Trump takes the fight to ISIS

[Dand]

Well, the Russians are right, terrorism is not a big threat.

We should stop with the regime change and let Assad run his own country.

[ssu]

I'm very hesitant with expanding our footprint in the ME, in any way. I'd rather let the fools burn it down themselves. Was it Mattis or McMaster that said of the ME, don't jump in the middle of a 5 sided fight. Pretty much what the ME is. However, I truly believe that moving swiftly away from Regime Change and Nation Building is a positive step forward. It was something Trump touched on in his speeches and because of all the panting and frothing at the mouth of the press few really heard the message.

Well, Trump wanted eagerly to go back in, remember. He's all for expanding the footprint in the ME. Even if talking about not being this globo-cop.

And Mattis did what he was ordered to do.

And what is "nation building"? The part of "nation building" what is extremely harmfull is the idea of "lets-make-a-country-into-a-democracy-like-the-US" and believing that it's possible, especially with empowering the people close to the US and totally ignoring of what kind of political support these stooges have with the population. And then letting these stooges to make their political enemies the enemies of the US also. That is the extremely bad hubris that Washington has shown from time to time, with Hillary Clinton (and actually also Dubya Bush) being perfect examples. It's the attitude that the people in the country have to change to what the US wants them to do, not starting from things like what is basically possible and what do the people want.


Yet if by "nation building" is understood something else, the "build" part as in "clear, hold, BUILD"-strategy, that's extremely important aspect in fighting an insurgency. Insurgencies don't go away with just killing, killing and killing. With a genocide, perhaps, but otherwise no. There's allways a new generation to take up the cause. But if you get a) fight the out, b) stay there and c) get the economy working somehow and some kind of political solution, then an insurgency can be beaten. Yet if the strategy is just to please the ignorant voters back home with harsh rhetoric of "killing the bad guys" without any other idea what to do, then the whole thing is guaranteed to end in a disaster. Clear hold build worked. Al Qaeda was pushed out of Iraq... as long as the US troops were there.

One thing "Nation building": we have to remember that for example the Bush administration was totally against "Nation building". It was totally opposite to the "lessons learned" from the Balkans. Yet notice one important thing: there isn't a war anymore in the Balkans. That big footprint and emphasis on nation building worked. The US troops could be withdrawn quite quickly. Period. But I assume this is forgotten because it happened with the wrong president in power.

Sarajevo today. Yes, the conflict has been over for quite a while:



Afghanistan is the best example what happens without "nation building". When the US lost interest at the Place after the Soviet Union left, then it was only Pakistan's Intelligence Service that and it's proxies, called the Taleban, that took basically over the country... and the results you can see. Iraq under Obama is another perfect example what happens when that footprint is taken of and the invaded country is left alone: the Iraqi Prime Minister immediately thrashed absolutely everything that the US armed forces had worked and created after learning how to deal with the Sunni insurgency.

And lastly, may I point out that if you leave the Middle East, a lot of countries will fight to fill the void you leave. And that void will be taken over.

[ssu]

Well, the Russians are right, terrorism is not a big threat.

We should stop with the regime change and let Assad run his own country.

I would continue that the fixation that the US has with terrorism is it major weakness. It's simply rhetoric given to the American voter without the actual difficult situation on the ground been discussed. The terrorist groups are many times proxies or at least pawns in a bigger game. Yet if the rhetoric is the basis of the strategy, then you will have problems.

So in the most simple terms it would be: does the US back Iran / Hezbollah / the shiites /Russia or does it back Saudi-Arabia / the sunnis / and ultimately, Al Qaeda?

Either one should be picked. Assuming one wants the conflict to end.

But I assume the answer is "let's bomb one first and then another". Or something like that.

[kybkh]

This isn't what I signed up for.

Perhaps you had to take a piss everytime Trump spoke about destroying ISIS.

Perhaps, I am giving him a 6 month window to wrap this shit up. I am not down for an occupation. Waste of money and if we just leave Putin and Assad alone they'd have that place purged in a matter of months.

