Senate The Middle East Discussion Thread

The al-part wasn't what I was getting at. It's what follows the al. I would wager few of these people have any real connection to the place they're supposedly "of", and they're clearly not their last names. Wocky's post further up spells out my point.

 

Assad seems to be boxed into a corner.



Gray: ISIS
Yellow: Kurds
Green: The Rebels
White: Al Nusra / Al Qaeda
Blue: Hezbollah
Orange/Pink/Red: Respective central governments

 

Nobody puts Assad in a corner...

 

Haha, no. The Syrian government controls most of the major cities-- in addition to air power and economic resources. This war is not going to end with Assad's fall, at least not any time soon. The theoretical extent of the Islamic State's control is misleading. Most of that gray area is sparsely populated desert, with settlements along rivers and roads.

 

Assad is far from boxed in; Damascus will not fall. US will unofficially assure that will not happen.

 

I don't think the US has any control of whether or not Asad falls. And after all the drum beating when the regime was supposedly using chemical weapons, I would reckon the US wouldn't be sad at all if his government did collapse.

 

I don't think we'll mourn its passing either, however, each time one of these tin pot dictators falls something worse rises in its place.

 

My initial desire would be to get all the innocent civilians out of the way, then nuke the bastards. But in practicality, I'd send about 1,000 Navy Seals, Army Rangers, and expert Marines into their camps with tons of ammo, and send those murderers to hell. If they surrendered, they'd be arrested; if they attacked, they'd die. No more insurgents, no more war. We need to show people in other countries that no matter what they think, we will protect this country from ANYONE who tries to cause trouble, period. We'd dismantle all their bombs, take all their weapons, and drive them out like the cockroaches they are. Once that's done, we'd turn our attention to helping the actual innocents...but you can't do both at the same time. History's repeatedly shown it doesn't work. Its like cutting weeds at the top, instead of pulling out the roots.

 

And you do realize that doing that would recruit more people to ISIS' cause, right? Their whole deal is that we're like modern day crusaders trying to take their land, their wealth, and their people from them. Then here you come with your cowboy schtick and prove to the world that you are crusaders and doing just that. You don't think maybe that'll increase an already volatile situation?

 

I'm aware of that, but our primary mission in any war should be to get rid of the enemy, BEFORE dealing with everyone else's feelings. The moment all the psychos are gone, we turn and help those left behind.

 

I think you're doing a better job describing yourself and those who believe like you more effectively than anything else you've offered.

 

I'm trying to figure out what he thinks we are going to nuke. There is not a country called ISIS that I know of, or a singular location where said nukes can be dropped to get them all and that will not simply sprout new terrorists under some other name. Oh I know, just nuke the whole Middle East. That'll show "them".

 

Do you know, it's odd. I was possibly even more flat-tax, anti-welfare, etc. as a younger person than I have become over the last two decades... that's not common, I suspect, as it probably goes in the other direction more but still... c'mon, man!

 

I'll take that as a compliment; I'd rather be a fierce defender of freedom, than a coward who tries to pacify terrorists firmly bent on annihilating my country if given the chance.

No, but we could develop different tactics to gather as many of them as possible into one location. Terrorists have chosen the side of evil, and there's no making peace with hardcore fanatics.

 

That would be their choice, but we're not responsible for that. Our job is to destroy the threats, and protect those who honestly want peace. If a terrorist's relative decides to take up their cause out of vengeance, chances are they didn't want peace to begin with.

 

You have made this obvious.

 

I'm 34, and still a conservative. I refuse to be ashamed of that; courage works more often than cowardice.

 

I'm saying that you are effectively describing yourself when you attempt to describe "terrorists." There's a discussion to be had about terrorism, as there has been for a long time, but you are not up to the task of that discussion. It's far more nuanced than you seem capable of understanding.

In short, you are what you behold in others. Those "psychos" are basically you, just with different superficial beliefs.

Moderators (heels1785 GrandAdmiralJello JoinTheSchwarz etc.), could we please get this discussion shifted to a more appropriate thread? This is the thread to discuss the presidential election of 2016 and the candidates for the presidency. Anything else is off-topic after more than a few posts.

 

I'd rather be fanatical about peace than fear.

 

We finally had some good weather here in Chicago, and I met some friends for dinner up on Michigan avenue. Snapped a photo of Donald's skyscraper on the riverfront.