Germany again...
Discussion
Trabi601 said:
jjlynn27 said:
Think you are wrong there. Trump is just going to build a wall and stop them. Or get them enrolled to his university.
He strikes me as a bit of a Dubya, start a war today and worry about it later!Edited by Jimbeaux on Monday 25th July 21:18
Jimbeaux said:
Trump is actually not war hawkish. He proposes an increaded airwar against thm but little or no increase in ground troops. I believe Clinton is more prone to use the military. I do not think that is always a bad thing either.
Because both ground wars and air strikes have really sorted the problem and not made it worse in any way at all.Trabi601 said:
Jimbeaux said:
Trump is actually not war hawkish. He proposes an increaded airwar against thm but little or no increase in ground troops. I believe Clinton is more prone to use the military. I do not think that is always a bad thing either.
Because both ground wars and air strikes have really sorted the problem and not made it worse in any way at all.Also, what you call airstrikes are pin pricks, you have no concept of what real air strikes are about...those happening now aren't it. Humiliating them on the battlefield, showing they are not unbeatable, sexy, etc. will go a long way toward discouraging the confused, "searching for somewhere to belong" idiots that leave our countries to go fight for these maniacs.
Edited by Jimbeaux on Monday 25th July 21:22
Jimbeaux said:
Trabi601 said:
Jimbeaux said:
Trump is actually not war hawkish. He proposes an increaded airwar against thm but little or no increase in ground troops. I believe Clinton is more prone to use the military. I do not think that is always a bad thing either.
Because both ground wars and air strikes have really sorted the problem and not made it worse in any way at all.Bombing innocent civilians into oblivion in the name of controlling ISIS has only made the issues worse - it has driven millions of refugees to Europe, a small number of whom are ISIS supporters.
If we could rewind, with current knowledge, I'd hope we'd have done things differently.
Trabi601 said:
Jimbeaux said:
Trabi601 said:
Jimbeaux said:
Trump is actually not war hawkish. He proposes an increaded airwar against thm but little or no increase in ground troops. I believe Clinton is more prone to use the military. I do not think that is always a bad thing either.
Because both ground wars and air strikes have really sorted the problem and not made it worse in any way at all.Trabi601 said:
We need to encourage integration, stop people jumping to the conclusion that Muslim = ISIS / potential terrorist. That just feeds anger and encourages sympathisers.
Sorry, that has been tried for decades, integration doesn't appear to be on their list of things they wish to do.Trabi601 said:
Bombing innocent civilians into oblivion in the name of controlling ISIS has only made the issues worse - it has driven millions of refugees to Europe, a small number of whom are ISIS supporters.
A syrian civil war, along with ISIS butchering men, women, children, & infants is what has driven the refugees, not the west's minor air strikes. Try harder. Trabi601 said:
If we could rewind, with current knowledge, I'd hope we'd have done things differently.
Yes, like attacked them harder earlier when intel warned of their threat. You really are are unaware but apparently well meaning. I grant you may be a top notch social worker.
Jimbeaux said:
Trabi601 said:
Jimbeaux said:
Trump is actually not war hawkish. He proposes an increaded airwar against thm but little or no increase in ground troops. I believe Clinton is more prone to use the military. I do not think that is always a bad thing either.
Because both ground wars and air strikes have really sorted the problem and not made it worse in any way at all.Also, what you call airstrikes are pin pricks, you have no concept of what real air strikes are about...those happening now aren't it. Humiliating them on the battlefield, showing they are not unbeatable, sexy, etc. will go a long way toward discouraging the confused, "searching for somewhere to belong" idiots that leave our countries to go fight for these maniacs.
Edited by Jimbeaux on Monday 25th July 21:22
'I pointed this out about two years ago. I said then that I could destroy ISIS with an augmented division of Armored Cavalry and the A-10 wings for close support. As time went past and we trickled forces into the Mesopotamian meat grinder, the force requirement grew. It is now up to three divisions, one of them heavy armor, and a great deal of air support to take out Caliphate air defenses and build strike bases. It is now going to require the power of the nation to win this war decisively. Frittering in advisors, special forces, and logistic support to the Iraqi army will not do it.'
s2art said:
Jimbeaux said:
Trabi601 said:
Jimbeaux said:
Trump is actually not war hawkish. He proposes an increaded airwar against thm but little or no increase in ground troops. I believe Clinton is more prone to use the military. I do not think that is always a bad thing either.
Because both ground wars and air strikes have really sorted the problem and not made it worse in any way at all.Also, what you call airstrikes are pin pricks, you have no concept of what real air strikes are about...those happening now aren't it. Humiliating them on the battlefield, showing they are not unbeatable, sexy, etc. will go a long way toward discouraging the confused, "searching for somewhere to belong" idiots that leave our countries to go fight for these maniacs.
