I prefaced it by saying "in that part of the world". Life there doesn't hold as much value to its people, you have thousands dying every day from unnatural causes.

You realize that war provides tens of thousands jobs (hundreds of thousands if we count troops) to our people. What you're suggesting would lead to a tremendous amount of jobs.

Furthermore, you're focused exclusively on eliminating terrorists. You need to be able to create a cultural conversion too, which takes time. You need to turn those countries in to liberal, tolerant free societies and to do that you need to have a massive propoganda plan as well. 

As I have posted on the other thread, please try to refrain from personal attacks and keep the discussion civil. The mod team has noticed that some posts are a bit too aggressive.

It'll never happen, lets be honest. Certainly not within the next 10 generations. And if it does happen it would be in big part thanks to our overwhelming force causing those that disagree to bow their heads. So regardless, you're always going to need a massive military to maintain a world order and it's going to have to be the US that does it. You're going to need to keep spending to maintain that edge. And just because I support a big military doesn't mean I don't support spending on single payer (I do) or infrastructure (i do) or fighting climate change (I do), but survival does take some precedence. 

I asked him that question because he's taking an unrealistic moral high stance. I didn't direct that question to everyone else but oh well, water under the bridge.  I kinda agree with that plan but I think it would take a lot longer than that considering that it's a plan of attrition and leaders can be replaced. If you hit enough of their leadership at once then maybe. It would probably reguire some ground troops to weasel them out of holes that have alot of supplies/resources. 

I disagree with bombing terrorists in general unless it's one of the top guys because you destroy any intel you could have gotten from the people at the location and whatever else is laying around. It's a waste. The collateral damage would be lessed a good deal that way but I don't care about the human shields because their lives were forfeit the moment ISIS decided to use them that. If we save some, great that will make a good headline but that's not the objective or overall goal of hitting one of their places. it's to get intel and wipe out their forces.

I get why Obama and Trump just wanna bomb terriorists instead of wiping them out. It's because they dont have to commit any actual ground troops, vehicles, etc. The idea of fighting another actual war is frowned upon. People don't want it. Your way would be good with some changes but I think it would work. 

Our sense? I'm not from the US. I'm middleeastern. I've lived through some of the bullshit. I've watched news channels like the CNN twist facts about the region. I've seen the tactics some Western countries and their allies use against people in my region.

BTW we fucking hate ISIS and I'm saying that the majority would gladly give our lives to stop them. That said it's ironic that the Syrian government is against ISIS yet Saudi is the biggest exporter of ISIS. Where is the US exactly fighting ISIS? Some places yes other places they're labelled as the rebels. Depends where it suits to brand them however they want.

I'm sorry I'm very cynical but it's a habit you tend to have when a secretary of state like Condoleezza Rice announces during her time that there will be a new Middle East and that they want to "export democracy" to the region before the region exploded for the next 10 years or so.

I'm sure Americans don't support whatever is happening if they actually knew, and I believe that most people including yourself have good intentions when they argue. I can definitely see your point but I can't believe that the US has no economic and geo-political benefits from wars in the region is madness seeing how much money has been spent. It's just reality, the corporations and banks have run riot in the world and yeah ISIS should fucking burn but the bigger picture is that ISIS wouldn't have started had the US not given Saudi Arabia and Qatar the authority to do whatever they wanted in the region. It's plain simple. 

Let me put it this way for you.

   United States WANTED radicalized islamization in the Middle East. It financed it and used it, to oust national sentiments in the locals where they had businesses interests. Middle East after breaking from Ottoman Empire was in the process of democratization and nationalization of their land and natural resources. That process would've gotten in the way of imperial aspirations of colonial Europe and US prominence in world stage.

   Radical Islamization of once moderate religious countries in the ME, is a tactic used by America throughout the world to supress local populace where business booms and threat of cutting ties with the West is real. This was not the only tactic used to achieve their goals though; puppet and bloodlust authoritarian governments were sponsored and forcefully placed in continents such as Africa, where democracy for many countries was an achievable feat and necessary for protection of their common good. Most great thinkers and democracy fathers in Africa were killed off by European colonialists and CIA backed ops. It was a way for them to undermine their hope of sovereignty and appropriate of their riches.

If that doesn't sound malicious to you, then your moral compass is much more flexible than most of us.

User Requested removal

Your response is rather similar to your previous one, so I'm just going reply one last time. Using radical Islam as a means doesn't necessarily prove the want of it. Like I said, it's somewhere in the middle because you can't just point your finger at the US collectively. It's not a black-and-white situation like the way you're making it up to be. The US has a history of opting for political expediency over thinking long-term and its involvement in the Middle East is no exception. To simplify the US's thinking process, it's along the lines of "I don't like A, so I'm going to have B take down A even though B is bad". The US has applied this mentality for years and has not learned to stop and think about the long term consequences.

I agree with you that what the US has done is really bad, but it's not advisable to conflate actus reus and mens reas willy nilly.

User Requested removal