The air strikes thus far have been very targeted. I haven't even seen any reports of mass civilian casualties. Do you have a link? Ultimately it may not be possible for there to not be any civilian casualties, but the civilian casualties are very low with the kind of targeted air strikes we're doing. President Obama has received quite a bit of criticism for not expanding the air strikes.
Rand Paul op-ed: ‘I Am Not an Isolationist’
- Thread starter Dianne
- Start date
The air strikes thus far have been very targeted. I haven't even seen any reports of mass civilian casualties. Do you have a link? Ultimately it may not be possible for there to not be any civilian casualties, but the civilian casualties are very low with the kind of targeted air strikes we're doing. President Obama has received quite a bit of criticism for not expanding the air strikes.
1) I don't know what kind of an attack it would be. There's no possible way for me to know that without having access to intelligence reports.
2) I think they're less likely to carry out an attack if we can destroy their infrastructure. Their command and control center is located in Syria, and I think it would benefit our national security if we could take it out. Taking out their infrastructure makes it less likely that they could coordinate with each other and pull off an attack. I also think it's more likely that they could pull off an attack against us if they could actually take over Iraq and set up their own government. They would then have access to air planes and weapons they could use against us. If they were able to take over Pakistan they would even have access to nuclear weapons.
Acala
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 13,421
This is just wild speculation. You could say this about ANYONE.
I don't think so. I think this is a pretty unusual situation where a real threat actually exists. Most of the so called threats are simply media fabrications, such as Iran's nuclear program. But this is a situation where there is a real threat because U.S foreign policy has been so messed up in the past that it created a monster. Rand understands that even though non intervention is best, when U.S foreign policy creates a monster it has to be destroyed before we can actually have peace and non intervention.
Bombing for peace is like having sex for virginity.
Let me explain it like this. The U.S government is largely responsible for the rise of ISIS through funding them and training them. We all agree on that. Rand was opposed to that. He opposed arming the Syrian rebels and was certainly opposed to training them. Yet, if he became President he would have to deal with a monster that was created by the U.S government. Could he just ignore it simply because he generally believes that non intervention is best? I don't think so, because any President has to deal with the past mistakes of previous Presidents and the U.S government in general. He would have a responsibility to protect the country, and he would have the responsibility of dealing with the blowback that's been caused by previous decisions made by the government. Rand would be in favor of protecting the American people from the blowback caused by U.S foreign policy, and then after the threat has been eliminated, implement policies that will at least hopefully start to fix the problem, such as not giving weapons to people who want to kill us.
How do you stop blowback by creating more blowback?
cajuncocoa
Banned
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 16,013
The wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round....'round and 'round....'round and 'round.....
Yes because the media is very forthcoming with civilian casualties. But don't worry, they won't be able to hide that information forever. The reports will come just like they have EVERY time we bomb for peace. Btw, how are those "targeted strikes" working for you in Yemen? I'm sure you support those too right? Since it isn't to topple a government, doesn't involve boots on the ground and its against Al Qaeda. How about "targeted strikes" in Somalia against Al-Shabab? They threatened us too! As long as we don't topple the government. IT's all good right?
See my response to that in the other thread.
Im glad someone else is seeing this entire issue for what it truly is, another bite at the Syria apple. Now, Israel is reportedly bombing (and has been for a while) Syrian military. Does anyone think that's unrelated? I sure hope no one is that naive. Israel quietly degrades Syrian infrastructure while we are consumed by ISIS debates and propaganda, leaving a weakened Assad government and military for ISIS (aka "Syrian rebels") to attack again while our planes drop bombs on "ISIS" in Syria (actually Syrian military, along with Israel's bombing). That provides enough damage to Assad to allow the "rebels" to win this time. Assad is removed in some manner and puppet government and central bank is installed. Then, Syria becomes a useful tool to take over neighboring Lebanon without much military effort and then will likely be used as a pawn to start a war with Iran.
It's not rocket science folks.
Acala
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 13,421
An army of terrorists that has no way in hell of ever getting near the USA. Your fantasy to the contrary is, frankly, absurd. They will never leave the Middle East as an army.
Of course a handful might make it over, slip into the USA, and do some damage. But the only way you could prevent that from happening with military action is by killing every single person that hates the USA including all the people that didn't hate the USA until your latest bombing. And then kill all of the next generation of terrorists that the last bombing created. And so on in an infinite cycle. It is is impossible to solve a problem created by bombing people with more bombing of the same people. Thinking that you can curtail the effects of decades of violence with a bit more well-placed violence is a kind of willful blindness.
