RChildress107
Well-known member
Clearly not because nothing you said about ISIS in that post is remotely accurate.
Paris
- Thread starter lbE08
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Clearly not because nothing you said about ISIS in that post is remotely accurate.
We have satellite imagery of their centers of gravity in two different countries. The Secretary of State and President were boasting about how we've reduced the territory they control by measurable distances. We know where they are and where their forces are. If we match them strike for strike, our response is proportionate.
They've hit three different countries this week. We have the intelligence, capability and finally, seeds of an international coalition needed to take ISIS apart from the air (that is to say, disproportionately). Do we have the leadership? George H.W. Bush ain't walkin' through that door...
Right. So I am struggling to understand jhmd's point about MORE disproportionate, unrestricted violence.
In Afghanistan?
TownieDeac
words are futile devices
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 76,189
- Reaction score
- 16,925
Destroying ISIS without addressing underlying causes of growing terror isn't enough - http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/11/military-responses-alone-will-not-defeat-isil.html
RChildress107
Well-known member
You said multiple countries but you can start with Afghanistan if you like.
That would be FANTASTIC, if true.
I think we both know, however, that it's never that clean.
You want to know what happened to Afghanistan's road, schools and hospitals prior to OEF? Are you familiar with the country of Afghanistan?
RChildress107
Well-known member
Humor me.
Last edited:
There is a reason Al-Q chose it for its base of operations. I don't think an abundance of civilian infrastructure was high on their list.
I don't understand the question.
RChildress107
Well-known member
So you are claiming Afghanistan didn't have any infrastructure, at any point in their history, until the U.S. built it for them?
I said ISIS has hit three different countries (that is, outside of Syria and Iraq) this week. The bomb on the Russian civilian airliner, the bomb in Lebannon and the attacks in France. 1, 2 and 3.
A competent world leader with credibility and respect would be building a coalition to provide an international response. What will President Obama do with this opportunity?
We've been engaged in parts of the world that are on the fence about toilet paper, not on the fence on the issue of the crime of female literacy and have an active and robust slave trade. America's role in the world is to shine the light of progress into these dark corners. Their infrastructure included soccer stadiums built by the Russians that they used to shoot girls for reading. Call me an elitist.
ONW
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2011
- Messages
- 19,177
- Reaction score
- 658
"Creedy: Die! Die! Why won't you die?... Why won't you die?
V: Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof."
RChildress107
Well-known member
I guess Afghanistan didn't exist pre-1978.
As to the bold, how's that going for us? Killing millions of people seems like an odd way to shine the light of progress into dark corners of the world.
Serious question: how old were you in 2001?
RChildress107
Well-known member
Freshman in High School. How old were you in 1978?
2. I had indoor plumbing, electricity, a roof and I didn't know any warlords. By Afghan standards, I was royalty.
eta: Read this: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/af.html They have a dependency ratio of 87%. Girls get on average seven years of school. A third of their roads are paved. Men have a life expectancy under 50. Oof.
By contrast, Brazilian girls get 15 years of education, has half of the dependency ratio and has a life expectancy of 73 years.
We're not going to be able to "fix" what has been wrong with this country for thousands of years. That's just not reality.
Last edited: