What we did to the Nazis, their Families, and their Children, during that war:

WILL be done to Them in this war.

Always has been. Always will be.

The problem is there is no war.

Well, from a more practical perspective, hitting the families of the fighters of IS it means we have to start bombing France, The Netherlands, Germany, the UK, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Russia. Just to name a few countries that aren't where the actual battlefield is located.

A Scared Democracy does...

All wars are terrible. The Moral Side uses the exact same tactics to win the war, as its Evil Adversary. In this case the Jihadists. In the past - The Nazis.

The Moral Side wins, if they kill and destroy their Enemy's Soldiers, Supporters, Income, War making Capability, and if need be, their Family's. At a far greater rate than the Enemy can.

This is the Historical problem a Moral Democracy has:

Its unwillingness to accept what must be done, until the Threat becomes so immediate, that the reaction is more terrible, than needed to be done in the past.

This is one of those instances, where the Ethical and Moral, as you are Мишель, causes more deaths and destruction, by not acting sooner.

So true Clyde so let's roll out those nukes and be done with the whole area .

Sounds cruel but i can see no other way to solve the problem as all side there are to blame so nuke them all and be done with it .

---

A Scared Democracy does...

All wars are terrible. The Moral Side uses the exact same tactics to win the war, as its Evil Adversary. In this case the Jihadists. In the past - The Nazis.

The Moral Side wins, if they kill and destroy their Enemy's Soldiers, Supporters, Income, War making Capability, and if need be, their Family's. At a far greater rate than the Enemy can.

This is the Historical problem a Moral Democracy has:

Its unwillingness to accept what must be done, until the Threat becomes so immediate, that the reaction is more terrible, than needed to be done in the past.

This is one of those instances, where the Ethical and Moral, as you are Мишель, causes more deaths and destruction, by not acting sooner.

So true Clyde so let's roll out those nukes and be done with the whole area .

Sounds cruel but i can see no other way to solve the problem as all side there are to blame so nuke them all and be done with it .

Well, if you make all the oil radioactive you just might also solve global warming at the same time ;-)

---

A Scared Democracy does...

All wars are terrible. The Moral Side uses the exact same tactics to win the war, as its Evil Adversary. In this case the Jihadists. In the past - The Nazis.

The Moral Side wins, if they kill and destroy their Enemy's Soldiers, Supporters, Income, War making Capability, and if need be, their Family's. At a far greater rate than the Enemy can.

This is the Historical problem a Moral Democracy has:

Its unwillingness to accept what must be done, until the Threat becomes so immediate, that the reaction is more terrible, than needed to be done in the past.

This is one of those instances, where the Ethical and Moral, as you are Мишель, causes more deaths and destruction, by not acting sooner.


So true Clyde so let's roll out those nukes and be done with the whole area .

Sounds cruel but i can see no other way to solve the problem as all side there are to blame so nuke them all and be done with it .

Well, if you make all the oil radioactive you just might also solve global warming at the same time ;-)

I doubt that Gary as Americans keep telling us all you have plenty of oil so we mite just fix the problem in the middle east but you guys are still going to drive around in them Humvee's and pump out all that Co2 so it won't help global warming ........

mmmm wondering now if you need to nuke yourself to save the rest of us from your Co2 factory's called HUMVEE's :)

---

Glenn...
It is you who postulates a Nuclear Response.

Hopefully he's not.
The region where most jihadists operates are large.
Middle East, Northern Africa, Indonesia....
Europe countries as well:(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U3skMV41Ug
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyQ0XaUOgU4

The Moral Side wins, if they kill and destroy their Enemy's Soldiers, Supporters, Income, War making Capability, and if need be, their Family's. At a far greater rate than the Enemy can.

You are talking about waging a war against a state. This worked against the Nazis because the Nazis had a state. A state means there is a hierarchy that can be disrupted, there are organizations and institutions that organize the war effort, which can be attacked, there is an industrial base that can be bombed, etc. IS is not a state, and as a result it has non of the traditional weaknesses of a state. There are no industrial sites that we can bomb to disrupt their war economy. There are no official bureaucracies housed in ministries that we can bomb. There is no hierarchical structure that we can effectively disrupt.

Now all that you have left are bombing enemy combatants. Well great, there tens of thousands of them, all spread throughout the region. They don't wear uniforms, they don't move in nice big formations, so bombing them is difficult. Worse, bombing them causes collateral damage, which drives the local population to support them, which only enhances their grip on the region.

And like I said, if you want to bomb their families, you have to start bombing the Netherlands, France, Germany, Russia and the UK as well. I'm sure you'll agree with me that this would be an incredibly stupid idea.

This is one of those instances, where the Ethical and Moral, as you are Мишель, causes more deaths and destruction, by not acting sooner.

