IDF vindicated as US admits that more civilians must die to defeat ISIL

Last year the Washington Free Beacon reported:

 U.S. military pilots who have returned from the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq are confirming that they were blocked from dropping 75 percent of their ordnance on terror targets because they could not get clearance to launch a strike, according to a leading member of Congress.

Strikes against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) targets are often blocked due to an Obama administration policy to prevent civilian deaths and collateral damage, according to Rep. Ed Royce (R., Calif.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The policy is being blamed for allowing Islamic State militants to gain strength across Iraq and continue waging terrorist strikes throughout the region and beyond, according to Royce and former military leaders who spoke Wednesday about flaws in the U.S. campaign to combat the Islamic State.

“When we agreed we were going to do airpower and the military said, this is how it would work, he [Obama] said, ‘No, I do not want any civilian casualties,’” [former general Jack] Keane explained. “And the response was, ‘But there’s always some civilian casualties. We have the best capability in the world to protect from civilians casualties.’”

However, Obama’s response was, “No, you don’t understand. I want no civilian casualties. Zero,’” Keane continued. “So that has driven our so-called rules of engagement to a degree we have never had in any previous air campaign from Desert Storm to the present.”

I noted then:

 Obama is the first head of state in history to engage in a war where the rules of war have been created not by generals but by so-called "human rights groups."

We've looked at international law as it is actually written, not as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty choose to interpret it. The laws of armed conflict allow a nation at war to minimize civilians casualties but many military targets are valuable enough that unwanted civilian casualties become a necessary evil. 

To mandate that a war must be waged where there are zero civilian casualties is to surrender that war.

Now, it appears that the administration, on some level, has woken up and admitted that killing civilians is sometimes necessary in order to get high-value targets - which is what international law allows.

From USA Today:

 The Pentagon has approved airstrikes that risk more civilian casualties in order to destroy Islamic State targets as part of its increasingly aggressive fight against the militant group in Iraq and Syria, according to interviews with military officials and data.

Six Defense Department officials, all speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to describe how Islamic State targets are selected and attacked, described a sliding scale of probable civilian casualties based on the value of the target and the location. For example, a strike with the potential to wound or kill several civilians would be permitted if it prevented ISIL fighters from causing greater harm.

Before the change, there were some limited cases in which civilian casualties were allowed, the officials said. Now, however, there are several targeting areas in which the probability of 10 civilian casualties are permitted. Those areas shift depending on the time, location of the targets and the value of destroying them, the officials said.

David Deptula, a retired three-star Air Force general who led its intelligence and surveillance efforts, said easing the restrictions was a necessary but insufficient step toward defeating the Islamic State, or ISIL.

"The gradualistic, painfully slow, incremental efforts of the current administration undercut the principals of modern warfare, and harken back to the approach followed by the Johnson administration," said Deptula, who now leads the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

Among the issues commanders consider before attacking is the target’s “non-combatant value.” A value of zero means it can be hit with no chance of civilians being killed — think of an ISIL machine gun emplacement in the desert.

 The value rises in urban areas such as Ramadi, which Iraqi forces, backed by U.S.-led airpower, seized from ISIL in late December. Pockets of Ramadi and other areas of intense fighting have had non-combatant values of 10 or more, meaning that attacking them carries the probability of 10 civilian deaths, said the most senior of the six Defense officials. The area could be as small as a city block and permission to hit it could last for a matter of hours.

Israel had been the country with the best record in minimizing the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in urban warfare in history by far up until recently. But the US bombing campaigns in Iraq have resulted in a seemingly much smaller civilian to combatant ratio still. Some of this is because the US was simply covering up many civilian deaths. However, part of the reason was no doubt because the White House has internalized the anti-war messages from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International - directed almost exclusively at Israel - where international law is twisted and perverted to prevent Western nations from defeating jihadists and terrorists who simply hide among civilians. Obama's directive of "I want zero civilian casualties" has cost countless lives at the expense of a perverted sense of morality.

Now the US military is vindicating what the IDF has always done. Because every military expert knows that Obama's' "no civilian death" policy is a recipe for defeat.

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2016/04/idf-vindicated-as-us-admits-that-more.html

Permissible civilian casualties?

Necessary baby-killing?

Put a legitimizing adjective in front of it and you can justify anything. Let’s see…

Tolerable rape?

Negligible kidnapping?

Acceptable paedophilia?

Military people are amazing. To talk about this bullshit with a straight face!! I don’t believe they are serious. They are just laughing and seeing what they can get away with. I think they sit in back rooms, smoke dope and have creativity sessions. Then they extract the most apt adjective, put it before a three-star general, and have him read:

Gen. Deptula wrote:"The gradualistic, painfully slow, incremental efforts of the current administration undercut the principals of modern warfare, and harken back to the approach followed by the Johnson administration..."