Edited by Jimbeaux on Monday 25th July 21:22
'I pointed this out about two years ago. I said then that I could destroy ISIS with an augmented division of Armored Cavalry and the A-10 wings for close support. As time went past and we trickled forces into the Mesopotamian meat grinder, the force requirement grew. It is now up to three divisions, one of them heavy armor, and a great deal of air support to take out Caliphate air defenses and build strike bases. It is now going to require the power of the nation to win this war decisively. Frittering in advisors, special forces, and logistic support to the Iraqi army will not do it.'
Back to you Trabi601, how would you destroy ISIS, other than handing them a flower and a peace T-shirt? While you are at it, others on here are awaiting your evidence of Trump's racism. So far it appears to be "because it was said so many times, it must be the truth". Same as his supposed, Dem-created "war on women". Funny, as Trump has more women executives than men.
How do you 'destroy' an enemy that isn't fighting a traditional war?
They're not on a 'front' where you can attack, they're intermingled with the general population, so if you want to bomb them into oblivion, you create a refugee crisis, as we well know.
You'd have thought the USA would have learned the lessons of Vietnam. A terrorist / guerrilla opponent cannot be bombed into oblivion or taken on by ground troops.
Seems lessons from the past are never truly remembered as we continually repeat the same mistakes.
They're not on a 'front' where you can attack, they're intermingled with the general population, so if you want to bomb them into oblivion, you create a refugee crisis, as we well know.
You'd have thought the USA would have learned the lessons of Vietnam. A terrorist / guerrilla opponent cannot be bombed into oblivion or taken on by ground troops.
Seems lessons from the past are never truly remembered as we continually repeat the same mistakes.
Trabi601 said:
How do you 'destroy' an enemy that isn't fighting a traditional war?
They're not on a 'front' where you can attack, they're intermingled with the general population, so if you want to bomb them into oblivion, you create a refugee crisis, as we well know.
You'd have thought the USA would have learned the lessons of Vietnam. A terrorist / guerrilla opponent cannot be bombed into oblivion or taken on by ground troops.
Seems lessons from the past are never truly remembered as we continually repeat the same mistakes.
ISIS does have troop formations as they move from town to town, killing, snatching sex slaves, and collecting tax. Not all of them are interwoven in with the populous. Are you certain you want to debate these things?They're not on a 'front' where you can attack, they're intermingled with the general population, so if you want to bomb them into oblivion, you create a refugee crisis, as we well know.
You'd have thought the USA would have learned the lessons of Vietnam. A terrorist / guerrilla opponent cannot be bombed into oblivion or taken on by ground troops.
Seems lessons from the past are never truly remembered as we continually repeat the same mistakes.
Jimbeaux said:
ISIS does have troop formations as they move from town to town, killing, snatching sex slaves, and collecting tax. Not all of them are interwoven in with the populous. Are you certain you want to debate these things?
You're American, aren't you?In which case. Yee-haw, launch the B-52s.
Trabi601 said:
Jimbeaux said:
ISIS does have troop formations as they move from town to town, killing, snatching sex slaves, and collecting tax. Not all of them are interwoven in with the populous. Are you certain you want to debate these things?
You're American, aren't you?In which case. Yee-haw, launch the B-52s.
s2art said:
Trabi601 said:
Jimbeaux said:
ISIS does have troop formations as they move from town to town, killing, snatching sex slaves, and collecting tax. Not all of them are interwoven in with the populous. Are you certain you want to debate these things?
You're American, aren't you?In which case. Yee-haw, launch the B-52s.
Jimbeaux said:
ISIS does have troop formations as they move from town to town, killing, snatching sex slaves, and collecting tax. Not all of them are interwoven in with the populous. Are you certain you want to debate these things?
So, tell us how you identify an ISIS 'soldier' vs. a persecuted native?We don't seem to be able to do this at the point of entry to the EU, so how the hell are we going to do it with bomber / drone attacks? - even ground troops are going to struggle (parallels with Vietnam there).
Seriously, your own country is screwed up enough as it is, it would probably be appreciated by the rest of the world if you kept American 'diplomacy' out of world affairs.
Just have to love the latest from Trump. Now he's talking about extra strict controls over French and German nationals entering the USA. What a complete f
k-up of a country.Does this stuff really need to be repeated on every thread? I'll refer to this where it was posted in the Munich thread:
rscott said:
Germany's murder rate back in 2012 was just over 2,000 a year (so over 5 a day).
The location and fact it's a single victim tend to suggest this might well is an 'ordinary' murder which would have gone unreported normally.
The are we all overreacting thread is apt.The location and fact it's a single victim tend to suggest this might well is an 'ordinary' murder which would have gone unreported normally.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff