Free Flight, Free Speech

Oh my, oh my?
When will man learn?
Is killing of a few Islamic leaders (or not, depending on French bombing skills...) worth carnage and bloodshed?
After so many millenia of bloodshed, man has not learned yet.

@legoboyvdlp

+ 1 x 10^1000!

The problem is, you need always two to make peace but only one to start a war. And to make it not too easy, there are a lot of situations in history in which not the one who actually fired the first shot was the one starting the mess because there are other weapons in the game that are rarely recognized as "weapon" in the narrower sense of the word. And then, you end up with a situation, the other one has to defend or surrender. So all the nice ideas of "no war at any cost" can come with a very steep price. We can have peace with those Islamic leaders in a moment. All we need to do is to convert, burn 2000 years of our own culture, explain to our wives why they have to wear now a veil and share us with three other women and occasionally to stone one of our wives to death and we have immidiately peace with them. And still, I really don't want to go down that road. So right now, the question seems to be not "was the killing of some Islamic leaders worth it" but rather "did we kill enough of them". Sorry if that hurts some feelings, but it is as I feel right now.

I have been thinking on what exactly to say right now.

As a matter of fact I will recognize that I am reserving my opinions on this matter, in respect to the victims of this situation: Both present and future victims.

I also feel frustration, horror, sadness, anger; and from JWocky's post I assume he very likely also feels some or all of these, himself.

This is a free speech board. And also a place for association and free share of ideas of people from several countries, and very likely several creeds. I want to disclose that every opinion shared here is personal, and that there is not a "board's opinion". And there will probably never be an absolute consensus of speech among us. And, even more when we deal with such terrific events, and sensitive issues, such as those discussed in this thread.

This is, isis, isil or whatever they call themselves tomorrow are a (large) bunch of kids armed with kalashnikovs, that have taken some empty land in syria and irak. The superpowers fail to clean them out within a couple of weeks. This makes me really doubt the superness of these so called superpowers.

Kind regards, Vincent

This is were I agree to disagree, What if anything has our 12 year long misadventure in Iraq taught us?

The Djinn is well out of the bottle and we're the ones who pried the cork away. Things like this do not occur in a vacuum.

@KL-666,

This is, isis, isil or whatever they call themselves tomorrow are a (large) bunch of kids armed with kalashnikovs, that have taken some empty land in syria and irak.

Vincent, with all due respect, I most vigorously disagree with you and think you are grossly oversimplifying this situation, my friend. This attack was not a case of the Super-Power off flirting with the French girl in the pastry shoppe when they both should have been paying attention at their guard posts. These "kids with Kalishikovs" as you so blithely put it, first of all had to have been through an intense process of mental reorientation to be able to commit the acts they committed and then so willingly gave up their own lives. They went into it knowing yesterday was the last day of their lives and with a determination nothing would stand in the way of reaching that conclusion.

The superpowers fail to clean them out within a couple of weeks. This makes me really doubt the superness of these so called superpowers.

To suggest that it was a failure of the United States as a Super Power is just astonishingly...I honestly don't even have a word for it. How anyone could not know the incredible organizational depth and danger ISIS poses, how they were spawned from an offshoot and competing group in al Qaeda just blows me away. Please, at least look it up in Wikipedia and see how the various competing Sunni and Shiite religious sects have been vying for power in the Middle East, for the very soul of Islam, and how that ISIS is one of the results of that internal struggle. These aren't kids playin' in the Middle East sand box. These are grown men acting on what they believe is a mission from God and believe they have Allah's sanction to use any and all means necessary to achieve their worldly ends, up to and killing all who will not conform to their draconian demands. This is not the stuff of Super Powers. I wish it was. This, in their minds is the stuff of Apocalypse, and you, as an infidel, as am I, are both an impediment to their goal, and so their solution is that both of us should be killed as part of their devotion to Allah.

What you should be concerned about these next few days is the terrorists are apparently trying to make a statement condemning what they believe is the repugnant (to them and to their interpretation of the Q'uran) secularization of modern Europe. Last night, on al Jazeera America, there was a significant discussion about the attacks being religious protests against Europe's very casual secular life-style, and that the places that were attacked were supposed to be a message to young French and Europeans that such places would never again be safe in their lifetimes. The reality is you live a lot closer to Paris than I do.

Taking broad, unsubstantiated swipes against another country in such back-handed way is not really your style, Vincent. The rise of terrorist groups from Hezbollah, to the mutual terror Iraq and Iran have committed against each other, to Chechnya, to what has happened in Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, the list goes on is a far too complex phenomenon to go around pouting about the Yanks not being there whenever the slightest little fire breaks out somewhere in the world.

Of course, we Yanks, to be honest, are getting a bit tired of always being the ones you guys think should stick our heads into the snake pit first, then when we get bit, everyone jumps back and clucks their tongues and says "Those nasty imperialist Americans." We're all fed up with that and think that all of you in Europe, especially, haven't been carrying your weight, not even close, so a lot of us think it's time for you all to spend some of your trillions of euros to put out some global fires and we'll let you all enjoy being the super-power for a while and let it suck your tax base dry for a century or two while we get out of debt and really get back on track of being a super-power.

