ISIS (Page 4)

I K R: Yeah yeah let's stick to the facts. ...u look just like him.. ..n I dont

SWlNE: Agreed, you don't look like Frankenstein, only like his monster.

Anything related on the topic of ISIS say or related to my previous post?

I K R: Nope nothing to say about your Isis post.. .but can I borrow your face?

SWlNE:
Question to others from the US (and allied nations). Since Davidk is too shy to give a direct answer:

Do you have (continued) support for the US government's action to back these groups or not?

davidk14: .

Filth said:

Davidk, a declaration of war is towards a nation. ISIS is not a nation.

David responds:

Yes it is. It says it is. ISIS has ‘taken’ land from Iraq and Syria and consider it there own.

Filth continues:

The rebels that your government support were supported initially to fight against the Syrian government (nation). If you are making a declaration of war on Syria then that is a different story.

David responds:

That whole situation is such a ‘cluster fuck’ because ‘we’ did not ‘act’ sooner. The fight is with ISIS.

Filth continues:

It doesn't matter if there is a 'declaration' or not, having one does not automatically cleanse the situation/action.

David responds:

A Declaration of War enables the military to conduct WAR to a conclusion….a WINNING conclusion….by law.

Filth continues:

Well your country did use Agent Orange in the Vietnam war, pretty sure that in each military involvement there is that 'hope to win' but of course it met failure. And history shows how supportive the US has been to dictators and other friends. That's fine. The point here is similar but now it is groups that can be labelled terrorist groups.

David responds:

WTF does agent orange have to do with Declaration of War Act?


Filth continues:

It is strange to me that you can't seem to question the action of your government. You seem more concern on it being a 'declaration', instead of watching the action and what it entails.

David responds:

Seriously?

Filth continues:

Your government isn't going in to 'support/assist friendly governments', it is supporting groups that you don't have any background knowledge on.

David responds:

Huh? What? Already answered that. Re-read my earlier post.

Filth said:

Do you support that action to back these groups or not?

David responds:

Hell…All I know is that there was a political vacuum and Assad was being challenged and now the Russians have troops in Syria along with the Iranians. It’s a mess there however, ISIS must be rooted out.

Filth continues:

That's the question, whether it will be made formally and grand with all the political paperwork or not. The action itself, do you support it?

David responds:

Action? I have already answered….but I will answer…one more time.

IF we are to put boots on the ground with a supply line, there should be a Declaration of War.

.

SWlNE:
DavidK:
"Yes it is. It says it is. ISIS has ‘taken’ land from Iraq and Syria and consider it there own."

-I want to clarify that for you, when a group 'takes land' even if you as an individual 'take/owns land', it doesn't make you a 'nation'. It is a terrorist group and not a sovereign nation.

It is not made against groups and ISIS happens to be a group, not a nation or sovereign nation. An example: French & Britain made a declaration of war on Germany (a country) but not the German Nazi Party (the group).

A declaration of war is: a public and formal proclamation by a nation, through its executive or legislative department, that a state of war exists between itself and another nation, and forbidding all persons to aid or assist the enemy. [1]


[1] http://thelawdictionary.org/declaration-of-war/


------------------

On your statement: "That whole situation is such a ‘cluster fuck’ because ‘we’ did not ‘act’ sooner. The fight is with ISIS."

The US was always involve in the Syrian conflict, not sure what 'act' was to be done sooner. There was very little done to stop members of your country (Europe, Britain, etc) from entering Syria and taking part in ISIS.
You still haven't addressed the issue here. Do you agree with the action of your government in arming and supporting these groups? Groups that you don't know what their ideologies are or their goals? I'm asking because they can be the next ISIS (or are).


-----------------

On your statement: "A Declaration of War enables the military to conduct WAR to a conclusion….a WINNING conclusion….by law."

The US military is already involved and let's not forget the wars that were lost by the US. Are you saying that the military was playing around and not seeking to 'win'? A declaration does not mean a 'win'. Reread above to see what it means. A declaration is official but it is being done unofficially.
The example of Agent Orange is used to show that your country was trying to 'win', having a declaration of war would not have changed the outcome of a lost.

--------------

On your statement: " IF we are to put boots on the ground with a supply line, there should be a Declaration of War."