WTF did he just say? A three-star general just likened us to America in the 60's. In other words, fighting ISIL puts us right back into Vietnam again. Isn’t that what he just said? Hand me the bong. This shit is gooooood.

Didn’t we learned in Vietnam that you’ve gotta have a purpose for waging war? No, thank you…we don’t need any more rice. There’s no American population to save in Iraq, so this isn’t Czechoslovakia all over again. America is oil self-sufficient. So, why don’t we just go home, like we did in Vietnam?

No! Fuck! We’ve got to win!

Deptula wrote:“Obama's' "no civilian death" policy is a recipe for defeat.”

Do the NY Yankees take the field to lose? Chelsea? Wallabies? No, goddamit, we’ve got to win, win, win. Damn the fuckin’ babies…full speed ahead!

'Nuff said.

What did it say regarding high value military targets?

People like you Quill think wars can be fought with your hands tied behind your back

They cannot and even Von Clausewitz would think you were an idiot if you thought so

Targets come down to what they if left might end up causing more damage to then others if left unchecked

Can you comprehend this?

Take your time

War? Let Saudi Arabia handle it. It's none of our business.

Original Quill wrote:War?   Let Saudi Arabia handle it.  It's none of our business.

So genocide to others is not our business?

Pacifism, is the most idiotic form of view, that sits by and allows people to suffer.
It would rather do nothing and millions die, than act and fight causing some hundreds to die, thus saving millions

Good thing we did not have people like you around in 1941

didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:War?   Let Saudi Arabia handle it.  It's none of our business.

Good thing we did not have people like you around in 1941

We did. And they made sense...until Japan attacked our homeland. It was the last war in which we actually defended ourselves.

With ISIL no one is flying Zeros overhead, dropping bombs or torpedoing ships. They drive pickup trucks, FCS. We've got rednecks tougher than that!

But the primary point is they are over there, not bothering us. It's none of our business, and there is nothing that we can do that will settle the Sunni-Shi'ite civil war in the next century. It's fruitless. As I say, it makes a lot more sense to leave it to the Saudis.

Original Quill wrote:

didge wrote:

Good thing we did not have people like you around in 1941

We did.  And they made  sense...until Japan attacked our homeland.  It was the last war in which we actually defended ourselves.

With ISIL no one is flying Zeros overhead, dropping bombs or torpedoing ships.  They drive pickup trucks, FCS.  We've got rednecks tougher than that!

But the primary point is they are over there, not bothering us.  It's none of our business, and there is nothing that we can do that will settle the Sunni-Shi'ite civil war in the next century.  It's fruitless.  As I say, it makes a lot more sense to leave it to the Saudis.

Germany did not attack the US and yet America made it the priority to defeat

Showing again your reasoning is flawed

Its always our business to protect the lives of others, which means sometimes people losing their lives to save vastly more

Again your reasoning would have allowed Hitler to finish his final solution based on your reasoning

didge wrote:Germany did not attack the US and yet America made it the priority to defeat

Showing again your reasoning is flawed

No, actually on December 11, 1941 Germany declared war on the US. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-declares-war-on-the-united-states Prior, the US had been neutral in Europe's war.

Original Quill wrote:

didge wrote:Germany did not attack the US and yet America made it the priority to defeat

Showing again your reasoning is flawed

No, actually on December 11, 1941 Germany declared war on the US.  http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-declares-war-on-the-united-states  Prior, the US had been neutral in Europe's war.

I never stated German did not declare war, i said America made her priority, even though she had never attacked them

Do you have trouble reading and answering points

So why were they a priority when most Americans did not see them as the enemy, but Japan?

didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, actually on December 11, 1941 Germany declared war on the US.  http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-declares-war-on-the-united-states  Prior, the US had been neutral in Europe's war.

So why were they a priority when most Americans did not see them as the enemy, but Japan?

Because a mere six months after Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941) the US sunk the cream of the Japanese Imperial Navy, four carriers, the Akagi, Kaga, Soryu and Hiryu, plus a heavy cruiser, in the Battle of Midway, inflicting devastating damage on the Japanese fleet that proved irreparable.

Bored...the US turned to take care of business with Germany.

Original Quill wrote:

didge wrote:

So why were they a priority when most Americans did not see them as the enemy, but Japan?

Because a mere six months after Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941) the US sunk  the cream of the Japanese Imperial Navy, four carriers, the Akagi, Kaga, Soryu and Hiryu, plus a heavy cruiser, in the Battle of Midway, inflicting devastating damage on the Japanese fleet that proved irreparable.

Bored...the US turned to take care of business with Germany.

Again I am asking you why, when it was Japan that attacked America that priority was given to Germany

Take your time

didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Because a mere six months after Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941) the US sunk  the cream of the Japanese Imperial Navy, four carriers, the Akagi, Kaga, Soryu and Hiryu, plus a heavy cruiser, in the Battle of Midway, inflicting devastating damage on the Japanese fleet that proved irreparable.

