Trump supporters, what would he have to say before you would not vote for him?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

If somebody believes we should have standing forces in the region, read this and tell me what the end game is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia–Sunni_relations

hqdefault.jpg
 
Basically the youth are the only hope for that part of the world. I was glad to see that Iranian activist at the Olympics soccer match with the banner that women should be able to attend games in Iran just like men...she said she has tickets for the next match and will bring it again, although the authorities threatened to remove her
 
I respect our military but to say they are smarter guys.....well, we don't know that. One of them was dumb enough to join the Trump ticket. You can say what you want Denny....but I say...get every foot soldier out of that region as fast as you can....I know a couple of marines who wanted to go back but not for the purpose of saving the middle east...combat action pay and debts at home were their reasons. Actually we are sort of in a cold war with N. Korea...

We know they did recommend we stay the course, which was the most peaceful and least life threatening to our troops. And we see the results of not listening to them and surrendering.

The military guys look pretty smart. The surrendered in chief, not so much.
 
Different circumstances. We stayed in Korea because the South Koreans didn't demand we leave. In the post WWII era, there was a very real threat of an expansionist Soviet Union steam-rolling Western Europe and West Germany needed us.

In Iraq you're never going to be able to quiet these blood fueds that go all the way back to the death of Muhammad -- They didn't go away under 600 years of Ottoman rule they just bubble back up whenever there is any kind of power vacuum.

We occupied Germany and Japan, regardless of their wanting us there. To this day, Japan has no choice. We had a $trillion reasons to stay, and 4000+ lives we sacrificed for their benefit. And all the leverage we needed to force our will, to win the peace.

It wasn't just al Maliki who wanted us out, so he could brutalize the Sunni. It was our enemies who were willing to wait it out.
 
If somebody believes we should have standing forces in the region, read this and tell me what the end game is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia–Sunni_relations

40,00 troops relegated to our bases in the desert. Peace at least as good as it was before the surrender. ISIS still non existent. Inclusive democratic government well established. Government that works for all the people.

The alternative is ISIS, and the terrorist attacks we've seen in Belgium, France, the USA, etc.
 
We're not supposed to be a nation of rent a cops. Taiwan stares down China everyday without our soldiers there...they have peace
 
As Nik pointed out, you can win a battle with these nutjobs but more than likely, another one will grow from rubble...and a name change
 
We're not supposed to be a nation of rent a cops. Taiwan stares down China everyday without our soldiers there...they have peace

And?

We have clear proof of what happened when we surrendered in Iraq.
 
But according to you those troops would have died anyway from accidents.

According to me, being stationed in Iraq was no more of a threat to the soldiers than being on base. Big difference.
 
As Nik pointed out, you can win a battle with these nutjobs but more than likely, another one will grow from rubble...and a name change

The Sunni were on our side. Now they're on ISIS' side. Without the Sunni, there is no "rubble" to grow anything from. That's why there was peace.
 
Hey....I've exhausted my point..I'm happy with a more streamlined approach to dealing with the bad guys..sorry I pointed out that ISIS lost a major 150mile line of ocean front property and people rejoiced....I know it detracts from the surrender line..peace out!
 
you can win a battle with these nutjobs but more than likely, another one will grow from rubble

Well, perhaps that is a reason, one of many, why you don't fight battles unless it is part of winning the war. That almost always requires taking out the leadership.
Taking out grunts with battles for attrition is a fools game.

Any top flight commander knows this rule. Who is he?
 
Good news.....ISIS is fleeing...300 special forces US advisors ran ops from miles away...Drone strikes hurt the jihadists badly..civilians shaving beards and burning burkas in the streets...guess what Denny, we didn't surrender after all and zero US lives were lost in the victory
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...n-syria/ar-BBvAVKb?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=spartandhp

We did surrender.

And it's the Russians along with Assad that are beating back ISIS everywhere else. Before the Russians punked Obama, ISIS was gaining ground, not losing it.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/...lebrates-liberation-isil-160814040440393.html

Separately, air strikes in opposition areas of Aleppo province on Saturday killed at least 51 people, activists and rescue workers told Al Jazeera.

Air strikes by the Russian and Syrian air force continued despite a pledge by Russia to observe a three-hour daily ceasefire to allow humanitarian aid deliveries.

The battle for Aleppo, Syria's second biggest city, has raged on since mid-2012 and is among the fiercest in the multi-front war that has killed nearly 400,000 people, according to an estimate by the UN's chief mediator.
 
Hey....I've exhausted my point..I'm happy with a more streamlined approach to dealing with the bad guys..sorry I pointed out that ISIS lost a major 150mile line of ocean front property and people rejoiced....I know it detracts from the surrender line..peace out!

Why did ISIS ever have that city?

SURRENDER.
 