Acting for the sake of acting is a dumb idea. Before you can act effectively, you must understand your enemy, you must understand the nature of the conflict and you must understand yourself. In this case, it appears we don't understand our enemy, the conflict and ourselves, and as a result the way we act ends up being ineffective. And no, genocide and war crimes will not help us win the war nor will they save more lives. The whole 'peace through superior firepower' idea is not something that works in real life.

Your response is very typical. Historically speaking.

Doesn't really matter if a State, Proto-State (ISIS), or a Movement (Secular or Religious).

Of course that matters. If it didn't matter, as you claim, you wouldn't have lost in Vietnam. You would have won in Iraq and Afghanistan. But all those cases demonstrate that while the superior firepower of the US, and indeed the much greater rate at which the US kills enemy combatants, they are unable to win the war. You win all the battles, but those are just tactical victories. In the meantime, your opponents keep winning all the strategic victories. And in the end, a strategic victory is what determines who wins a war.

And that is what history has shown, and has always shown and will continue to show.

The Moral Side wins, if they kill and destroy their Enemy's Soldiers, Supporters, Income, War making Capability, and if need be, their Family's. At a far greater rate than the Enemy can.

You are talking about waging a war against a state. This worked against the Nazis because the Nazis had a state. A state means there is a hierarchy that can be disrupted, there are organizations and institutions that organize the war effort, which can be attacked, there is an industrial base that can be bombed, etc. IS is not a state, and as a result it has non of the traditional weaknesses of a state. There are no industrial sites that we can bomb to disrupt their war economy. There are no official bureaucracies housed in ministries that we can bomb. There is no hierarchical structure that we can effectively disrupt.

Now all that you have left are bombing enemy combatants. Well great, there tens of thousands of them, all spread throughout the region. They don't wear uniforms, they don't move in nice big formations, so bombing them is difficult. Worse, bombing them causes collateral damage, which drives the local population to support them, which only enhances their grip on the region.

And like I said, if you want to bomb their families, you have to start bombing the Netherlands, France, Germany, Russia and the UK as well. I'm sure you'll agree with me that this would be an incredibly stupid idea.

So you did actually agree with me in the ISIL troops thread. We do nothing until they form a state with land. Then once that is done, we can defeat them.

It is next to impossible to defeat dispersed nomads. Sometimes you can exterminate them, but you have to exterminate all within their range to be sure. Normally that is seen as too costly; the only ones who don't are religious freaks and other racist xenophobes.

---

Vietnam, Iraq, Korea, et al. are just canards by...

They were not Wars of Survival. Just Military Conflicts.

Oh you mean that this conflict with IS is a war for our survival? That IS represents an existential threat to Europe and the United States? Really?

Not to say that IS can't be dangerous, but they are nothing more than insurgents and terrorists. Terrorists and insurgenst don't overthrow states unless those states are really weak to begin with. European states or the US aren't weak states. IS does no more represent an existential threat to us than the Vietcong did.

So you did actually agree with me in the ISIL troops thread. We do nothing until they form a state with land. Then once that is done, we can defeat them.

They won't form a state. IS isn't capable of maintaining an actual state. Right now they get some support from the local population because they are fighting Assad, who the locals hate even more, but once IS stops doing that, the locals will turn on them soon enough. Their insane brand of terror does not inspire any kind loyalty. Stop fighting them, let them try and just wait a few years and the whole thing will collapse on itself.

Besides, we are best at fighting advanced states, with an industrial or post industrial economy and a military industrial complex that is maintaining the standing army. Even if IS forms a state, they would be decades away from any of that. To put it bluntly, they would have a state but they wouldn't have enough infrastructure for us to bomb.

Only those who have their 'Heads in The Sand'. don't understand.

Мишель...

About what are the Jihadists lying?

Why do you believe they are lying?

You really believe Evil is lying?

Lying about what? That they want to form a state? Oh no, I believe they really do want to form a state. But its not about what they want, its about what they can do. You don't build a state out of nothing on mass executions and mass terror.

They wish to return ALL previously controlled land, to their control.

They are not stopping with a State, and live within its boundaries.

They repeatedly state this.

AKA: 'First The Sudetenland' then...

No difference.

What is difficult to understand?

Why do you believe they are lying?

Will they try? Perhaps.

But even if they do, that doesn't mean they will be a threat like the Nazis were. See, the Nazis had an actual state, a state that throughout Europe's history had proven to work. Germany was a fully industrialized country. It had the industrial capabilities to form a sizeable, modern, well equipped and well trained army. As a state, it had the necessary bureaucracy to control its territory and raise taxes, and it had the legitimacy so people paid their taxes. And when the war broke out, the German bureaucracy was capable of directing the war effort in a competent and efficient manner.

What does IS have? Guns looted from army bases and stuff sold on the black market. But any industrial capable of sustaining the armies? Capable of producing more guns an ammunition? And what about more advanced weapon platforms? Can they produce tanks or airplanes? Nope, they can't do any of that. Do you know what the most advanced and most efficient weapon is in IS's arsenal? A car bomb.

