-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
anyone else looking forward to the guaranteed plan to defeat ISIS?
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Fanatical Meat
Lifer
Hey look Putin's Boy is posting again. No RT links though.
jeff_in_MD
Member
I know you wouldn't want the innocent civilian to try to get out of the way of the attack.
Sent from my P01MA using Tapatalk
jeff_in_MD
Member
I guess you know more then generals like patton, Eisenhower, McArthur and all the others who made their plans known in advance. Just like Obama and both bush's we all known in advance what their overall plans were, we just like now do not know the specifics.
Sent from my P01MA using Tapatalk
jeff_in_MD
Member
BonzaiDuck
Lifer
The Trump War Plan is pie-in-the-sky, with no substance. He's rattling sabers of nukes, and blowing hot air.
If you think our current strategy is "Obama's" or that O is weak-kneed, you're more naïve than a kid who believes in the tooth fairy.
Between the JCS and the CIA, there are piles and piles of war plans that never see the light of day, based on contingencies of flash-points and instabilities. In fact, those plans also account for "global warming."
I spent a good part of my life "inside the Beltway." I quickly discovered the nonsense that prevails, and it was always underscored by a Republican careerist trying to impress a Dem appointee, or by a Republican appointee trying to impress his superiors.
Let us suppose there is a financial hub called a "grants and contracts" office. The work will continue, all the same way. But at the beginning of a new administration, according to the behaviors I explained, someone announces a "reorganization." All the reorganization does is cost extra money, because the mission and the work remain the same. The reorganization is often just a dog-and-pony show.
If there had been an initiative underway of Democrats, the Republicans co-opt it, change the leadership, change the name of the initiative (this is very important), and claim it is theirs. Once I heard a very reliable story from my friend -- lawyer and PhD statistician. A political official in a department Research and Improvement office came to him and asked him if he couldn't "do something" with the statistical data that showed the Republican administration was "doing something." That's like paying someone to write a phony study to prove that global warming isn't real. It's like asking someone to embezzle money. And there's no reverence for the Truth.
Anything is possible, but it is more likely that the anti-terror operations of the Obama administration will be continued by Trump, until Trump wants to stir the pot to please his constituency, just like Bush was in the back-pocket of Halliburton and the Carlyle group to start a useless $3 trillion war, get 4,000-plus of our military killed, and open the Pandora's box to this current mess.
If you think our current strategy is "Obama's" or that O is weak-kneed, you're more naïve than a kid who believes in the tooth fairy.
Between the JCS and the CIA, there are piles and piles of war plans that never see the light of day, based on contingencies of flash-points and instabilities. In fact, those plans also account for "global warming."
I spent a good part of my life "inside the Beltway." I quickly discovered the nonsense that prevails, and it was always underscored by a Republican careerist trying to impress a Dem appointee, or by a Republican appointee trying to impress his superiors.
Let us suppose there is a financial hub called a "grants and contracts" office. The work will continue, all the same way. But at the beginning of a new administration, according to the behaviors I explained, someone announces a "reorganization." All the reorganization does is cost extra money, because the mission and the work remain the same. The reorganization is often just a dog-and-pony show.
If there had been an initiative underway of Democrats, the Republicans co-opt it, change the leadership, change the name of the initiative (this is very important), and claim it is theirs. Once I heard a very reliable story from my friend -- lawyer and PhD statistician. A political official in a department Research and Improvement office came to him and asked him if he couldn't "do something" with the statistical data that showed the Republican administration was "doing something." That's like paying someone to write a phony study to prove that global warming isn't real. It's like asking someone to embezzle money. And there's no reverence for the Truth.
Anything is possible, but it is more likely that the anti-terror operations of the Obama administration will be continued by Trump, until Trump wants to stir the pot to please his constituency, just like Bush was in the back-pocket of Halliburton and the Carlyle group to start a useless $3 trillion war, get 4,000-plus of our military killed, and open the Pandora's box to this current mess.
jeff_in_MD
Member
What's interesting is that Russia is an allie of Iran, Syria, and North Korea which are all states that support terrorists and are hostile to the us. If Russia is successful against isis (based on their effort in Afghanistan I think they will not be) what do they expect in return?
