(“Light them up” if we see a US vehicle.) That is not what I wrote. You have left out ‘stolen’ and a reference to military vehicles.
While you are fixing that, can you say that the IS terrorist government threat is now or will continue to be contained within the borders that they have carved out of parts of Syria and parts of Iraq?
Do you think ‘we’ would be ‘justified’ to target and destroy any clear IS military targets whether that target is on soil ‘we’ recognize as Syria or Iraq?
I say ‘we’ are ‘justified’ because IS are bloodthirsty terrorists hellbent on killing Shiites and destroying ancient Shiite religious shrines in Iraq and anywhere they can get access to them. That is genocide with no respect to borders or international law.
It is not Iraq’s civil war II when you recognize that IS terrorist government forces are killing and looting for an extreme ideology that is not connected to the nation of Iraq or the nation of Syria.
It is not expected to be confined to Iraq and not include Syria. Iraq has been attacked from Syria by terrorists that in their minds have erased the border between Syria and Iraq. And they intend to erase more.
Winning is destroying every last IS terrorist from the lowest fighter to the highest leader. And liberating cities and towns that have been seized and occupied by IS terrorists. And helping to protect religious shrines and people in IS terrorists path.
Good video if you wish to see what the start of defeating IS terrorists looks like.
I am not advocating ‘attacking a nation that we just recognized’ at all. I advocating what the President of the USA has advocated and that is assisting a nation in the fight against IS and that we recognize as sovereign nation when they ask for assistance and as long as they show they will do the hard fighting themselves on the ground. (See video)
There is the case for you all to see .
And dont forget $500 million for the vetted rebels in Syria now that the CW have been 100% removed from Syria - Safely! I might add - for the OPCW teams that oversaw the withdrawal.
You can’t hide from your own posts, dude. You are NOT advocating what Obama is advocating. You are advocating recognizing them as a state and then declaring war on them. Unless, you can quote Obama saying what you said, which of course you can’t.
Why is that an idiotic question? I had no way of knowing your answer would be ‘of course not’? Which is good because there are arguments here that air cover is not that critical in defeating IS terrorists that invaded Iraq en masse around June 10.
If a few Russian attack fighters help ISF and volunteers turn back IS terrorists it is encouraging as we can see the early steps of Iraq being defended by Iraqis and Civil War II being less and less of a concern with every dead terrorist they kill.
No dishonesty here. You referred to this statement by me:
“I don’t think most Sunnis welcomed the terrorist invaders in, but some may have made that despicable choice. That’s why over a million have fled the terrorist siezure of their towns and homes. They are in safer areas.”
Did you miss that I honestly wrote “but some may have made that despicable choice” to welcome the terrorists in.
I honestly do not know that the terrorists were ‘welcomed in’ because the brutality and lethality of this inhuman lot may have been more intimidation than blessing their onslaught.
I cited two things that Obama is doing or wants to do that is assisting the government of Iraq and the rebels in Syria to defeat the IS terrorists that are operating an unrecognized state that is partly in Iraq and partly in Syria.
I wrote, The terrorists have handed the civilized nations of the world a perfect opportunity to declare war on the Islamic State or IS. They want to be recognized as a nation state, so lets recognize it and then declare war on it for its crimes against humanity. We should start by raining cruise missiles on their parade.
You don’t get the point. That is fine. This is bigger than Obama. You know how terrorists are tough for civilized nations to fight with conventional war because they are not recognizable as nation states.
So grant these bastards their wish and recognize the borders they claim today and the first move outside those borders wouldi mean the civilized nations of the world could do a good old fashioned declaration of war on the Islamic (terrorist) State and drive it to surrender.
Then un-recognize the bastard state and return its halves to Syria and Iraq.
Food for thought. Why not?
I would envision the same as Libya no western ground troops - just air support over the Islamic Terrorist State to limit their movements in open territory. NATO and Arab League enforcing a UN Resolution in rare agreement to the elimination of a common threat.
I have laid out the case and you missed it U guess. Look at what you asked:
“If you want to lay out the case for the US to get involved in Iraq Civil War II, knock yourself out”
Here is the case for the US to get involved in the defeat of the Islamic (terrorist)!State that you missed so far:
It is not expected to be confined to Iraq and not include Syria. Iraq has been attacked from Syria by terrorists that in their minds have erased the border between Syria and Iraq. And they intend to erase more.