Bored...the US turned to take care of business with Germany.

Again I am asking you why, when it was Japan that attacked America that priority was given to Germany

Take your time

Because we finished with Japan early. It's not difficult to understand. You send your resources where they are needed.

Japan attacked the US on December 7, 1941. Germany declared war on us on December 11, 1941. Japan was but a yipper dog we kicked outta the way. But we still had unfinished business in Europe. So we turned our attention to Germany.

Simple.

Original Quill wrote:

didge wrote:

Again I am asking you why, when it was Japan that attacked America that priority was given to Germany

Take your time

Because we finished with Japan early.  It's not difficult to understand.  You send your resources where they are needed.

Japan attacked the US on December 7, 1941.  Germany declared war on us on December 11, 1941.  Japan was but a yipper dog we kicked outta the way.  But we still had unfinished business in Europe.  So we turned our attention to Germany.

Simple.

Wrong

The greater threat was to America's ally, the UK, where the view was that if most resources were placed fighting the Japanese both Britain and Russia could lose to German, making it then extremely difficult for the US to then even take on Germany.
That means the US placed its ally as a priority over defeating the Japanese. Just as we see in the Middle East where the US places the view to help its allies. Hence it as it did then and as it does now, it does not forgo helping its allies in need.

Here ends your history lesson for the day

So again, if we had you back in 1941 making decisions, Hitler would have been able to finish his final solution

You don't seem to realize that placing emphasis on Germany was made possible by the the destruction of the Japanese Navy at Midway Island, in June 1942.  Japan was on the defensive from then on.

It wasn't ever a choice between Germany and Japan, as to which is the more glamorous enemy.  The option came open to spend more time and resources on Germany.  Besides, Roosevelt and Churchill were good buddies.

If you want to be honest and frank, Russia won the war in Europe.  Churchill was more concerned about the post-war division of Europe, hence the campaign up Italy to end up in mid-point Europe.  The US was more concerned to make sure that the travesty of Versailles didn't happen again...hence the United Nations.

But we've drifted on topics.  The last time the US ever had to defend itself militarily was in 1941.

Original Quill wrote:You don't seem to realize that placing emphasis on Germany was made possible by the the destruction of the Japanese Navy at Midway Island, in June 1942.  Japan was on the defensive from then on.

It wasn't ever a choice between Germany and Japan, as which is the more glamorous enemy.  The option came open to spend more time and resources on Germany.  Besides, Roosevelt and Churchill were good buddies.

If you want to be honest and frank, Russia won the war in Europe.  Churchill was more concerned about the post-war division of Europe, hence the campaign up Italy to end up in mid-point Europe.  The US was more concerned to make sure that the travesty of Versailles didn't happen again...hence the United Nations.

But we've drifted on topics.  The last time the US ever had to defend itself militarily was in 1941.

Wrong again

At the December 1941 Arcadia Conference between President Franklin Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill in Washington, shortly after the United States entered the War, the decision for the "Europe First" strategy was affirmed. Official U.S. statistics show that the United States devoted more resources in the early part of the war to stopping the advance of Japan, and not until 1944 was a clear preponderance of U.S. resources allocated toward the defeat of Germany.

The Europe First strategy remained in effect throughout the war, however the terms "holding action" and "limited offensive" in the Pacific were subject to interpretation and modification by U.S. senior military commanders, and at allied leaders conferences. The strategic situation in the Pacific and related logistical requirements dominated the United States' actions after its entry into the war and led to an initial focus on the Pacific. Even in the later stages of the war, there was intense competition for resources as operations in both regions were scaled u

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_first


That was before Midway the decision, but if they had placed more emphasis on the Pacific and concentrated its main resources then:

So if America had not chosen to help its allies, no Operation Torch would have happened and Rommel would then have been able to recoup after the battle of El Alamein and thus would not have been hemmed in fighting on two fronts in Tunisia. Germany would not have needed to send and waste as many troops and lose many as they did after Operation  Torch with North Africa. This would have mean countless divisions being available to fight in Operation Winter Storm and thus Manstein would have no doubt been able to relieve Stalingrad. Do you see how many things are connected and would have ended vastly different by America simply choosing the Pacific theater of operations over that of Germany?
If America place the vast majority of resources into the Pacific, the war could have gone on for years

Didge wrote:At the December 1941 Arcadia Conference between President Franklin Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill in Washington, shortly after the United States entered the War, the decision for the "Europe First" strategy was affirmed. Official U.S. statistics show that the United States devoted more resources in the early part of the war to stopping the advance of Japan, and not until 1944 was a clear preponderance of U.S. resources allocated toward the defeat of Germany.

