Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

When do we go in and wipe out ISIS?


Otis

Recommended Posts

Couple ways we can do this. We can drop some more pamphlets and maybe set up some clinics, as these guys continue to blow themselves up in our urban areas. They eventually will be all blowed up, but probably not until they kill off 200 innocents for every 8 or so of the loons.

Another options I we just go in and nuke them into the stratosphere. I guess the question is would we be able to kill less than 200 or so innocents there for every 8 bad guys. Although it's actually a little more complicated than that, right? Because I'd gladly see a bunch of strangers go before my wife and children. So there's some +EV in us getting to choose the innocents that have to go.

Or maybe if we upgrade to the glossy paper for the pamphlets.

Hitler could have used a guy like you.
Or Roosevelt or Churchill. Both bombed German cities.

Oats seems to be endorsing something closer to a 'final solution' than fire bombing a few cities.

When you boil this down to its simplest form, we're at a fork in the road. We can go one way or the other. We can do more, or we can do less. You can debate the degree of more or less, but in the end, that's it, more, or less. Because "what we're doing now" is getting good innocent people in the Western world kilt. But I think people on both sides agree that "the same" ain't working. So it's either less, or more.

I advocate more. Because less is not an option. We can't turn our backs on France when innocent Parisians are mass murdered. We can't overlook the threats these to our major cities these animals put on Youtube. We can't pretend isolationism is a solution or even an option on 2015. It's not. The world is a whole lot smaller than it used to be. That's a fact of life.

So we're left with only one option. More. Does that mean "boots on the ground." Maybe. Maybe it's small special forces platoons with all sorts of surgical strikes and takeovers of the major cities, killing these animals one at a time. Maybe it's a massive coalition ground invasion. Or maybe it's neither: maybe there's no reason we should be killing thousands of our folks at the expense of thousands of their good folks. War is fraught with hard decisions. Maybe the hard decision here is to decimate a few major cities in Syria and Iraq. There's an innocent toll. But that's war.

War is not pretty. War is not fun. War is not what any of us normal human beings want. But it's what these animals bring to our doorstep. And you can say it's because we bombed their stupid dirt huts, but let's be frank, these are people who want us dead simply because we sit around and watch Monday Night Football and eat wings and talk about hot chicks. They want us dead for our way of life. Not because we accidentally killed Ishmael in a raid that popped off Jihadi John and 3 of his best goat-screwing pals. They're bringing this misery and death to our doorstep, based on their ideologies.

Do you think any of us would give a crap otherwise? We'd be in the Yoga Pants thread or the Jamous Winsten thread or that ####ty NBA thread that the current failed iteration of the Gekko alias is polluting. We'd be doing something we would rather do. The ONLY reason we're having this discussion is because these jackknobs keep killing and/or threatening to kill us where we live. If the tables were turned and we could all agree to just leave each other alone? Guess what, we'd be totally cool with it. But these animals would still be trying to kill us.

So yeah. We need less or more. And it seems to me, by process of elimination, we have no choice but more. So rain that fire, baby. Because my girls are too precious to let some spiteful cave dwellers deprive them of their lives or their parents.

END THREAD

Well obviously, when all you have is a hammer and every problem MUST be a nail, the only choice you have is to hammer more or less. The problem here may be a bit more sophisticated than that.

Point of clarification though, are we only eradicating the ISIS members in Iraq and Syria? What about other ME countries? What about the ones in France? Germany? The US? Do we go after those with the same recklesness as we do in Syria? Surely it is worth one American life to rid ourselves of this problem for good. How about 10 American lives? 100? Where do you want to draw the line?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple ways we can do this. We can drop some more pamphlets and maybe set up some clinics, as these guys continue to blow themselves up in our urban areas. They eventually will be all blowed up, but probably not until they kill off 200 innocents for every 8 or so of the loons.

Another options I we just go in and nuke them into the stratosphere. I guess the question is would we be able to kill less than 200 or so innocents there for every 8 bad guys. Although it's actually a little more complicated than that, right? Because I'd gladly see a bunch of strangers go before my wife and children. So there's some +EV in us getting to choose the innocents that have to go.

Or maybe if we upgrade to the glossy paper for the pamphlets.

Hitler could have used a guy like you.
Or Roosevelt or Churchill. Both bombed German cities.

Oats seems to be endorsing something closer to a 'final solution' than fire bombing a few cities.

When you boil this down to its simplest form, we're at a fork in the road. We can go one way or the other. We can do more, or we can do less. You can debate the degree of more or less, but in the end, that's it, more, or less. Because "what we're doing now" is getting good innocent people in the Western world kilt. But I think people on both sides agree that "the same" ain't working. So it's either less, or more.

I advocate more. Because less is not an option. We can't turn our backs on France when innocent Parisians are mass murdered. We can't overlook the threats these to our major cities these animals put on Youtube. We can't pretend isolationism is a solution or even an option on 2015. It's not. The world is a whole lot smaller than it used to be. That's a fact of life.

So we're left with only one option. More. Does that mean "boots on the ground." Maybe. Maybe it's small special forces platoons with all sorts of surgical strikes and takeovers of the major cities, killing these animals one at a time. Maybe it's a massive coalition ground invasion. Or maybe it's neither: maybe there's no reason we should be killing thousands of our folks at the expense of thousands of their good folks. War is fraught with hard decisions. Maybe the hard decision here is to decimate a few major cities in Syria and Iraq. There's an innocent toll. But that's war.

War is not pretty. War is not fun. War is not what any of us normal human beings want. But it's what these animals bring to our doorstep. And you can say it's because we bombed their stupid dirt huts, but let's be frank, these are people who want us dead simply because we sit around and watch Monday Night Football and eat wings and talk about hot chicks. They want us dead for our way of life. Not because we accidentally killed Ishmael in a raid that popped off Jihadi John and 3 of his best goat-screwing pals. They're bringing this misery and death to our doorstep, based on their ideologies.

Do you think any of us would give a crap otherwise? We'd be in the Yoga Pants thread or the Jamous Winsten thread or that ####ty NBA thread that the current failed iteration of the Gekko alias is polluting. We'd be doing something we would rather do. The ONLY reason we're having this discussion is because these jackknobs keep killing and/or threatening to kill us where we live. If the tables were turned and we could all agree to just leave each other alone? Guess what, we'd be totally cool with it. But these animals would still be trying to kill us.

So yeah. We need less or more. And it seems to me, by process of elimination, we have no choice but more. So rain that fire, baby. Because my girls are too precious to let some spiteful cave dwellers deprive them of their lives or their parents.

END THREAD

Well obviously, when all you have is a hammer and every problem MUST be a nail, the only choice you have is to hammer more or less. The problem here may be a bit more sophisticated than that.

Point of clarification though, are we only eradicating the ISIS members in Iraq and Syria? What about other ME countries? What about the ones in France? Germany? The US? Do we go after those with the same recklesness as we do in Syria? Surely it is worth one American life to rid ourselves of this problem for good. How about 10 American lives? 100? Where do you want to draw the line?

You'll agree with me, won't you, that if we take out of all of ISIS in Syria and Iraq, those implanted in the West and elsewhere will die on the vine, right? No funding, no support, no leadership, no organization to speak of? We can at least agree on that? Please god?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are serious conservative thinkers out there with not only reasonable criticisms of Obama's strategies but also with interesting alternative strategies of their own. You can find them in places like The American Enterprise Institute, and sometimes they write articles for National Review or other conservative sites. But none of these guys are running for office. What I wrote is what I honestly hear from the candidates. Don't blame me if their views are cartoonish. That's apparently what the Republican voters want right now.

Look, the GOP candidates are a bunch of clowns, but you know as well as I do that advocating "more of the same" won't win primaries. You also know that "Obama is doing a great job" won't win primaries. Do you honestly believe Rubio or Kasich, for example, are going to nuke Raqqa, or do anything substantially different than what Obama is doing now? I don't, just like I didn't believe Obama was going to do anything substantially different than Bush. You would do well to understand that what politicians say isn't usually what they actually believe or will do once in office.

Not to mention, none of us actually know what will work. We know that what we're doing now isn't particularly working. We can be pretty certain that "boots on the ground" won't work, because the American public doesn't have the stomach for a 50 year occupation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple ways we can do this. We can drop some more pamphlets and maybe set up some clinics, as these guys continue to blow themselves up in our urban areas. They eventually will be all blowed up, but probably not until they kill off 200 innocents for every 8 or so of the loons.

Another options I we just go in and nuke them into the stratosphere. I guess the question is would we be able to kill less than 200 or so innocents there for every 8 bad guys. Although it's actually a little more complicated than that, right? Because I'd gladly see a bunch of strangers go before my wife and children. So there's some +EV in us getting to choose the innocents that have to go.

Or maybe if we upgrade to the glossy paper for the pamphlets.

Hitler could have used a guy like you.
Or Roosevelt or Churchill. Both bombed German cities.

Oats seems to be endorsing something closer to a 'final solution' than fire bombing a few cities.

When you boil this down to its simplest form, we're at a fork in the road. We can go one way or the other. We can do more, or we can do less. You can debate the degree of more or less, but in the end, that's it, more, or less. Because "what we're doing now" is getting good innocent people in the Western world kilt. But I think people on both sides agree that "the same" ain't working. So it's either less, or more.

I advocate more. Because less is not an option. We can't turn our backs on France when innocent Parisians are mass murdered. We can't overlook the threats these to our major cities these animals put on Youtube. We can't pretend isolationism is a solution or even an option on 2015. It's not. The world is a whole lot smaller than it used to be. That's a fact of life.

So we're left with only one option. More. Does that mean "boots on the ground." Maybe. Maybe it's small special forces platoons with all sorts of surgical strikes and takeovers of the major cities, killing these animals one at a time. Maybe it's a massive coalition ground invasion. Or maybe it's neither: maybe there's no reason we should be killing thousands of our folks at the expense of thousands of their good folks. War is fraught with hard decisions. Maybe the hard decision here is to decimate a few major cities in Syria and Iraq. There's an innocent toll. But that's war.