The only rational course is to stop doing what it is we have been doing to irritate them in the first place. The answer is NOT to do more of the same thing that created this problem.
Not to mention the fact that, even if they were to grow that powerful, they would still have to deal with Jordan, Turkey, Israel, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia. All of whom we have armed.
AND on top of all that, they still have to hold on to territory they have taken. It is not easy running a country. How can they grow the economy of their country to create weapons while at the same time attack other countries. Will they create their own Federal Reserve to pay for all this?
ISIS is murdering innocent people. The United States is not. If the United States begins to murder innocent people, then the United States will be seen as an enemy by the innocent people. So instead of murdering innocent people like ISIS does, let's just... not do that.
Piggy-backing off my last post here.
SecState Kerry says today it'll take up to 3 YEARS to get rid of ISIS.
http://www.businessinsider.com/john-kerry-isis-obama-destroy-coalition-2014-9
That sounds like just about how long it'll take to follow the blueprint I laid out in my post above, up to the point when Iran squarely becomes the target. ISIS is simply the new AQ-esque boogeyman, controlled and funded by our own intelligence agencies, that's being used as the cover for the rest of the regime changes needed to secure NWO controlled puppets and central banks in every country. Only then can world government be realized, only then can a nation-less currency be fully instituted (bye bye USD), etc.
In other words, if people let them win this argument and continue on with the plan, it's game, set, match for national sovereignty. Done deal. All that's left is to watch it play out.
SecState Kerry says today it'll take up to 3 YEARS to get rid of ISIS.
http://www.businessinsider.com/john-kerry-isis-obama-destroy-coalition-2014-9
That sounds like just about how long it'll take to follow the blueprint I laid out in my post above, up to the point when Iran squarely becomes the target. ISIS is simply the new AQ-esque boogeyman, controlled and funded by our own intelligence agencies, that's being used as the cover for the rest of the regime changes needed to secure NWO controlled puppets and central banks in every country. Only then can world government be realized, only then can a nation-less currency be fully instituted (bye bye USD), etc.
In other words, if people let them win this argument and continue on with the plan, it's game, set, match for national sovereignty. Done deal. All that's left is to watch it play out.
Last edited:
I would love to hear what the part-time non-interventionists say if this latest war is still going on in 2 years. Probably something along the lines of, "If we didn't bomb them, America would be in ashes right now!"
As for me, if we are still in Iraq in 2 years, I will proudly say that I wrote in Ron Paul again in 2016!
They'll say whatever Hannity and Maddow tells them to say.
Kerry said:
Like I said, they need this step to finish the job of regime changes under false pretenses. Much of understanding what prominent politicians/gov't lackeys say involves understanding the deeper context of their comments. Kerry isn't scared of ISIS. Kerry knows they need this cover story to finish the regime change plans since Al Qaeda is a worn out term and there's no other boogeymen to use.
I don't see how he ever flip flopped. He said from the very beginning that he was open to air strikes in Iraq. But unlike other politicians, he isn't going to just immediately support using military action without first thinking it through.
I mean the nature of the attack. Are they planning some sort of direct invasion of the US? No, obviously not. If they were to attack us, it would be through a small group of people committing terrorism. Going into their territory and dropping bombs will not prevent that.
You have a cite for the location of the command center? I'm not saying it isn't in Syria but would like more info regarding the nature of their HQ. What "infrastructure" are you referring to?
They are not going to take over Iraq let alone Pakistan. That's just absurd. They have made no major advances recently and are under attack from Iran, Syria, Turkey, the current Iraqi government, and the Kurdish Peshmerga. In order to even enter Pakistan they would have to take over Afghanistan, and if they were ever stupid enough to try and invade Pakistan THEY would be nuked. If somehow they were able to take over Iraq (something I see no evidence of being likely) what are they going to do to us? Fly their planes across the Atlantic?
ISIS is boxed in and unlikely to expand further. However, they do have some very wealthy backers so it will probably take a good deal of blood and treasure to exterminate them fully. Better we let the countries who are actually in the region do the heavy lifting and not risk any more American lives, taxpayer dollars, or blowback.
Similar threads