Meh…words.  People say a lot of things for public consumption.  The Christmas talks in 1941 were about countering American sentiment against Japan…the American public wanted its revenge, two weeks after Pearl Harbor:

D. K. Goodwin wrote:“These were the battles that held the attention of the American people.  It was American territory that was being invaded, and American men who were dying.”  Doris Kearns Goodwin, No Ordinary Times.

The Europe First rhetoric was intended to calm those in Europe who were afraid the US was going to turn away from its Lend Lease commitment and its general steadfastness to defeat Hitler.  The fear was the Japanese would turn American heads.  Europe First laid down assurances that we won't forget you! However, it made no plans.  It offered no strategy.  It had no innards.  It was a diplomatic effort, at best.

So, first things first…and Midway happened fairly quickly, within six months.  So the transition seemed seamless.  How fortunate.  That made the commitment to aid Europe less remote.  And it allowed Roosevelt to say, Oh yes, I meant to do that!  What’s next?  Lol.

But make no mistake, America was at Midway Island long before it was at Normandy.  Keep your eye upon the doughnut, and not upon the hole.

Original Quill wrote:


Meh…words.  People say a lot of things for public consumption.  The Christmas talks in 1941 were about countering American sentiment against Japan…the American public wanted its revenge, two weeks after Pearl Harbor:

D. K. Goodwin wrote:“These were the battles that held the attention of the American people.  It was American territory that was being invaded, and American men who were dying.”  Doris Kearns Goodwin, No Ordinary Times.

The Europe First rhetoric was intended to calm those in Europe who were afraid the US was going to turn away from its Lend Lease commitment and its general steadfastness to defeat Hitler.  The fear was the Japanese would turn American heads.  But Europe First made no plans.  It laid down no strategy.  It had no innards.  It was a diplomatic effort, at best.

So, first things first…and Midway happened fairly quickly, within six months.  So the transition seemed seamless.  How fortunate.  That made the commitment to aid Europe less remote.  And it allowed Roosevelt to say, Oh yes, I meant to do that!  What’s next?  Lol.

But make no mistake, America was at Midway Island long before it was at Normandy.  Keep your eye upon the doughnut, and not upon the hole.

You are still missing the point on how the US placed the emphasis oupn helping its allies or at least split its resources
As seen such a calamity for the US to place the vast majority in the Pacific Theater of operations as I easily proved would have been catastrophic. I love how you actually ignore the important parts, what would have happened if they had of done so
That is telling in itself and shows your amateur knowledge of the conflict itself and where you cannot even reason based on "what if's
Your understanding is above basic but nothing more as seen. Your point on Midway has no relevance what so ever based on the resources given to Operation Torch. Even then Midway did not defeat Japan and it still left far longer to defeat than Germany
What is important here is as seen, that the US did not let its allies down and took the precedent to help in each situation of which they do the same in the conflict in the Middle East today. Allies may have no meaning to you, but we are now a global economic system, that requires each nation to play its part and sitting back whilst something as abhorrent as ISIS just butchers peoples as well as Assad, has seen to the tune of over half a million dead, based of course on your kind of strategy sitting back and doing nothing.
That is the cost of your strategy, where how many would be alive today, if America had of course gone in with air support from the start?
This as well does not even begin also to say what would be the refugee situation if the US had of acted from the start. Would millions now be displaced? This has effected most of the Middle East and Europe the refugee situation and all again based on your strategy

didge wrote:You are still missing the point on how the US placed the emphasis oupn helping its allies or at least split its resources
As seen such a calamity for the US to place the vast majority in the Pacific Theater of operations as I easily proved would have been catastrophic. I love how you actually ignore the important parts, what would have happened if they had of done so
That is telling in itself and shows your amateur knowledge of the conflict itself and where you cannot even reason based on "what if's
Your understanding is above basic but nothing more as seen. Your point on Midway has no relevance what so ever based on the resources given to Operation Torch. Even then Midway did not defeat Japan and it still left far longer to defeat than Germany
What is important here is as seen, that the US did not let its allies down and took the precedent to help in each situation of which they do the same in the conflict in the Middle East today. Allies may have no meaning to you, but we are now a global economic system, that requires each nation to play its part and sitting back whilst something as abhorrent as ISIS just butchers peoples as well as Assad, has seen to the tune of over half a million dead, based of course on your kind of strategy sitting back and doing nothing.
That is the cost of your strategy, where how many would be alive today, if America had of course gone in with air support from the start?

You seem to have lost the point.  Let me remind you: you were saying that we had some purpose in the conflict against ISIL.  The waters are muddy indeed, but you were saying something about how America always stands by its allies.

But America has no allies in the middle east.  It just stepped into a wet cowpile and is still looking for someplace to wash off its feet, that's all.