War is not pretty. War is not fun. War is not what any of us normal human beings want. But it's what these animals bring to our doorstep. And you can say it's because we bombed their stupid dirt huts, but let's be frank, these are people who want us dead simply because we sit around and watch Monday Night Football and eat wings and talk about hot chicks. They want us dead for our way of life. Not because we accidentally killed Ishmael in a raid that popped off Jihadi John and 3 of his best goat-screwing pals. They're bringing this misery and death to our doorstep, based on their ideologies.

Do you think any of us would give a crap otherwise? We'd be in the Yoga Pants thread or the Jamous Winsten thread or that ####ty NBA thread that the current failed iteration of the Gekko alias is polluting. We'd be doing something we would rather do. The ONLY reason we're having this discussion is because these jackknobs keep killing and/or threatening to kill us where we live. If the tables were turned and we could all agree to just leave each other alone? Guess what, we'd be totally cool with it. But these animals would still be trying to kill us.

So yeah. We need less or more. And it seems to me, by process of elimination, we have no choice but more. So rain that fire, baby. Because my girls are too precious to let some spiteful cave dwellers deprive them of their lives or their parents.

END THREAD

Well obviously, when all you have is a hammer and every problem MUST be a nail, the only choice you have is to hammer more or less. The problem here may be a bit more sophisticated than that.

Point of clarification though, are we only eradicating the ISIS members in Iraq and Syria? What about other ME countries? What about the ones in France? Germany? The US? Do we go after those with the same recklesness as we do in Syria? Surely it is worth one American life to rid ourselves of this problem for good. How about 10 American lives? 100? Where do you want to draw the line?

You'll agree with me, won't you, that if we take out of all of ISIS in Syria and Iraq, those implanted in the West and elsewhere will die on the vine, right? No funding, no support, no leadership, no organization to speak of? We can at least agree on that? Please god?

I don't think that those ends will be achieved by the means proposed - not without spawning another generation of radicals that are just as bad if not worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are serious conservative thinkers out there with not only reasonable criticisms of Obama's strategies but also with interesting alternative strategies of their own. You can find them in places like The American Enterprise Institute, and sometimes they write articles for National Review or other conservative sites. But none of these guys are running for office. What I wrote is what I honestly hear from the candidates. Don't blame me if their views are cartoonish. That's apparently what the Republican voters want right now.

Look, the GOP candidates are a bunch of clowns, but you know as well as I do that advocating "more of the same" won't win primaries. You also know that "Obama is doing a great job" won't win primaries. Do you honestly believe Rubio or Kasich, for example, are going to nuke Raqqa, or do anything substantially different than what Obama is doing now? I don't, just like I didn't believe Obama was going to do anything substantially different than Bush. You would do well to understand that what politicians say isn't usually what they actually believe or will do once in office.

Not to mention, none of us actually know what will work. We know that what we're doing now isn't particularly working. We can be pretty certain that "boots on the ground" won't work, because the American public doesn't have the stomach for a 50 year occupation.

All true. But I'm honestly fearful that the nominee is going to be Trump or Cruz (I still don't think Carson is likely.) And if that is so, then we have to take what they say seriously because they mean it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are serious conservative thinkers out there with not only reasonable criticisms of Obama's strategies but also with interesting alternative strategies of their own. You can find them in places like The American Enterprise Institute, and sometimes they write articles for National Review or other conservative sites. But none of these guys are running for office. What I wrote is what I honestly hear from the candidates. Don't blame me if their views are cartoonish. That's apparently what the Republican voters want right now.

Look, the GOP candidates are a bunch of clowns, but you know as well as I do that advocating "more of the same" won't win primaries. You also know that "Obama is doing a great job" won't win primaries. Do you honestly believe Rubio or Kasich, for example, are going to nuke Raqqa, or do anything substantially different than what Obama is doing now? I don't, just like I didn't believe Obama was going to do anything substantially different than Bush. You would do well to understand that what politicians say isn't usually what they actually believe or will do once in office.

Not to mention, none of us actually know what will work. We know that what we're doing now isn't particularly working. We can be pretty certain that "boots on the ground" won't work, because the American public doesn't have the stomach for a 50 year occupation.

All true. But I'm honestly fearful that the nominee is going to be Trump or Cruz (I still don't think Carson is likely.) And if that is so, then we have to take what they say seriously because they mean it.

Here's a hint... Even Trump and Cruz are fishing for votes, not saying everything they really mean.

Another hint... Neither of those two idiots is going to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you join the army?

How old are your kids? I think they can join up at 16 or 17 with your approval?

It's not my path. I'm turning 40, and I missed my chance. But I'm lucky to live in a country filled with dudes who are tougher than I am and who signed up to do specifically and precisely this, who are trained for it, and who and are just DYING for some combat action.

Let those dudes loose on these animals.

Yeah, like I was saying, Captain America types who want to send America's sons and daughters to their deaths are always the best.

Sure there are plenty of guys just "DYING" to deploy again, 15 months on, 15 months off to places where it's 120 during the day in the summer, getting shot at and IED'd by a bunch of crazies. Their families are fine, they'll be back in one piece for sure. They'll miss their kids growing up, they'll get to see their buddies die, they'll probably get PTSD and they'll be stressed out the minute they get back thinking about the next time they have to go. They'll be hungry a lot, bitten by bugs more, shot at some, in danger most of the time, but they are just DYING to be out there.

The 32k documented and 100k estimated wounded warriors form Afghanistan and Iraq need company, plenty of hospital beds available for fresh IED and suicide bomber shrapnel victims. It's all speedboats and super models from there, injured vets just walk into high paying jobs because the same Captain America guy who wanted them to go would love to put them right in there because they are aren't damaged or risky. Because Captain America knows exactly what the vets went through, he understands the skills of the veteran and the value they bring to an operation of any kind.

We also wouldn't have to worry that vets are almost twice as likely to live in poverty than their non military counterparts, or that 50% of those homeless vets are disabled. They'll have good jobs when discharged, people lining up to serve those who served.

We can spend $1.7 trillion on this new war, then dedicate a few billion paying for the disabilities and recovery of all our vets. We wouldn't do it because there is a clear goal, or because America's National Security was threatened, we'd do it because the guy who would never go to war and never would send his son or daughter thinks its best. We'll all make that sacrifice to send Jimmy and Sally to Syria to fight a ground war, what could go wrong?

When Captain and Mrs America are angry their internet connection was lost for 12 minutes, so angry they make a call to the provider and threaten to discontinue, Jimmy and Sally are dodging mortars and bullets. Maybe they'll donate to veteran's organizations, or go to the airport to welcome the troops back home sometime. Or maybe they won't. It's good to be the Captain though, he knows what's best for America.

Edited by Doctor Detroit
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are serious conservative thinkers out there with not only reasonable criticisms of Obama's strategies but also with interesting alternative strategies of their own. You can find them in places like The American Enterprise Institute, and sometimes they write articles for National Review or other conservative sites. But none of these guys are running for office. What I wrote is what I honestly hear from the candidates. Don't blame me if their views are cartoonish. That's apparently what the Republican voters want right now.

Look, the GOP candidates are a bunch of clowns, but you know as well as I do that advocating "more of the same" won't win primaries. You also know that "Obama is doing a great job" won't win primaries. Do you honestly believe Rubio or Kasich, for example, are going to nuke Raqqa, or do anything substantially different than what Obama is doing now? I don't, just like I didn't believe Obama was going to do anything substantially different than Bush. You would do well to understand that what politicians say isn't usually what they actually believe or will do once in office.

Not to mention, none of us actually know what will work. We know that what we're doing now isn't particularly working. We can be pretty certain that "boots on the ground" won't work, because the American public doesn't have the stomach for a 50 year occupation.

All true. But I'm honestly fearful that the nominee is going to be Trump or Cruz (I still don't think Carson is likely.) And if that is so, then we have to take what they say seriously because they mean it.

Here's a hint... Even Trump and Cruz are fishing for votes, not saying everything they really mean.

Another hint... Neither of those two idiots is going to win.

Trump is pandering. Cruz isn't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daesh release cryptic message calling attacks in 5 US states in next 6 months?

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/6/isis-announces-6-month-terror-campaign-names-5-tar/

Daesh release kill list with home addresses of US servicemen In dozens of US towns.

http://www.newschannel10.com/story/28603897/isis-releases-kill-list-seven-texas-cities-included

The whole speech today about how there are coming to DC, yeah ok.

I was just commenting to someone the other day that half the people I see in DC every day are either cops, federal agents, or security guards of some ilk. It's the most heavily policed city in the West IMO, bring those crazy ####ers on.

Good.

I'm there basically all the time the next 6 months. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daesh release cryptic message calling attacks in 5 US states in next 6 months?

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/6/isis-announces-6-month-terror-campaign-names-5-tar/

Daesh release kill list with home addresses of US servicemen In dozens of US towns.

http://www.newschannel10.com/story/28603897/isis-releases-kill-list-seven-texas-cities-included

The whole speech today about how there are coming to DC, yeah ok.

I was just commenting to someone the other day that half the people I see in DC every day are either cops, federal agents, or security guards of some ilk. It's the most heavily policed city in the West IMO, bring those crazy ####ers on.

Good.

I'm there basically all the time the next 6 months. :unsure:

Boom.

We can go to a Caps game or something. :hifive:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple ways we can do this. We can drop some more pamphlets and maybe set up some clinics, as these guys continue to blow themselves up in our urban areas. They eventually will be all blowed up, but probably not until they kill off 200 innocents for every 8 or so of the loons.

Another options I we just go in and nuke them into the stratosphere. I guess the question is would we be able to kill less than 200 or so innocents there for every 8 bad guys. Although it's actually a little more complicated than that, right? Because I'd gladly see a bunch of strangers go before my wife and children. So there's some +EV in us getting to choose the innocents that have to go.

Or maybe if we upgrade to the glossy paper for the pamphlets.

Hitler could have used a guy like you.
Or Roosevelt or Churchill. Both bombed German cities.

Oats seems to be endorsing something closer to a 'final solution' than fire bombing a few cities.

When you boil this down to its simplest form, we're at a fork in the road. We can go one way or the other. We can do more, or we can do less. You can debate the degree of more or less, but in the end, that's it, more, or less. Because "what we're doing now" is getting good innocent people in the Western world kilt. But I think people on both sides agree that "the same" ain't working. So it's either less, or more.