What about their bureaucracy? Well, they are implementing one, and from the reports it appears its not that bad. But then again, its one thing to implement a temporary bureaucracy when trying to fill a power vacuum left by a failing state, its another thing to keep that bureaucracy intact once that power vacuum is gone, let alone have that bureaucracy direct an offensive against other countries. Furthermore, their state lacks legitimacy, which means they have to constantly enforce their will through mass terror and repression. That means tax collecting is difficult and it means a significant portion of their forces is stuck at home where they have to implement the terror and repression and keep the population from chasing them out.

Their long term situation is unstable as it is and the condition they will find themselves in if they ever manage to beat Assad and the Iraqi government does not favor them at all. And if they then are also going to attack more countries, without any kind of control over the air and being constantly attacked by airstrikes? I would almost wish them luck, but I want them to fail so I won't ;)

Of course there are differences between WWII and this. For one: The casualties may be much higher.

You need a history lesson.
D-Day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy_landings wrote:

Allied casualties on the first day were at least 10,000, with 4,414 confirmed dead.[184] The Germans lost 1,000 men.[185]

Total 15,414
Gettysburg http://www.civilwar.org/education/civil-war-casualties.html from graphic wrote:

51,000

Modern warfare does not cause as many causalities.

---

Of course there are differences between WWII and this. For one: The casualties may be much higher.

That is doubtful. WW2 took the lives of millions of people. It included systematic, industrialized mass murder. These guys are mass murderers sure, and if they were ever given the chance they might indeed do such things. But I don't think they will be given the chance.

What will the reaction be if/when these Mass Murdering, Insane, Religious Fanatics set off a Chemical/Biological/Radioactive device?

Assad set off biological weapons against his own people, and we went in and took his weapons away. We didn't wipe him from the face of the earth, we didn't commit mass murder, so why would we do that now?

You believe no sane Movement, Person or Religion would do this?

I believe no sane movement, person or religion would react the way you think they do.

You believe they do not, or will never have, this capability?

Really?

Yeah I'm pretty sure about that. Chemical weapons are difficult enough to make, you need a team of scientists and the right facilities to create the biological/chemical agent, and after that you also need a delivery platform.

Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? Meh.

Do they have the Insane Need, to cut off the heads of Western Children, within Western Countries?

What will be the reaction then?

Disgust and anger, followed by the realization that we must preserve what we stand for, to show terrorists that we refuse to bow to their insanity. After that, increasing support for the alliance fighting IS, possibly including the option of boots on the ground. Also further restrictions on privacy to protect national security.

If we are talking about something that has always happened, this would be it.

Just that it will happen. As it always has.

It doesn't always happen. In fact, it has only happened twice in human history. Just twice. From alll the conflicts humanity has waged since the dawn of time, only 2 have been total wars. They are not the rule, they are the exception.

No amount of Ethical Grandstanding, nor Wishful Thinking, will change this.

No, but a quick glance a history book shows that what you pretend is historical inevitability is actually not all that inevitable. The human race does not react the way you think it does. We are not the beasts you think we are.

Never mind the headlines. We’ve never lived in such peaceful times.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/12/the_world_is_not_falling_apart_the_trend_lines_reveal_an_increasingly_peaceful.html

Why, and what alleged 'thinking' of yours, disagrees?

Because we know exactly what a terrorist CBR weapons attack looks like. Has already happened, twice. OBW one of those attacks was in the USA! Such big press horror at the people dropping like flies that you will instantly remember it. The other was in Tokyo. You might remember that one. Tossing airplanes at buildings seems to generate higher causality figures.

---

And in the Future?

The codeword for FUD!

---

Iran nuclear deal: So when will Tehran get a McDonald's?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33549187

If you are interested in running a McDonald's franchise in Iran, you can apply to do so here:http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/franchising/franchise_application.html?intlFranchCountry=Iran

“Bye bye falafel, hello McDonalds!”
"I went to the store now and they still don’t have whiskey! What kind of a deal is this?”

Are we forgetting this?
According to Amnesty International, at least 17,000 people, mostly civilians, have been killed since Boko Haram launched its uprising in 2009.
The group is still holding many women, girls and children captive, including 219 schoolgirls it kidnapped from a school in Chibok in April last year.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-33631744

Naw, it was to rescue the bones of someone long dead, the present has no appeal for them.

Please dont answer my posts so quickly:)
Turkey are evacuating a tomb but letting bombs fall over their so called "brothers" the kurds.

Kurds are hated in Iraq, Turkey, And more than likel;y Iran. Why would they expect help when most in the ME want them dead?
Why do you think the US had a no fly zone after the first Gulf war with Iraq?
It was because Sadam was going after the Kurds.

Makes this interesting then.

What is Turkey's game?

The last 3 posts are best suited to the racist threads.