PDA

View Full Version : Your position on ISIL



Speakit
02-19-2015, 03:05 PM
Should we (U.S.) send in ground troops, continue the air campaign or both? Any other preferred option?

Rainmaker
02-19-2015, 04:16 PM
Should we (U.S.) send in ground troops, continue the air campaign or both? Any other preferred option?

These "Progressive" morons have screwed things up so bad that there's No sense even talking about it. because, It doesn't matter what we (US Citzenry) thinks or wants. It's just a matter of time till we have BOG.

If you look at the current rhetoric going on in the MSM it's inevitable. This morning they were talking about ISIS/L whatever ordering Viagra to rape 1 year old babies....It's ridiculous... never any stories about how they got their weapons, training, medical, , how they wire funds into bank accounts, get their oil product to market, media expertise and maintain machinery, they supposedly do this on their own with no help from the GCC states or Israel or Iran or anybody else...

The NEOCON rollout for PNAC signer Jeb Bush is currently underway. They already rolled out the Goldman Sachs whore Hillbillary Clinton last year. So, the Globablist, Israel-first, Pro Amnesty crowd can't lose either way....

we can expect another 50K American casualties and $4Trillion dollar more debt, mass Immigration (colonization) while the fed prints money and drives the Stock Market to 25K enriching the robber barrons.....and the presstitutes tell us the economy is booming, there's no inflation or unemployment and everything's great....while, the sheeples watch on their idiot phones as Mult-Culti pin up girl, Kim Kardashian twerks her big round ass on Black Gansta Kanye and the, self loathing, White Male, Former Olympic hero, Bruce Jenner turns himself into a weird old lesbian woman with 30 cats....Wash, rinse and repeat.....FORWARD!!!

Stalwart
02-19-2015, 04:56 PM
Personal opinion: Air power is great and bombing an adversary is great, but noone can depose an insurgency solely with air power. At some point someone is going to have to enter the AOR, stand on the land and say "if you want this as yours you have to push me out." Right now ISIS / ISIL is making that statement and noone is pushing them out.

If we (the U.S.) want them out, someone will have to push them out. Should that be us? Maybe. We should ask:

-What are we willing to kill for?

-What are we willing to die for?

-What are we willing to pay for?

Additionally, we need to ask and truly evaluate: Does ISIS / ISIL present a danger to the U.S., the U.S. national security or our national interests? Of the three, I think they are a large threat to our national interest.

Mata Leao
02-19-2015, 06:20 PM
Seems like Italy is their next big challenge.

Rainmaker
02-19-2015, 06:34 PM
Seems like Italy is their next big challenge.

OMG!!! YOU MEAN THE ISIS IS GOING TO ATTACK THE VICAR OF CHRIST AT THE VATICAN NEXT!!??? IT'S LIKE A BIBLICAL PLAGUE!!!! BUT I THOUGHT THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA SAID ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE???!!!

Somebody quick call Lindsey Graham to give the "moderate" Syrian Rebles B-1 Bomber support and blow up these Wild DOG A-RAB terrists.....

Folks....Desperate times call for desperate measures..... Suspend the 4th amendment &FRISK Grandma at the airport....cut Taxes for the Rich....Outsource the Industrial base to China..... Do whatever you have to to keep us safe (just don't secure the border).... Western Civilization is at stake!!!

AND as a good faith effort (According to independent DoD funded polling) these brave troops (that will be doing the actual sacrificing) are even ASKING FOR CUTS to their BAQ, retirement, GI Bill, Commissary and Tricare benefits to save 12 Billion whole dollars over the next 20 years to pay for it!

sandsjames
02-19-2015, 08:32 PM
If we (the U.S.) want them out, someone will have to push them out. Should that be us? Maybe. We should ask:

-What are we willing to pay for? If this question is even in the equation then the answer should be NO! If it's truly a cause worth fighting for than the cost should not be an issue.


