Ted Cruz says hes goint to �carpet bomb� terrorists.

[Mountain Man]

No, it was (and is again now) of the Charismatic wishing for God to bless them.

In that case, it seems to be working.

[Catholicity]

Russia using a nuclear bomb would certainly stop Isis but its a last resort. I don't know what to think about Putin, except I'm fairly certain he's after making Russia a super power on the world stage and if he does something like this it would essentially be to prove Russian worth Military style.

[Cow Poke]

Russia using a nuclear bomb would certainly stop Isis but its a last resort.

What would they bomb?

I don't know what to think about Putin, except I'm fairly certain he's after making Russia a super power on the world stage and if he does something like this it would essentially be to prove Russian worth Military style.

Yes, he has always hated the breakup of the Soviet Union, and wants to return to those "glory days". He wants to go...



... wait for it....

[nickcopernicus]

If it works why not?

Nick:
We shouldn't be conducting indiscriminate bombing because we're civilized human beings.

If I remember correctly, one of the main differences between terrorists and militants, the military, police forces, and other legitimate lethal organizations is that the latter tend to avoid killing civilians when possible. Because Cruz displays the properties of the former, I guess that makes him a terrorist. No better than the ex-radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Perhaps the president should send a drone his way.

Member
We nuked Japan and that worked!! It's perfectly okay to kill civilians to save our boys.

Nick:
We only did that after every other option had been exhausted. That's not the case here.


Cheers,

Nick

[nickcopernicus]

I would assume that Cruz is expecting to carpet bomb large formations of ISIS troops that are not in areas populated by civilians. We did similar things to Iraqi troops in the not-so-distant past. I doubt that the ISIS troops would be as accommodating to our bombing runs as the former Iraqi military. In that sense, I think Cruz is misguided (as he is about many other things...). But if we ever do find large groups of ISIS troops hanging out in the desert, I'm all for carpet bombing them.

Nick:
The problem is that your suggestion "find large groups of ISIS troops hanging out in the desert," and bombing them, is our current strategy. So that means Cruz's rhetoric is empty bloviatics.


Cheers,

Nick

[nickcopernicus]

I gave you my solution. I didn't say bomb oil fields. For the second time, I said take out ISIS oil transports -- the financial heartbeat of ISIS. (Apparently US military agrees with me since they've started doing this just recently, of course after Russia was already doing it). Then put severe sanctions on the government (most likely Turkey) purchasing the illegal oil.

Nick:
That would be nice. Except for the fact that ISIS existed before they controlled any oilfields. What's to stop them from retreating to Afghanistan after we leave a pithy 5,000 troops there, and taking over the Heroin trade there (Afghanistan supplies about 90% of the world's supply of Heroin)?

Well? You're just striking at branches and ignoring the root.

SeanD:
50 years occupying Iraq and Syria is cost effective? EU and US is over their heads in debt and on the brink of recession (aside from the morale toll this would have on western society already jaded with perpetual war), hence the reason they're both resorting to extreme central bank measures simultaneously (QE, low interest rates, etc.) trying to prevent this.

Nick:
I never said it would be cheap. I said it was the actual cost if you want to avoid massive civilian casualties in the west. Since people like you are unwilling to pay the cost, it's likely that ISIS will win, and civilians will die. 10 years and thousands of civilian lives from now, I will remind you of this fact.

SeanD
It might help learning a little bit of economics and the global markets before parroting neocon measures (and that's EXACTLY what they propose) in how to stop ISIS.

Nick:
Really? Please quote any significant NEOCON that's proposing for a 500,000-1,000,000 troop invasion, and paying for it by raising taxes and oil revenue from Iraq, for 50 years, or as long as it will take.

I bet you won't find one, thus making your "EXACTLY" claim, a crock of crap.


Cheers,

[nickcopernicus]

The dictionary definition of "inane" is "silly; stupid", which is a perfect description of your general posting style since much of what you write is silly and stupid. But what else should I expect from a certified dumbass like you?

Nick:
Wrong yet again, for reasons I've previously discussed and provided examples thereof.

Mountain Man:
And, yes, there is a possibility that Cruz doesn't fully understand what carpet bombing is or that there are more effective ways of engaging the enemey, but so what? He's a lawyer, not a military expert. But at the end of the day, we have Cruz saying, "We're going to take the fight to the terrorists, and we're going to win," versus Obama saying, "We're going to continue pushing my failed policies, and I really don't care if we win." I know who I'd rather have as Commander in Chief.

