for following the instructions properly then food and water would be left there after the weapons are retrieved. This lock down style would go towards my plan for Iraq.

Instead of a democratic government where the citizens are allowed to own weapons - they would be allowed to own no weapons, and because Iraq is vulnerable, the US military should governor Iraq by controlling its currency and preventing any alternative currency from being used, and in doing so put everybody to work doing something. This is how a nation should be conquered, at least at first. A select group of Iraqi's would be trained to be governors and they would be required to complete a master degree education from the US military. Then after these governors act as both the executive and legislative branch of government for 5 to 10 years, they will relinquish legislative powers to the people in a national democratic elections. Then the trained governors will keep executive powers for five years with a cooperating congress that gets things done and then relinquish their powers to democratic elected governors, which could very well be them again anyways. This would be a very stable slow process and I think it's a much better idea for Iraq.

In the mean time, Iraq would pay taxes for the US military presence and US military government and currency control. If escalation in violence in the middle east increases, Iraq's taxes can be increased to help support the US interest in conquering additional areas that are unstable and making them stable like Iraq. The US military should consider using this strategy on all middle eastern targets who are threatening to the USA or Israel. Middle eastern threats should not be allowed to remain threatening without US overthrowing their governments in our defense.

I think applying US constitutional rights to an unstable region is stupid. So I think letting a conquered area have weapons before proving that they are educated and responsible and cooperative with each other, is stupid. It seems like common sense to me. Maybe congress and military generals fail in basic logic.

preoccupied

AB Hammer · Post by **AB Hammer** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 12:57 pm

Politic!

Once the US was pulled out of Iraq the real deterrent of radical Islam was eliminated. Just remember that in our presidents book I believe he stated if there was a war between Islamic and Christan he would side on Islam. Is this not siding with Islam by pulling out the deterrent? Just like our Marine in jail in Mexico and our president won't do a thing for him. But if he would proclaim Islam, our president would jump through hoops to get him out. Just as he jumped through hoops to release these 5 Taliban generals for a single deserter/possible traitor, who proclaimed Islam.

So don't expect a Muslim president to send troops stop radical Muslims when it looks like Israel are in their sights. As already has happened that he wants Israel to stop attacking the Palestinians for them attacking Israel. That war is on and can only escalate, just remember we have been paying the Palestinians to keep the peace for a long time. LMFAO What a joke of a policy.

preoccupied · Post by **preoccupied** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 1:46 pm

AB_hammer,

If what you say is correct and President Barack Obama favors terrorist groups over his own nation, it is grounds for impeachment. What you are saying is really bold. I think you have an isolated opinion and that most people think the President is trying to defeat Islamic groups that are threatening. He is just not very smart and can't accomplish the task. Do you really think that the President is a Muslim promoting those who threat and attack us?

Were you insinuating there could be a war between Christians and Muslims? Do you have any idea how ridiculously one sided that would be, especially with Russia which is a Christian government right now? Russia could single handedly conquer the entire middle east with lock down tactics like I describe. France could do it. If all Christian nations got up and went to the middle east with their forces, it would be OVERKILL.

The only reason we look like we can be a target of terrorist attacks is because when we send in our military we put boots on the ground that can be killed. If we had any sense at all we would use our technological advantage and only have soldiers on the ground to assist a broken, psychologically submissive enemy. Despite there being billions of Muslims in the world, they are militarily inferior in every way to the Christian nations, in which any one of the Christian nations could militarily conquer the entire Muslim world, easy. It only takes one Christian nation acting with a Julius Caesar style leader and then all of the oil in the world and all of the Muslim population would be devoted to peace.

Jim Williams · Post by **Jim Williams** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 4:17 pm

In all fairness, I only scanned what both of you had to say, but I had the same reaction. I can't stop thinking about medieval Europe, with the kings taxing the serfs. Let's face it, The US, and a lot of The Christian nations, have nuclear weapons, while the Muslims don't.

