Uh oh...Iraq

[Schildog]

well obviously. he likes the fascist roman side and not the communist roman side.

[TobiasFunke]

I got an idea, send the duck guy over to Iraq. He seems to have a plan.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/home/2014/09/03/3478282/duck-dynasty-bible-isis/

[bakunin]

He has a point. You can't really argue with them, they either leave the Christians alone or they should die. Removing Saddam wasn't a bad idea, but we just left them high and dry with no real plan. This is why I said, everywhere we go, we support the destruction of Christendom and are a driving force against God's people. The United States is run by Christ haters, so it makes sense. 

[Stradling]

This is so ridiculous. Bakunin is actually trying to imply that the US is for the destruction of Christians. This will not end well for Bakunin, but it will be entertaining for the rest of us, kinda.

[arch stanton]

I never understood why people feed stray cats or trolls.

[TobiasFunke]

He has a point. You can't really argue with them, they either leave the Christians alone or they should die.

Wrong. He said to convert them to Christianity or kill them. I know you know how to read Bakunin, why do you try to prove us otherwise?

[gotbeer]

Beheaded journalist Sotloff hid his Jewish faith from ISIS captors

 

[Don]

I think it's time for around the clock, indiscriminate bombing of the IS controlled area. Anything that moves dies. I mean straight up WWII style, but a bit more efficient. There is no reasoning with these guys, and there is no way to just tactically defeat them. We have to be willing to kill everyone, and probably a whole lot of innocent people too. That's my view. Leave it alone and let IS and the people of that area solve or not solve it themselves, or just hulk up and destroy both the will and ability of the IS. No half measures.

[TobiasFunke]

This was a real head scratcher. If they couldn't figure out Sotloff was jewish, these boys may not be as bright as some people are giving then credit for.

First thought

[TobiasFunke]

I think it's time for around the clock, indiscriminate bombing of the IS controlled area. Anything that moves dies. I mean straight up WWII style, but a bit more efficient. There is no reasoning with these guys, and there is no way to just tactically defeat them. We have to be willing to kill everyone, and probably a whole lot of innocent people too. That's my view. Leave it alone and let IS and the people of that area solve or not solve it themselves, or just hulk up and destroy both the will and ability of the IS. No half measures.

Why should we be the ones that take matters into our own hands?

[Blarg]

I think it's time for around the clock, indiscriminate bombing of the IS controlled area. Anything that moves dies. I mean straight up WWII style, but a bit more efficient. There is no reasoning with these guys, and there is no way to just tactically defeat them. We have to be willing to kill everyone, and probably a whole lot of innocent people too. That's my view. Leave it alone and let IS and the people of that area solve or not solve it themselves, or just hulk up and destroy both the will and ability of the IS. No half measures.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Lawrence of Arabia was assisting ISIS. The British have been behind them this whole time.

[Don]

Why should we be the ones that take matters into our own hands?

I'm fine with just leaving it alone too. But we can't just pretend to fight this group, which is what we're doing now. Either we let everyone handle their own business or we actually show what we're capable of and shut IS down.

[TobiasFunke]

I'm fine with just leaving it alone too. But we can't just pretend to fight this group, which is what we're doing now. Either we let everyone handle their own business or we actually show what we're capable of and shut IS down.

If we tried to shut IS down we would show what we are capable of (not shutting down IS)

[Don]

If we tried to shut IS down we would show what we are capable of (not shutting down IS)

This is where I disagree. We are totally capable of it, but we lack the will because we don't want to deal with the collateral damage that is inherent with a "real" offensive. We could start by flattening Raqqa, which would kill thousands of innocent people along with a lot of IS fighters, then spend several weeks or months just destroying anything that goes outside or gets in a vehicle in IS held areas. What we're doing now absolutely will not work, because we are just going after militants when they attempt to advance. We're effectively just hitting the pause button on their advance. To actually win, we have to make it an environment so horrific that the people of the area, including IS, will do anything just to make the suffering stop.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Don

[TobiasFunke]

You sound like an American badass Don. The perfect person to sign up for Team America.