Now seriously, man, the more you keep beating the dead horse, the more stupid you look.

Nick:
Well, your preference notwithstanding, you've obviously never been in the military. Apparently, if you were, you'd want a Commander in Chief that ordered you to commit war Crimes. I sure did "Nazi" that coming.

You hate the half-black man in the white house so much, you want a genocidal maniac as president. Here's your conservative hero on the Middle East:
- Ted Cruz, Cubanadian maniac

Cheers,

Nick

[seanD]

Nick:
That would be nice. Except for the fact that ISIS existed before they controlled any oilfields. What's to stop them from retreating to Afghanistan after we leave a pithy 5,000 troops there, and taking over the Heroin trade there (Afghanistan supplies about 90% of the world's supply of Heroin)?

Well? You're just striking at branches and ignoring the root.

Nick:
I never said it would be cheap. I said it was the actual cost if you want to avoid massive civilian casualties in the west. Since people like you are unwilling to pay the cost, it's likely that ISIS will win, and civilians will die. 10 years and thousands of civilian lives from now, I will remind you of this fact.

Nick:
Really? Please quote any significant NEOCON that's proposing for a 500,000-1,000,000 troop invasion, and paying for it by raising taxes and oil revenue from Iraq, for 50 years, or as long as it will take.

I bet you won't find one, thus making your "EXACTLY" claim, a crock of crap.


Cheers,

Poppy production is already at record highs in Afghanistan. If we took out ISIS' oil transports and they tried to take over Afghanistan's poppy production for finance then they'd be at war with the Taliban. Nothing wrong with that from our perspective. It's light years better than our current strategy of dropping tons of ammo into the middle of Syria hoping it goes to al-qaeda linked rebels instead of ISIS.

What makes you think deploying a million troops into Iraq and Syria will avoid mass civilian causalities? You can't possibly be serious. Your strategy is just plain asinine. Not only would you have to deal with public outrage across the western hemisphere sending that many troops into war, as I pointed out earlier, but your solution to pay for it is just as retarded. Iraq had oil fields when we invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003, yet that still didn't stop the war costing us 1.7 trillion, and that was just Iraq.

Deploying such a massive number of troops into Iraq and Syria (you seem to be ignoring the fact that ISIS is also in Egypt, Libya and other parts of Africa) would surely get the blessings of people like McCain and Graham, no doubt about it, it's just that not even megalomania warmongers of their capacity are as insane to publicly propose such an unrealistic strategy as yours. Cruz's carpet bombing rhetoric is an even better solution than yours.

[Yttrium]

Nick:
The problem is that your suggestion "find large groups of ISIS troops hanging out in the desert," and bombing them, is our current strategy. So that means Cruz's rhetoric is empty bloviatics.

This is true.

[nickcopernicus]

Say, Nick,
While we're reminiscing about the "Good old days", no one here seems to remember one-third of the members of my "Dirty Dozen" list. Even though I prayed for them every day, I can now remember only Aoologia Phoenix, Flimflamboyant, JPHolding, JordenRiver (recently removed as reformed), LilPixieofTerror (recently removed but quickly reinstated), MountainMan, One Following Him, Theonomist (Glenn Peebles). I can well remember some others, just not their exact names. The last guy on the list started with "T", a Neanderthal Neocon.

Nick:
Yes, I remember all of them. Apologia Phoenix always and overwhelming admiration for what I think was outdated philosophy. He absolutely adored Aristotle. I'd guess the person I missed the most was LGM. like him or hate him, he made me laugh all the time.

[nickcopernicus]

I gave you my solution. I didn't say bomb oil fields. For the second time, I said take out ISIS oil transports -- the financial heartbeat of ISIS. (Apparently US military agrees with me since they've started doing this just recently, of course after Russia was already doing it). Then put severe sanctions on the government (most likely Turkey) purchasing the illegal oil.

Nick:
Yes. I know you said take out oil transports. I believe I pointed out that 1) You may affect their logistics, but you'll never get all of them; thus they will still be able to fund their operations and 2) They existed before they had oil revenues, and they'll still exist if you get rid of them.