I advocate more. Because less is not an option. We can't turn our backs on France when innocent Parisians are mass murdered. We can't overlook the threats these to our major cities these animals put on Youtube. We can't pretend isolationism is a solution or even an option on 2015. It's not. The world is a whole lot smaller than it used to be. That's a fact of life.

So we're left with only one option. More. Does that mean "boots on the ground." Maybe. Maybe it's small special forces platoons with all sorts of surgical strikes and takeovers of the major cities, killing these animals one at a time. Maybe it's a massive coalition ground invasion. Or maybe it's neither: maybe there's no reason we should be killing thousands of our folks at the expense of thousands of their good folks. War is fraught with hard decisions. Maybe the hard decision here is to decimate a few major cities in Syria and Iraq. There's an innocent toll. But that's war.

War is not pretty. War is not fun. War is not what any of us normal human beings want. But it's what these animals bring to our doorstep. And you can say it's because we bombed their stupid dirt huts, but let's be frank, these are people who want us dead simply because we sit around and watch Monday Night Football and eat wings and talk about hot chicks. They want us dead for our way of life. Not because we accidentally killed Ishmael in a raid that popped off Jihadi John and 3 of his best goat-screwing pals. They're bringing this misery and death to our doorstep, based on their ideologies.

Do you think any of us would give a crap otherwise? We'd be in the Yoga Pants thread or the Jamous Winsten thread or that ####ty NBA thread that the current failed iteration of the Gekko alias is polluting. We'd be doing something we would rather do. The ONLY reason we're having this discussion is because these jackknobs keep killing and/or threatening to kill us where we live. If the tables were turned and we could all agree to just leave each other alone? Guess what, we'd be totally cool with it. But these animals would still be trying to kill us.

So yeah. We need less or more. And it seems to me, by process of elimination, we have no choice but more. So rain that fire, baby. Because my girls are too precious to let some spiteful cave dwellers deprive them of their lives or their parents.

END THREAD

Why don't you join the army?

How old are your kids? I think they can join up at 16 or 17 with your approval?

It's not my path. I'm turning 40, and I missed my chance. But I'm lucky to live in a country filled with dudes who are tougher than I am and who signed up to do specifically and precisely this, who are trained for it, and who and are just DYING for some combat action.

Let those dudes loose on these animals.

I'm not as eloquent as Dr. d but in no way are these guys dying for this "action". These guys come back as shells of the people they were. I've had vets I was talking to explode on another vet in the room for just something innocent that triggers them. I've had vets that mumble to themselves, that have to walk around with service dogs to keep them calm and safe, vets who sleep in their cars at night because they are too scared of doing something in their sleep that would hurt their loved ones.

Everybody is quick and eager to say that we should just get boots on the ground and solve the problem, as if that's all that's needed, and that those boots even come back on the same feet they left with. It all sucks, it's all irresponsible and there has to be a better way.

Edited by Capella
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daesh release cryptic message calling attacks in 5 US states in next 6 months?

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/6/isis-announces-6-month-terror-campaign-names-5-tar/

Daesh release kill list with home addresses of US servicemen In dozens of US towns.

http://www.newschannel10.com/story/28603897/isis-releases-kill-list-seven-texas-cities-included

The whole speech today about how there are coming to DC, yeah ok.

I was just commenting to someone the other day that half the people I see in DC every day are either cops, federal agents, or security guards of some ilk. It's the most heavily policed city in the West IMO, bring those crazy ####ers on.

Good.

I'm there basically all the time the next 6 months. :unsure:

Boom.

We can go to a Caps game or something. :hifive:

For real, we'll do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you join the army?

How old are your kids? I think they can join up at 16 or 17 with your approval?

It's not my path. I'm turning 40, and I missed my chance. But I'm lucky to live in a country filled with dudes who are tougher than I am and who signed up to do specifically and precisely this, who are trained for it, and who and are just DYING for some combat action.

Let those dudes loose on these animals.

Yeah, like I was saying, Captain America types who want to send America's sons and daughters to their deaths are always the best.

Sure there are plenty of guys just "DYING" to deploy again, 15 months on, 15 months off to places where it's 120 during the day in the summer, getting shot at and IED'd by a bunch of crazies. Their families are fine, they'll be back in one piece for sure. They'll miss their kids growing up, they'll get to see their buddies die, they'll probably get PTSD and they'll be stressed out the minute they get back thinking about the next time they have to go. They'll be hungry a lot, bitten by bugs more, shot at some, in danger most of the time, but they are just DYING to be out there.

The 32k documented and 100k estimated wounded warriors form Afghanistan and Iraq need company, plenty of hospital beds available for fresh IED and suicide bomber shrapnel victims. It's all speedboats and super models from there, injured vets just walk into high paying jobs because the same Captain America guy who wanted them to go would love to put them right in there because they are aren't damaged or risky. Because Captain America knows exactly what the vets went through, he understands the skills of the veteran and the value they bring to an operation of any kind.

We also wouldn't have to worry that vets are almost twice as likely to live in poverty than their non military counterparts, or that 50% of those homeless vets are disabled. They'll have good jobs when discharged, people lining up to serve those who served.

We can spend $1.7 trillion on this new war, then dedicate a few billion paying for the disabilities and recovery of all our vets. We wouldn't do it because there is a clear goal, or because America's National Security was threatened, we'd do it because the guy who would never go to war and never would send his son or daughter thinks its best. We'll all make that sacrifice to send Jimmy and Sally to Syria to fight a ground war, what could go wrong?

When Captain and Mrs America are angry their internet connection was lost for 12 minutes, so angry they make a call to the provider and threaten to discontinue, Jimmy and Sally are dodging mortars and bullets. Maybe they'll donate to veteran's organizations, or go to the airport to welcome the troops back home sometime. Or maybe they won't. It's good to be the Captain though, he knows what's best for America.

So, you're saying war is bad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple ways we can do this. We can drop some more pamphlets and maybe set up some clinics, as these guys continue to blow themselves up in our urban areas. They eventually will be all blowed up, but probably not until they kill off 200 innocents for every 8 or so of the loons.

Another options I we just go in and nuke them into the stratosphere. I guess the question is would we be able to kill less than 200 or so innocents there for every 8 bad guys. Although it's actually a little more complicated than that, right? Because I'd gladly see a bunch of strangers go before my wife and children. So there's some +EV in us getting to choose the innocents that have to go.

Or maybe if we upgrade to the glossy paper for the pamphlets.

Hitler could have used a guy like you.
Or Roosevelt or Churchill. Both bombed German cities.

Oats seems to be endorsing something closer to a 'final solution' than fire bombing a few cities.

When you boil this down to its simplest form, we're at a fork in the road. We can go one way or the other. We can do more, or we can do less. You can debate the degree of more or less, but in the end, that's it, more, or less. Because "what we're doing now" is getting good innocent people in the Western world kilt. But I think people on both sides agree that "the same" ain't working. So it's either less, or more.

I advocate more. Because less is not an option. We can't turn our backs on France when innocent Parisians are mass murdered. We can't overlook the threats these to our major cities these animals put on Youtube. We can't pretend isolationism is a solution or even an option on 2015. It's not. The world is a whole lot smaller than it used to be. That's a fact of life.

So we're left with only one option. More. Does that mean "boots on the ground." Maybe. Maybe it's small special forces platoons with all sorts of surgical strikes and takeovers of the major cities, killing these animals one at a time. Maybe it's a massive coalition ground invasion. Or maybe it's neither: maybe there's no reason we should be killing thousands of our folks at the expense of thousands of their good folks. War is fraught with hard decisions. Maybe the hard decision here is to decimate a few major cities in Syria and Iraq. There's an innocent toll. But that's war.

War is not pretty. War is not fun. War is not what any of us normal human beings want. But it's what these animals bring to our doorstep. And you can say it's because we bombed their stupid dirt huts, but let's be frank, these are people who want us dead simply because we sit around and watch Monday Night Football and eat wings and talk about hot chicks. They want us dead for our way of life. Not because we accidentally killed Ishmael in a raid that popped off Jihadi John and 3 of his best goat-screwing pals. They're bringing this misery and death to our doorstep, based on their ideologies.

Do you think any of us would give a crap otherwise? We'd be in the Yoga Pants thread or the Jamous Winsten thread or that ####ty NBA thread that the current failed iteration of the Gekko alias is polluting. We'd be doing something we would rather do. The ONLY reason we're having this discussion is because these jackknobs keep killing and/or threatening to kill us where we live. If the tables were turned and we could all agree to just leave each other alone? Guess what, we'd be totally cool with it. But these animals would still be trying to kill us.

So yeah. We need less or more. And it seems to me, by process of elimination, we have no choice but more. So rain that fire, baby. Because my girls are too precious to let some spiteful cave dwellers deprive them of their lives or their parents.

END THREAD

Well obviously, when all you have is a hammer and every problem MUST be a nail, the only choice you have is to hammer more or less. The problem here may be a bit more sophisticated than that.

Point of clarification though, are we only eradicating the ISIS members in Iraq and Syria? What about other ME countries? What about the ones in France? Germany? The US? Do we go after those with the same recklesness as we do in Syria? Surely it is worth one American life to rid ourselves of this problem for good. How about 10 American lives? 100? Where do you want to draw the line?

You'll agree with me, won't you, that if we take out of all of ISIS in Syria and Iraq, those implanted in the West and elsewhere will die on the vine, right? No funding, no support, no leadership, no organization to speak of? We can at least agree on that? Please god?

I don't think that those ends will be achieved by the means proposed - not without spawning another generation of radicals that are just as bad if not worse.

This fear of "OMG we're going to make even worse terrorists if we fight the terrorists!" is so irrational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple ways we can do this. We can drop some more pamphlets and maybe set up some clinics, as these guys continue to blow themselves up in our urban areas. They eventually will be all blowed up, but probably not until they kill off 200 innocents for every 8 or so of the loons.

Another options I we just go in and nuke them into the stratosphere. I guess the question is would we be able to kill less than 200 or so innocents there for every 8 bad guys. Although it's actually a little more complicated than that, right? Because I'd gladly see a bunch of strangers go before my wife and children. So there's some +EV in us getting to choose the innocents that have to go.