Watch and see that it will be done without the declaration. What will you do then?

---------------

From your statement: "Hell…All I know is that there was a political vacuum and Assad was being challenged and now the Russians have troops in Syria along with the Iranians. It’s a mess there however, ISIS must be rooted out."

I take it that you don't care on the groups armed and supported by your government, maybe you'll care after the mess is made. Take some time, Davidk, and look into it because I thought that you'd be in opposition of it, now it just looks like you're contented to turn a blind eye to it.

I K R: Filth do you have any actual opinions on what you beieve should be done. ..or just never ending repetitive questions

davidk14: .

Filth...the action that is taken once a Declaration of War means that the gloves come off. Understand? ISIS must be rooted out and only a Declaration of War will work. The US can not destroy ISIS without one. Understand? The US war machine must be unleashed once again and the US will squash ISIS and anyone that supports them just like we pounded Japan and Germany of the 1940's. Understand?

SWlNE:
You have a very wide-eyed childish view of the situation. I know that sounds offensive but it is how I view your statements honestly and it's not meant in malice.

The US' war machine as you called it has been used without a Declaration of War and it has failed many times. Wake up 'we' didn't 'pound' Japan and Germany. WW2 was a joint effort and in terms of the military might of that war, the 'mightiest', it was the Soviet Union. That has already been established. This is not a WW2, this is 2015. A different playing feel and ISIS uses a tactics and strategies than the Germans of WW2. Not only that but there was a lot of behind the scene action in WW2 (persons who had to decipher codes, etc). WW2 had a lot on it.

This has no comic book ending, man. And the US ain't no saintly superhero as you might want to believe. The game of politics has none. Each carry their own agenda and filth. Do you think that the main concern is on the Syrian people? By Russia, Assad, the US, etc? It is not.

Enjoy your festivities. I'm heading out for the night.

davidk14: .

filth said:


You have a very wide-eyed childish view of the situation. I know that sounds offensive but it is how I view your statements honestly and it's not meant in malice.

david responds:

I appreciate your concern for my feelings...but seriously....ISIS is cutting off heads of men, women and children. You do realize this...right?

You can not be blind to the atrocities these animals are doing to other human beings just because they are radical extremist Islamist's. They must be completely destroyed. Every last one of them taken out. Hunt them down and kill them.

filth said:

Wake up 'we' didn't 'pound' Japan and Germany

David responds:

Um...seriously? The US did not wipe out the Japanese? Really? Does the campaign in the Pacific ring a bell or perhaps do thermo-nuclear warheads ring a bell or jog a memory?

Um....the D-Day invasion which lead to the fall of the German's was orchestrated by the tooth fairy I presume? How about the daylight bombings that devastated the factories and cities? Perhaps it was the Easter Bunny?

You want to re-write history and it just won't work. We did not lose WW1 or WW2 because we did have a Declaration of War and we WON ! YES! It's TRUE !!! We WON!!!!

It's also true we lost Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq and we will lose in Syria 'because' we did not have a Declaration of War.

US boots on the ground that need a sustainable supply line need a Declaration of War so as to thoroughly destroy the enemy. Gloves come off. Like I said earlier, I thought we had learned our lesson without the declaration.

.

SWlNE:
Davidk, it is important to look at all issues while addressing one issue. ISIS is one issue and maybe why the US tends to fail and create more of a mess in the ME is because of shortsightedness. ISIS is an issue, they should be stopped but arming and supporting other rogue groups while not knowing their ideologies or their actions is also an issue. The US move with tunnel vision and do not consider the problems that can occur after, as we've seen many times and ISIS has been sprouted from one of them.
It seems like the only country who have a proper understanding of the situation is Russia.

I'm only here to clarify things for you because I understand that you may not be aware of a lot of work that went into WWII. From reading what you say, you seem to think that the battle of Normandy was what won the entire war and that the US was the only army on that front. But let us break it down:
1) On the Normandy invasion consisted of the forces from US, Britain (and her colonies) and Canada.
2) The Normandy invasion needed the planned deception (making the German think that they were going to target another area) in order to work. It was not a full attack on Germany but a deception tactic.
3) The Soviets fought the Eastern front alone.