Who is America's ally?  Iraq, which aligns itself with Iran?  Would that be the same Iran who just snookered us on the nuclear treaty?

Or is America's ally Saudi Arabia, which is not even bothering to fight...anyone.  Besides, aren't they Sunni?  Same as ISIL?

Tell me again: What is our purpose over there?

Original Quill wrote:

didge wrote:You are still missing the point on how the US placed the emphasis oupn helping its allies or at least split its resources
As seen such a calamity for the US to place the vast majority in the Pacific Theater of operations as I easily proved would have been catastrophic. I love how you actually ignore the important parts, what would have happened if they had of done so
That is telling in itself and shows your amateur knowledge of the conflict itself and where you cannot even reason based on "what if's
Your understanding is above basic but nothing more as seen. Your point on Midway has no relevance what so ever based on the resources given to Operation Torch. Even then Midway did not defeat Japan and it still left far longer to defeat than Germany
What is important here is as seen, that the US did not let its allies down and took the precedent to help in each situation of which they do the same in the conflict in the Middle East today. Allies may have no meaning to you, but we are now a global economic system, that requires each nation to play its part and sitting back whilst something as abhorrent as ISIS just butchers peoples as well as Assad, has seen to the tune of over half a million dead, based of course on your kind of strategy sitting back and doing nothing.
That is the cost of your strategy, where how many would be alive today, if America had of course gone in with air support from the start?

You seem to have lost the point.  Let me remind you: you were saying that we had some purpose in the conflict against ISIL.  The waters are muddy indeed, but you were saying something about how America always stands by its allies.

didge wrote:Subjective where you failed to make any reason, where again, its still the same point helping out an ally, where that enemy is also the enemy of the US as well. Who have also declared war on the US, of which ISIS have

But America has no allies in the middle east.  It just stepped into a wet cowpile and is still looking for someplace to wash off its feet, that's all.

didge wrote:Really? It has Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Eygpt etc, I do not need to continue because you simply are talking nonsense

Who is America's ally?  Iraq, which aligns itself with Iran?  Would that be the same Iran who just snookered us on the nuclear treaty?

didge wrote:See above

Or is America's ally Saudi Arabia, which is not even bothering to fight...anyone.  Besides, aren't they Sunni?  Same as ISIL?

Tell me again: What is our purpose over there?

So you fail to address any points I made again

Let me recap

Your strategy has seen by doing nothing, half a million dead in Syria
Let alone the numbers injured
It has seen 9 million become displaced with 3 million residing as refugees in other countries.
That is the accomplishment of your failed strategy

didge wrote:So you fail to address any points I made again

Soz. I just bypassed them because they didn’t seem to be contributing anything.

didge wrote:Let me recap

Your strategy has seen by doing nothing, half a million dead in Syria
Let alone the numbers injured
It has seen 9 million become displaced with 3 million residing as refugees in other countries.
That is the accomplishment of your failed strategy

You see, it’s not really my strategy, because it’s not my conflict. America has no dog in the fight.

We can help out with the humanitarian efforts—maybe take in a few refugees—but first we’ve got to get this election out of the way. See, we’ve got this non compos mentis name-a Trump who won’t let them in. Soon as we flush him, we can consider it.

Original Quill wrote:

Soz.  I just bypassed them because they didn’t seem to be contributing anything.

didge wrote:Copout answer which means you cannot answer

You see, it’s not really my strategy, because it’s not my conflict.  America has no dog in the fight.

didge wrote:Which would again render you not being there to help in WW2, because it is your conflict where ISIS are waging war against the US and its allies not only in the Middle east but Europe. So by your view you now forgo your oldest allies, which would render you helping them redundant in WW2

We can help out with the humanitarian efforts—maybe take in a few refugees—but first we’ve got to get this election out of the way.  See, we’ve got this non compos mentis name-a Trump who won’t let them in.  Soon as we flush him, we can consider it.

Again your view of pacifism and inactivity has seen millions suffer and now I understand 1.9 million injured all because of your selfishness sitting back warm and comfy away from the violence. It shows you have not learnt a damn thing about the hate and genocide of WW2
Who cares about Trump, its people like you that are the reason Trump now has support and you fail to realise that by your regressive views.
You and others made Trump into being what he is.
He would never have had support without people like you not making absurd claims to blame on the US itself.
You have provided him with the ammunition he never should have had
Hate is the by-product of those of those who refuse to recognise hate and deal with that hate in the first place
Now many minorities are concerned over again your inaction and deflection of where the real blame was
He is an idiot and I hope he never comes to power but he has people like you to thank for giving him the excuses needed

didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Soz.  I just bypassed them because they didn’t seem to be contributing anything.



You see, it’s not really my strategy, because it’s not my conflict.  America has no dog in the fight.