That makes the conflicts in the Mideast academic. I think that is the dilemma. King Christians vs. serf Muslims. By what right do we get to sit in our easy-chairs and debate any foreign country taxing anyone? I'd suggest any "democracy" we impose on anyone will never really be a democracy.

AB Hammer · Post by **AB Hammer** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:30 pm

preoccupied wrote:AB_hammer,

If what you say is correct and President Barack Obama favors terrorist groups over his own nation, it is grounds for impeachment. What you are saying is really bold. I think you have an isolated opinion and that most people think the President is trying to defeat Islamic groups that are threatening. He is just not very smart and can't accomplish the task. Do you really think that the President is a Muslim promoting those who threat and attack us?

Well lets look at this a bit. He has made our military weaker. Just recently 500,000 captains, lieutenants, and Sargents have been fired and pink slips even on the battle field. and has put out the welcome mat for illegals to come into this country by the train loads through Mexico and by boat to Texas and also bussed in government buses all over the US. and hasn't said a word to help a Marine being $@#$% over in Mexico. Some races are blinded by there own color to see he hasn't helped them out either. My Step son had to here this every day at school that that race is better than his. Funny!! he is half Puerto Rican himself. I despise racism no mater who it comes from. The main stream media like ABC, CBS, NBC only push leftist views now days so you will never get an honest answer from the propaganda left. And do you know what is funny? I am a registered Democrat. I try to vote out idiots before they become a problem but it seems I'm a minority of late.

preoccupied wrote: Were you insinuating there could be a war between Christians and Muslims? Do you have any idea how ridiculously one sided that would be, especially with Russia which is a Christian government right now? Russia could single handedly conquer the entire middle east with lock down tactics like I describe. France could do it. If all Christian nations got up and went to the middle east with their forces, it would be OVERKILL.

It's not that one sided as the soviet army got kicked out of Afghanistan and Russia is not just a Christian nation.

I am not talking about a world war, yet are not Christians at war with the Muslims in a lot of countries just for their own survival? They are being killed and their churches burned all the time in those places and if you are a christian the extremest Muslims state that you are nonconvertible so you are to be killed. Yet this is not stated on main stream for it doesn't promote their agenda either.

preoccupied wrote: The only reason we look like we can be a target of terrorist attacks is because when we send in our military we put boots on the ground that can be killed. If we had any sense at all we would use our technological advantage and only have soldiers on the ground to assist a broken, psychologically submissive enemy. Despite there being billions of Muslims in the world, they are militarily inferior in every way to the Christian nations, in which any one of the Christian nations could militarily conquer the entire Muslim world, easy. It only takes one Christian nation acting with a Julius Caesar style leader and then all of the oil in the world and all of the Muslim population would be devoted to peace.

They are not that inferior and superior armed over the populous of the US for we have laws stopping us from the weapons they have. They also do have one approach we shy away from using. Human guided bombs that get in deep and blow themselves up. Only our military has better but it keeps shrinking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE9mZCRX2mg

AB Hammer · Post by **AB Hammer** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:39 pm

Jim Williams wrote:In all fairness, I only scanned what both of you had to say, but I had the same reaction. I can't stop thinking about medieval Europe, with the kings taxing the serfs. Let's face it, The US, and a lot of The Christian nations, have nuclear weapons, while the Muslims don't.

That makes the conflicts in the Mideast academic. I think that is the dilemma. King Christians vs. serf Muslims. By what right do we get to sit in our easy-chairs and debate any foreign country taxing anyone? I'd suggest any "democracy" we impose on anyone will never really be a democracy.

Jim W

There is Pakistan and India who also have atomic weapons in the Muslim world. We and those countries just have the good since not to use them, so far and I hope never. But the radical Muslim would use them as a main stay.

In my personal onion we should have never invaded Iraq and Saddam should have never invaded Kuwait. One big mistake after another under the largest crime of all. GREED.

AB Hammer · Post by **AB Hammer** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:57 pm

I do want to make one thing very clear.