General Lloyd Austen

Ah! Yes. "Marking his retirement on April 5, U.S. leaders praised Austin for his lengthy record of service."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/30/white-house-faults-decorated-us-generals-handling-/

“Early in 2014, Obama’s intelligence advisers told him that ISIS was of marginal importance. According to administration officials, General Lloyd Austin, then the commander of Central Command, which oversees U.S. military operations in the Middle East, told the White House that the Islamic State was ‘a flash in the pan.’ This analysis led Obama, in an interview with The New Yorker, to describe the constellation of jihadist groups in Iraq and Syria as terrorism’s ‘jayvee team.’”

The quote clearly showed the White House was shifting blame from Mr. Obama to Gen. Austin, a 40-year Army combatant, leader and commander, as he went out the door.
 
If somebody believes we should have standing forces in the region, read this and tell me what the end game is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia–Sunni_relations

This is not about winning; it is about hurting ISIS until they give up on the WAR THEY DECLEARED ON THE USA, and all non-radical Muslims.

ISIS demands are.

Either everyone gives up their right to chose or not chose a religion, and joins their radicalized version of Islam. OR.

They will kill the men that do not join them, gang rape your wives, and give your underage daughters to the fighter that killed you, as a prize bride. That is what ISIS is doing in the Middle East right now.

They would love it if we pulled our military personal out of the Middle East. They would also celebrate if we reduced our military to the point of being ineffective enough to protect our own borders.

I do not like this fight, but we need troops in the air, on the water and ground to hurt them. Stop them on their turf, not ours!


Are you ready to join their religion? If not, you better support this war that was declared on you, and also support our brave troops that are over there protecting your women.
 
This is not about winning; it is about hurting ISIS until they give up on the WAR THEY DECLEARED ON THE USA, and all non-radical Muslims.

ISIS demands are.

Either everyone gives up their right to chose or not chose a religion, and joins their radicalized version of Islam. OR.

They will kill the men that do not join them, gang rape your wives, and give your underage daughters to the fighter that killed you, as a prize bride. That is what ISIS is doing in the Middle East right now.

They would love it if we pulled our military personal out of the Middle East. They would also celebrate if we reduced our military to the point of being ineffective enough to protect our own borders.

I do not like this fight, but we need troops in the air, on the water and ground to hurt them. Stop them on their turf, not ours!


Are you ready to join their religion? If not, you better support this war that was declared on you, and also support our brave troops that are over there protecting your women.
I don't think we need any ground troups and I think we're winning the fight the smart way...jihadists always declare war on the US...Kim Jong Un does it every couple of months...this is a world conflict we are part of....these jihadists will pop up around the globe even if we leveled Syria..as long as we support Israel..we'll have enemies from their camp. Great post though...I always try to support the troops under all circumstances.
 
This is not about winning; it is about hurting ISIS until they give up on the WAR THEY DECLEARED ON THE USA, and all non-radical Muslims.

ISIS demands are.

Either everyone gives up their right to chose or not chose a religion, and joins their radicalized version of Islam. OR.

They will kill the men that do not join them, gang rape your wives, and give your underage daughters to the fighter that killed you, as a prize bride. That is what ISIS is doing in the Middle East right now.

They would love it if we pulled our military personal out of the Middle East. They would also celebrate if we reduced our military to the point of being ineffective enough to protect our own borders.

I do not like this fight, but we need troops in the air, on the water and ground to hurt them. Stop them on their turf, not ours!


Are you ready to join their religion? If not, you better support this war that was declared on you, and also support our brave troops that are over there protecting your women.
You can't have a real holy war if you can't lure the "Crusaders" back to the middle east for a pitched battle. ISIS' goal has always been to draw us into a protracted war of attrition against them, where we play the part of the big dumb army that they can hit with asymmetric tactics. I'm all for killing them, but I'd prefer not to see our forces do it on their terms.

The approach most likely to have any impact whatsoever is a guerrilla war with our own special operations people providing the training, intel and air support with native fighters doing the bulk of the fighting (which seems to be our current strategy).

If you believe history is any guide (like I tend to) then massive conventional forces aren't likely to achieve the result you think they will, not unless you are willing to commit several hundred thousand ground troops to act as an occupying force in perpetuity.
 
You never let the enemy know what you are whiling to do, and more important, not do.

Saying we will not use ground troops would be like the Blazers telling their opponents we will never try any layups during the game to limit injuries to our players. Making the commitment of not using ground troops would make it easier for ISIS to cause more trouble. Sometimes the best way to push an opponent back is to go right at them.

I have no idea if we need ground troops in the fight, and if we do, how many, and for how long? But we need to do whatever is necessary to stop these radicals from forcing their religious beliefs on others.

Notice I did not say we need to win. To totally wipe out their religious beliefs would make us just as guilty of restricting freedom of religion as they now are.

Trying to beat ISIS would be like hugging a porcupine that has a tooth ache. ISIS has hundreds of ways to motivate their fighters. Some of the reasons go back over a thousand years; Israel is only one of those reasons.