In order to defeat the Germans, these were not the only fighting points that took place. Prior to the US joining the war, there was fighting against the German machine and after there was too. So no, the US didn't single-handedly win the war and if you want to go into which individual country placed the heavier beating then it'd be the Soviets and for the country who placed a heavier beating mentally, with code-breakers and decipherers, etc, it'd be placed as Britain. This is not to undermine the efforts anyone else brought to the table as the US or India, etc.
I suggest you look deeper into WW2 and the various battles fought during that period. It was a very strategic war.


Your 'US boots' were on the ground fully in war in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan (and many other military involvement in other countries) and it failed. It failed not because there wasn't a formal 'Declaration of War'. Are you saying that your troops went there to play-around and weren't giving their all? That your country wasn't trying and placed the lives of children, men and women (civilians, not your troops) at risk for a game? Those are some serious issues you're raising there, Davidk14, and you kept silent on it..didn't protest or anything.

SWlNE: And come on, the Soviets can be credited for having the better music and propaganda posters too (compared to the US' Uncle Sam 'we need you' poster and the rest of propaganda posters from the allies) :

davidk14: .

Filth said:

Davidk, it is important to look at all issues while addressing one issue.

Davidk responds:

Perhaps, but when it comes to those that cut off heads, crucify children and kill because someone does not support their ideology….sorry…..no other issues should be on the table.

Filth said:

ISIS is one issue and maybe why the US tends to fail and create more of a mess in the ME is because of shortsightedness. ISIS is an issue, they should be stopped but arming and supporting other rogue groups while not knowing their ideologies or their actions is also an issue.

David responds:

I agree. However, with a Declaration of War…we need no one. IF there are those that want to support the US in its war, great..if not….get the frick out of the way or pay the price.

Filth said:

The US move with tunnel vision and do not consider the problems that can occur after, as we've seen many times and ISIS has been sprouted from one of them.

David responds:

I agree to a point. The reason the US has had issues is exactly because we have not had a Declaration of War. As I have said numerous times….If we do not have a Declaration of War….do not get involved.

Filth said:

It seems like the only country who have a proper understanding of the situation is Russia.

David responds:

Um….they are as screwed up as the US when it comes to military involvement. They also should not get involved unless they are in it to win. Remember Afghanistan? It was Russia’s Viet Nam.

Filth said:

I'm only here to clarify things for you because I understand that you may not be aware of a lot of work that went into WWII. From reading what you say, you seem to think that the battle of Normandy was what won the entire war and that the US was the only army on that front. But let us break it down:
1) On the Normandy invasion consisted of the forces from US, Britain (and her colonies) and Canada.
2) The Normandy invasion needed the planned deception (making the German think that they were going to target another area) in order to work. It was not a full attack on Germany but a deception tactic.
3) The Soviets fought the Eastern front alone.

David responds:

Please..no preaching about WW2. I am completely aware of the history. You do realize that the US was fighting two world wars at one time….right? You also realize that if the US had entered the war earlier, that would have prevented some disasters from occurring…you realize this…right? If you wish, I can talk all day about that but for now…



Filth said:

In order to defeat the Germans, these were not the only fighting points that took place. Prior to the US joining the war, there was fighting against the German machine and after there was too. So no, the US didn't single-handedly win the war and if you want to go into which individual country placed the heavier beating then it'd be the Soviets and for the country who placed a heavier beating mentally, with code-breakers and decipherers, etc, it'd be placed as Britain. This is not to undermine the efforts anyone else brought to the table as the US or India, etc.
I suggest you look deeper into WW2 and the various battles fought during that period. It was a very strategic war.

David responds:

Like I said earlier, I would be happy to discuss WW2 in depth since there seems to be much myth about the who, what, why, when and where of WW2.


Filth said:

Your 'US boots' were on the ground fully in war in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan (and many other military involvement in other countries) and it failed. It failed not because there wasn't a formal 'Declaration of War'.

David responds:

They failed exactly because there was no WINNING strategy.

Filth said:

Are you saying that your troops went there to play-around and weren't giving their all? That your country wasn't trying and placed the lives of children, men and women (civilians, not your troops) at risk for a game? Those are some serious issues you're raising there, Davidk14, and you kept silent on it..didn't protest or anything.