Or maybe if we upgrade to the glossy paper for the pamphlets.

Hitler could have used a guy like you.
Or Roosevelt or Churchill. Both bombed German cities.

Oats seems to be endorsing something closer to a 'final solution' than fire bombing a few cities.

When you boil this down to its simplest form, we're at a fork in the road. We can go one way or the other. We can do more, or we can do less. You can debate the degree of more or less, but in the end, that's it, more, or less. Because "what we're doing now" is getting good innocent people in the Western world kilt. But I think people on both sides agree that "the same" ain't working. So it's either less, or more.

I advocate more. Because less is not an option. We can't turn our backs on France when innocent Parisians are mass murdered. We can't overlook the threats these to our major cities these animals put on Youtube. We can't pretend isolationism is a solution or even an option on 2015. It's not. The world is a whole lot smaller than it used to be. That's a fact of life.

So we're left with only one option. More. Does that mean "boots on the ground." Maybe. Maybe it's small special forces platoons with all sorts of surgical strikes and takeovers of the major cities, killing these animals one at a time. Maybe it's a massive coalition ground invasion. Or maybe it's neither: maybe there's no reason we should be killing thousands of our folks at the expense of thousands of their good folks. War is fraught with hard decisions. Maybe the hard decision here is to decimate a few major cities in Syria and Iraq. There's an innocent toll. But that's war.

War is not pretty. War is not fun. War is not what any of us normal human beings want. But it's what these animals bring to our doorstep. And you can say it's because we bombed their stupid dirt huts, but let's be frank, these are people who want us dead simply because we sit around and watch Monday Night Football and eat wings and talk about hot chicks. They want us dead for our way of life. Not because we accidentally killed Ishmael in a raid that popped off Jihadi John and 3 of his best goat-screwing pals. They're bringing this misery and death to our doorstep, based on their ideologies.

Do you think any of us would give a crap otherwise? We'd be in the Yoga Pants thread or the Jamous Winsten thread or that ####ty NBA thread that the current failed iteration of the Gekko alias is polluting. We'd be doing something we would rather do. The ONLY reason we're having this discussion is because these jackknobs keep killing and/or threatening to kill us where we live. If the tables were turned and we could all agree to just leave each other alone? Guess what, we'd be totally cool with it. But these animals would still be trying to kill us.

So yeah. We need less or more. And it seems to me, by process of elimination, we have no choice but more. So rain that fire, baby. Because my girls are too precious to let some spiteful cave dwellers deprive them of their lives or their parents.

END THREAD

Why don't you join the army?

How old are your kids? I think they can join up at 16 or 17 with your approval?

It's not my path. I'm turning 40, and I missed my chance. But I'm lucky to live in a country filled with dudes who are tougher than I am and who signed up to do specifically and precisely this, who are trained for it, and who and are just DYING for some combat action.

Let those dudes loose on these animals.

I'm not as eloquent as Dr. d but in no way are these guys dying for this "action". These guys come back as shells of the people they were. I've had vets I was talking to explode on another vet in the room for just something innocent that triggers them. I've had vets that mumble to themselves, that have to walk around with service dogs to keep them calm and safe, vets who sleep in their cars at night because they are too scared of doing something in their sleep that would hurt their loved ones.

Everybody is quick and eager to say that we should just get boots on the ground and solve the problem, as if that's all that's needed, and that those boots even come back on the same feet they left with. It all sucks, it's all irresponsible and there has to be a better way.

What's your better way? Aside from doing nothing and hoping the bad guys play nice if we play nice?

We need to do more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple ways we can do this. We can drop some more pamphlets and maybe set up some clinics, as these guys continue to blow themselves up in our urban areas. They eventually will be all blowed up, but probably not until they kill off 200 innocents for every 8 or so of the loons.

Another options I we just go in and nuke them into the stratosphere. I guess the question is would we be able to kill less than 200 or so innocents there for every 8 bad guys. Although it's actually a little more complicated than that, right? Because I'd gladly see a bunch of strangers go before my wife and children. So there's some +EV in us getting to choose the innocents that have to go.

Or maybe if we upgrade to the glossy paper for the pamphlets.

Hitler could have used a guy like you.
Or Roosevelt or Churchill. Both bombed German cities.

Oats seems to be endorsing something closer to a 'final solution' than fire bombing a few cities.

When you boil this down to its simplest form, we're at a fork in the road. We can go one way or the other. We can do more, or we can do less. You can debate the degree of more or less, but in the end, that's it, more, or less. Because "what we're doing now" is getting good innocent people in the Western world kilt. But I think people on both sides agree that "the same" ain't working. So it's either less, or more.

I advocate more. Because less is not an option. We can't turn our backs on France when innocent Parisians are mass murdered. We can't overlook the threats these to our major cities these animals put on Youtube. We can't pretend isolationism is a solution or even an option on 2015. It's not. The world is a whole lot smaller than it used to be. That's a fact of life.

So we're left with only one option. More. Does that mean "boots on the ground." Maybe. Maybe it's small special forces platoons with all sorts of surgical strikes and takeovers of the major cities, killing these animals one at a time. Maybe it's a massive coalition ground invasion. Or maybe it's neither: maybe there's no reason we should be killing thousands of our folks at the expense of thousands of their good folks. War is fraught with hard decisions. Maybe the hard decision here is to decimate a few major cities in Syria and Iraq. There's an innocent toll. But that's war.

War is not pretty. War is not fun. War is not what any of us normal human beings want. But it's what these animals bring to our doorstep. And you can say it's because we bombed their stupid dirt huts, but let's be frank, these are people who want us dead simply because we sit around and watch Monday Night Football and eat wings and talk about hot chicks. They want us dead for our way of life. Not because we accidentally killed Ishmael in a raid that popped off Jihadi John and 3 of his best goat-screwing pals. They're bringing this misery and death to our doorstep, based on their ideologies.

Do you think any of us would give a crap otherwise? We'd be in the Yoga Pants thread or the Jamous Winsten thread or that ####ty NBA thread that the current failed iteration of the Gekko alias is polluting. We'd be doing something we would rather do. The ONLY reason we're having this discussion is because these jackknobs keep killing and/or threatening to kill us where we live. If the tables were turned and we could all agree to just leave each other alone? Guess what, we'd be totally cool with it. But these animals would still be trying to kill us.

So yeah. We need less or more. And it seems to me, by process of elimination, we have no choice but more. So rain that fire, baby. Because my girls are too precious to let some spiteful cave dwellers deprive them of their lives or their parents.

END THREAD

Why don't you join the army?

How old are your kids? I think they can join up at 16 or 17 with your approval?

It's not my path. I'm turning 40, and I missed my chance. But I'm lucky to live in a country filled with dudes who are tougher than I am and who signed up to do specifically and precisely this, who are trained for it, and who and are just DYING for some combat action.

Let those dudes loose on these animals.

I'm not as eloquent as Dr. d but in no way are these guys dying for this "action". These guys come back as shells of the people they were. I've had vets I was talking to explode on another vet in the room for just something innocent that triggers them. I've had vets that mumble to themselves, that have to walk around with service dogs to keep them calm and safe, vets who sleep in their cars at night because they are too scared of doing something in their sleep that would hurt their loved ones.

Everybody is quick and eager to say that we should just get boots on the ground and solve the problem, as if that's all that's needed, and that those boots even come back on the same feet they left with. It all sucks, it's all irresponsible and there has to be a better way.

What's your better way? Aside from doing nothing and hoping the bad guys play nice if we play nice?

We need to do more.

You can do more. I'm sure the army would take you. Might help you shed a few pounds :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you join the army?

How old are your kids? I think they can join up at 16 or 17 with your approval?

It's not my path. I'm turning 40, and I missed my chance. But I'm lucky to live in a country filled with dudes who are tougher than I am and who signed up to do specifically and precisely this, who are trained for it, and who and are just DYING for some combat action.

Let those dudes loose on these animals.

Yeah, like I was saying, Captain America types who want to send America's sons and daughters to their deaths are always the best.

Sure there are plenty of guys just "DYING" to deploy again, 15 months on, 15 months off to places where it's 120 during the day in the summer, getting shot at and IED'd by a bunch of crazies. Their families are fine, they'll be back in one piece for sure. They'll miss their kids growing up, they'll get to see their buddies die, they'll probably get PTSD and they'll be stressed out the minute they get back thinking about the next time they have to go. They'll be hungry a lot, bitten by bugs more, shot at some, in danger most of the time, but they are just DYING to be out there.

The 32k documented and 100k estimated wounded warriors form Afghanistan and Iraq need company, plenty of hospital beds available for fresh IED and suicide bomber shrapnel victims. It's all speedboats and super models from there, injured vets just walk into high paying jobs because the same Captain America guy who wanted them to go would love to put them right in there because they are aren't damaged or risky. Because Captain America knows exactly what the vets went through, he understands the skills of the veteran and the value they bring to an operation of any kind.

We also wouldn't have to worry that vets are almost twice as likely to live in poverty than their non military counterparts, or that 50% of those homeless vets are disabled. They'll have good jobs when discharged, people lining up to serve those who served.

We can spend $1.7 trillion on this new war, then dedicate a few billion paying for the disabilities and recovery of all our vets. We wouldn't do it because there is a clear goal, or because America's National Security was threatened, we'd do it because the guy who would never go to war and never would send his son or daughter thinks its best. We'll all make that sacrifice to send Jimmy and Sally to Syria to fight a ground war, what could go wrong?

When Captain and Mrs America are angry their internet connection was lost for 12 minutes, so angry they make a call to the provider and threaten to discontinue, Jimmy and Sally are dodging mortars and bullets. Maybe they'll donate to veteran's organizations, or go to the airport to welcome the troops back home sometime. Or maybe they won't. It's good to be the Captain though, he knows what's best for America.

That's fine. I never said I want a war, or that I want our GI Joes to die. If we don't want to send to war the guys who signed up for the job of going to war, I'm fine with that. But then we need to do something else. i.e., make the difficult choice of carpetbombing cities to the ground and the mass killing of innocents along with the bad guys.

Let me be clear about something: if that's the choice someone makes, i.e., better their good guys die than our good guys die, I get that. And I don't have a problem with it.