Sent from my P01MA using Tapatalk
NostaSeronx
Diamond Member
Uh, not really for all of those. The most likely religious group to be terrorists is a minority of Sunni Islam.
Iraq and Iran are shiite majority country, which follows Shia Islam. Iraq had a Sunni dictator which was subjugating a majority shiite population. (America gave so much freedom, Iraq became a open-shiite constitutional democracy. // In Iraq's constitution: Entities or trends may not advocate, instigate, justify or propagate racism, terrorism, "takfir" (declaring someone an infidel), or sectarian cleansing. (Someone forgot to add sexism.)) North Korea supports Iranian shiite against the extremist Sunni regime by IS/Taliban/etc. Syria is heavily Sunni and Russia is directly allied with non-extremist Sunnis. Russia doesn't want to screw up like they did in the past and get the title of "Great Satan." They currently have the title "Lesser Satan", then with Israel being "Little Satan."
Trump and pretty much every president so far have came to toe by ignoring the above.
Last edited:
Victorian Gray
Lifer
Different plan.
FIVR
Diamond Member
Russia is not merely concerned with ISIS, their goal is a return of all Syrian territory to the legitimate Syrian government. Russia is in Syria to stay, and actually has had a military base in Latakia, Syria for decades. They will eliminate ISIS along with al-Qaeda (aka JaN/JFS) along with ISIS-affiliated Jund al-Aqsa and the rest of the rebels, including the FSA. The only non-Syrian govt forces that will not be exterminated will be the YPG (kurdish forces), because they have already allied with the Syrian govt. I think you have a cursory understanding of this conflict, and are extending yourself in your assessment of what will happen.
On top of that, Russia is not an "allie" of North Korea, they actually have almost no diplomatic or trade relations whatsoever. You also seem to lack an even cursory understanding of Russian foreign policy, along with a poor understanding of the Afghan conflict. I can understand, given that a medical doctor has more important fields of study than global politics. In fact, it's likely that a good understanding of global politics might very well serve to be a detriment to a medical doctor. So, perhaps I can illuminate some of the relations and whom the real "sponsors of terror" are in the world.
Arguably the US is the biggest world sponsor of "terror" if you consider its history, but lets pretend that's an absurdity that could never be true and focus on your post; Russia does not sponsor global terrorist insurgencies attempting to overthrow legitimate elected rulers. It may have in decades past, during the USSR, and it has taken control of adjacent territories using military means (chechnya, georgia,ukraine) but those are all arguably Russian, given their history as part of the Russian empire. Russia would not have concern, and has never expressed concern, for the perpetual US involvement in Mexican drug wars and central american dictatorships. They allow us to do this, because it's our back yard. The same allowance should be granted to Russia, but somehow not only are they not allowed to act in the Middle East, but also right on their doorstep. It's absurd.
The accusations of terrorist support in Iran are certainly more palatable than the absurd North Korean and Russian accusations, but they are still mostly derived from an inherent racist anti-persian and pro-israeli US media. It is drilled into the US public mind that Iran is evil, and Saudis are nice old men with $ for american contractors. Israelis are of course the best human beings on the planet, smart and white and just swell. But Iranians? EVIL! Never mind us shooting down their airliner, or installing a puppet dictator who tortured tens of thousands. Or sponsoring both sides of a war that killed millions of them. Or attempting to destroy their economy. Or aiding their allies who threaten to nuke them. Or threatening to nuke them ourselves, for nothing. Never mind that the 911 suicide bombers were Saudi, Egyptian, and Lebanese... but not a single one was Iranian. Just never mind! Minds are for chumps.
BonzaiDuck
Lifer
Everybody is worried about "American honor," and the calculations can stray far from a prudent course. Especially, the Trump voters, or he wouldn't have had the appeal for "going in and kicking ass." This is the Myth of either "King of the Mountain" or "The Great Roman Empire," where we say it isn't an Empire when it is. And it's the myth which drove the Bush-Cheney hubris. When we talk about myths, the discussion seems "soft" and vague. But there are several mass-psychologies broken down into various groups.
