Will Hillary Clinton be the next U.S. President?

[adaher]

@iiandyiiii

You’re talking about the leaders – most aren’t leaders, and most aren’t wealthy. By and large, desperate people are much more likely to choose desperate action than comfortable people, especially when that rage is mixed in.

Not just leaders, but operatives too. Sheepherders are no threat to the West, no matter how pissed they are.

Again, what lessons have you learned from Iraq? What’s the worst that would happen if we just stayed out and focused on our own territory? Imagine if instead of spending 100 billion on a foreign war, we spent 100 billion on internal security, investigation, surveillance, and the like. Imagine if a generation went by in which no great numbers of Arabs and Muslims were killed by Americans.

You’re forgetting wars we can’t stay out of(like Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait) and Israel, not to mention our support for “moderate” dictators in the region. We’re in. If we want out, then that involves some pretty radical changes in policy that pretty much amount to a swift retreat from the area and abandonment of all our allies. This is a formula for strengthening America?

But of course you aren’t suggesting that. However, we are in the Middle East, Muslims are dying because of US policies, because the Muslim world has been at war with itself for 1400 years and the West has always been on one side or the other, at least when we weren’t victims of their aggression, as in the early years. So, we have to figure out how to get our guys to beat their guys. Is there a strategy in place to do that?

[adaher]

@iiandyiiii

It will end, eventually, as long as we don’t jump in. They can’t and won’t attack forever. And small scale terrorist attacks don’t weaken us – or if they do, not close to as much as the loss of life from a ground war.

Far more Americans died in the Iraq war than would have been killed by terrorists had we stayed out. That war weakened us hugely. Another one would weaken us again.

I don’t think that’s true now. Tens of thousands of Europeans have gone to Syria. Many of them will come here. A wide ranging terror campaign is definitely within their capabilities soon, if not already(three major attacks in a month says they might be ready to wage a largescale terror war right now).

I’m telling you, we are going to wage full scale war at some point. Are we weaker if we do it at a time of our choosing, or if we do it in response to a big attack?

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

Not just leaders, but operatives too. Sheepherders are no threat to the West, no matter how pissed they are.

Cite?

You’re forgetting wars we can’t stay out of(like Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait) and Israel, not to mention our support for “moderate” dictators in the region. We’re in. If we want out, then that involves some pretty radical changes in policy that pretty much amount to a swift retreat from the area and abandonment of all our allies. This is a formula for strengthening America?

You’re making a straw man. The more we stay out (militarily), the stronger we are. The more we’re involved, the weaker we are.

Logistical support for allies is fine. Ground troops weakens us. Bombing weakens us too, though not as much. Your strategy, and Lindsey Graham’s, weakens us the most.

But of course you aren’t suggesting that. However, we are in the Middle East, Muslims are dying because of US policies, because the Muslim world has been at war with itself for 1400 years and the West has always been on one side or the other, at least when we weren’t victims of their aggression, as in the early years. So, we have to figure out how to get our guys to beat their guys. Is there a strategy in place to do that?

Wait them out. Small and occasional targeted actions, like that raid that freed prisoners, or killing Bin Laden. Support our allies logistically – if things get bad enough for Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and others, then eventually they’ll get their shit together and fight for their lives, and we’ll support them and they’ll win. Then most of the dead weren’t killed by Americans, and none of the dead will be Americans.

You didn’t serve. I did. Don’t send more Americans to die for nothing, only to weaken us further.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

I don’t think that’s true now. Tens of thousands of Europeans have gone to Syria. Many of them will come here. A wide ranging terror campaign is definitely within their capabilities soon, if not already(three major attacks in a month says they might be ready to wage a largescale terror war right now).

I’m telling you, we are going to wage full scale war at some point. Are we weaker if we do it at a time of our choosing, or if we do it in response to a big attack?

I’m telling you that you’re wrong (I hope). Wars of choice are wars of choice. The only way we’d have to go to war is if an actual real sovereign nation launched missiles at us (or equivalent), and that’s not going to happen because none of our enemies have the technology or logistical support to do so.

[adaher]

@iiandyiiii

Cite?

None of the 19 hijackers were victims, for starters.

You’re making a straw man. The more we stay out (militarily), the stronger we are. The more we’re involved, the weaker we are.

Doesn’t work that way. It’s not a more/less thing, it’s a smart/dumb thing. It’s only a more/less thing if we aren’t involved at all. For example, we haven’t been all that involved in the Congo war. But if the President did decide to get involved, it would be better to do whatever needed to be done to complete the mission as he defined it than to get involved in a way that just made enemies without accomplishing anything. If Obama was President in 1991, he would have bombed Iraq for months and then just left Kuwait under their occupation, saying that “it’s complicated and putting in ground troops would just make us weaker.”

