|
Is the escalation point or the breaking point?
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2011 00:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 17:39 |
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Big, big deal @CBSNews Libya's ex-justice minister tells Swedish tabloid he has proof Qaddafi personally ordered Lockerbie bombing 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2011 15:47
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:From the pilots point of view getting there and dropping the bombs on first pass wherever is the safest bet. Tell that to Havermeyer. He always gives the gunners below all the time they need to set their sights and take their aim and pull their triggers or lanyards or switches or whatever the hell it is they pull when they want to kill people they don't know.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2011 17:45
|
|
|
Well Jesus Christ, if you're going to generalize to that degree, neoliberal means "spread freedom and free market", so why are we even bothering with grouping attributes into these loose labels, anyway? It's all about what you believe w/r/t capital.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2011 18:41
|
|
|
Ace Oliveira posted:It would have been better if they got him alive, but considering how hosed up he was that may not have been possible. Whoops I seem to have shot you in the leg my good captive. Oh dear, it seems you're bleeding quite badly. Help. Help. ... Hey guys come take a picture of this!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2011 14:53
|
|
|
henpod posted:How about our buddy Saif; news reports say he may have been in the convoy with his father. It would be interesting if he was captured, although I would be surprised if he makes it to a court. There was an early claim that he was dead too, and that the other son is scrambling around in the desert somewhere.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2011 16:06
|
|
|
Delthalaz posted:So I basically interpret from this that Israel did the equivalent of kicking the Assad regime in the balls as a warning? More like that scene where a grimacing Jack Palance throws down a revolver in the dirt in front of the villain and growls "go on, pick it up".
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
MothraAttack posted:Annnnnd they've done it. Baghdadi's caliphate is officially declared, per Adnani. Will leave this to better analysts to sort out. Two things that appear certain 1. It's now just the Islamic State, not ISIS and 2. This claim in theory trumps all other claims to jihad, meaning Zawhiri and all branches of AQ owe allegiance now to Baghdadi (according to the Islamic State, that is). At first I interpreted this to mean that ISIS had taken Baghdad and  Do we know how Iran is going to respond to this? Beyond "poorly", that is.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:India and Pakistan got what, maybe 200 nukes between them? Turkey is in fuckin' NATO. The US would blot out the sun with MIRVs before Turkey got run over by IS. Wouldn't even be necessary. Turkey would turn these guys into a fine red mist, all by themselves. Not to say that we wouldn't be nodding appreciatively, but there is no conceivable situation where we have to send our army mans back over.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
This whole Islam derail is people talking past each other. Jesus Christ (if he existed) was a literal communist, but no one would say that today's Christian Church, or even the church as Paul understood it, is a communist organization. Islam as Muhammad and Hanifa knew it is necessarily a different beast from modern Islam, and even from Wahhabist extremism. Same reason Doniger's book is titled "The Hindus" and not "Hinduism". &c mdemone fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Jul 2, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
I'm joining this situation late, but I had a bit of a question, not from a moral/immoral perspective but just regarding what is possible. Isn't the U.S. more than capable of simply wiping out most of ISIS with a short campaign of airstrikes? I mean, we have spy satellites looking up their noses, and they're only about ten thousand goobers with rifles and some minor hardware (unless I am badly mistaken, and I would welcome any corrections). This is not to ask whether we should or shouldn't do it, or whether collateral damage would make it unpalatable -- but isn't it true that we could do it without ever really putting any American in harm's way?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Not even if we plowed all their cities under with bunker busters. Because it would rally ten times as many people to their cause, is that what you mean? I guess I am having trouble understanding how such a relatively small number of people can control such a large area, and what level of strain that puts on them defensively. Edit: Let me be clear that I do not support military strikes against ISIS, and that overall you would find me one of the more ardent anti-American Americans around. I think I am just having trouble parsing this situation -- and I guess it is probably true that if we could solve the problem with pure violence, we would already have done so. mdemone fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Aug 8, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
Gregor Samsa posted:They are unbelievable assholes, but they're much, much more than religious yahoos with AK-47's. Dropping a couple, or a couple hundred, big bombs isn't going to do much at all to intimidate them, but it will kill civilians and give ISIS recruits from across the Middle East. And the more we do in the region, the better it is for their recruiting. Very little gets jihadis motivated like a potential showdown with the US. I certainly understand all of this. But surely they have limited hardware resources that could be seriously crippled, or are they way more loaded than I imagine? And again I should say that I'm not asking whether something should be done. Even one more civilian death on America's hands in this region would be one too many. It's not like us to stand around with our thumbs in our asses, though, because blowing people up is what we do and we're very good at it. mdemone fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Aug 8, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
Edit: ^^^ Thanks, this is more along the lines of what I'm asking about. ^^^i am harry posted:This is sort of like the flawed attitude toward lethal injection drugs in places like Arizona...that double the drugs = double the efficacy. I know that, dammit. I continue to make it clear that this is the exact reason why we shouldn't. However, we are not known for performing morally-correct actions, and we've blanketed countries with fire many times.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
i am harry posted:Blanketing countries with fire is what got us here. Right, and the Pentagon has suddenly and only just now realized the error of its ways? I'm not asking "why aren't we justified in doing this", I'm asking "why didn't we already stick our dick in the mashed potatoes like we always do".
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
fspades posted:Airstrikes alone can't annihilate ISIS. Even with the presence of ground forces the US military failed to destroy them in the past. Why are you still arguing about this? I think you're under the impression that I'm playing some kind of devil's advocate in a Socratic exercise supporting military strikes, which is not the case. I'm asking out of simple confusion because I don't know a lot about the particulars of ISIS and their resources/extent. Clearly this is the wrong place to have done so, or at least the wrong time.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 17:39 |
|
|
JT Jag posted:The CIA's very spotty record of attempts There, that's better.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 18:29
|
|