But since you mention history, let’s take a look at how it started 1400 years ago.

In 624, Mohammed led a raid for booty and plunder against a Meccan caravan, killing 70 Meccans for mere material gain. Between 630 A.D. and the death of Mohammed in 632 A.D., Muslims -- on at least one occasion led by Mohammed -- had conquered the bulk of western Arabia and southern Palestine through approximately a dozen separate invasions and bloody conquests. These conquests were in large part the start of the "Holy wars". After Mohammed's death in 632, the new Muslim caliph, Abu Bakr, launched Islam into almost 1,500 years of continual imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others through invasion and war, a role Islam continues to this very day.


The Muslim wars of imperialist conquest have been launched against hundreds of nations, over millions of square miles (significantly larger than the British Empire at its peak). The lust for Muslim imperialist conquest stretched from southern France to the Philippines, from Austria to Nigeria, and from central Asia to New Guinea. This is the classic definition of imperialism -- "the policy and practice of seeking to dominate the economic and political affairs of weaker countries."


Although the law differed in different places, the following are examples of colonialist laws to which colonized Christians and Jews were made subject to over the years.

Christians and Jews could not bear arms -- Muslims could;
Christians and Jews could not ride horses -- Muslims could;
Christians and Jews had to get permission to build -- Muslims did not;
Christians and Jews had to pay certain taxes which Muslims did not;
Christians could not proselytize -- Muslims could;
Christians and Jews had to bow to their Muslim masters when they paid their taxes; and
Christians and Jews had to live under the law set forth in the Koran, not under either their own religious or secular law.

Source http://www1.cbn.com/churchandministry/1400-years-of-christian-islamic-struggle
 
Last edited:
winning the fight the smart way
We don't even have a commander, how can you assess he is doing the smart way?

You never let the enemy know what you are whiling to do, and more important, not do.

Saying we will not use ground troops would be like the Blazers telling their opponents we will never try any layups during the game to limit injuries to our players. Making the commitment of not using ground troops would make it easier for ISIS to cause more trouble. Sometimes the best way to push an opponent back is to go right at them.

I have no idea if we need ground troops in the fight, and if we do, how many, and for how long? But we need to do whatever is necessary to stop these radicals from forcing their religious beliefs on others.

Notice I did not say we need to win. To totally wipe out their religious beliefs would make us just as guilty of restricting freedom of religion as they now are.

Trying to beat ISIS would be like hugging a porcupine that has a tooth ache. ISIS has hundreds of ways to motivate their fighters. Some of the reasons go back over a thousand years; Israel is only one of those reasons.


But since you mention history, let’s take a look at how it started 1400 years ago.

In 624, Mohammed led a raid for booty and plunder against a Meccan caravan, killing 70 Meccans for mere material gain. Between 630 A.D. and the death of Mohammed in 632 A.D., Muslims -- on at least one occasion led by Mohammed -- had conquered the bulk of western Arabia and southern Palestine through approximately a dozen separate invasions and bloody conquests. These conquests were in large part the start of the "Holy wars". After Mohammed's death in 632, the new Muslim caliph, Abu Bakr, launched Islam into almost 1,500 years of continual imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others through invasion and war, a role Islam continues to this very day.


The Muslim wars of imperialist conquest have been launched against hundreds of nations, over millions of square miles (significantly larger than the British Empire at its peak). The lust for Muslim imperialist conquest stretched from southern France to the Philippines, from Austria to Nigeria, and from central Asia to New Guinea. This is the classic definition of imperialism -- "the policy and practice of seeking to dominate the economic and political affairs of weaker countries."


Although the law differed in different places, the following are examples of colonialist laws to which colonized Christians and Jews were made subject to over the years.

Christians and Jews could not bear arms -- Muslims could;
Christians and Jews could not ride horses -- Muslims could;
Christians and Jews had to get permission to build -- Muslims did not;
Christians and Jews had to pay certain taxes which Muslims did not;
Christians could not proselytize -- Muslims could;
Christians and Jews had to bow to their Muslim masters when they paid their taxes; and
Christians and Jews had to live under the law set forth in the Koran, not under either their own religious or secular law.

Source http://www1.cbn.com/churchandministry/1400-years-of-christian-islamic-struggle

Geez oldfisherman! You make it sound as if the Muslims have a different moral code than the rest of us!
 
Last edited:
The fighting was over until Obama surrendered.

There would be no fight against an enemy that no longer existed.

History shows that occupation and sustained military presence , in the absence of combat, works.
 
The fighting was over until Obama surrendered.

There would be no fight against an enemy that no longer existed.

Sounds like our job there was done, then. Perfect time to leave Iraq to the Iraqis.

History shows that occupation and sustained military presence , in the absence of combat, works.

Yes, I'm sure that occupying Iraq indefinitely would have been a wonderful solution for all concerned.

barfo
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top