We can help out with the humanitarian efforts—maybe take in a few refugees—but first we’ve got to get this election out of the way.  See, we’ve got this non compos mentis name-a Trump who won’t let them in.  Soon as we flush him, we can consider it.

Again your view of pacifism and inactivity has seen millions suffer and now I understand 1.9 million injured all because of your selfishness sitting back warm and comfy away from the violence. It shows you have not learnt a damn thing about the hate and genocide of WW2
Who cares about Trump, its people like you that are the reason Trump now has support and you fail to realise that by your regressive views.
You and others made Trump into being what he is.
He would never have had support without people like you not making absurd claims to blame on the US itself.
You have provided him with the ammunition he never should have had
Hate is the by-product of those of those who refuse to recognise hate and deal with that hate in the first place
Now many minorities are concerned over again your inaction and deflection of where the real blame was
He is an idiot and I hope he never comes to power but he has people like you to thank for giving him the excuses needed

Whoa…we’ve gone from Tojo to Trump to minorities? I’m gettin’ dizzy.

I don’t know didge, your case for western involvement in their war is pretty thin indeed. Keep in mind, if we were to go in it would be with more implements of destruction. That would mean more babies killed, not less. More hospitals bombed, not less. It could mean more girls raped, more people kidnapped, more people murdered or put in concentration camps…and for sure, more people tortured.

I don’t wanna be callous, but don’t you think they are entitled to a little of our indifference?

Original Quill wrote:

didge wrote:

Again your view of pacifism and inactivity has seen millions suffer and now I understand 1.9 million injured all because of your selfishness sitting back warm and comfy away from the violence. It shows you have not learnt a damn thing about the hate and genocide of WW2
Who cares about Trump, its people like you that are the reason Trump now has support and you fail to realise that by your regressive views.
You and others made Trump into being what he is.
He would never have had support without people like you not making absurd claims to blame on the US itself.
You have provided him with the ammunition he never should have had
Hate is the by-product of those of those who refuse to recognise hate and deal with that hate in the first place
Now many minorities are concerned over again your inaction and deflection of where the real blame was
He is an idiot and I hope he never comes to power but he has people like you to thank for giving him the excuses needed

Whoa…we’ve gone from Tojo to Trump to minorities?  I’m gettin’ dizzy.  

I don’t know didge, your case for western involvement in their war is pretty thin indeed.  Keep in mind, if we were to go in it would be with more implements of destruction.  That would mean more babies killed, not less.  More hospitals bombed, not less.  It could mean more girls raped, more people kidnapped, more people murdered or put in concentration camps…and for sure, more people tortured.

I don’t wanna be callous, but don’t you think they are entitled to a little of our indifference?

Well as you do not speak for all Americans even though you like to think you do, I have every right to shows the flaws in your reasoning based on American issues where it is because of people like you through poor reasoning that have allowed people like Trump to grow in support. He plays off the things you reason with and do so badly with and that is the point you miss. You allow blame to set in when it never should, where you should be able to nip such claims in the bud.
Getting back to point you have much to answer off which you have failed badly to do so.
I am not going to play some pissy game of round around.
You brought up Trump not I, so I let you have it broadside salvo wise
The point is every point you make would render the US not helping as they did in WW2.
People will die whether you act or not, the question is by acting if you can prevent far more from dying, even knowing some will die.
That is the point you miss.
Even the calamity of the WW2 allied bombing strategy was an abject failure in its aims, but it achieved a far greater aim, one that denied the Germans their fighters over the battlefield. As many were pulled back to defend the skies against the allied bombers within Germany. You see, you fail to reason strategy, because you look only through tunnel vision

didge wrote:Well as you do not speak for all Americans even though you like to think you do, I have every right to shows the flaws in your reasoning based on American issues where it is because of people like you through poor reasoning that have allowed people like Trump to grow in support. He plays off the things you reason with and do so badly with and that is the point you miss. You allow blame to set in when it never should, where you should be able to nip such claims in the bud.
Getting back to point you have much to answer off which you have failed badly to do so.
I am not going to play some pissy game of round around.
You brought up Trump not I, so I let you have it broadside salvo wise
The point is every point you make would render the US not helping as they did in WW2.
People will die whether you act or not, the question is by acting if you can prevent far more from dying, even knowing some will die.
That is the point you miss.
Even the calamity of the WW2 allied bombing strategy was an abject failure in its aims, but it achieved a far greater aim, one that denied the Germans their fighters over the battlefield. You see, you fail to reason strategy, because you look only through tunnel vision

But we had allies in WWII.  You can't just go from I wanna save the world, to who should I blow up today?  There are a few details, and certainly some inconsistencies there to iron out.  See, when you're all enthusiastic about entering the war, but don't know quite what it's all about, and who your friends are...well, you see how you could get into trouble that way.  

BTW, I'm not going to vote for Trump, if it makes you feel any better.