David responds:

What I am trying to say is this…A Declaration of War allows the military to take off the gloves and win a shooting war with limited….very limited political interference. The winning strategy is to destroy the enemy and instill freedom and liberty and help the people to rebuild their country….as we did in Japan and Germany who now are economic powerhouses.

.

SWlNE:
If you can only focus on one issue at a time while creating another major issue, then it accounts for the failure of your country and the mess it causes time and time again in the ME.

In each war (with or without a Declaration, you've needed 'someone' or assistance from outside countries). Without assistance you've failed too. In leading with assistance you've failed too. WW2 was won when there was assistance and the US was not taking the leading role. It's okay to be a military failure, Davidk14, perhaps it is time to reassess and make some improvements.

Every country who tried to tame Afghanistan failed, and for clarification it was the Soviets, I'd not call that a Vietnam failure. Afghanistan is known as the pit hole for empires. And I was referring to Russia's present reasoning on the situation in Syria. They look more put together than the US. But speaking of the Soviet-Afghan war, did you know that similar to the rogue rebels supported by the US in Syria now, they also supported Bin Laden and his rogue rebels? Funny how messes are created and how well this ties in to what I'm trying to bring to your attention. Tunnel vision at work.

On your inaccurate statement:
"Please..no preaching about WW2. I am completely aware of the history. You do realize that the US was fighting two world wars at one time….right? You also realize that if the US had entered the war earlier, that would have prevented some disasters from occurring…you realize this…right? If you wish, I can talk all day about that but for now…"

Nope, you seem very unaware of the complete history. You do realise that they were not fighting those alone and that everyone was at war right? And that the US had support on being part of the Allies when the Soviets were not, right? (For that reference look at the date the Soviets were taken as part of the Allies). You do realise that the US didn't have to deal with a land invasion or lost of civilian lives that they had the benefit of coming to the war? You do realise that you're speaking from hindsight and clearly did not consider that it took a several countries to ban together with both military and strategy to fight the German machine, right? And that the US joined in late when the party was just about wrapping up?
Of course not. You can talk all day on it but it's clear to me that you have a big chunk of the puzzles missing.


On your statement:
"They failed exactly because there was no WINNING strategy."

They also failed because Ironman was not available to fight. I guess this means that everyone else had a magical 'winning' strategy while the US continued and still continues to stubble on itself. You'd think that by now they'll change their foreign policy with all those failing strategies. You'd think that you'd care about the lives of the persons who you send off to war (even if you don't care on the civilians of the other country) enough to oppose military involvement without what you think is a 'winning' strategy. You'd think that you'd personally go protest on this or call for the heads of those who are in charge of carrying out military strategies for your country to quit.

I'll give you a hint Davidk14, a Declaration of War will not give a country magical 'winning' powers.

I K R: http://madworldnews.com/islam-false-religion-muslims/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
^^ NOT ISIS

http://www.barenakedislam.com/category/beheadings-graphic
ISIS^^

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2011/05/09/thailand-muslims-behead-a-9-year-old-boy-warning-graphic-images/
^^NOT ISIS

They all may as well be isis theres no difference

SWlNE: Russia has already joined-in in September with more commitment than the West.

I K R: well i just checked the Manchester police website.......over 1/3 on the Manchester most wanted list are Mulsims......they dont make up a third of the population.....N whats the most common crime they are wanted for?....RAPE (including rape of a child)
My point is this....ISIS are not doing anything that other facist Muslims arent doing across the globe and whilst willy may believe the first things he reads/sees in the mainstream media ie the MPs murdering and assaulting kids........or that its a plot to bring down the tory party.....we arent all so naive

I K R: The reason Isis has been so successful is because it has so many supporters, and it will not be defeated without defeating the fascist ideology behind it

SWlNE: ISIS doesn't need or have that many supporters, what they have is money.

Your 'most wanted' reference have nothing to do with ISIS. What you're stating is that 2/3 of those who are wanted in Manchester are non-Muslims (if your statement is accurate, seeing that you've not posted any sources to it that it can be left as an assumption).

SWlNE: Yeah their military intervention started late September with their first airstrike. They've made several airstrikes after that initial strike.

You mean the pact between Hitler and Stalin? haa more like enemies who made the decision to not attack first. Hitler made that mistake but I think Stalin was planning to attack.