Winning is destroying every last IS terrorist from the lowest fighter to the highest leader. And liberating cities and towns that have been seized and occupied by IS terrorists. And helping to protect religious shrines and people in IS terrorists path.
Good video if you wish to see what the start of defeating IS terrorists looks like.
That is an error. I have addressed collateral damage often on many of the Iraq threads. Three basic points were a No Fly Zone on the Syria/Iraq Border targeting IS fighters in the open and also where they mass for attack. I’ve pointed out that Tikrit is reported to be a ghost town with many fleeing in advance of the ISF counter-attack.
If you want to debate the collateral damage caused by IS terrorists vs ISF as legitimate defenders of Iraq lets hear your case.
I already started mine;
And you chose to take us back to 2003:
Is it fair to remind you that in 2003 you said going to war in Iraq was justified while I say it was not.
Can you defend all the collateral damage we inflicted in Iraq as justified when there was no violence or threat or violence to actually justify it?
I believe I can justify US military support of Iraqis defending their country from a major serious terrorist threat while acknowledging that collateral damage will unfortunately occur.
I have begun that as well;
The difference between now and then are stark. Could you explain why you wrote that ad a matter for today’s debate?
Yes you did. Any rational thinking person would realize that the possibility of an air attack would alter their behavior. Which makes your question idiotic. .So do you think I’m irrational or are you yourself irrational not to know this is obvious?
Ah but you assume that all thinking on this board is ‘rational’. It is necessary to establish a baseline at times. But Syria still has an fighter air craft in the skies and they have recently struck IS targets in Iraq. So is there an explanation for this ‘irrational’ condition that IS has a parade in a Syrian City driving down an open street with a freakin’ SCUD on a truck in the hands of these murderers and thieves.
Does anyone else here see that as compatible with “I am not advocating ‘attacking a nation that we just recognized’ at all.”?
Your new tactic is even nuttier than the first. What if they don’t take any steps outside those borders? You are going to get the UNSC to recognize them (never happen) and then declare war on them (never happen) only if they move outside their borders (what about the millions of non-ISIL folks living within those borders).
Why would we need to unrecognized them if winning is defined as killing all of them (as you suggested in another post)?
It’s the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard. Why do you think no one else on earth is advocating it?
BTW, let me know if you’d like to play a game of chess sometime. I can see you putting your queen directly in line with my bishop thinking you’ll take the bishop on the next move.
Yes, but I doubt many Libyans really want Gaddafi back. And of course it was not to be expected that democracy could function right out of the gate in a country which not only had zero experience with it ever, but where any political discussion at all outside official settings was completely banned and suppressed for more than 40 years.
And you have painted ‘a touch’ of the ugliest picture you can find as an apparent objection to the US military engagement on behalf of the people of Libya in 2011 to prevent Ghadafi from killing tens and tens of thousands of Libyans in order to sustain his dictatorship over the whole country.
During the transition from dictatorship to democracy there are religious passions and forces that consistently seek to undermine the transition to establishing free and liberal democratic institutions in that part of the world.
So now when religious extremists use violence and bloodshed to overpower the majority in Libya that reject dictatorship and theocracy, both that restrict freedom and deny rights, is it your view to reward the perpetrators of those religion driven acts of violence by throwing in the towel and saying there is nothing anyone can do?
Transitions and revolutions over the course of history do get ugly. But in the case of Libya what was happening when much of the world intervened was much uglier.
Look at how you wrote the request that I was responding to.
“If you want to lay out the case for the US to get involved in Iraq Civil War II, knock yourself out.”.
So I laid it out per your request. "The case for the US to get involved in Iraq Civil War II.
Here it is again;
I was not advocating attacking Iraq in the case I was making about getting involved Iraq’s civil war. A diligent reader would have understood it that way.
Now can you respond to the ‘case’ I made instead if playing ‘gothcha’ based upon your obvious misunderstanding of what I’ve written.
If you want to continue this discussion, you will have to decide whether you are advocating recognizing ISIL (or IS or whatever they call themselves) and then declaring war on them… or not. You have said you wanted to do so twice, and you have also claimed to have not said it. Choose one stance and explicitly tell us you are retracting the other stance. That you made an error in posting it, and are now recognizing that error. I am not interested in any further discussion since you have posted two completely contradictory stances, and I see no reason that you won’t do so again on the next issue.