I don't care what belief any one has unless it effects others being overbearing over another. I believe in free will of all. Religious fanaticism has no place for free will. One more thing. Laws of a nation are to be followed and changed only if they are unjust. This is the only way civilization can remain civilized.

Alan

preoccupied · Post by **preoccupied** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 7:45 pm

Hey AB_Hammer,

How about this notion? Do unto others as you would like to do unto them.

I am not convinced that I want free will for everybody, as you say you do. Maybe not Muslims have my contempt, but ISIL has definitely struck a nerve. If I do unto others as I would like to, I would take away the rights of other people in foreign countries who pose a terrorist threat for at least 20 years and then they would be on probation with good behavior after that.

Don't blind yourself by being sentimental with people who want to kill you. If I were truly angry, as if they did something really nasty, like blow up a building full thousands of people like happened on 9/11, what I would do is more than take away their rights, I would be so angry, that I would want to torture them too. That is if I do unto others as I would like to. Torture is illegal, right? Well, I'm angry enough to love it, as long as it is done to those engaging in terrorism.

I think you underestimate the capabilities of Russia or France and over estimate their previous military tactics or how intelligently they fight their wars. What kind of brilliant general is going to land boots on the ground knowing that they could die? One lacking perfection. A perfect general would isolate the baddies, cause them to surrender without a fight, and take everything they own, only to give it back if its a good thing and they are not going to be oppositional again. When the boots go on the ground, they are in and they are out of harms way afterwards. It just makes more sense that way. You might have an idea of how super offended I am that US soldiers are dying in a foreign country because my military generals are a bunch of dummies because you might share the same sentiment, no?

Human guided bombs are not real bombs...
U.S. Condemned For Pre-Emptive Use Of Hillary Clinton Against Pakistan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH8owcMHc34

How about we wait for something like this to happen with North Korea? You know it's not about whether it could happen, it's about wanting to retaliate for being threatened. If I am threatened, I am a wimp for not taking the bait and doing something about it. We aren't a bunch of Hottentot marching to the slaughter if we take the bait, and we know we can win versus those who threaten us. Why not do unto others as you would like to?

Tensions Mount After North Korea Destroys All Of Asia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8nrdiQqFAs

I am not convinced President Barack Obama favors Muslims so much that he is sabotaging the US government or its military. Maybe a good idea hasn't been presented to him to use?

Jim Williams,
Taxing a country to nation build is certainly more affordable than going into debt to do it... Why create any democracy in the middle east? It would be just as well to manage it as a military operation and tax the country for the use of our military in order to defend ourselves. Maybe, we were attacked on 9/11 by Osama Bin Laden for violation of holy land but after the attack, the middle east shouldn't have any militaries and removing middle eastern militaries should have happened immediately, because defending America is a very important thing and if for no other reason than we are capable of it. I will not approve of those who threaten us and those who don't do enough about it in response.

Jim Williams · Post by **Jim Williams** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 8:42 pm

preoccupied

Maybe it's because I'm watching the World Cup, although I think it's more related to Earth seeing itself from the moon, but I've looked at our Earth for awhile, not as a world made up of countries, but one country made up of sovereign states. In that regard as I believe, and the United Nations can probably attest, we are a very young, unruly country.

I don't think we do ourselves any good, (although you won't see me on planning to leave the US either) by invading another country such as Iraq for any reason. I think all we achieved for its citizens and our self defense, was to piss off the entire Mideast. That's going to come back on us.

AB Hammer · Post by **AB Hammer** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 9:16 pm

Jim W

There is an old saying. Those who beat their swords into plow shears, plow for those who don't.