[Speaker to Animals]

I swear to God, second to this social justice cancer, this cowardice amongst the liberals and their libertarian buddies is what drives me further and further to the right every day.

War with ISIS is not a choice. They declared war on the entire western world. You don't get to opt out of it, and the more you bury your heads in the sand about it, the more frequent the terror attacks will become.

I am coming to realize that Reagan was right the entire time.



Stop appeasing Islam. For the love God just stop it. How many truck bombs, mass shootings, axe and knife attackers, rape gangs and airline bombers does it take to get it through your thick heads that we are war with these people?

When it comes to wars of choice, I totally agree that America should use great discretion and restraint. Bush's war in Iraq was a war of choice, and a terrible choice. But that choice was made. So was Obama's choice to create and arm the people who would become ISIS. Now we have to deal with it. We have to fight them. I would rather fight them there rather than fight them individually on our own streets every time they decide to attack civilians, as our cousins now have to deal with in Europe.

[C-Mag]

Oh, I'm ready for a shift away from the Global War on Terrorism.

I never got the expanded ME footprint as a Trump policy. What I heard him say is, we will deal with ISIS, but we will not be the world police. Our policy will be trade first backed up with a strong military. Trump has been extremely critical of the handling of the War on Terror, so now he gets his turn. He's been in office 6 weeks and appears to be doing exactly what he ran on doing.

You won't make me a fan of Nation Building. The US has been trying that shit for a Century in Latin American with very limited results. The culture of the nation matters and the effort you can afford. Japan and Germany, really any Western state like Sarajevo are a lot easier to rebuild than any Middle Eastern country. Until Islam has a Reformation, the ME will be a backwards place. The ME was advancing in technology and Civil Rights and then the Islamic revolution swept that all away.

Political Islam is not at war with us because of what we've done. They are at war with us because they hate, and we are a convenient enemy to hate. If the US evaporated tomorrow they would quickly have a new Great Satan to hate.

[The Conservative]

Well, the Russians are right, terrorism is not a big threat.

We should stop with the regime change and let Assad run his own country.

I would continue that the fixation that the US has with terrorism is it major weakness. It's simply rhetoric given to the American voter without the actual difficult situation on the ground been discussed. The terrorist groups are many times proxies or at least pawns in a bigger game. Yet if the rhetoric is the basis of the strategy, then you will have problems.

So in the most simple terms it would be: does the US back Iran / Hezbollah / the shiites /Russia or does it back Saudi-Arabia / the sunnis / and ultimately, Al Qaeda?

Either one should be picked. Assuming one wants the conflict to end.

But I assume the answer is "let's bomb one first and then another". Or something like that.

I would love to get out of the battles we are in today... the only problem is that if we are going to do that, we need to beef up border security, and use the CIA for its original purpose... infiltrate and sabotage the enemy.

If we beef up border security and actually do what Israel does, which is profile... we would be better off... but we have too many bleeding heart snowflake Alt-Left morons out there that think we can win the hearts and minds of people that would rather sit us on a pike ass first than talk peace to us... unless it's on their terms.

[Speaker to Animals]

Oh, I'm ready for a shift away from the Global War on Terrorism.

I never got the expanded ME footprint as a Trump policy. What I heard him say is, we will deal with ISIS, but we will not be the world police. Our policy will be trade first backed up with a strong military. Trump has been extremely critical of the handling of the War on Terror, so now he gets his turn. He's been in office 6 weeks and appears to be doing exactly what he ran on doing.

You won't make me a fan of Nation Building. The US has been trying that shit for a Century in Latin American with very limited results. The culture of the nation matters and the effort you can afford. Japan and Germany, really any Western state like Sarajevo are a lot easier to rebuild than any Middle Eastern country. Until Islam has a Reformation, the ME will be a backwards place. The ME was advancing in technology and Civil Rights and then the Islamic revolution swept that all away.

Political Islam is not at war with us because of what we've done. They are at war with us because they hate, and we are a convenient enemy to hate. If the US evaporated tomorrow they would quickly have a new Great Satan to hate.

