I think you live in a flat in Europe.
You dont understand most of what you talk about so you should be more forgiving there.

I would rather move to Cleveland than live in Europe.

Figure you would rather move to one of those places where people cant redress their government.

But what if were true that the attacks have the effect of increasing and mobilizing even more militant responses? I ask because that happens to be the truth of the matter. This is the opposite of disposing of them- the exact opposite. Although some fighters might have been physically taken out, the net effect is that more people are willing to join up. It is astounding to me that people could ever have their attention taken away from this most critical and obvious dynamic.

Again...al qaeda was next to nothing pre-911. They were able to place some explosives not to some targets and run and hide in some caves. Now, following the inhumanly violent, illegal invasion of Iraq and smashing of Libya, we have a group too radical for al quaeda which is much, much bigger than al quaeda ever was. ISIS exists because we invaded Iraq. Even Trump, dumb as he is, acknowledges this.

What is your goal here? to keep bombing them until the entire world is awash in violence? Until you have to think twice before using public infrastructure?

George W's approval immediately after 9/11 was over 90% IIRC. That means many people who deeply hated GW still supported him in a time of crisis. This is a function of human nature. It's the same thing in the ME. These people have seen easily debunked, false pretenses used to justify wholesale destruction of their societies. They are very scared, and that (justified) fear ifs what fuels violent responses like ISIS.

Let's say someone was ****ing with you. You're in danger and there is nothing you can legally do about it. You need help and your two choices are your pacifist pastor friend and your mobster cousin. Who are you going to call? You've never wanted to get mixed up with your cousin, but you think he could match this bigger threat. Who do you call? Who do you join forces with? The one who is about that action, that's who.

They way to defeat ISIS is to stop giving the Saudis weapons and diplomatic support and to stop waging endless wars against the region.

Bro we're talking about bombs here.

Id rather get of the topic of your posting though.

You make some very good arguments here. It is about winning hearts and minds, I'll give you that, but we also need to kill the bad guys. Both are true.

You think if we stop attacking the bad muslims, they automatically loose? No, we have to kill the bad ones. Convince the good ones we are on their side. Stay around and help the good ones build a civil society. We fight the hot war and the war of ideas.

To address one of your points specifically, I believe those near the bombing who were quoted as happy we did it, will still be happy we did it a year from now. We are helping them be free. They want more freedom. Let's help them.

What's the best example of where bombing/invading someone in the name of giving them freedom has worked out?

We were bombing the bad guys to give the good guys freedom, just to be clear - two different groups.

The best example of this is South Korea. They'd be enslaved to N. Korea right now if we hadn't taken a stand with bombs and planes and troups...

I'd also say that every time we fired weapons in the cold war. Korea, Vietnam, etc., we were paving the way for the freedom of Eastern Europe, and other places. Eastern Germany became free because we fought in Vietnam.

Different individual/groups and same general physical location (That's why we have things like civilian deaths and destruction of civilian infrastructure).

Let's give you South Korea as an example. Although there are some important differences in terms of how welcomed the 'help' was from the population.


This is some pretty lol thinking. But, even so, it doesn't actually count as an example. The people of Eastern Europe and Eastern Germany weren't in the same physical location as where the conflict took place. Which is a pretty damn important difference. It means they're getting 'the benefit' w/o the cost.

So the best you can give me is an example 60+ years ago. How many places has the US tried to "give freedom to" with bombs since then? How have they worked out?

How about Kuwait? Should we have let Saddam keep that country? I get that we were at least in part motivated by oil, but we also freed a people.

Oh, and 60 years ago re Korea is still a very good example. Time ticking doesn't make it a bad example. And Vietnam ended, in what, 1975, so that's 42 years ago.

You have a good point about proximity to the bombs falling/guns being shot. We have to be very careful about civilian casualties. The other side(s) often don't give a ****, and even use civilians as shields, or worse, as targets. We have to, and do, hold ourselves to a much higher standard.

In addition to that, we have to win hearts and minds with building infrastructure, protecting schools and hospitals and all that society building. I think we were actually starting to succeed in Iraq before we stupidly left.

Again, Kuwait isn't really the same since it's the population asking for help from foreign invaders. But, sure. Let's give you Kuwait and South Korea.

Vietnam, definitely not. It's not even close. Do you even know what the result of the Vietnam war was?

So you've got 2 poor examples in 60 years. Yup, definitely a winning strategy. And as for succeeding in Iraq, I believe the saying you're looking for is 'Good Grief'.

yah, we left, allowing the South to be overrun. Stupid move we did because of pressure from the left.


OK. You're saying Iraq wasn't starting to stabilize?

So they could get back to their slant drilling under the border...

You're saying we should have stayed in Vietnam indefinitely??

BwaaHahahahahaha

No man. Freedom was just around the corner.

Is it just me, or did peter go from trolling leftists (fairly well, really) to trolling rightists. Boredom set in?

I don't know. How long did we stay in S. Korea? How long did we stay in Germany? How about the Philippines? Thousands of S. Vietnamese suffered retribution because we shamefully abandoned them.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeducation_camp

Then we failed to learn from that and we did the same thing in Iraq. We should not have left Iraq until we could be sure it would be stable.

Not sure which one is best... But here's a few...

Bosnia 1995

Egypt and Arabia 1916

CSA 1861

Philippines 1898

Who smashed Libya?

Al Qaeda was "next to nothing" before 2001? You don't know very much about it if this is what you think.

And then your mobster cousin forces you to give up all females in your family to be forcibly raped to provide children for the next generation. He tells you that you have to pray his way, or he will douse you with gasoline and light you on fire.

Good choice.


If this were to happen then the Saudis would do these things in order:

1) The Saudis would immediately buy weapons from France and Russia and the US would have no "seat at the table".

2) The Saudis would immediately try to purchase nuclear weapons from N.Korea and/or China, and the US would have no "seat at the table".

3) The US Navy would be evicted from all forward operating bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, and Saudi Arabia. The US would no longer have a stabilizing presence in the MEG.

4) IMO, Saudis would begin a chemical weapons program.

Then, IMO, the next thing that would happen is:

Iran announces a nuclear weapons capability "to defend themselves against Saudi Arabia".

Fanatical Islamist groups around the world decide that the King of S.A. should no longer be the custodian of Mecca and Medina and decide to incite war on the Arabian Peninsula to liberate it.

FWIW, I prefer that US (and UK and NATO) have a seat at the table in the Middle East.

I went from laughing at stupid people to laughing at other stupid people. If you're stupid, then it doesn't really matter what hand you jerk off with. You're just not getting anywhere with it.

I use my left hand because the right is rather authoritarian about the whole thing

Or because your weenie is a soft little snowflake?