Then, consider the statistical evidence since 911. The successful attacks -- Boston and San Bernardino -- were some two out of a dozen mass killings in the Homeland. The odds of a terrorist attack in Boise are probably less than the odds of getting hit by lightning.
But there is this temptation to spend more and more with less and less effect. If you want to know how we "won" World War Two, then look at the emergence of Management Science and optimization modeling. You don't squander resources in a war; you manage them carefully. If there was some mandate to deal with Saddam Hussein, it might have waited for a long time, but hubris won the day.
Amy Kremer, the fat-girl know-nothing of the Tea Party, and Trump are selling the idea of doubling the defense budget. Then, the pie gets divided differently, while schools, infrastructure, prudent regulatory reform, energy initiatives driven by a federal presence will suffer. My "conspiracy theory" is that this is what they had in mind at the time of the 2001 Inauguration.
Being King of the Mountain has certain costs -- several types of costs. There is the risk that spending more on defense than the top 14 nations will spur an arms race, further increasing costs. There is the risk that excess investment in defense will tempt someone to use those investments imprudently. And then there's the risk that the spending will drive us into penury, especially if taxes don't increase to meet the expenditures. Ultimately, being King of the Mountain tempts other nations to look for a beloved patriot in the armor.
You'll never completely wipe out "terrorism." Today, it could be Islamic Fundamentalist Lunatics; tomorrow, the Murrow Building and a Tea Party or militant fringe.
Instead, what the Trump supporters want is an immediate fix which doesn't exist. And at the same time, Trump is trying to kiss Putin in a Bro-mance.
Our troubles with Russia might be less if Bush had handled the Cold War end differently, and if Congress hadn't focused their attention on a spooge-stained dress. Nobody likes Putin, except many of the Russians. But he is much, much more savvy for his experience than Trump.
Finally, while Amy Kremer and the others lobby for defense increases, the real problem is one of how the money is spent. This is the same phenomenon conservatives point to about education: "Throwing money at the problem." Of course, the logic doesn't apply to their Grand Military Golden Age.
Generally, I observe that the biggest chest-thumpers and hawks are really chicken-littles and sissies. We live in a world of risk, and they won't have any of it, even if spending a trillion dollars more a year reduces that risk by only 1%.
If you want to be the biggest military power in the world, follow Theodore Roosevelt's advice, and speak softly. You can have it all. But why antagonize the rest of the world into courses of action which merely increase excess spending? the problem with all of this, citing both the Bush years and the Trump campaign, is that the President, in making tough talk for the satisfaction of NFL-fan voters, is also broadcasting to unintended target audiences. Bush raised terrorist organizations to the status of nation states with his talk and actions, when the prudent course would be to diminish and humiliate them as criminally insane.
Talk is cheap. Military hardware isn't.
Then, consider the statistical evidence since 911. The successful attacks -- Boston and San Bernardino -- were some two out of a dozen mass killings in the Homeland. The odds of a terrorist attack in Boise are probably less than the odds of getting hit by lightning.
But there is this temptation to spend more and more with less and less effect. If you want to know how we "won" World War Two, then look at the emergence of Management Science and optimization modeling. You don't squander resources in a war; you manage them carefully. If there was some mandate to deal with Saddam Hussein, it might have waited for a long time, but hubris won the day.
Amy Kremer, the fat-girl know-nothing of the Tea Party, and Trump are selling the idea of doubling the defense budget. Then, the pie gets divided differently, while schools, infrastructure, prudent regulatory reform, energy initiatives driven by a federal presence will suffer. My "conspiracy theory" is that this is what they had in mind at the time of the 2001 Inauguration.
Being King of the Mountain has certain costs -- several types of costs. There is the risk that spending more on defense than the top 14 nations will spur an arms race, further increasing costs. There is the risk that excess investment in defense will tempt someone to use those investments imprudently. And then there's the risk that the spending will drive us into penury, especially if taxes don't increase to meet the expenditures. Ultimately, being King of the Mountain tempts other nations to look for a beloved patriot in the armor.
You'll never completely wipe out "terrorism." Today, it could be Islamic Fundamentalist Lunatics; tomorrow, the Murrow Building and a Tea Party or militant fringe.
