More non-combat troops for Iraq

Postby jsherwood » Fri Nov 07, 2014 3:59 pm

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=123595

Training an army that wasn't trained despite the training for many years.

Re: More non-combat troops for Iraq

Postby Jason Toddman » Sat Nov 08, 2014 2:54 pm

Could you explain that a little more, please? I'm a tad vague on what it is you're saying here.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: More non-combat troops for Iraq

Postby jsherwood » Sun Nov 09, 2014 3:17 am

Jason Toddman wrote:Could you explain that a little more, please? I'm a tad vague on what it is you're saying here.


Never mind...

Re: More non-combat troops for Iraq

Postby Jason Toddman » Sun Nov 09, 2014 5:25 am

Seemed like a simple question to me.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: More non-combat troops for Iraq

Postby Chris12 » Sun Nov 09, 2014 6:22 am

We need more combat troops again in the middle east is what I think wood is saying and I agree.

IS aren't Sadam or the Taliban or Assad who are just content with just making their own people miserable. One of IS ideology goals is to export it to the west. That and they aren't doing this for political reason, a lot of suffering IS brings seems to come from....well, because they want to rather then because they feel they have to.

No reason not to go all out on them.

Re: More non-combat troops for Iraq

Postby Jason Toddman » Sun Nov 09, 2014 6:26 am

Unfortunately if Obama agrees with that then the Republicans in Congress will probably stall, since they seem to be more interested in making Obama look ineffectual than they are in actually working for the good of the rest of us.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: More non-combat troops for Iraq

Postby Chris12 » Sun Nov 09, 2014 6:30 am

I don't think there's much work to do when it comes to stalling. Obama doesn't seem like he's going to send in troops either way. It was commendable he would rather lose face then hand Syria to IS on a golden platter but now it would be equally so if he went against the will of most Americans and dispatched the troops.

The world isn't going to judge...for once :quirk: Is seems so uniquely terrible it pretty much united everyone with the desire to want them gone.

Re: More non-combat troops for Iraq

Postby Jason Toddman » Sun Nov 09, 2014 6:35 am

Makes you wonder where it's all going to end though, doesn't it? It seems like the situation grows worse all the time. Fighting terrorism lately seems akin to fighting the mythical hydra; cut off one head and to more take its place; making the threat worse than ever. What we need is the equivalent of Hercules' solution of applying a lit torch to the stump so that the head does not grow back.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: More non-combat troops for Iraq

Postby Kyle » Mon Nov 10, 2014 9:26 pm

If we're going to get involved, let's at least make sure we do the job right.

Re: More non-combat troops for Iraq

Postby Jason Toddman » Tue Nov 11, 2014 7:03 am

Kyle wrote:If we're going to get involved, let's at least make sure we do the job right.

That would be a refreshing change from our usual approach.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: More non-combat troops for Iraq

Postby drawscore » Tue Nov 11, 2014 9:07 am

If you go to war, whether under a Democrat, or a Republican, you go in to win. You do what you have to do. You don't tie the hands of the military. If it takes the public execution of a few terrorists, then throwing their bodies into six feet of pig shit, you do it. You don't "play nice." You go in, you kick ass, and and give the impression that if they screw with you again, this first time will seem like a picnic in the park, compared to what will happen the next time; that the wrath of whatever deity they worship, is nothing, compared to the wrath of a division of pissed off Marines.

Teddy Roosevelt was right. "Speak softly, and carry a big stick."

Curtis LeMay was right, too: "If you kill enough of them, they'll quit fighting."

Happy Veterans Day.

Drawscore

Re: More non-combat troops for Iraq

Postby Jason Toddman » Tue Nov 11, 2014 9:29 am

drawscore wrote:If you go to war, whether under a Democrat, or a Republican, you go in to win. You do what you have to do. You don't tie the hands of the military. If it takes the public execution of a few terrorists, then throwing their bodies into six feet of pig shit, you do it. You don't "play nice." You go in, you kick ass, and and give the impression that if they screw with you again, this first time will seem like a picnic in the park, compared to what will happen the next time; that the wrath of whatever deity they worship, is nothing, compared to the wrath of a division of pissed off Marines.

Teddy Roosevelt was right. "Speak softly, and carry a big stick."

