Why do people buy the idea that enemies can be bombed into submission?

[ginwilly]

Killing those who intend to kill you is hardly "terrorism"

I know I'm on an island here, but I personally don't feel threatened at all by terrorists. My way of life does not change based on what they do over there, but it certainly is affected by our governments reactions to what they do over there.

If they truly are a threat, then annihilation is the obvious solution, instead, we keep playing just the tip.

We already have boots on the ground and eventually we will have enough over there to admit it.

Also, can each soldier bring home a barrel of oil this time? That's part of winning a war isn't it? spoils? We could profit if we wanted to.

 

[charface]

People can be bombed into submission.
To think otherwise is to not understand what bombs do.

 

[Padawanbater2]

People can be bombed into submission.
To think otherwise is to not understand what bombs do.

Ideology can't

 

[AlecTheGardener]

People can be bombed into submission.
To think otherwise is to not understand what bombs do.

Yes, submit in facade, plot in private. Radicalization is almost guaranteed when you drop a 'precision' munition onto any civilian, let alone the family members of legitimate terrorists.

To think otherwise is to not understand the nature of humans.

 

[charface]

Yes, submit in facade, plot in private. Radicalization is almost guaranteed when you drop a 'precision' munition onto any civilian, let alone the family members of legitimate terrorists.

To think otherwise is to not understand the nature of humans.

Not to worry.
The military has more bombs than it will take.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Not to worry.
The military has more bombs than it will take.

You don't seem to understand, perpetual war, the strategy you seem to be supporting with dismissive statements like this that elude to dropping more bombs to solve all the problems is exactly what terrorist groups like the IS want. That is their strategy, to bleed us dry and kill as many American soldiers as they can doing it. They can't reach us here, they can't bleed us dry financially if we don't fight them.

Everything about the strategy of perpetual war is designed to keep us on the battlefield for as long as possible, draining our resources. We kill more of them, and likely some of the civilian population like we did in Iraq/Afghanistan, guess what else happens? Their recruitment numbers soar.

Can you tell me one good thing about the strategy of perpetual war that you seem to be supporting?

 

[charface]

No boots on the ground.
look i think war sucks but if they are demanding in then bombing the is the most effective Way I can see.
you have your views I have mine.
no problem

 

[Padawanbater2]

No boots on the ground.
look i think war sucks but if they are demanding in then bombing the is the most effective Way I can see.
you have your views I have mine.
no problem

How is it effective?

Higher recruitment numbers
The added financial drain on the economy
Even less standing in the international community because of inevitable civilian casualties
More American soldiers dead..

 

[charface]

War is hell bubba.
get a helmet or move to canada.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I agree, but can you tell me how that strategy would be effective?

It seems like it would be completely ineffective for the reasons I listed

 

[charface]

Its a hard question and not knowing all of the information the govt knows. I couldnt even attempt to explian why
we cant just resolve this problem.
So in my ignorance my best plan is to not let people attack without attacking back 10fold
However since much of this is about resources and religeon. I see no end in sight.
So again my best plan would to be shred them grom the air and accept our miniscule losses and mourn the dead on both sides.
rspecially the civillians.

 

[Glaucoma]

So what happens if you kill every single member of the IS? They have families, loved ones, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, fathers, mothers.. what happens to them? What happens to the sons who lose their fathers?

They become terrorists. We create them, through our offensive actions.

Bottom line; you can't defeat the IS, or any enemy, by military might.

No matter how big the force, the ideal will persist.


So this is the purpose of the thread; What do we gain by fighting the IS?

You should ask any terrorist group those same questions. From their perspective they want everyone to be just like them, following their rules and beliefs and traditions. Just like how the US 'exports Democracy'. Every group wants everyone else to think like they do. The only difference between a terrorist and a patriot is which side you're on.

Your issue seems to be more about our overseas deployments though, so I'll mention this, for right or wrong:

Nobody wants war in their own streets. Once a military has the resources to keep it off of their streets and in the other guy's yard, that's where it will always go.

It's really not that difficult to understand.

I agree, the appearance of the US military for a while now has bred contempt, but we have a lot to lose and our opponents do not. Do we just look away until they take down a building or two of ours? Even if you match casualty numbers, you'd entirely wipe them out and they'd still be far ahead. What choices are there?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Nobody wants war in their own streets.

Baseless claim that basically amounts to "if we don't fight them there, they'll come here". All that is is fearmongering. It's the rhetoric the Bush administration used to get us into Iraq.

Also, already knowing that is the exact strategy the IS wants, why would it be smart or effective to play right into it so they can kill more American soldiers and we can waste billions of dollars?

I agree, the appearance of the US military for a while now has bred contempt, but we have a lot to lose and our opponents do not. Do we just look away until they take down a building or two of ours? Even if you match casualty numbers, you'd entirely wipe them out and they'd still be far ahead. What choices are there?

"Do we just look away until they take down a building or two of ours?"

15 of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, why aren't you concerned with that country? Why don't we go to war with them? Your fear of one extremist Islamic State but not the other seems inconsistent.

And your reasoning could potentially be used to justify perpetual war. If you are always afraid of being attacked, you will always be engaged in waging a war. Perhaps we should examine the reasons terrorists want to attack us in the first place.

The war industrial complex is an international racket designed to make people money, not protect Americans or promote human rights or liberate people or any of that fairy tale bullshit the politicians and political pundits tell you. If it were, we would be in many African countries liberating people, we'd be in North Korea, we'd be fighting Saudi Arabia. It's all bullshit.

Don't buy into the bullshit.