Original Quill wrote:

didge wrote:Well as you do not speak for all Americans even though you like to think you do, I have every right to shows the flaws in your reasoning based on American issues where it is because of people like you through poor reasoning that have allowed people like Trump to grow in support. He plays off the things you reason with and do so badly with and that is the point you miss. You allow blame to set in when it never should, where you should be able to nip such claims in the bud.
Getting back to point you have much to answer off which you have failed badly to do so.
I am not going to play some pissy game of round around.
You brought up Trump not I, so I let you have it broadside salvo wise
The point is every point you make would render the US not helping as they did in WW2.
People will die whether you act or not, the question is by acting if you can prevent far more from dying, even knowing some will die.
That is the point you miss.
Even the calamity of the WW2 allied bombing strategy was an abject failure in its aims, but it achieved a far greater aim, one that denied the Germans their fighters over the battlefield. You see, you fail to reason strategy, because you look only through tunnel vision

But we had allies in WWII.  You can't just go from I wanna save the world, to who should I blow up today?  There are a few details, and certainly some inconsistencies there to iron out.  See, when you're all enthusiastic about entering the war, but don't know quite what it's all about, and who your friends are...well, you see how you could get into trouble that way.  

BTW, I'm not going to vote for Trump, if it makes you feel any better.

You are not answering any of my points and ignoring that we do have allies and that that the US is at war with ISIS and so are its allies.
How many more times does this need saying before it sinks in?
You are just like I say making a runaround of this debate because you know you do not have the history or strategy know how, to match here.

Last chance to answer

didge wrote:You are not answering any of my points and ignoring that we do have allies and that that the US is at war with ISIS and so are its allies.
How many more times does this need saying before it sinks in?
You are just like I say making a runaround of this debate because you know you do not have the history or strategy know how, to match here.

Who are these allies and what do they represent?  Are they Sunni?  Are they Shi'ite?  If the purpose is to save the refugees, it's probably better to welcome them into your own country than to go there to straighten things out.  The other option just involves a lot of blood and tears...just tragedy and we end up in a foreign country with no government.  Sticky all over.

I doubt if anyone over here cares about the land mass that is Syria.  Leave it alone.

Original Quill wrote:

didge wrote:You are not answering any of my points and ignoring that we do have allies and that that the US is at war with ISIS and so are its allies.
How many more times does this need saying before it sinks in?
You are just like I say making a runaround of this debate because you know you do not have the history or strategy know how, to match here.

Who are these allies and what do they represent?  Are they Sunni?  Are they Shi'ite?  If the purpose is to save the refugees, it's probably better to welcome them into your own country, than to go there to straighten things out.  The other option just involves a lot of blood and tragedy.

I doubt if anyone cares about the land mass that is Syria.  Leave it alone.

The fact you go off whether an ally is based on religion really just sums up your failed reasoning
You may not care about the land mass of Syria and its been your reason that has seen
500,000 dead
1,9 million injured
9 million displaced
3 million of them now in other nations which effects all those nations due to the need to support them
That is the knock on effect of your failed strategy
Its now effected many lives outside of Syria, because you wanted to leave it alone, where now nobody can leave it alone, because that problem is now on our own doorsteps

didge wrote:The fact you go off whether an ally is based on religion really just sums up your failed reasoning
You may not care about the land mass of Syria and its been your reason that has seen
500,000 dead
1,9 million injured
9 million displaced
3 million of them now in other nations which effects all those nations due to the need to support them
That is the knock on effect of your failed strategy
Its now effected many lives outside of Syria, because you wanted to leave it alone, where now nobody can leave it alone, because that problem is now on our own doorsteps

I have no strategy. And we don't even know them, so they are not our allies. All you've been able to do is augur for them. Even you do not know what you would do with them if they were right in your lap.

They don't appear to be in military need as much as humanitarian need. Go in that direction.

Original Quill wrote:

didge wrote:The fact you go off whether an ally is based on religion really just sums up your failed reasoning
You may not care about the land mass of Syria and its been your reason that has seen
500,000 dead
1,9 million injured
9 million displaced
3 million of them now in other nations which effects all those nations due to the need to support them
That is the knock on effect of your failed strategy
Its now effected many lives outside of Syria, because you wanted to leave it alone, where now nobody can leave it alone, because that problem is now on our own doorsteps

I have no strategy.  And we don't even know them, so they are not our allies.  All you've been able to do is augur for them.  Even you do not know what you would do with them if they were right in your lap.

They don't appear to be in military need as much as humanitarian need.  Go in that direction.