Curtis LeMay was right, too: "If you kill enough of them, they'll quit fighting."

Happy Veterans Day.

Drawscore

This used to be true, Drawscore, but this usual rules do not apply to religious extremists. Such extremists are ruled by religious hatred and ideology; not logic. To win something like this with the kind of tactics you describe would probably require the total annihilation of the entire Islamic culture to achieve the kind of total victory you are talking about. That's something that would require us to change beyond recognition into something akin to the Nazis, which I don't think any of us want to see happen. I don't know what the answer actually is, but your idea is imo simply a recipe for making things even worse until we are all swallowed up by a complete disaster.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: More non-combat troops for Iraq

Postby misterg792000 » Tue Nov 11, 2014 9:38 am

drawscore wrote:If it takes the public execution of a few terrorists, then throwing their bodies into six feet of pig shit, you do it. You don't "play nice." You go in, you kick ass, and and give the impression that if they screw with you again, this first time will seem like a picnic in the park, compared to what will happen the next time; that the wrath of whatever deity they worship, is nothing, compared to the wrath of a division of pissed off Marines.


Yes, make yourself no better than the extremists you're claiming to fight. That'll get those hearts and minds. Nothing has made islamic extremists stand down like slaughtering entire families and desecrating their bodies.

By the way, enough of the "pig shit" nonsense. While it is hilarious in a way that certain people think muslims are vampires and pork is garlic, it doesn't help you at all.

Re: More non-combat troops for Iraq

Postby Jason Toddman » Fri Nov 14, 2014 8:13 am

misterg792000 wrote:
Yes, make yourself no better than the extremists you're claiming to fight. That'll get those hearts and minds. Nothing has made islamic extremists stand down like slaughtering entire families and desecrating their bodies.

By the way, enough of the "pig shit" nonsense. While it is hilarious in a way that certain people think muslims are vampires and pork is garlic, it doesn't help you at all.

His point - such as it is - is that a Muslim would consider this the ultimate desecration of a devout Muslim imaginable. The fact that it would be pretty insulting to virtually everyone else as well doesn't seem to enter into the picture. Seeking victories through committing atrocities doesn't seem to phase some people, but it's in part that attitude that has made other people victimized by such practices into terrorists in the first place. Conservatives just can't seem to get that.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: More non-combat troops for Iraq

Postby Chris12 » Fri Nov 14, 2014 10:29 am

I think we can dig up plenty of instances in history to show Drawscore's idea is just as likely to backfire. Being a cartoonish supervillain isn't going to endear a nation to its foes. It just gives them propaganda to keep fighting.

Wars aren't just won on the battlefield. Winning the political battle may be even more important.

''Its better to be feared then it is to be loved'' Is a common misquotation. The actual lesson goes like ''If you cannot have both it is better to be feared then to be loved but it is absolutely crucial to avoid being hated''

Re: More non-combat troops for Iraq

Postby Jason Toddman » Fri Nov 14, 2014 12:01 pm

Chris12 wrote:I think we can dig up plenty of instances in history to show Drawscore's idea is just as likely to backfire. Being a cartoonish supervillain isn't going to endear a nation to its foes. It just gives them propaganda to keep fighting.

Wars aren't just won on the battlefield. Winning the political battle may be even more important.

''Its better to be feared then it is to be loved'' Is a common misquotation. The actual lesson goes like ''If you cannot have both it is better to be feared then to be loved but it is absolutely crucial to avoid being hated''

Which is probably where Hitler made his greatest mistakes. And yet so many people fail to get that. The new breed of terrorists are certainly failing to, but so are a lot of people elsewhere.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: More non-combat troops for Iraq

Postby misterg792000 » Fri Nov 14, 2014 4:36 pm

Jason Toddman wrote:His point - such as it is - is that a Muslim would consider this the ultimate desecration of a devout Muslim imaginable. The fact that it would be pretty insulting to virtually everyone else as well doesn't seem to enter into the picture.


My point is that it's not "the ultimate desecration" any more than a Jew getting pinched by a crab would be, which is part of what makes it childishly stupid. It is the product of a cartoonish stereotype with no actual understanding of what it's talking about at all, nor any familiarity with the culture it's trying to offend.

Jason Toddman wrote:'The new breed of terrorists are certainly failing to, but so are a lot of people elsewhere.