You don't like the job we are doing? Fine by me. I hereby appoint The Netherlands chief Super Power with all the rights, headaches, ridicule, expenses, taxes, and a 13 trillion Euro debt to go along with it. And you, Vincent as Prime Minister. The first thing you do is find out where your aircraft carriers are. You can't be a superpower these days without about a good dozen or so aircraft carriers and then whole bunches of submarines with racks and racks of nuclear missiles....oh yeah. about those nukes. You better get on those right away. Putin is such a stinker and he's... well, you know, you're a super-power now, you have all the intelligence........no? Neh?

Vincent-- Please know, I hold you as a dear friend, even if I get a bit sarcastic.

As you say,

Regards,

SkyBoat

Hello Skyboat,

Obviously i need more words to say this, because you take things from it that are not in it's intention.

I thought it evident that the area where isis operates should not look like a state (in the making). What those 40.000 rebels really have are some towns. All barren land depicted on the maps in the news are just areas where they can move freely.

As long as this idea of having land exists, there is hope for people that have a tendency to radicalize, in the western suburbs. They see on the news their dreamed islamic state finally in the making. If ever they are going to contribute to that, it is now. Therefore at the current times we have a intensification of attacks like in Paris. (Among other hopeless actions like traveling to the beloved country.)

We need to get rid of those maps in the news and reduce them to what they really are. A few isolated dots on the map. To achieve that, the barren lands must be clear of free travel by bands of isis rebels. Such mission is not comparable with fighting them in populated areas, so please do not mix that up.

I specifically mentioned superpowerS, thinking of America, Russia and also some smaller ones like UK and France. They are all present in the area, which makes the whole operation even more super. There is nothing specific about America said or meant.

According to the superpowers own propaganda their aerial power is capable of much more, than keeping the barren areas clear of some bands traveling to a new town to conquer. Yet the free movement areas still exist, and are depicted in the news as isis land. I stand by that the superpowers brainwash us with the idea that their technology can do most anything, where in reality their capabilities are much more modest.

Maybe even more words are needed, but i hope i am already a bit clearer now.

Kind regards, Vincent

Well, now, before I go into any reasoning, as a very official statement of Peter Brendt aka Jabberwocks; EVERYTHNIG I SAY HERE IS MY PERSONAL OPINION, FEEL FREE TO DISAGREE BUT DON'T ASSUME, I EXPRESS ANYONE ELSE'S OPINNION BUT MERELY MY OWN!!!

So, after I got this out of the way, some historical lessons about war:

1.) You don't win a war by just reaching some military goals because that means, you leave a vacuum as soon as you withdraw and that vacuum is filled by just the next most ruthless faction around. Examples from history:
- All ancient Egyptian Meroe campaigns till Egypt conquered Meroe
- All ancient Summerian campaigns till the conquest of the whole Euphrates-Tigris-area
- All German imperial wars during the medieval era, especially the Haithabu campaigns and the Brittany/Normandy campaigns
- WWI
- Korea
- Vietnam

2.) If you decide to go to war, you have to go all the way till the logical end. Withdraw before you have the enemy beaten beyond the point that he is unable to regroup and recover as soon as the pressure decreases means, he will exactly do that and kick your butt, even if that means, he has to find a way to travel thousands of miles to reach you after the withdrawal. Historical examples:
- French-English wars during the Napoleonean era and before
- Afghanistan
- About 100 ancient wars in Egypt, Persia, Summeria

3.) In asymmetrical warfare, never ever got a superpower control over an occupied area with check point strategy alone. Historical examples:
- Meroe against the Habibi kingdom
- Ancient Egypt and Meroe
- Assur against the first Babylonian Kingdom
- German against Denmark (8th century)
- Germany against Swiss (11th century)
- Germany against Swiss (12th cwentury)
- Germany against Swiss (13th century ,,. and some more, you get the gist)
- Germany against the Nominoe Dukedoms
- France against the Nominoe Dukedoms
- England against France (medieval)
- Turkey against the Armenians
- Turkey against the Greek
- Turkey against the Kurds
- Germany in WWII in France, Poland, Croatia, Serbia, Greece and Italy (after 1943 there)
- England in Palestine
- Israel in Palestine
- Russia in Afghanistan
- USA in Afghanistan

4.) Never ever in the history of mankind since the invention of gunpower, a superior force was able to make even a dent in dug in infantry by use of artillery only. Never ever, a superior power made a dent in dug in infantry by the use air strikes only. It was tried several times, it failed always and asymmetric warfare is fighting like agaisnt dug in infantry with the additional ability to blend into the local population. Historical examples:
- WWII, Germany's attempt to destroy the British expedition corps at Dunquerque from the air
- WWII, Germany's attempt to break the siege of Stalingrad from the air
- Korea
- Vietnam, even not with Agent Orange to take the cover from the Viet Cong infantry
- Grenada, the initial US helicopter strike
- USA, France, ... against ISIS
- Saudi-Arabia against the rebels in Yemen

So, bottom line, war is a dirty business and if you go into it, you have to finish the job and you have to finish it on the ground. If you are not willing to do so, better don't get in to begin with. Cut and Run invites the enemy to regroup and come to you. In asymmetric warfare that means, he goes first for the weakest targets with terror and sabotage operations. Means, you less protected allies and your less protected civilian population pay the price first. In this case Spain, England, now France and in the US of course Boston as an example. So, never ever in the history of mankind, a war was ended by being political correct or by cut and run.