But it's either put guys on the ground to go in and rock these people -- not just our guys, but the French guys, the British guys, the German guys, and all the rest, so that it's not just on us -- or we push so many explosives out of planes and down onto these regions that the'll be rebuilding for centuries.

Either choice probably works. The costs are just different costs. But the solution of withdrawing from the region, saying "good luck" to France, and hoping these guys don't IED Penn Station during the next rush hour commute? That won't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple ways we can do this. We can drop some more pamphlets and maybe set up some clinics, as these guys continue to blow themselves up in our urban areas. They eventually will be all blowed up, but probably not until they kill off 200 innocents for every 8 or so of the loons.

Another options I we just go in and nuke them into the stratosphere. I guess the question is would we be able to kill less than 200 or so innocents there for every 8 bad guys. Although it's actually a little more complicated than that, right? Because I'd gladly see a bunch of strangers go before my wife and children. So there's some +EV in us getting to choose the innocents that have to go.

Or maybe if we upgrade to the glossy paper for the pamphlets.

Hitler could have used a guy like you.
Or Roosevelt or Churchill. Both bombed German cities.

Oats seems to be endorsing something closer to a 'final solution' than fire bombing a few cities.

When you boil this down to its simplest form, we're at a fork in the road. We can go one way or the other. We can do more, or we can do less. You can debate the degree of more or less, but in the end, that's it, more, or less. Because "what we're doing now" is getting good innocent people in the Western world kilt. But I think people on both sides agree that "the same" ain't working. So it's either less, or more.

I advocate more. Because less is not an option. We can't turn our backs on France when innocent Parisians are mass murdered. We can't overlook the threats these to our major cities these animals put on Youtube. We can't pretend isolationism is a solution or even an option on 2015. It's not. The world is a whole lot smaller than it used to be. That's a fact of life.

So we're left with only one option. More. Does that mean "boots on the ground." Maybe. Maybe it's small special forces platoons with all sorts of surgical strikes and takeovers of the major cities, killing these animals one at a time. Maybe it's a massive coalition ground invasion. Or maybe it's neither: maybe there's no reason we should be killing thousands of our folks at the expense of thousands of their good folks. War is fraught with hard decisions. Maybe the hard decision here is to decimate a few major cities in Syria and Iraq. There's an innocent toll. But that's war.

War is not pretty. War is not fun. War is not what any of us normal human beings want. But it's what these animals bring to our doorstep. And you can say it's because we bombed their stupid dirt huts, but let's be frank, these are people who want us dead simply because we sit around and watch Monday Night Football and eat wings and talk about hot chicks. They want us dead for our way of life. Not because we accidentally killed Ishmael in a raid that popped off Jihadi John and 3 of his best goat-screwing pals. They're bringing this misery and death to our doorstep, based on their ideologies.

Do you think any of us would give a crap otherwise? We'd be in the Yoga Pants thread or the Jamous Winsten thread or that ####ty NBA thread that the current failed iteration of the Gekko alias is polluting. We'd be doing something we would rather do. The ONLY reason we're having this discussion is because these jackknobs keep killing and/or threatening to kill us where we live. If the tables were turned and we could all agree to just leave each other alone? Guess what, we'd be totally cool with it. But these animals would still be trying to kill us.

So yeah. We need less or more. And it seems to me, by process of elimination, we have no choice but more. So rain that fire, baby. Because my girls are too precious to let some spiteful cave dwellers deprive them of their lives or their parents.

END THREAD

Why don't you join the army?

How old are your kids? I think they can join up at 16 or 17 with your approval?

It's not my path. I'm turning 40, and I missed my chance. But I'm lucky to live in a country filled with dudes who are tougher than I am and who signed up to do specifically and precisely this, who are trained for it, and who and are just DYING for some combat action.

Let those dudes loose on these animals.

I'm not as eloquent as Dr. d but in no way are these guys dying for this "action". These guys come back as shells of the people they were. I've had vets I was talking to explode on another vet in the room for just something innocent that triggers them. I've had vets that mumble to themselves, that have to walk around with service dogs to keep them calm and safe, vets who sleep in their cars at night because they are too scared of doing something in their sleep that would hurt their loved ones.

Everybody is quick and eager to say that we should just get boots on the ground and solve the problem, as if that's all that's needed, and that those boots even come back on the same feet they left with. It all sucks, it's all irresponsible and there has to be a better way.

What's your better way? Aside from doing nothing and hoping the bad guys play nice if we play nice?

We need to do more.

You can do more. I'm sure the army would take you. Might help you shed a few pounds :thumbup:

I could most definitely use the boot camp. But I'm too old and fat to help out much over there. As a younger man, I bet I could have done some damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could most definitely use the boot camp. But I'm too old and fat to help out much over there. As a younger man, I bet I could have done some damage.

You could be a meat shield for one of the good soldiers.

DO MORE. THAT IS THE ONLY OPTION.

You're on board with the mini cheeseburger parachutes, aren't you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but I just can't buy the whole they don't fear air strikes, they fear unity crap. These panty wastes have never had to feel shock and awe style bombardment because of the whole collateral damage fear.

We hear they have such a strong resolve but really they're a bunch of cowards. Level them and see how they like those air strikes.

Agree completely. Why do we think they're inhabiting major cities and hiding? It's thousands of human shields. Because they know we have a bunch of nerds sitting around who will finger-wag at us if a cruise missile fired in the middle of a deadly war is 10 feet off its target.

I say you take the fight to these tools harder than we've ever taken a fight to anyone. Waste 'em. Let's see how much longer they're out there producing beheadings on tape.

It will never happen because of people like Tim and Tobias. We will never win and defeat this threat without using all of our resources, but the Tims and Tobias of the world don't have the stomach for it. Sorry about the innocent people in the Middle East luck, they drew a bad card, but it is them or the rest of the world. Time to unleash hell and put an end to this region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just did a little Googling and number crunching.

Estimates have the number of ISIS members at up to 200,000 members.

The population of Syria is 23 million people.

The population of Iraq is 33 million people.

This means that 1 out of 280 people in Syria and Iraq are ISIS.

I don't know what the answer is, but it would seem that killing 279 innocents to get 1 member of ISIS may not be the most ethical thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At what point do we assign blame to the societies in these regions, who've spun out of control into insane religious civil wars and cause all of these mayhem in the first place? At some point, don't we justifiable step up and say "sorry, you can't keep your house in order, shame on you. You're making a #######ed mess all over the world, sorry if you end up with some casualties, but you've brought this on yourselves."

Imagine the U.S. just went off the rails, mismanaged society, promoted a bunch of insane and violent civil wars between christians, jews, and muslims, and it all started spilling out into death and destruction in other countries. At some point, I think it would be pretty fair for like, hell, France or Turkey to come in and be like "dude, what the ef. Sorry, but you're all on probation." And for us then to respond with "OMG stay out, this isn't your business?!?!?! Stop messing with out homelandzzz" ? Really?

DROP THE HAMMER ALREADY

Edited by Otis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all too confusing. We want to kill ISIS members, we want to kill Hezbollah members, ISIS wants to kill Hezbollah members, Hezbollah wants to kill Isis members and they both want to kill us.

To all the guys saying OMG YOU ARE MAKING TERRORISTS, here is the difference:

- I just want to kill those guys because they want to kill me and my family.

- Those guys want to kill me and my family because we breathe. Because we don't agree with their stupid religion. And because they are jealous that I get action from a hot chick who doesn't have to wear a smock.

Actually some of the Syrian women are beautiful. I wonder if a guy gets to see the face without a hijab before committing some goats for a dowry?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just did a little Googling and number crunching.

Estimates have the number of ISIS members at up to 200,000 members.

The population of Syria is 23 million people.

The population of Iraq is 33 million people.

This means that 1 out of 280 people in Syria and Iraq are ISIS.

I don't know what the answer is, but it would seem that killing 279 innocents to get 1 member of ISIS may not be the most ethical thing to do.

I'm not suggesting we nuke entire nations. Seems like bad EV. But if you take the couple of cities that are known ISIS strongholds, like Raqqa, and level the crap out of them? Maybe the ratios make sense.

It's like you've got Bin Laden standing behind a hostage with a gun to the hostage's head. Do you take the shot? Probably. What about Bin Laden next to 4 hostages -- still take it? I'm guessing yes.

Someone can do a much more sophisticated and informed version of this. But it's basically the rape scene from Robocop, with a few other dynamics and some "allaha akbar"s thrown in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could most definitely use the boot camp. But I'm too old and fat to help out much over there. As a younger man, I bet I could have done some damage.

You could be a meat shield for one of the good soldiers.

DO MORE. THAT IS THE ONLY OPTION.

You're on board with the mini cheeseburger parachutes, aren't you.

I have no idea what "solution" I prefer. Ideally, there would be a big ISIS meetup somewhere and we could just gas or burn them all but I doubt that'll happen.

Like you, and probably 99% of this board, I have no idea what the situation is like over there, so ranting like an iTough guy or using up all the internets bandwidth like Tim and his merry band of idiots is pointless.

Edited by Cliff Clavin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all too confusing. We want to kill ISIS members, we want to kill Hezbollah members, ISIS wants to kill Hezbollah members, Hezbollah wants to kill Isis members and they both want to kill us.

To all the guys saying OMG YOU ARE MAKING TERRORISTS, here is the difference:

- I just want to kill those guys because they want to kill me and my family.

- Those guys want to kill me and my family because we breathe. Because we don't agree with their stupid religion. And because they are jealous that I get action from a hot chick who doesn't have to wear a smock.

Actually some of the Syrian women are beautiful. I wonder if a guy gets to see the face without a hijab before committing some goats for a dowry?

I don't doubt this. But the boys over there would never know it, because if one of these women tries to show some shoulder, she gets stoned into 1950.

NEAT SOCIETY, FELLAS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you join the army?

How old are your kids? I think they can join up at 16 or 17 with your approval?

It's not my path. I'm turning 40, and I missed my chance. But I'm lucky to live in a country filled with dudes who are tougher than I am and who signed up to do specifically and precisely this, who are trained for it, and who and are just DYING for some combat action.

Let those dudes loose on these animals.

Yeah, like I was saying, Captain America types who want to send America's sons and daughters to their deaths are always the best.