That they are. It wasn't American bullets that finally quieted the Sunni Triangle down, it was increasing local anger at the screwheads beheading people.

Re: More non-combat troops for Iraq

Postby Jason Toddman » Fri Nov 14, 2014 6:45 pm

misterg792000 wrote:My point is that it's not "the ultimate desecration" any more than a Jew getting pinched by a crab would be

Well, actually, to a devout (religiously fanatical) Muslim (or a Jew in Biblical times) it would be, since it'd have been instigated by enemy human beings rather than a mindless animal. Think for instance of how outraged the Maccabbean Jews were in the 3rd century BC when the Greeks sacrificed a pig in the Temple in Jerusalem (I guess they had the same idea as Drawscore - and note it backfired on the Greeks badly). Remember, we're talking of people who think rather differently (and imo quite irrationally) about many things than Westerners do.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: More non-combat troops for Iraq

Postby drawscore » Sat Nov 15, 2014 3:16 pm

There are allegations that Arthur MacArthur (Douglas MacArthur's father), when serving as the governor of the Philippines, was having trouble with fanatical Muslims, and to solve the problem, he rounded up 50 of them, lined them up, and shot 49 of them, then threw the bodies into a pit containing pig carcasses. The 50th one, he let go, to report back to his bosses, what he had seen. Guess what? Arthur MacArthur did not have any more fanatical Muslim problems.

(This action has also been attributed to Gen. John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, and to Gen. George S. Patton.)

(And since Snopes is run by a husband and wife team of hard core liberal Democrats, I would want a second opinion if they said water was wet.)

Drawscore

Re: More non-combat troops for Iraq

Postby Jason Toddman » Sat Nov 15, 2014 4:24 pm

drawscore wrote:There are allegations that Arthur MacArthur (Douglas MacArthur's father), when serving as the governor of the Philippines, was having trouble with fanatical Muslims, and to solve the problem, he rounded up 50 of them, lined them up, and shot 49 of them, then threw the bodies into a pit containing pig carcasses. The 50th one, he let go, to report back to his bosses, what he had seen. Guess what? Arthur MacArthur did not have any more fanatical Muslim problems.

(This action has also been attributed to Gen. John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, and to Gen. George S. Patton.)

(And since Snopes is run by a husband and wife team of hard core liberal Democrats, I would want a second opinion if they said water was wet.)

Drawscore

I was wondering when you'd bring that tired old example up yet again. If you think such tactics would work now, when Muslims are much more organized and if anything even more fanatical, you're completely deluded. This kind of BS is what creates terrorists in the first place.
And of course naturally the other two generals you cited are well-known as being among the most reactionary generals who ever lived
And your last statement is not only a non sequitur with no relationship to the rest of it (who/what TF is Snopes, and what does it have to do with the bit with McArthur?), but only shows more of your bias. Why do you say statements like this last and yet get offended when we say the same thing about FOX News, Glenn Beck, Eush Limbaugh, and the rest of that gang of biased conservative loudmouths?
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: More non-combat troops for Iraq

Postby misterg792000 » Sat Nov 15, 2014 8:53 pm

Find me an actual Muslim who thinks his soul is in danger of hell from involuntary contact with a pig and I'll eat a fucking hat live on webcam.

drawscore wrote:(And since Snopes is run by a husband and wife team of hard core liberal Democrats, I would want a second opinion if they said water was wet.)


*sigh*
This silly old myth again. David Mikkelson was a registered Republican, is now an independent, and since his wife is Canadian ineligible to vote in American elections, assigning an American political party to her is an exercise in silliness. Now counting down the minutes until you whip out the old "Soros" meme.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/
http://www.networkworld.com/article/223 ... n--a-.html

drawscore brings up Snopes because, naturally, it casts doubt on yet another one of his "copied and pasted from an email forward" justifications for his cartoonish opinions (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.asp in this case). Unlike his own sources, they meticulously document the urban legends and fwd>fwd>THANKS GRANDMA emails that they check and are thus treated with fearful skepticism by people who live in their own talk-radio bubble (incidentally, if drawscore can personally offer up conclusive evidence of misinformation offered there outside of the parody section, I'll eat *his* hat) . They tell him he's wrong, so he must make up a reason to call them untrustworthy.