[adaher]

@iiandyiiii

I’m telling you that you’re wrong (I hope). Wars of choice are wars of choice. The only way we’d have to go to war is if an actual real sovereign nation launched missiles at us (or equivalent), and that’s not going to happen because none of our enemies have the technology or logistical support to do so.

What would make ISIS a sovereign nation to you? If they controlled all of Syria? And it has to be missiles? Operatives trained by a sovereign state don’t count?

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

None of the 19 hijackers were victims, for starters.

That’s not ISIS.

Doesn’t work that way. It’s not a more/less thing, it’s a smart/dumb thing. It’s only a more/less thing if we aren’t involved at all. For example, we haven’t been all that involved in the Congo war. But if the President did decide to get involved, it would be better to do whatever needed to be done to complete the mission as he defined it than to get involved in a way that just made enemies without accomplishing anything. If Obama was President in 1991, he would have bombed Iraq for months and then just left Kuwait under their occupation, saying that “it’s complicated and putting in ground troops would just make us weaker.”

More military involvement would be dumber, and less is smarter. Inserting ourselves into Congo would be dumb, and not doing so is smart.

[adaher]

But the dumbest thing of all would be to make enemies in the Congo without defeating them.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

What would make ISIS a sovereign nation to you? If they controlled all of Syria? And it has to be missiles? Operatives trained by a sovereign state don’t count?

If they controlled a lot of territory, with stability, for several years in a row. Right now there is ongoing civil war. The Confederate States were not a sovereign nation in the middle of the Civil War, and they were much, much closer than ISIS is.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

But the dumbest thing of all would be to make enemies in the Congo without defeating them.

No, that would be much less dumb than making enemies and then invading Congo.

[adaher]

I fail to see a huge distinction between invading a country’s airspace and invading their land. And you are aware that we won’t be leaving downed pilots behind, right? So being involved in the air inevitably means being involved on the ground too.

At least, I hope you wouldn’t advocate leaving our pilots behind.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

I fail to see a huge distinction between invading a country’s airspace and invading their land. And you are aware that we won’t be leaving downed pilots behind, right? So being involved in the air inevitably means being involved on the ground too.

I’m against both (except for small targeted operations), but if I have to choose one than airstrikes are much less risky to Americans.

[adaher]

I take it you opposed the invasion of Afghanistan?

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

I take it you opposed the invasion of Afghanistan?

At the time I supported it. Looking back, it should have been a targeted op to get OBL. No occupation, no regime change, just get the leaders.

[iiandyiiii]

I will not make the same mistake I made 10 to 15 years ago. No more wars of choice, ever.

[Gyrate]

Clearly the answer is to kill everyone. Only then will we be safe from all enemies and adaher will finally be happy.

[adaher]

@iiandyiiii

At the time I supported it. Looking back, it should have been a targeted op to get OBL. No occupation, no regime change, just get the leaders.

Which means Al Qaeda would still be using Afghanistan as a base today. Currently, ISIS has a better safe have than Al Qaeda did pre-9/11, and it’s starting to show.

[adaher]

@Gyrate

Clearly the answer is to kill everyone. Only then will we be safe from all enemies and adaher will finally be happy.

If ISIS isn’t defeated, that is where things are headed. A war between the West and a caliphate will look a lot like the war between Japan and the West. Only more one sided and probably more savage.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

Which means Al Qaeda would still be using Afghanistan as a base today.

No it doesn’t.

Currently, ISIS has a better safe have than Al Qaeda did pre-9/11, and it’s starting to show.

Better this than dead Americans in the desert, hundreds of billions wasted, and more chaos.

ISIS can’t kill more Americans than would be killed in a ground war. Shame on you for wanting to shift the risk to servicemen due to fear. And it wouldn’t even shift the risk – killing people in an open society like America will always be easy, whether we invade ISIS or not. The danger isn’t ISIS sending people to America to kill – it’s pissed off people already in America deciding to kill. Attacking ISIS would do nothing to stop this threat, and possibly even make it worse.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

If ISIS isn’t defeated, that is where things are headed. A war between the West and a caliphate will look a lot like the war between Japan and the West. Only more one sided and probably more savage.

No idea why you’re so damn insistent on giving ISIS what they want. They want a great battle of civilizations – and if they lose that, then another group will be borne out of their ashes. Better not to waste the lives and resources on what would be a counterproductive war of choice.