Although I hate ISIS...it is amusing watching Iran's world fall apart!

[sirs]

What do you suggest?  That the US actually INVADE Syria?

Nope, not in the least.  But I would also neither advocate a policy that you and Paul are supportive of.  oh vey.   

President Sirs would put the hammer down to any and all Islamic terrorist command & control locations, while using both CIA operatives and seal teams to execute those terrorists, with as much pin point accuracy as possible.  Give them the clear message that if you're in charge, you're number 1 on our hit parade. 

The WORST thing you can do, as the primary defender of this country, per the Constitution, is stick your head in the sand and think they'll just go away.  This isn't about "reforming nations", this is about killing a global virus.....Militant Islamofascism or if you prefer, Radical Islamic Terrorists.  We not just support those nations that also see the threat, its actively assisting them with the might of U.S military military power.  Simple as that

[Xavier_Onassis]

You overestimate what seal teams are capable of doing.

[sirs]

You underestimate what America can do, when we put our minds to it.  SEALs is just 1 component of a massive amount of options.  And no, that doesn't include nukes or carpet bombing.  Merely that we have a multitude of military options, at our disposal.  The point here is making it clear who the enemy is....targeting them....and killing them....period

[Xavier_Onassis]

If this country were so capable, why is it that we are still in Afghanistan after 13 years and in Iraq after ten?

It is one thing to subdue an army. That is the easy part and the US military is quite good at it. Subduing a guerrilla movement  is exceedingly difficult. When you kill one guerrilla, family members and others who had some close relationship to him join. The Revolutionary patriots managed to endure seven years by guerrilla tactics, and then won when the French blockaded Cornwallis and the Brits could not even rent enough troops to send more.

The problem is not that the US military is incapable, it is that the job of defeating a foreign enemy on his own soil is an extremely difficult one. Note that the Russians invaded and obliterated the Chechens at least twice, and I doubt that they have defeated the idea of Chechen independence.

The proper strategy is not to invade other countries unless they are very small, like Grenada or Panama. 
As Eisenhower said "No land wars in Asia".

[sirs]

If this country were so capable, why is it that we are still in Afghanistan after 13 years and in Iraq after ten?

You can land that answer to the policies of this president, who instead of using our military they way its designed, would simply throw a few drones in their direction, doing not much more than irritating them.  And I never claimed it would be easy, but nothing in life is usually easy, especially when its fighting/defending our freedoms & way of life.....especially in dealing with the threat of radical Islam.  The main focus though is to have clear goals & objectives, which we have neither currently.  Nor does that require "invading" other countries

But what we don't do is pretend the threat doesn't exist, until more buildings are taken down, or a dirty bomb is released in some metropolitan area in America

[Xavier_Onassis]

If an American boot hits foreign soil without the approval of the government of that country, that is an invasion.

The US military was not designed to overthrow Muslim countries and turn them into democracies. Such a design is pretty much impossible, anyway. The fault of the mess in the Middle East starts with covert operations dating back to the 1950's, and culminating with stationing troops in Saudi Arabia, which was both unnecessary and against the Koran. The US did not need to support Saddam in his war with Iran, but it did, and that was a   stupid move,

The stupidest move of all was invading Iraq. There would be no Isis had Juniorbush not done this.

The main threat of Isis is to Middle Eastern countries. We should never ask the military to do the impossible.

That was what was asked of my generation in Vietnam. MacNamara knew it was impossible to win and so did LBJ.  But they kept drafting kids and sending them off to die for no good reason. That is immoral.  Invading Iraq was immoral.

The place to stop Al Qaeda, Isis or whomever is at the border, if the goal is to prevent American civilians from getting killed.
We can SUPPORT the local governments, but we are incapable of successfully exterminating Isis or Al Qaeda. It just can't be done.

[sirs]

We have SEAL's & CIA operatives all across the globe, especially in the middle east.  Under your parameters, we're currently invading pretty much every country in the middle east.  We have military &/or CIA assets in pretty much every hot spot on the globe.  Those aren't "invasions".  Invasion, is used by folks like yourself to imply some massive 10,000 soldier crossing the border. 

Now, if you want to re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-debate the merits about going into Iraq, start a new thread.  But that's not the reason the middle east is blowing up like it currently is.  It's CURRENT policy of plactating, appeasing, and spending more time working with our enemies than our allies.  A few drone hits, here, combined with sticking our head in the sand, until they supposedly run out of local victims isn't a plan.

So, 1 more time.....this is NOT about invading any other country, or trying to reform any other government.  ISIS is a global threat, targeting anyone that doesn't comply with their radicalized version of Islam.  And if you actually believe they don't have their sights set on terrorizing & targeting the U.S., you are being seriously near sighted

[Xavier_Onassis]

Bah!

You are so easily excited about crap. No Muslim has even ever overcharged you for Froot Loops at the Quik-E Mart and you are all gaga about your safety, shaking in your boots like Courage the Cartoon dog.

Do not tell me what I mean by invasion, either.

[sirs]

One can always tell how spot on a post is becoming, proportional to the deflection efforts the professor starts to employ.  Froot loops??      

You see, this is a perfect windown into how the left thinks.  They have a template, in this case, that those who support our efforts to take out militant Islamics is actually a war on muslims, thus the crack about Quik-e mart.  Targeting specific terrorists and their militants is tantamount to some full invasion.  Trying to take them on is trying to reform or overthrow some Government.  And when you again demonstrate & explain the specificity of what one supports, you get the AMBE, we were all just witness to

And I'll tell you exactly what you try to imply with your mutated definitions, thank you very much

[Xavier_Onassis]

Okay, you are a Scaredy Cat. You want Big Government to save you from the evil Islamic terrorists, even though you always have your trysty Roscoe armed and loaded by your side. How about that?

[sirs]

This has squat to do with "big Government" Dr Deflection.  And I'm not sure why you keep giving one of my firearms a formal name.  Are you having a long distance relationship with it?  I hate to crush you, but it's got no feelings to return.

[Xavier_Onassis]

"Trusty Roscoe" is a phrase  from those old singing cowboy movies.

Since you are so well armed, I doubt that the evil Islamic Statists will be able to do yyou any har., once you get over your fears.

[sirs]

"Trusty Roscoe" is a phrase  from those old singing cowboy movies.

If you say so.  I don't recall any such references, but I'm not as much into fantasy as you perhaps

Since you are so well armed, I doubt that the evil Islamic Statists will be able to do yyou any har., once you get over your fears.

My being armed has nothing to do with the Radical Islamic threat.  And the only fear I have is the loss of freedom at the hands of a "well intentioned" Government.  That, and heights

[Plane]

    Invading and destroying is not really so hard , not as long as we are some multiple of the opponents strength.

      We ought to invade with gusto, then leave.


        We have gotten more than fifty times the casualties as occupiers as we did as invaders.

           Then we leave after a few years of miserable occupation and watch the same power vacuum suck down civil society as if we had never invested a dime.

         So lets invade any state sufficiently irritating to be worth the trouble.  Then leave a calling card and go away before it costs too much.


        On the calling card it can say, we won't be back, unless we get invited the same way again.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The US has proven that it cannot do this. I don't think that anyone could invade Syria, put an end to Isis and leave a peaceful and stable Syria behind.

Perhaps they can assist the locals in doing away with Isis, but any sort of invasion will mostly just leave even more weapons behind for the various remaining factions to play with after we leave. Because we must eventually leave.

Whatever the threat posed by Isis is, it is not the threat of Big Government. They will not be trying to add the US to their Caliphate.