And just something to think about.. This entire sub is filled with people who oppose the government, right and left, but as soon as that exact same government tells you we have to fight the Islamic State, all of a sudden something changes and they become right over night. Those same suits who lie day in day out right to your face are the same assholes pushing for war.

Why do you think that is?

We do nothing and let the Middle East do what the Middle East usually does (blow itself up), we save American soldiers lives, we save money, and we save face in the international community. Sure there will be chance of attack, but that same exact chance of attack exists if we wage more war, nothing changes. They are still a threat regardless of what we do, why should we give them exactly what they want? It makes no logical or rational sense.

 

[reasonevangelist]

Because bombing shit provides instant gratification.

It's the MIC's marketing department conducting public demonstrations to prove their weapons are worth buying.

And yeah, if you just kill everyone, the need for submission disappears. And those who aren't dead, and can't fight, will have no choice but to either submit or suicide. I suppose that's how "suicide bombers" are made... but comparatively speaking, they're not very effective, so the MIC doesn't mind a little collateral damage, as long as their business stays as wildly profitable as ever (in more ways than just money).

 

[SnapsProvolone]

It's the MIC's marketing department conducting public demonstrations to prove their weapons are worth buying.

And yeah, if you just kill everyone, the need for submission disappears. And those who aren't dead, and can't fight, will have no choice but to either submit or suicide. I suppose that's how "suicide bombers" are made... but comparatively speaking, they're not very effective, so the MIC doesn't mind a little collateral damage, as long as their business stays as wildly profitable as ever (in more ways than just money).

Blah blah. I just like seeing sand coons blown to smithereens.

 

[reasonevangelist]

Blah blah. I just like seeing sand coons blown to smithereens.

Well, they don't call it "theater" for nothing...

 

[Harrekin]

You kill a terrorist who already has a family dingbat.

His family goes on to become radicalized. So what you really did was create more terrorists by killing one.

You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist in America, so it's safe to say there won't be any beaheadings in America any time soon.

This country is way too safe for people like you to make it into old age, for fucks sake.. In earlier times, you would have been eaten by a predator a long time ago.

Says the guy who works minimum wage and needs welfare to support himself...


Delicious sweet irony.

 

[jahbrudda]

Baseless claim that basically amounts to "if we don't fight them there, they'll come here". All that is is fearmongering. It's the rhetoric the Bush administration used to get us into Iraq.

Also, already knowing that is the exact strategy the IS wants, why would it be smart or effective to play right into it so they can kill more American soldiers and we can waste billions of dollars?



"Do we just look away until they take down a building or two of ours?"

15 of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, why aren't you concerned with that country? Why don't we go to war with them? Your fear of one extremist Islamic State but not the other seems inconsistent.

True, 15 of the 19 terrorist were from Saudi Arabia, however, 2 were from UAE, one Egyptian, and the other from Lebanon.
But the mastermind behind the 911 attacks was from Pakistan and everyone of them had one thing in common, all were affiliated with Al Queda.
Intelligence (not RIU members) tell us that isis is substantially larger, more brutal and much more funded than Al Queda

I don't like war and I certainly don't like the idea of our military men and women being killed, with that said, your claim that it is fear mongering is pure conjecture.
My questions is, what are the consequences should you be wrong?

 

[Harrekin]

Baseless claim that basically amounts to "if we don't fight them there, they'll come here". All that is is fearmongering. It's the rhetoric the Bush administration used to get us into Iraq.

Also, already knowing that is the exact strategy the IS wants, why would it be smart or effective to play right into it so they can kill more American soldiers and we can waste billions of dollars?



"Do we just look away until they take down a building or two of ours?"

15 of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, why aren't you concerned with that country? Why don't we go to war with them? Your fear of one extremist Islamic State but not the other seems inconsistent.

And your reasoning could potentially be used to justify perpetual war. If you are always afraid of being attacked, you will always be engaged in waging a war. Perhaps we should examine the reasons terrorists want to attack us in the first place.

The war industrial complex is an international racket designed to make people money, not protect Americans or promote human rights or liberate people or any of that fairy tale bullshit the politicians and political pundits tell you. If it were, we would be in many African countries liberating people, we'd be in North Korea, we'd be fighting Saudi Arabia. It's all bullshit.

Don't buy into the bullshit.

And just something to think about.. This entire sub is filled with people who oppose the government, right and left, but as soon as that exact same government tells you we have to fight the Islamic State, all of a sudden something changes and they become right over night. Those same suits who lie day in day out right to your face are the same assholes pushing for war.

Why do you think that is?

We do nothing and let the Middle East do what the Middle East usually does (blow itself up), we save American soldiers lives, we save money, and we save face in the international community. Sure there will be chance of attack, but that same exact chance of attack exists if we wage more war, nothing changes. They are still a threat regardless of what we do, why should we give them exactly what they want? It makes no logical or rational sense.

The only way America can save face now is by blowin the shit out of IS, considering it was your retarded war that allowed for the power vacuum, and you's also intentionally armed the fucking terrorists this time too then you may clean up your own mess.

Fucks up Middle East for 10+ years, leaves it in shit ie. FAR worse than when it started, "now it's time to withdraw".

 

[reasonevangelist]

You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist in America...

If that were a question, i'd say "that's a trick question."

Cops in america ARE TERRORISTS.

They all agree to commit unjust violence against innocent people (i.e. cannabis), in exchange for what i consider relatively low compensation.

This whole "war on terror" thing needs to include our own usurped government, as well as the mercenaries it employs to oppress the populace.