Your "solution" is simply another half measure. Destroying a truck oil tanker enroute from Iraq to Turkey won't stop a suicide bomber in Brussels.

What you propose, if anything, would only be slightly more effective than what's happening right now.

SeanD
50 years occupying Iraq and Syria is cost effective? EU and US is over their heads in debt and on the brink of recession (aside from the morale toll this would have on western society already jaded with perpetual war), hence the reason they're both resorting to extreme central bank measures simultaneously (QE, low interest rates, etc.) trying to prevent this. It might help learning a little bit of economics and the global markets before parroting neocon measures (and that's EXACTLY what they propose) in how to stop ISIS.

Nick:
First of all, you're exaggerating a lot. While the EU economy is somewhat stagnant, neither it, nor the US is anywhere near on the "brink" of recession. Secondly, the world not only was in depression, but deeply so when it waged WWII, so lack of finances has proven NOT to stop allies from waging war on a massive scale.

Again, that you accuse me of copying NEOCON measures demonstrates that you don't understand my position. It could be bad writing on my part; however, it could also be a lack of comprehension on yours.


Edit to add: I apparently already responded to this post of Sean's. You can feel free to ignore it. I left it here, however, because I avoid hiding my mistakes.

Cheers,

Nick

[nickcopernicus]

Poppy production is already at record highs in Afghanistan. If we took out ISIS' oil transports and they tried to take over Afghanistan's poppy production for finance then they'd be at war with the Taliban. Nothing wrong with that from our perspective. It's light years better than our current strategy of dropping tons of ammo into the middle of Syria hoping it goes to al-qaeda linked rebels instead of ISIS.

Nick:
There's always the chance that instead of being at war with the Taliban, they could unite against their common enemy of the hated west. While that's not a foregone conclusion, basing one's strategy on the spurious assumption that the two won't unite is imprudent, and not the work of an experienced tactician.

SeanD
What makes you think deploying a million troops into Iraq and Syria will avoid mass civilian causalities?

Nick:
For 2 simple reasons. 1) you must defeat and dismember ISIS completely. If they had no where to train, if you show them that you're willing to go anywhere in the world to track them down and kill them, the steady stream of recruits will no longer continue. 2) you will have accomplished what we wanted to avoid when we first started this absurd War on Terror, that is, no country would be a safe-haven for terrorists.

We can't stabilize the world. There will probably always be countries full of turmoil that terrorists would like to exploit. However, if a doesn't want to be taken over and occupied, they're going to put in a great deal of effort to keep ISIS out of there.

SeanD
You can't possibly be serious. Your strategy is just plain asinine. Not only would you have to deal with public outrage across the western hemisphere sending that many troops into war, as I pointed out earlier, but your solution to pay for it is just as retarded. Iraq had oil fields when we invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003, yet that still didn't stop the war costing us 1.7 trillion, and that was just Iraq.

Nick:
First of all, the war in Iraq was highly inefficient. Also, we didn't take any oil and use it as a recovery methods for our costs. That would not be the case this time. We've already lost the PR war about us trying to take their oil. If we're going to be accused of taking oil, we may as well reap the benefits.

My plan only seams absurd to you because you don't understand warfare. I don't say that as an insult, it's simply an observation based on your suggestions.

SeanD:
Deploying such a massive number of troops into Iraq and Syria (you seem to be ignoring the fact that ISIS is also in Egypt, Libya and other parts of Africa) would surely get the blessings of people like McCain and Graham, no doubt about it, it's just that not even megalomania warmongers of their capacity are as insane to publicly propose such an unrealistic strategy as yours. Cruz's carpet bombing rhetoric is an even better solution than yours.

Nick:
It's only "unrealistic" because it will never happen. The public would never allow it. But just because it won't happen doesn't mean it isn't a viable solution.

Humans have the capacity to feed everyone on earth. Yet people still starve to death. Why? Because we're not willing to do what it would take to feed everyone. That's fine, but it doesn't mean we *can't* feed everyone. It just means we won't.

That you believe that Cruz's solution to indiscriminately bomb cities is a better solution than sending in soldiers who could secure the area with minimum civilian casualties serves as concrete evidence that you have no ideal how to wage war. I'm sorry, but that's the truth as I see it.

Cheers,

Nick