Another thing..

It's not political Islam, or radical Islam, or any other modifier to Islam that is at war with the western world. It's Islam, period. Yes, many people who call themselves Muslim don't agree with it, but the war with the west is baked into the cake, written in black and white by their prophet Mohammad. War with the west is as much a part of Islam as the personal war against sin is part of Christianity. There are lots of so-called Christians who think sin is no big deal any more, but that doesn't somehow redefine what Christianity is any more than the "moderate" Muslims can redefine what Islam is.

Islam is designed to be the enemy of our civilization. We enjoyed a relatively brief two centuries where Islam was not trying to kill us. Other than that, it's always been like this. They don't belong here any more than we belong there.

And to those who want to make these silly distinctions between the "good" Islam and the "bad" Islam, consider there is no moral boundary ISIS crosses that Mohammad didn't cross himself. Exterminating entire groups of people: check. Enslaving women as sex slaves: check. 10 year old child brides: check. Throwing homosexuals off towers: check. ISIS *is* Islam. ISIS is Islam reemerging from the mess created by our trying to recast the region into our own image in the previous century.

[C-Mag]

I swear to God, second to this social justice cancer, this cowardice amongst the liberals and their libertarian buddies is what drives me further and further to the right every day...........................................................

Stop appeasing Islam. For the love God just stop it. How many truck bombs, mass shootings, axe and knife attackers, rape gangs and airline bombers does it take to get it through your thick heads that we are war with these people?

When it comes to wars of choice, I totally agree that America should use great discretion and restraint. Bush's war in Iraq was a war of choice, and a terrible choice. But that choice was made. So was Obama's choice to create and arm the people who would become ISIS. Now we have to deal with it. We have to fight them. I would rather fight them there rather than fight them individually on our own streets every time they decide to attack civilians, as our cousins now have to deal with in Europe.

+1

It's amazing how many people on this planet are ready to put a hijab on their women and get on their knees. Fuckers might as well drag all their fags to the top of the tallest building so you can get in good with your new masters.

As far as all the European nations a few are stalwart against this shit. Slovakia is number one. Hungary and Austria are quickly reforming policy. These Eastern European nations have a history with the Caliphate. They saw their women sold into slavery, their sons turned into Jannisaries.

[C-Mag]

Another thing..

It's not political Islam, or radical Islam, or any other modifier to Islam that is at war with the western world. It's Islam, period. Yes, many people who call themselves Muslim don't agree with it, but the war with the west is baked into the cake, written in black and white by their prophet Mohammad. War with the west is as much a part of Islam as the personal war against sin is part of Christianity. There are lots of so-called Christians who think sin is no big deal any more, but that doesn't somehow redefine what Christianity is any more than the "moderate" Muslims can redefine what Islam is.

Islam is designed to be the enemy of our civilization. We enjoyed a relatively brief two centuries where Islam was not trying to kill us. Other than that, it's always been like this. They don't belong here any more than we belong there.

And to those who want to make these silly distinctions between the "good" Islam and the "bad" Islam, consider there is no moral boundary ISIS crosses that Mohammad didn't cross himself. Exterminating entire groups of people: check. Enslaving women as sex slaves: check. 10 year old child brides: check. Throwing homosexuals off towers: check. ISIS *is* Islam. ISIS is Islam reemerging from the mess created by our trying to recast the region into our own image in the previous century.

I don't reject this Doc. I see it as a little more nuanced.

The reason I don't reject this is that while not every Muslim reject this, there has never been a strong voice internally to arise in Islam that has made any dent in the blood thirsty attacks. When asked, Muslims generally support Sharia practices that are in direct conflict with Western Civil Rights.

However, Islam is as diverse as Christianity in belief and obedience to the written religion. There's a lot of Muslims that drink and do whatever. Using the term Political Islam is accurate to me. The issue is that when the political system within the teachings of the Quran are applied it is in direct conflict with Civil Rights.