[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;418026]BTW, While I answered your question, (as best I could) you avoided mine:

What alternative is there other than a very large ground assault?[/QUOTE]Take off and nuke them from orbit?

[QUOTE=xilman;418029]Take off and nuke them from orbit?[/QUOTE]

There would certainly not be much collateral or environmental damge there.....:smile:

OTOH, naphthenic and palmitic acid work quite well....... And we could
even have a weenie roast afterward! :smile:
Where is Robert Duvall when we need him?

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;418030]OTOH, naphthenic and palmitic acid work quite well...[/QUOTE]It smells of success

[QUOTE]As for "collateral damage", the death of Middle Easterners is quite rightly their concern.[/QUOTE]But not the concern of those deploying forces and weapons?

"And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee." (...and for thy conscience.)

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;418025]I can't put a number on it. Any answer that I give would be arbitrary.[/QUOTE]Okay. Let's approach the number question from a different angle.

Would you be willing to accept a million casualties? A simple yes or no will suffice.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;418025]The answer would depend on how much participation there is from other countries and the U.N.[/QUOTE]For simplicity, let's pretend that the million casualties are from a very large force representing many nations.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;418026]BTW, While I answered your question, (as best I could) you avoided mine:

What alternative is there other than a very large ground assault?[/QUOTE]How is ISIS affecting you, personally, right now? Do you live in a constant state of panic and fear?

If not, perhaps the best alternative is to not inflame the situation (that we have created) any more?

With what we have learned from first two wars in Iraq that we have perpetuated, if you could go back in time, would you be in support of the path we took?

If not, what makes this time any different?

[SIZE=1] (How many people in the world are living in a constant state of panic and fear from drones?)[/SIZE]

[QUOTE][SIZE=1](How many people in the world are living in a constant state of panic and fear from drones?)[/SIZE][/QUOTE]
+1 :down:

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;418026]BTW, While I answered your question, (as best I could) you avoided mine:

What alternative is there other than a very large ground assault?[/QUOTE]

Actually, you didn't - I see no credible estimates of how many Iraqis died in the 2 US invasions and their aftermaths. Did you not read the question, or do you simply not give a rat's ass about non-'Mericans killed in US invasions and regime-change efforts?

But I am glad to answer your question - you see, I've actually done some homework on this issue before spouting off with ludicrous 'shock and awe' proposals which involve 'unnamed other people' putting their asses on the line, in classic post-WW2 American chickenhawk couch-warrior tradition. Since we can't go back in time, here is what I propose, given the current situation:

[1] Stop our various neocon regime-destabilizing programs (too late in Libya, but not in Syria);

[2] Sanction nations such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey which are providing money and material support to ISIS;

[3] Stop the indirect funneling of weapons from the US to ISIS via the "we gave weapons to these 'moderate' Syrian rebels and they instantly surrendered them to ISIS" pipeline. How about we give any such aid to the Kurds, who have actually done yeoman's work in combating ISIS?

[4] Let the Russkies and Iranians actually fight ISIS, since we and our appalling 'allies' in the region seem unwilling to do so;

[5] WTF are we doing 'supporting' the corrupt Turks when they use 'fighting ISIS' as a pretext to go after the Kurds and shoot down Russian planes which are actually going after ISIS in order to protect their oil/money trade with ISIS?

:busted:

[QUOTE=ewmayer;418062]Actually, you didn't - I see no credible estimates of how many Iraqis died in the 2 US invasions and their aftermaths. Did you not read the question, or do you simply not give a rat's ass about non-'Mericans killed in US invasions and regime-change efforts?

[/QUOTE]

Actually, I did. Any number that I give would be arbitrary. Furthermore, the question itself is a leading
'have you stopped beating your wife question'. It is flame bait.

If I gave a small number as an answer it would open up an attack that my suggestion of a large number of troops
is total nonsense.

If I give a large number as an answer it opens an attack that I don't care about casualties when I am not personally
involved.

[QUOTE]
But I am glad to answer your question - you see, I've actually done some homework on this issue before spouting off with ludicrous 'shock and awe' proposals which involve 'unnamed other people' putting their asses on the line, in classic post-WW2 American chickenhawk couch-warrior tradition. Since we can't go back in time, here is what I propose, given the current situation:



[1] Stop our various neocon regime-destabilizing programs (too late in Libya, but not in Syria);
[/QUOTE]

Assumes facts without proof. I agree that we indulge in such behavior. I see no proof that it would
help solve the problem with extremists in the Middle East. It would merely mean that the ones in
charge are not put there by us, but instead selected by events that no one can control.

