5 ms·

Copy pasting this from below: Who gives a fuck what Islamic State wants us to do? This is the most intellectually bankrupt argument tossed around. It literally

Copy pasting this from below: Who gives a fuck what Islamic State wants us to do? This is the most intellectually bankrupt argument tossed around. It literally makes no sense at all. We need to do what is strategically sound. If that happens to be what IS wants, why should that matter one iota beyond the strategic calculus?

pj_mukh 11y ago
Because bombing the shit outta them, won't fix it? Boots on the ground means a larger surge of extremists turning into combatants rushing into the place to make their apocalyptical dreams come true (that is the connection to 'what they want'). For America (or Europe) to rush in seems like the most intellectually bankrupt and strategically inept thing to do. A ground war has barely ever solved a problem in that region. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda (the last targets of our ground wars) are both alive and well and would be flourishing even more if it wasn't for ISIS sucking up new recruits.
- Turing_Machine 11y ago
  "A ground war has barely ever solved a problem in that region." Sure it has. Ever heard of the Ottoman Empire? Where is it now? What happened to it? What happened to Pharaonic Egypt? The Crusader States? The Achaemenid Empire? Carthage? Troy? Akkadia? Babylonia? Many others could be named; the history of the region is rife with examples of ground wars quite decisively solving problems in the region.
  - pj_mukh 11y ago
    Huh? None of them had the power of videos online and twitter. The wide mass spread of ideas worldwide is what makes the 'idea' more potent than anything ground troops could go door-to-door to kill. We have to face it, we cannot shoot and bomb our way out of this. The wars you mention had battles drawn out on big fields. That hasn't been relevant in a century.
    - Turing_Machine 11y ago
      "Huh? None of them had the power of videos online and twitter." Okay, now you're just trying to spin. Naked force has settled more issues ("solved more problems", as you put it) than any other human activity. "The wars you mention had battles drawn out on big fields." What they had was an opponent willing to carry out a policy of utter destruction. ISIS doesn't have such an opponent. Yet.
      - pj_mukh 11y ago
        ISIS is not an opponent that will meet you out on a big field. They don't care if its USA or Russia. What they would rather have is Russian and American troops invading. They'd love that. Film it all, post it up on twitter to convert a large swath of the population that is 'on the fence' to join their death cult. A show of naked force is EXACTLY what they want, because it means they WIN.
    - Turing_Machine 11y ago
      P.S. With respect to "battles drawn out on big fields. That hasn't been relevant in a century" Umm...Stalingrad? 1943? Dude, I really think you need to read some more history, and I'm not saying that to be condescending. Your grasp of historic events seems to be a little hazy. Also, for some reason both the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. thought the Fulda Gap was quite important, right up to the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.
      - pj_mukh 11y ago
        D-day would've have been a more apt a comparison for a war out on the naked field with full blown charges. There was definitely an evolution of warfare (to more asymmetrical styles) in WW2 when compared to WW1 (which I was comparing as my 'century' mark) and its Passchaendale-like battles. Either way, if you had taken the time to not just focus on such a 'Eurocentric' view of history, you would have brought up Sri Lanka and its take down of the idea of Tamil independence (I don't condone this), but they did successfully take down and all but obliterate the Tigers using pure ground naked force. It is the one example I can think of (I'm sure there are more outside Europe), where a ground force was able to neutralize a virulent idea. However, they had the advantage of having a localized idea (i.e. people outside South India and Sri Lanka didn't care), in which case a ground war was more effective. Islamism is an idea with global reach. Cannot bomb an idea with global reach.

pj_mukh 11y ago

Because bombing the shit outta them, won't fix it? Boots on the ground means a larger surge of extremists turning into combatants rushing into the place to make their apocalyptical dreams come true (that is the connection to 'what they want'). For America (or Europe) to rush in seems like the most intellectually bankrupt and strategically inept thing to do. A ground war has barely ever solved a problem in that region. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda (the last targets of our ground wars) are both alive and well and would be flourishing even more if it wasn't for ISIS sucking up new recruits.

Turing_Machine 11y ago
"A ground war has barely ever solved a problem in that region." Sure it has. Ever heard of the Ottoman Empire? Where is it now? What happened to it? What happened to Pharaonic Egypt? The Crusader States? The Achaemenid Empire? Carthage? Troy? Akkadia? Babylonia? Many others could be named; the history of the region is rife with examples of ground wars quite decisively solving problems in the region.
- pj_mukh 11y ago
  Huh? None of them had the power of videos online and twitter. The wide mass spread of ideas worldwide is what makes the 'idea' more potent than anything ground troops could go door-to-door to kill. We have to face it, we cannot shoot and bomb our way out of this. The wars you mention had battles drawn out on big fields. That hasn't been relevant in a century.
  - Turing_Machine 11y ago
    "Huh? None of them had the power of videos online and twitter." Okay, now you're just trying to spin. Naked force has settled more issues ("solved more problems", as you put it) than any other human activity. "The wars you mention had battles drawn out on big fields." What they had was an opponent willing to carry out a policy of utter destruction. ISIS doesn't have such an opponent. Yet.
    - pj_mukh 11y ago
      ISIS is not an opponent that will meet you out on a big field. They don't care if its USA or Russia. What they would rather have is Russian and American troops invading. They'd love that. Film it all, post it up on twitter to convert a large swath of the population that is 'on the fence' to join their death cult. A show of naked force is EXACTLY what they want, because it means they WIN.
  - Turing_Machine 11y ago
    P.S. With respect to "battles drawn out on big fields. That hasn't been relevant in a century" Umm...Stalingrad? 1943? Dude, I really think you need to read some more history, and I'm not saying that to be condescending. Your grasp of historic events seems to be a little hazy. Also, for some reason both the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. thought the Fulda Gap was quite important, right up to the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.
    - pj_mukh 11y ago
      D-day would've have been a more apt a comparison for a war out on the naked field with full blown charges. There was definitely an evolution of warfare (to more asymmetrical styles) in WW2 when compared to WW1 (which I was comparing as my 'century' mark) and its Passchaendale-like battles. Either way, if you had taken the time to not just focus on such a 'Eurocentric' view of history, you would have brought up Sri Lanka and its take down of the idea of Tamil independence (I don't condone this), but they did successfully take down and all but obliterate the Tigers using pure ground naked force. It is the one example I can think of (I'm sure there are more outside Europe), where a ground force was able to neutralize a virulent idea. However, they had the advantage of having a localized idea (i.e. people outside South India and Sri Lanka didn't care), in which case a ground war was more effective. Islamism is an idea with global reach. Cannot bomb an idea with global reach.