[Don]

It's just my view on war. I hope there is never another one. I really do. Because you usually have to kill a ton of innocent people to win. It's just the unfortunate reality of how these things work. Therefore, we have to make a decision. Is it in our best interest to let this go unabated? It might be. Maybe as technology and internet culture spreads, everyone in IS held areas is wearing jeans and t-shirts twenty years from now. But if we do decide that it's in our best interest to destroy IS, we have to go all the way because it's the only thing that works. And that's the way it's been throughout human history. I'm totally fine with either strategy, but I can't get behind current strategy that is certain to be ineffective.

[AngelsLongBall]

Looks like we've moved beyond airstrikes

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/02/are-american-troops-already-fighting-on-the-front-lines-in-iraq.html

[Tank]

It's just my view on war. I hope there is never another one. I really do. Because you usually have to kill a ton of innocent people to win. It's just the unfortunate reality of how these things work. Therefore, we have to make a decision. Is it in our best interest to let this go unabated? It might be. Maybe as technology and internet culture spreads, everyone in IS held areas is wearing jeans and t-shirts twenty years from now. But if we do decide that it's in our best interest to destroy IS, we have to go all the way because it's the only thing that works. And that's the way it's been throughout human history. I'm totally fine with either strategy, but I can't get behind current strategy that is certain to be ineffective.

 

i agree with you, don. either you're fully committed or not committed at all. doing something in between those two levels isn't often a good path to follow. 

 

if there's a way to destroy the ISIS troops without going to war, i'm fully in favor of it, but i don't think that's possible.

[TobiasFunke]

It's just my view on war. I hope there is never another one. I really do. Because you usually have to kill a ton of innocent people to win. It's just the unfortunate reality of how these things work. Therefore, we have to make a decision. Is it in our best interest to let this go unabated? It might be. Maybe as technology and internet culture spreads, everyone in IS held areas is wearing jeans and t-shirts twenty years from now. But if we do decide that it's in our best interest to destroy IS, we have to go all the way because it's the only thing that works. And that's the way it's been throughout human history. I'm totally fine with either strategy, but I can't get behind current strategy that is certain to be ineffective.

Funny, IS is fighting a war also that innocent civilians are dying for their cause. You guys have so much in common.

[Don]

Funny, IS is fighting a war also that innocent civilians are dying for their cause. You guys have so much in common.

That is logically true. I'm just not sure what you want. If we do nothing, innocent people will die. If we choose to win, innocent people will die. If we continue with our current strategy, innocent people will die. It's a ****ed up situation in an imperfect world. Sorry man.

[bakunin]

This is so ridiculous. Bakunin is actually trying to imply that the US is for the destruction of Christians. This will not end well for Bakunin, but it will be entertaining for the rest of us, kinda.

The Tribe run the United States, and they hate Christ, they are quite open about it. In WW2 we should have joined efforts with the Germans to destroy Communism, but what did we do? In Kosovo, we should have joined efforts with the Serbians and helped them secure their land, but what did we do? In Syria, we fund Islamists from all over Europe who travel all the way to Syria to fight a nation and it's people. The Tribe hate Christians, they will do whatever it takes to have them exterminated, and it is The Tribe who has the money.

[TobiasFunke]

That is logically true. I'm just not sure what you want. If we do nothing, innocent people will die. If we choose to win, innocent people will die. If we continue with our current strategy, innocent people will die. It's a ****ed up situation in an imperfect world. Sorry man.

If we do nothing, blood is on their hands. If we level villages like you want, blood is on our hands.

[TobiasFunke]

The Tribe run the United States, and they hate Christ, they are quite open about it. In WW2 we should have joined efforts with the Germans to destroy Communism, but what did we do? In Kosovo, we should have joined efforts with the Serbians and helped them secure their land, but what did we do? In Syria, we fund Islamists from all over Europe who travel all the way to Syria to fight a nation and it's people. The Tribe hate Christians, they will do whatever it takes to have them exterminated, and it is The Tribe who has the money.

The Cleveland Indians hate Christians?

[Adam]

If we do nothing, blood is on their hands. If we level villages like you want, blood is on our hands.

 

To play devil's advocate, the US may have less blood on its hands if they intervene than ISIS would have if it is allowed to continue and expand.