Sure there are plenty of guys just "DYING" to deploy again, 15 months on, 15 months off to places where it's 120 during the day in the summer, getting shot at and IED'd by a bunch of crazies. Their families are fine, they'll be back in one piece for sure. They'll miss their kids growing up, they'll get to see their buddies die, they'll probably get PTSD and they'll be stressed out the minute they get back thinking about the next time they have to go. They'll be hungry a lot, bitten by bugs more, shot at some, in danger most of the time, but they are just DYING to be out there.

The 32k documented and 100k estimated wounded warriors form Afghanistan and Iraq need company, plenty of hospital beds available for fresh IED and suicide bomber shrapnel victims. It's all speedboats and super models from there, injured vets just walk into high paying jobs because the same Captain America guy who wanted them to go would love to put them right in there because they are aren't damaged or risky. Because Captain America knows exactly what the vets went through, he understands the skills of the veteran and the value they bring to an operation of any kind.

We also wouldn't have to worry that vets are almost twice as likely to live in poverty than their non military counterparts, or that 50% of those homeless vets are disabled. They'll have good jobs when discharged, people lining up to serve those who served.

We can spend $1.7 trillion on this new war, then dedicate a few billion paying for the disabilities and recovery of all our vets. We wouldn't do it because there is a clear goal, or because America's National Security was threatened, we'd do it because the guy who would never go to war and never would send his son or daughter thinks its best. We'll all make that sacrifice to send Jimmy and Sally to Syria to fight a ground war, what could go wrong?

When Captain and Mrs America are angry their internet connection was lost for 12 minutes, so angry they make a call to the provider and threaten to discontinue, Jimmy and Sally are dodging mortars and bullets. Maybe they'll donate to veteran's organizations, or go to the airport to welcome the troops back home sometime. Or maybe they won't. It's good to be the Captain though, he knows what's best for America.

That's fine. I never said I want a war, or that I want our GI Joes to die. If we don't want to send to war the guys who signed up for the job of going to war, I'm fine with that.

This is your fundamental misunderstanding of the armed forces.

The mission of the Department of Defense is to provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our country.

HTH

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could most definitely use the boot camp. But I'm too old and fat to help out much over there. As a younger man, I bet I could have done some damage.

You could be a meat shield for one of the good soldiers.

DO MORE. THAT IS THE ONLY OPTION.

You're on board with the mini cheeseburger parachutes, aren't you.

I have no idea what "solution" I prefer. Ideally, there would be a big ISIS meetup somewhere and we could just gas or burn them all but I don't that'll happen.

Like you, and probably 99% of this board, I have no idea what the situation is like over there, so ranting like an iTough guy or using up all the internets bandwidth like Tim and his merry band of idiots is pointless.

Turns out they're not planning a big Burning Man event on a giant red X in the desert in Syria. I agree with you, seems like a great solution if it's available. But I don't think it is.

Come on, try at least. It's not an easy exercise. And we don't know crap about crap. I get all that.

But you've got two choices: either withdraw and hope for the best, or get dirty. Which makes more sense to you?

Sorry, three choices. Burgerchutes always a low cost option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you join the army?

How old are your kids? I think they can join up at 16 or 17 with your approval?

It's not my path. I'm turning 40, and I missed my chance. But I'm lucky to live in a country filled with dudes who are tougher than I am and who signed up to do specifically and precisely this, who are trained for it, and who and are just DYING for some combat action.

Let those dudes loose on these animals.

Yeah, like I was saying, Captain America types who want to send America's sons and daughters to their deaths are always the best.

Sure there are plenty of guys just "DYING" to deploy again, 15 months on, 15 months off to places where it's 120 during the day in the summer, getting shot at and IED'd by a bunch of crazies. Their families are fine, they'll be back in one piece for sure. They'll miss their kids growing up, they'll get to see their buddies die, they'll probably get PTSD and they'll be stressed out the minute they get back thinking about the next time they have to go. They'll be hungry a lot, bitten by bugs more, shot at some, in danger most of the time, but they are just DYING to be out there.

The 32k documented and 100k estimated wounded warriors form Afghanistan and Iraq need company, plenty of hospital beds available for fresh IED and suicide bomber shrapnel victims. It's all speedboats and super models from there, injured vets just walk into high paying jobs because the same Captain America guy who wanted them to go would love to put them right in there because they are aren't damaged or risky. Because Captain America knows exactly what the vets went through, he understands the skills of the veteran and the value they bring to an operation of any kind.

We also wouldn't have to worry that vets are almost twice as likely to live in poverty than their non military counterparts, or that 50% of those homeless vets are disabled. They'll have good jobs when discharged, people lining up to serve those who served.

We can spend $1.7 trillion on this new war, then dedicate a few billion paying for the disabilities and recovery of all our vets. We wouldn't do it because there is a clear goal, or because America's National Security was threatened, we'd do it because the guy who would never go to war and never would send his son or daughter thinks its best. We'll all make that sacrifice to send Jimmy and Sally to Syria to fight a ground war, what could go wrong?

When Captain and Mrs America are angry their internet connection was lost for 12 minutes, so angry they make a call to the provider and threaten to discontinue, Jimmy and Sally are dodging mortars and bullets. Maybe they'll donate to veteran's organizations, or go to the airport to welcome the troops back home sometime. Or maybe they won't. It's good to be the Captain though, he knows what's best for America.

That's fine. I never said I want a war, or that I want our GI Joes to die. If we don't want to send to war the guys who signed up for the job of going to war, I'm fine with that.

This is your fundamental misunderstanding of the armed forces.

The mission of the Department of Defense is to provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our country.

HTH

:confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you join the army?

How old are your kids? I think they can join up at 16 or 17 with your approval?

It's not my path. I'm turning 40, and I missed my chance. But I'm lucky to live in a country filled with dudes who are tougher than I am and who signed up to do specifically and precisely this, who are trained for it, and who and are just DYING for some combat action.

Let those dudes loose on these animals.

Yeah, like I was saying, Captain America types who want to send America's sons and daughters to their deaths are always the best.

Sure there are plenty of guys just "DYING" to deploy again, 15 months on, 15 months off to places where it's 120 during the day in the summer, getting shot at and IED'd by a bunch of crazies. Their families are fine, they'll be back in one piece for sure. They'll miss their kids growing up, they'll get to see their buddies die, they'll probably get PTSD and they'll be stressed out the minute they get back thinking about the next time they have to go. They'll be hungry a lot, bitten by bugs more, shot at some, in danger most of the time, but they are just DYING to be out there.

The 32k documented and 100k estimated wounded warriors form Afghanistan and Iraq need company, plenty of hospital beds available for fresh IED and suicide bomber shrapnel victims. It's all speedboats and super models from there, injured vets just walk into high paying jobs because the same Captain America guy who wanted them to go would love to put them right in there because they are aren't damaged or risky. Because Captain America knows exactly what the vets went through, he understands the skills of the veteran and the value they bring to an operation of any kind.

We also wouldn't have to worry that vets are almost twice as likely to live in poverty than their non military counterparts, or that 50% of those homeless vets are disabled. They'll have good jobs when discharged, people lining up to serve those who served.

We can spend $1.7 trillion on this new war, then dedicate a few billion paying for the disabilities and recovery of all our vets. We wouldn't do it because there is a clear goal, or because America's National Security was threatened, we'd do it because the guy who would never go to war and never would send his son or daughter thinks its best. We'll all make that sacrifice to send Jimmy and Sally to Syria to fight a ground war, what could go wrong?

When Captain and Mrs America are angry their internet connection was lost for 12 minutes, so angry they make a call to the provider and threaten to discontinue, Jimmy and Sally are dodging mortars and bullets. Maybe they'll donate to veteran's organizations, or go to the airport to welcome the troops back home sometime. Or maybe they won't. It's good to be the Captain though, he knows what's best for America.

That's fine. I never said I want a war, or that I want our GI Joes to die. If we don't want to send to war the guys who signed up for the job of going to war, I'm fine with that.

This is your fundamental misunderstanding of the armed forces.

The mission of the Department of Defense is to provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our country.

HTH

:confused:

It's like a bigger, dumber, more arrogant, and much older version of Eminence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you join the army?

How old are your kids? I think they can join up at 16 or 17 with your approval?

It's not my path. I'm turning 40, and I missed my chance. But I'm lucky to live in a country filled with dudes who are tougher than I am and who signed up to do specifically and precisely this, who are trained for it, and who and are just DYING for some combat action.

Let those dudes loose on these animals.

Yeah, like I was saying, Captain America types who want to send America's sons and daughters to their deaths are always the best.

Sure there are plenty of guys just "DYING" to deploy again, 15 months on, 15 months off to places where it's 120 during the day in the summer, getting shot at and IED'd by a bunch of crazies. Their families are fine, they'll be back in one piece for sure. They'll miss their kids growing up, they'll get to see their buddies die, they'll probably get PTSD and they'll be stressed out the minute they get back thinking about the next time they have to go. They'll be hungry a lot, bitten by bugs more, shot at some, in danger most of the time, but they are just DYING to be out there.

The 32k documented and 100k estimated wounded warriors form Afghanistan and Iraq need company, plenty of hospital beds available for fresh IED and suicide bomber shrapnel victims. It's all speedboats and super models from there, injured vets just walk into high paying jobs because the same Captain America guy who wanted them to go would love to put them right in there because they are aren't damaged or risky. Because Captain America knows exactly what the vets went through, he understands the skills of the veteran and the value they bring to an operation of any kind.

We also wouldn't have to worry that vets are almost twice as likely to live in poverty than their non military counterparts, or that 50% of those homeless vets are disabled. They'll have good jobs when discharged, people lining up to serve those who served.

We can spend $1.7 trillion on this new war, then dedicate a few billion paying for the disabilities and recovery of all our vets. We wouldn't do it because there is a clear goal, or because America's National Security was threatened, we'd do it because the guy who would never go to war and never would send his son or daughter thinks its best. We'll all make that sacrifice to send Jimmy and Sally to Syria to fight a ground war, what could go wrong?