That is the problem, you never had any strategy, it was flawed from the start.
It called to do nothing and as seen what happened

500,000 dead
1,9 million injured
9 million displaced
3 million of them now in other nations which effects all those nations due to the need to support them
That is the knock on effect of your failed strategy
Its now effected many lives outside of Syria, because you wanted to leave it alone, where now nobody can leave it alone, because that problem is now on our own doorsteps

didge wrote:
That is the problem, you never had any strategy, it was flawed from the start.
It called to do nothing and as seen what happened

500,000 dead
1,9 million injured
9 million displaced
3 million of them now in other nations which effects all those nations due to the need to support them
That is the knock on effect of your failed strategy
Its now effected many lives outside of Syria, because you wanted to leave it alone, where now nobody can leave it alone, because that problem is now on our own doorsteps

And how many additional will be dead, injured, and disabled after you go in there with your guns, tanks and grenades? Face it didge...you don't want to save babies. You just want to blow shit up. It's an obsession with conservatives.

Call me when your strategy involves making peace. I'm not interested in another war.

Original Quill wrote:

didge wrote:
That is the problem, you never had any strategy, it was flawed from the start.
It called to do nothing and as seen what happened

500,000 dead
1,9 million injured
9 million displaced
3 million of them now in other nations which effects all those nations due to the need to support them
That is the knock on effect of your failed strategy
Its now effected many lives outside of Syria, because you wanted to leave it alone, where now nobody can leave it alone, because that problem is now on our own doorsteps

And how many additional will be dead, injured, and disabled after you go in there with your guns, tanks and grenades?  Face it didge...you don't want to save babies.  You just want to blow shit up.  It's an obsession with conservatives.

Call me when your strategy involves making peace.  I'm not interested in another war.

Additional?

Those only came from your inaction which you still fail to grasp
And we are back yo you being an idiot, where its your strategy that has sen countless babies die
Mine saves babies, yours has seen hundreds of thousands displaced, thousands die
How many more posts are you going to keep posting up the same drivel?

didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

And how many additional will be dead, injured, and disabled after you go in there with your guns, tanks and grenades?  Face it didge...you don't want to save babies.  You just want to blow shit up.  It's an obsession with conservatives.

Call me when your strategy involves making peace.  I'm not interested in another war.

Additional?

Those only came from your inaction which you still fail to grasp
And we are back yo you being an idiot, where its your strategy that has sen countless babies die
Mine saves babies, yours has seen hundreds of thousands displaced, thousands die
How many more posts are you going to keep posting up the same drivel?

Is that all you got?  Didge, you're drunk again.  

To answer your point, it's not my "inaction" at issue.  I have no dog in that fight.  We are at least two oceans away.  But Saudi Arabia is in the vicinity.  Try calling them.

More on that point: what do you think those ISIL idiots are doing, blowing up European cities? Right...they are trying to suck you into their war.

And what are you advocating, fool?

Original Quill wrote:

didge wrote:


Additional?

Those only came from your inaction which you still fail to grasp
And we are back yo you being an idiot, where its your strategy that has sen countless babies die
Mine saves babies, yours has seen hundreds of thousands displaced, thousands die
How many more posts are you going to keep posting up the same drivel?

Is that all you got?  Didge, you're drunk again.  

To answer your point, it's not my "inaction" at issue.  I have no dog in that fight.  We are at least two oceans away.  But Saudi Arabia is in the vicinity.  Try calling them.

More on that point: what do you think those ISIL idiots are doing, blowing up European cities? Right...they are trying to suck you into their war.

And what are you advocating, fool?

Go?

Wow

Considering you have evaded countless points and made only one single points on babies, which based on your strategy would leave more babies dead. I think its you the one wasting time and making a mockery of debate itself.
Now either put up and stop wasting my time with endless drivel or move on
One last chance to address my points

didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Is that all you got?  Didge, you're drunk again.  

To answer your point, it's not my "inaction" at issue.  I have no dog in that fight.  We are at least two oceans away.  But Saudi Arabia is in the vicinity.  Try calling them.

More on that point: what do you think those ISIL idiots are doing, blowing up European cities? Right...they are trying to suck you into their war.

And what are you advocating, fool?

Go?

Wow

Considering you have evaded countless points and made only one single points on babies, which based on your strategy would leave more babies dead. I think its you the one wasting time and making a mockery of debate itself.
Now either put up and stop wasting my time with endless drivel or move on
One last chance to address my points

Give it up didge. You haven't the mind.

You are a cut & paste connoisseur. Stick to what you're good at.

Original Quill wrote:

didge wrote:

Go?

Wow

Considering you have evaded countless points and made only one single points on babies, which based on your strategy would leave more babies dead. I think its you the one wasting time and making a mockery of debate itself.
Now either put up and stop wasting my time with endless drivel or move on
One last chance to address my points

Give it up didge.  You haven't the mind.

You are a cut & paste connoisseur.  Stick to what you're good at.

Is that why all my points you cannot answer so you are being idiotic by attacking the poster instead.

You have lost the debate, I suggest you bow out with grace