Instead, what the Trump supporters want is an immediate fix which doesn't exist. And at the same time, Trump is trying to kiss Putin in a Bro-mance.
Our troubles with Russia might be less if Bush had handled the Cold War end differently, and if Congress hadn't focused their attention on a spooge-stained dress. Nobody likes Putin, except many of the Russians. But he is much, much more savvy for his experience than Trump.
Finally, while Amy Kremer and the others lobby for defense increases, the real problem is one of how the money is spent. This is the same phenomenon conservatives point to about education: "Throwing money at the problem." Of course, the logic doesn't apply to their Grand Military Golden Age.
Generally, I observe that the biggest chest-thumpers and hawks are really chicken-littles and sissies. We live in a world of risk, and they won't have any of it, even if spending a trillion dollars more a year reduces that risk by only 1%.
If you want to be the biggest military power in the world, follow Theodore Roosevelt's advice, and speak softly. You can have it all. But why antagonize the rest of the world into courses of action which merely increase excess spending? the problem with all of this, citing both the Bush years and the Trump campaign, is that the President, in making tough talk for the satisfaction of NFL-fan voters, is also broadcasting to unintended target audiences. Bush raised terrorist organizations to the status of nation states with his talk and actions, when the prudent course would be to diminish and humiliate them as criminally insane.
Talk is cheap. Military hardware isn't.
ivwshane
Lifer
Can you think of a more enticing and better paying welfare system than the military? Plus you get to kill some sand *******!
MajinCry
Platinum Member
An armed military, of course!
Sheik Yerbouti
Lifer
how about all these keyboard commandos? they seem more suited to this, and seem to be very willing to blow away some evil muslims.
soundforbjt
Lifer
I can't wait for Trump to tell all the Generals the things he knows more about ISIS than they do. They have to be on pins & needles waiting for this info that will secure us victory.
The US has bases all over the Middle East, including Iraq. Why didn't the US do more to stop this supposed onslaught by this newly formed mighty army known as "ISIS?"
Also, where are they getting these brand new Toyota pick up trucks from? LOL. Also, who makes all their flags? Seems like they have lots of pickup trucks and flags.
dullard
Elite Member
Lets see,
a) You can't keep it a secret, so why try.
b) If they stay, you are fighting them in their own territory, if they leave, you fight them on the run in the open. (Hint: the latter is far better for us).
c) If they leave, your fight for that territory is much faster, safer for the military, and easier.
d) Mental warfare: break their will. A person can't stay in ready mode 100% of the time forever. They need to se
e) Cry wolf. Keep saying that you are invading for weeks/months on end until they don't pay attention. Then attack.
f) For the safety of the civilians to give them time to leave.
g) I could go on and on.
The only reason to pretend to keep it a secret is to play to those who can't think it through.
You don't want to announce the exact plans. Saying that I will attack at 3:42 PM through gate #3 with 1000 infantry and 3 helicopters--that is stupid. But telling them that you will attack and then not attacking until much later (or earlier) can be very useful in war.
MagnusTheBrewer
IN MEMORIAM
You confuse warriors and war a lot. Kinda like you confuse believers and religion.
Fanatical Meat
Lifer
Um leaving it up to Iraq especially after they kicked our Military out. Its their land.
soulcougher73
Lifer
I have a better plan than Trumps, but I can't say what it is, cause then people will know
Fanatical Meat
Lifer
Well played
Do you really believe that the world's strongest country will just let that happen? That we would just pick up our bags and knowingly allow ISIS to take over large parts of the Middle East?
We defeated Saddam Hussein's military basically in minutes yet we haven't a clue on defeating ISIS? So pickup trucks and flags give ISIS magical strength?
I'm not being a smart ass but it is very interesting. How a superpower with spy satellites, numerous military bases in the region, military advisers will still allow this to happen. I mean, these mythical ISIS supermen have captured Mosul for how long?
Fanatical Meat
Lifer
Being serious I'd guess Intel was passed to Iraq and they did next to nothing with it, look at how their Military fled even when they had ISIS outnumbered.
Obama has wanted to withdraw from the ME and I agree we can't assure Iraqs safety they need to grow up, have a decent Government and take care of business
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