When Captain and Mrs America are angry their internet connection was lost for 12 minutes, so angry they make a call to the provider and threaten to discontinue, Jimmy and Sally are dodging mortars and bullets. Maybe they'll donate to veteran's organizations, or go to the airport to welcome the troops back home sometime. Or maybe they won't. It's good to be the Captain though, he knows what's best for America.

That's fine. I never said I want a war, or that I want our GI Joes to die. If we don't want to send to war the guys who signed up for the job of going to war, I'm fine with that.

This is your fundamental misunderstanding of the armed forces.

The mission of the Department of Defense is to provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our country.

HTH

:confused:

It's like a bigger, dumber, more arrogant, and much older version of Eminence.

Oh I see. Someone doesn't see your point, insult them. Neat strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple ways we can do this. We can drop some more pamphlets and maybe set up some clinics, as these guys continue to blow themselves up in our urban areas. They eventually will be all blowed up, but probably not until they kill off 200 innocents for every 8 or so of the loons.

Another options I we just go in and nuke them into the stratosphere. I guess the question is would we be able to kill less than 200 or so innocents there for every 8 bad guys. Although it's actually a little more complicated than that, right? Because I'd gladly see a bunch of strangers go before my wife and children. So there's some +EV in us getting to choose the innocents that have to go.

Or maybe if we upgrade to the glossy paper for the pamphlets.

Hitler could have used a guy like you.
Or Roosevelt or Churchill. Both bombed German cities.

Oats seems to be endorsing something closer to a 'final solution' than fire bombing a few cities.

When you boil this down to its simplest form, we're at a fork in the road. We can go one way or the other. We can do more, or we can do less. You can debate the degree of more or less, but in the end, that's it, more, or less. Because "what we're doing now" is getting good innocent people in the Western world kilt. But I think people on both sides agree that "the same" ain't working. So it's either less, or more.

I advocate more. Because less is not an option. We can't turn our backs on France when innocent Parisians are mass murdered. We can't overlook the threats these to our major cities these animals put on Youtube. We can't pretend isolationism is a solution or even an option on 2015. It's not. The world is a whole lot smaller than it used to be. That's a fact of life.

So we're left with only one option. More. Does that mean "boots on the ground." Maybe. Maybe it's small special forces platoons with all sorts of surgical strikes and takeovers of the major cities, killing these animals one at a time. Maybe it's a massive coalition ground invasion. Or maybe it's neither: maybe there's no reason we should be killing thousands of our folks at the expense of thousands of their good folks. War is fraught with hard decisions. Maybe the hard decision here is to decimate a few major cities in Syria and Iraq. There's an innocent toll. But that's war.

War is not pretty. War is not fun. War is not what any of us normal human beings want. But it's what these animals bring to our doorstep. And you can say it's because we bombed their stupid dirt huts, but let's be frank, these are people who want us dead simply because we sit around and watch Monday Night Football and eat wings and talk about hot chicks. They want us dead for our way of life. Not because we accidentally killed Ishmael in a raid that popped off Jihadi John and 3 of his best goat-screwing pals. They're bringing this misery and death to our doorstep, based on their ideologies.

Do you think any of us would give a crap otherwise? We'd be in the Yoga Pants thread or the Jamous Winsten thread or that ####ty NBA thread that the current failed iteration of the Gekko alias is polluting. We'd be doing something we would rather do. The ONLY reason we're having this discussion is because these jackknobs keep killing and/or threatening to kill us where we live. If the tables were turned and we could all agree to just leave each other alone? Guess what, we'd be totally cool with it. But these animals would still be trying to kill us.

So yeah. We need less or more. And it seems to me, by process of elimination, we have no choice but more. So rain that fire, baby. Because my girls are too precious to let some spiteful cave dwellers deprive them of their lives or their parents.

END THREAD

Why don't you join the army?

How old are your kids? I think they can join up at 16 or 17 with your approval?

It's not my path. I'm turning 40, and I missed my chance. But I'm lucky to live in a country filled with dudes who are tougher than I am and who signed up to do specifically and precisely this, who are trained for it, and who and are just DYING for some combat action.

Let those dudes loose on these animals.

I'm not as eloquent as Dr. d but in no way are these guys dying for this "action". These guys come back as shells of the people they were. I've had vets I was talking to explode on another vet in the room for just something innocent that triggers them. I've had vets that mumble to themselves, that have to walk around with service dogs to keep them calm and safe, vets who sleep in their cars at night because they are too scared of doing something in their sleep that would hurt their loved ones.

Everybody is quick and eager to say that we should just get boots on the ground and solve the problem, as if that's all that's needed, and that those boots even come back on the same feet they left with. It all sucks, it's all irresponsible and there has to be a better way.

What's your better way? Aside from doing nothing and hoping the bad guys play nice if we play nice?

We need to do more.

I'm not a military strategist. That's not my job. I'm also not a message board Rambo thinking it's great to send some kids to an untimely death, or worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple ways we can do this. We can drop some more pamphlets and maybe set up some clinics, as these guys continue to blow themselves up in our urban areas. They eventually will be all blowed up, but probably not until they kill off 200 innocents for every 8 or so of the loons.

Another options I we just go in and nuke them into the stratosphere. I guess the question is would we be able to kill less than 200 or so innocents there for every 8 bad guys. Although it's actually a little more complicated than that, right? Because I'd gladly see a bunch of strangers go before my wife and children. So there's some +EV in us getting to choose the innocents that have to go.

Or maybe if we upgrade to the glossy paper for the pamphlets.

Hitler could have used a guy like you.
Or Roosevelt or Churchill. Both bombed German cities.

Oats seems to be endorsing something closer to a 'final solution' than fire bombing a few cities.

When you boil this down to its simplest form, we're at a fork in the road. We can go one way or the other. We can do more, or we can do less. You can debate the degree of more or less, but in the end, that's it, more, or less. Because "what we're doing now" is getting good innocent people in the Western world kilt. But I think people on both sides agree that "the same" ain't working. So it's either less, or more.

I advocate more. Because less is not an option. We can't turn our backs on France when innocent Parisians are mass murdered. We can't overlook the threats these to our major cities these animals put on Youtube. We can't pretend isolationism is a solution or even an option on 2015. It's not. The world is a whole lot smaller than it used to be. That's a fact of life.

So we're left with only one option. More. Does that mean "boots on the ground." Maybe. Maybe it's small special forces platoons with all sorts of surgical strikes and takeovers of the major cities, killing these animals one at a time. Maybe it's a massive coalition ground invasion. Or maybe it's neither: maybe there's no reason we should be killing thousands of our folks at the expense of thousands of their good folks. War is fraught with hard decisions. Maybe the hard decision here is to decimate a few major cities in Syria and Iraq. There's an innocent toll. But that's war.

War is not pretty. War is not fun. War is not what any of us normal human beings want. But it's what these animals bring to our doorstep. And you can say it's because we bombed their stupid dirt huts, but let's be frank, these are people who want us dead simply because we sit around and watch Monday Night Football and eat wings and talk about hot chicks. They want us dead for our way of life. Not because we accidentally killed Ishmael in a raid that popped off Jihadi John and 3 of his best goat-screwing pals. They're bringing this misery and death to our doorstep, based on their ideologies.

Do you think any of us would give a crap otherwise? We'd be in the Yoga Pants thread or the Jamous Winsten thread or that ####ty NBA thread that the current failed iteration of the Gekko alias is polluting. We'd be doing something we would rather do. The ONLY reason we're having this discussion is because these jackknobs keep killing and/or threatening to kill us where we live. If the tables were turned and we could all agree to just leave each other alone? Guess what, we'd be totally cool with it. But these animals would still be trying to kill us.

So yeah. We need less or more. And it seems to me, by process of elimination, we have no choice but more. So rain that fire, baby. Because my girls are too precious to let some spiteful cave dwellers deprive them of their lives or their parents.

END THREAD

Why don't you join the army?

How old are your kids? I think they can join up at 16 or 17 with your approval?

It's not my path. I'm turning 40, and I missed my chance. But I'm lucky to live in a country filled with dudes who are tougher than I am and who signed up to do specifically and precisely this, who are trained for it, and who and are just DYING for some combat action.

Let those dudes loose on these animals.

I'm not as eloquent as Dr. d but in no way are these guys dying for this "action". These guys come back as shells of the people they were. I've had vets I was talking to explode on another vet in the room for just something innocent that triggers them. I've had vets that mumble to themselves, that have to walk around with service dogs to keep them calm and safe, vets who sleep in their cars at night because they are too scared of doing something in their sleep that would hurt their loved ones.

Everybody is quick and eager to say that we should just get boots on the ground and solve the problem, as if that's all that's needed, and that those boots even come back on the same feet they left with. It all sucks, it's all irresponsible and there has to be a better way.

What's your better way? Aside from doing nothing and hoping the bad guys play nice if we play nice?

We need to do more.

I'm not a military strategist. That's not my job. I'm also not a message board Rambo thinking it's great to send some kids to an untimely death, or worse.

So you refuse to even try?

Come on. Pretend you're looking at the big jar of jelly beans. Venture a guess. We're just spitballing among friends here, I won't hold you to it.

OH, IN BEFORE THE FAT GUY JOKE ABOUT OTIS EATING THE JELLY BEANS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all too confusing. We want to kill ISIS members, we want to kill Hezbollah members, ISIS wants to kill Hezbollah members, Hezbollah wants to kill Isis members and they both want to kill us.

To all the guys saying OMG YOU ARE MAKING TERRORISTS, here is the difference:

- I just want to kill those guys because they want to kill me and my family.

- Those guys want to kill me and my family because we breathe. Because we don't agree with their stupid religion. And because they are jealous that I get action from a hot chick who doesn't have to wear a smock.

Actually some of the Syrian women are beautiful. I wonder if a guy gets to see the face without a hijab before committing some goats for a dowry?

I don't doubt this. But the boys over there would never know it, because if one of these women tries to show some shoulder, she gets stoned into 1950.

NEAT SOCIETY, FELLAS.

They are the dumbest humanoids on the planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you join the army?

How old are your kids? I think they can join up at 16 or 17 with your approval?

It's not my path. I'm turning 40, and I missed my chance. But I'm lucky to live in a country filled with dudes who are tougher than I am and who signed up to do specifically and precisely this, who are trained for it, and who and are just DYING for some combat action.