There is no evidence that our leaving the Middle East totally alone would get rid of extremism.



[QUOTE]
[2] Sanction nations such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey which are providing money and material support to ISIS;
[/QUOTE]

Yep. Sanctions worked very well with IRAN. You can't fight ideology and religious fanaticism with 'sanctions'
And with extremist states such as Saudi Arabia such sanctions would (based on historical evidence) result in
terrorist attacks by the Saudis. 9/11 was perpetrated by Saudis.

Furthermore, as long as the Muslims have such total hatred of Israel, and as long as we support Israel I suspect
that there will still be extremist attacks on us, no matter what else we do.

The current question is not, "What can we do to bring (or force) peace in the Middle East'.
I don't believe that is possible today. Once upon a time England/Western Europe was much like the Middle East
in the way those in power treated people. (burning for heresy, torture, etc. forced conformity to religion etc.) They grew out of it
but it took many hundreds of years. [Yes we can debate English history if you like]

The only question before us in this thread is how to get rid of a group that is indulging in total savagery.

The Saudis are an example of a stable state with law and order, but it is still an extremist state whose
citizens conduct terrorist attacks. [9/11 !!!!!]

[QUOTE]

[3] Stop the indirect funneling of weapons from the US to ISIS via the "we gave weapons to these 'moderate' Syrian rebels and they instantly surrendered them to ISIS" pipeline. How about we give any such aid to the Kurds, who have actually done yeoman's work in combating ISIS?
[/QUOTE]

This is simply selecting which SOB's in the Middle East are 'our SOB's' and which are not.
[QUOTE]

[4] Let the Russkies and Iranians actually fight ISIS, since we and our appalling 'allies' in the region seem unwilling to do so;
[/QUOTE]

This suggestion supports my suggestion that the only way to eliminate ISIS is with troops on the ground. It simply replaces
NATO troops with Russian troops.
[QUOTE]

[5] WTF are we doing 'supporting' the corrupt Turks when they use 'fighting ISIS' as a pretext to go after the Kurds and shoot down Russian planes which are actually going after ISIS in order to protect their oil/money trade with ISIS?[/QUOTE]

Again. This is merely selecting which SOB's are ours.

The only question under consideration is how to get rid of ISIS. The fact that it will leave a power vacuum which will
lead to other problems is not part of the decision. There are several possible consequences to a power vacuum and
trying to guess which of them will occur requires a crystal ball. I do acknowledge that other problems will follow.
We can only deal with them one at a time.


Personally, I blame the [b]entire[/b] Middle Eastern 'good old boy, tribal, misogynist religious nut-case culture' for the problems.
It is claimed that the extremists are a minority. I don't see the majority doing anything about it except
to pay lip service to 'bad behavior' after it happens.

We've got our share of extremists too. --> so called 'conservative evangelical Christians, skinheads, KKK, etc'.
But of course the Republicans who are so strongly ranting against Muslim extremists do not call out Christian
extremists when they attack Planned Parenthood. Indeed, they claim that such acts are NOT terrorism.

BTW, The Republican failure to call out attacks on Planned Parenthood as 'terrorist' is yet another
example of tribalism at work. The Republicans see such terrorists as part of THEIR tribe and ideology
and therefore refuse to acknowledge the perps as terrorists.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;418209]BTW, The Republican failure to call out attacks on Planned Parenthood as 'terrorist' is yet another
example of tribalism at work. The Republicans see such terrorists as part of THEIR tribe and ideology
and therefore refuse to acknowledge the perps as terrorists.[/QUOTE]

It seems that the attack in California was indeed muslim terrorism:


"One of the two people, Tashfeen Malik , accused of killing 14 at a holiday party in California posted an
online statement pledging allegiance to a leader of the Islamic State militant group, CNN reported on Friday,
citing U.S. officials."

See:

<url>http://www.aol.com/article/2015/12/04/california-massacre-shooter-pledged-allegiance-to-isis-cnn/21278492/</url>


Muslims claim that their religion is a religion of peace. I believe that is a lie.
In support of this claim I put forth the following:

<url>http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/</url>

Sharia law is stone-age barbarism. The fact the most Muslims support it speaks for itself.
Sharia law is how Europe used to act in the middle ages. Sharia Law is how the Catholic Church
used to behave (inquisition, anyone?). Europe grew out of it, but as I said before, it took hundreds of years. How long
will muslims take?


"All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."

Why aren't the "peaceful" muslims helping out against ISIS? Why haven't Saudi Arabia,
Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, etc. etc. pledged their support to act against ISIS? Why
haven't they acted? The muslim "silent majority" has done damn little to help out.