The biggest mistake in introducing democracy is how people deal with their religion. If they are use to religious rule democracy tends to rub the wrong way. The people of the middle east have been fighting for thousands of years. I don't think a new comer will have any long term effect. Now that said, the new comer need to understand. If you come to conquer, you stay or you just stay away. But you can help defend a friend and ally, and not have to occupy forever or blend as the Romans tended to do after a while.

preoccupied · Post by **preoccupied** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 9:41 pm

Jim Williams,

I can't help but feel your argument is soft and your attitude is soft. I got to say, that I fundamentally disagree with you and your unwillingness to enter a foreign land where they are plotting to destroy us. There are a lot of arguments for why Iraq was a faulty war, like false intelligence about weapons of mass destruction. Being repeatedly threatened should be good enough reason by itself to invade a country and subdue the population, and like I suggest, maybe for 20 years of military government. If the war in Iraq were fought by generals and a President with perfect understanding of war, there would have been no casualties. If a country that was invaded has to pay for it then there would be no cost to the war. The deterrent from going back into the war is: One it's cost and Two casualties. Eliminate both of those factors and we would invade every country that threatens us because in all seriousness every single American wants to, even if they are all warm and fuzzy from international soccer games. No American wants to be threatened and feel like they can't have complete control over the other terrorist nation or group.

Jim, I think you have lazy sentiment because you feel like you can't accomplish what I'm suggesting. And I can understand that because the US military looks super weak by taking on casualties in a third world country like Afghanistan. We look like we are vulnerable to third world war machines. That is sad.

Economic sanctions - Lame
Casualties in wars like Iraq and Afghanistan - Incompetent
Not setting up military governments - confused idealism

"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog" - Mark Twain

Jim Williams · Post by **Jim Williams** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 10:12 pm

OK - This is going to be a little obscure, but I actually believe it. Be patient with me for a moment.

What happens when you have a bunch of atoms sitting around doing nothing? They build molecules. Mix oxygen atoms and hydrogen atoms together, and they don't separate, they make water. It's pretty universal. Mix any number of different atoms together, and they form molecules.

But it doesn't stop there. Mix different molecules together and they build more complex molecules, and so on. Myself, I believe this building process doesn't stop until the molecule that's most possible in complexity is called DNA.

Then mix DNA and such together, and what do you get? simple life. Then mix this simple life together with other simple life, and you get more complex life. In other words, nature, starting with atoms, build more and more complex forms, ending in one case with humans.

This all to say, while humans take it further, and build things like nations. It's my opinion, that nature itself is one continuous process of making more and more complex entities. Again, in other words, I think it's natural for nations to eventually build a World Government. I put you through all of this, just to say that. Thanks.

ovyyus · Post by **ovyyus** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 10:26 pm

preoccupied wrote:...I fundamentally disagree with you and your unwillingness to enter a foreign land where they are plotting to destroy us.

History tells us that when one country invades another it is usually to steal or control resources. It's a political tactic for the invader to then claim they are acting out of self defense when the invaded hits back. We see the same political tactic used again and again in the Israel/Palestine struggle.

No one would wish anything of value be discovered in their back yard when they have neighbors willing to take it by force. For the record, I have nothing of value in my back yard :P

jim_mich · Post by **jim_mich** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 10:30 pm

Bill, for once you get a very big "thumbs up" from me for that last post.

Jim Williams · Post by **Jim Williams** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 10:31 pm

Actually, I'm all warm and fuzzy because I know the invention in my expired patent belongs to every human on Earth equally. That causes me to think in the universality of everything.

One of my favorite quotes is from Isaac Asimov. "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." I concede there is a difference between violence and aggression. It's just my opinion that aggression can be effective without violence.

BesslerWheel.com

Should ISIL be stopped, right now?

Should ISIL be stopped, right now?

re: Should ISIL be stopped, right now?

re: Should ISIL be stopped, right now?

Re: re: Should ISIL be stopped, right now?

Re: re: Should ISIL be stopped, right now?

re: Should ISIL be stopped, right now?

re: Should ISIL be stopped, right now?

re: Should ISIL be stopped, right now?

re: Should ISIL be stopped, right now?

re: Should ISIL be stopped, right now?

re: Should ISIL be stopped, right now?

re: Should ISIL be stopped, right now?