Let those dudes loose on these animals.

Yeah, like I was saying, Captain America types who want to send America's sons and daughters to their deaths are always the best.

Sure there are plenty of guys just "DYING" to deploy again, 15 months on, 15 months off to places where it's 120 during the day in the summer, getting shot at and IED'd by a bunch of crazies. Their families are fine, they'll be back in one piece for sure. They'll miss their kids growing up, they'll get to see their buddies die, they'll probably get PTSD and they'll be stressed out the minute they get back thinking about the next time they have to go. They'll be hungry a lot, bitten by bugs more, shot at some, in danger most of the time, but they are just DYING to be out there.

The 32k documented and 100k estimated wounded warriors form Afghanistan and Iraq need company, plenty of hospital beds available for fresh IED and suicide bomber shrapnel victims. It's all speedboats and super models from there, injured vets just walk into high paying jobs because the same Captain America guy who wanted them to go would love to put them right in there because they are aren't damaged or risky. Because Captain America knows exactly what the vets went through, he understands the skills of the veteran and the value they bring to an operation of any kind.

We also wouldn't have to worry that vets are almost twice as likely to live in poverty than their non military counterparts, or that 50% of those homeless vets are disabled. They'll have good jobs when discharged, people lining up to serve those who served.

We can spend $1.7 trillion on this new war, then dedicate a few billion paying for the disabilities and recovery of all our vets. We wouldn't do it because there is a clear goal, or because America's National Security was threatened, we'd do it because the guy who would never go to war and never would send his son or daughter thinks its best. We'll all make that sacrifice to send Jimmy and Sally to Syria to fight a ground war, what could go wrong?

When Captain and Mrs America are angry their internet connection was lost for 12 minutes, so angry they make a call to the provider and threaten to discontinue, Jimmy and Sally are dodging mortars and bullets. Maybe they'll donate to veteran's organizations, or go to the airport to welcome the troops back home sometime. Or maybe they won't. It's good to be the Captain though, he knows what's best for America.

That's fine. I never said I want a war, or that I want our GI Joes to die. If we don't want to send to war the guys who signed up for the job of going to war, I'm fine with that.

This is your fundamental misunderstanding of the armed forces.

The mission of the Department of Defense is to provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our country.

HTH

:confused:

It's like a bigger, dumber, more arrogant, and much older version of Eminence.

Oh I see. Someone doesn't see your point, insult them. Neat strategy.

:lmao:

Actually I should apologize to Em for comparing him to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you join the army?

How old are your kids? I think they can join up at 16 or 17 with your approval?

It's not my path. I'm turning 40, and I missed my chance. But I'm lucky to live in a country filled with dudes who are tougher than I am and who signed up to do specifically and precisely this, who are trained for it, and who and are just DYING for some combat action.

Let those dudes loose on these animals.

Yeah, like I was saying, Captain America types who want to send America's sons and daughters to their deaths are always the best.

Sure there are plenty of guys just "DYING" to deploy again, 15 months on, 15 months off to places where it's 120 during the day in the summer, getting shot at and IED'd by a bunch of crazies. Their families are fine, they'll be back in one piece for sure. They'll miss their kids growing up, they'll get to see their buddies die, they'll probably get PTSD and they'll be stressed out the minute they get back thinking about the next time they have to go. They'll be hungry a lot, bitten by bugs more, shot at some, in danger most of the time, but they are just DYING to be out there.

The 32k documented and 100k estimated wounded warriors form Afghanistan and Iraq need company, plenty of hospital beds available for fresh IED and suicide bomber shrapnel victims. It's all speedboats and super models from there, injured vets just walk into high paying jobs because the same Captain America guy who wanted them to go would love to put them right in there because they are aren't damaged or risky. Because Captain America knows exactly what the vets went through, he understands the skills of the veteran and the value they bring to an operation of any kind.

We also wouldn't have to worry that vets are almost twice as likely to live in poverty than their non military counterparts, or that 50% of those homeless vets are disabled. They'll have good jobs when discharged, people lining up to serve those who served.

We can spend $1.7 trillion on this new war, then dedicate a few billion paying for the disabilities and recovery of all our vets. We wouldn't do it because there is a clear goal, or because America's National Security was threatened, we'd do it because the guy who would never go to war and never would send his son or daughter thinks its best. We'll all make that sacrifice to send Jimmy and Sally to Syria to fight a ground war, what could go wrong?

When Captain and Mrs America are angry their internet connection was lost for 12 minutes, so angry they make a call to the provider and threaten to discontinue, Jimmy and Sally are dodging mortars and bullets. Maybe they'll donate to veteran's organizations, or go to the airport to welcome the troops back home sometime. Or maybe they won't. It's good to be the Captain though, he knows what's best for America.

That's fine. I never said I want a war, or that I want our GI Joes to die. If we don't want to send to war the guys who signed up for the job of going to war, I'm fine with that.

This is your fundamental misunderstanding of the armed forces.

The mission of the Department of Defense is to provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our country.

HTH

:confused:

It's like a bigger, dumber, more arrogant, and much older version of Eminence.

Oh I see. Someone doesn't see your point, insult them. Neat strategy.

:lmao:

Actually I should apologize to Em for comparing him to you.

You were so much better when you were commenting on the moon and not getting all bent out of shape about another internet guy's view of the world.

Go watch crappy sports with cappy or something. He's fat like me, probably jolly as all get out in person. In the meantime, I've got this "We need to kill the evil guys" thing covered, don't sweat it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple ways we can do this. We can drop some more pamphlets and maybe set up some clinics, as these guys continue to blow themselves up in our urban areas. They eventually will be all blowed up, but probably not until they kill off 200 innocents for every 8 or so of the loons.

Another options I we just go in and nuke them into the stratosphere. I guess the question is would we be able to kill less than 200 or so innocents there for every 8 bad guys. Although it's actually a little more complicated than that, right? Because I'd gladly see a bunch of strangers go before my wife and children. So there's some +EV in us getting to choose the innocents that have to go.

Or maybe if we upgrade to the glossy paper for the pamphlets.

Hitler could have used a guy like you.
Or Roosevelt or Churchill. Both bombed German cities.

Oats seems to be endorsing something closer to a 'final solution' than fire bombing a few cities.

When you boil this down to its simplest form, we're at a fork in the road. We can go one way or the other. We can do more, or we can do less. You can debate the degree of more or less, but in the end, that's it, more, or less. Because "what we're doing now" is getting good innocent people in the Western world kilt. But I think people on both sides agree that "the same" ain't working. So it's either less, or more.

I advocate more. Because less is not an option. We can't turn our backs on France when innocent Parisians are mass murdered. We can't overlook the threats these to our major cities these animals put on Youtube. We can't pretend isolationism is a solution or even an option on 2015. It's not. The world is a whole lot smaller than it used to be. That's a fact of life.

So we're left with only one option. More. Does that mean "boots on the ground." Maybe. Maybe it's small special forces platoons with all sorts of surgical strikes and takeovers of the major cities, killing these animals one at a time. Maybe it's a massive coalition ground invasion. Or maybe it's neither: maybe there's no reason we should be killing thousands of our folks at the expense of thousands of their good folks. War is fraught with hard decisions. Maybe the hard decision here is to decimate a few major cities in Syria and Iraq. There's an innocent toll. But that's war.

War is not pretty. War is not fun. War is not what any of us normal human beings want. But it's what these animals bring to our doorstep. And you can say it's because we bombed their stupid dirt huts, but let's be frank, these are people who want us dead simply because we sit around and watch Monday Night Football and eat wings and talk about hot chicks. They want us dead for our way of life. Not because we accidentally killed Ishmael in a raid that popped off Jihadi John and 3 of his best goat-screwing pals. They're bringing this misery and death to our doorstep, based on their ideologies.

Do you think any of us would give a crap otherwise? We'd be in the Yoga Pants thread or the Jamous Winsten thread or that ####ty NBA thread that the current failed iteration of the Gekko alias is polluting. We'd be doing something we would rather do. The ONLY reason we're having this discussion is because these jackknobs keep killing and/or threatening to kill us where we live. If the tables were turned and we could all agree to just leave each other alone? Guess what, we'd be totally cool with it. But these animals would still be trying to kill us.

So yeah. We need less or more. And it seems to me, by process of elimination, we have no choice but more. So rain that fire, baby. Because my girls are too precious to let some spiteful cave dwellers deprive them of their lives or their parents.

END THREAD

Why don't you join the army?

How old are your kids? I think they can join up at 16 or 17 with your approval?

It's not my path. I'm turning 40, and I missed my chance. But I'm lucky to live in a country filled with dudes who are tougher than I am and who signed up to do specifically and precisely this, who are trained for it, and who and are just DYING for some combat action.

Let those dudes loose on these animals.

I'm not as eloquent as Dr. d but in no way are these guys dying for this "action". These guys come back as shells of the people they were. I've had vets I was talking to explode on another vet in the room for just something innocent that triggers them. I've had vets that mumble to themselves, that have to walk around with service dogs to keep them calm and safe, vets who sleep in their cars at night because they are too scared of doing something in their sleep that would hurt their loved ones.

Everybody is quick and eager to say that we should just get boots on the ground and solve the problem, as if that's all that's needed, and that those boots even come back on the same feet they left with. It all sucks, it's all irresponsible and there has to be a better way.

What's your better way? Aside from doing nothing and hoping the bad guys play nice if we play nice?

We need to do more.

I'm not a military strategist. That's not my job. I'm also not a message board Rambo thinking it's great to send some kids to an untimely death, or worse.

So you refuse to even try?

Come on. Pretend you're looking at the big jar of jelly beans. Venture a guess. We're just spitballing among friends here, I won't hold you to it.

OH, IN BEFORE THE FAT GUY JOKE ABOUT OTIS EATING THE JELLY BEANS.

I wouldn't even know where to start, or pretend to. I am fairly certain though that whenever we go someplace and wreck #### and orphan a bunch of kids, we are hand making the next generation of martrys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putin is going to take care of these ####ers. I can feel it.

You may be right. At which point Otis renounces his U.S. citizenship and moves to Russia.

Otis should just focus on staying at home and playing online poker. If he does that, he and his family will be safe from any ISIS attack :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...