Additionally, we need to ask and truly evaluate: Does ISIS / ISIL present a danger to the U.S., the U.S. national security or our national interests? Of the three, I think they are a large threat to our national interest. National interest shouldn't be an issue as our defensive forces are for national security, not national interest. This plays into the money thing. National interest relates only to money issues and if that's the case then it is NOT worth fighting, nor is it ok according to the laws that govern us. Any war where the words "money" or "cost" are involved are not wars in which we should be involved.

If we really believed any of these wars were for the reasons intended then we'd be willing to go dead broke to fight and win them.

TJMAC77SP
02-19-2015, 09:00 PM
If this question is even in the equation then the answer should be NO! If it's truly a cause worth fighting for than the cost should not be an issue.

National interest shouldn't be an issue as our defensive forces are for national security, not national interest. This plays into the money thing. National interest relates only to money issues and if that's the case then it is NOT worth fighting, nor is it ok according to the laws that govern us. Any war where the words "money" or "cost" are involved are not wars in which we should be involved.

If we really believed any of these wars were for the reasons intended then we'd be willing to go dead broke to fight and win them.

Actually national interests are worth going to war over. There is no war that I can think of that didn't in some way involve money and cost to some degree. We tend to dress up the history to ignore these pedestrian causes but they are there nonetheless.

garhkal
02-19-2015, 09:47 PM
While i Do feel ground troops will be needed. WHY should only the US Shoulder the burden?

If all these "Moderate Muslims" Profess to say they don't support what ISIS/AQ etc are doing, why not SHOW it by putting their own boots on the ground to help drive ISIS into ruin?

LogDog
02-19-2015, 10:00 PM
While i Do feel ground troops will be needed. WHY should only the US Shoulder the burden?

If all these "Moderate Muslims" Profess to say they don't support what ISIS/AQ etc are doing, why not SHOW it by putting their own boots on the ground to help drive ISIS into ruin?
I don't have a problem with the U.S. providing air support, intelligence, and material support to fight ISIS but not U.S. ground forces. This is a Middle East problem the Muslim nations have to deal with and they need to put their military boots on the ground to do the fighting. ISIS would love nothing better than to have the U.S. send in ground forces so they can claim it is some sort of "Holy War" of Christians vs Muslims to recruit more fighters and further inflame the region.

Rollyn01
02-20-2015, 12:18 AM
I don't have a problem with the U.S. providing air support, intelligence, and material support to fight ISIS but not U.S. ground forces. This is a Middle East problem the Muslim nations have to deal with and they need to put their military boots on the ground to do the fighting. ISIS would love nothing better than to have the U.S. send in ground forces so they can claim it is some sort of "Holy War" of Christians vs Muslims to recruit more fighters and further inflame the region.

Sometimes I think that was the purpose of the 9/11 attacks. Just to suck us into their fights to help solidify their power. I can just imagine that for a long time they was telling people that we was going to invade them but receiving the look of "You're an idiot, the U.S. wouldn't do that". Come game time it's "Okay, you was right. Where do I sign up?"

Capt Alfredo
02-20-2015, 01:43 AM
Sometimes I think that was the purpose of the 9/11 attacks. Just to suck us into their fights to help solidify their power. I can just imagine that for a long time they was telling people that we was going to invade them but receiving the look of "You're an idiot, the U.S. wouldn't do that". Come game time it's "Okay, you was right. Where do I sign up?"

That's exactly what the stated plan was: to bankrupt the U.S. and force us to overreach. Bingo. Each atrocity perpetrated by IS is aimed and further drawing us in. Where they may miscalculate is that by targeting other Islamic countries' citizens, they're going to get what they didn't want. I am perfectly happy to sit back and let Jordan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, the Kurds, etc, provide the group forces. Strange bedfellows, when we're in the side of Hezbollah, Iran, Assad, etc.

Rainmaker
02-20-2015, 03:08 PM
If this question is even in the equation then the answer should be NO! If it's truly a cause worth fighting for than the cost should not be an issue.

If we really believed any of these wars were for the reasons intended then we'd be willing to go dead broke to fight and win them.


This is very Naïve Friend... We're already dead broke. all these "wars" are to sustain the $ as the world's reserve currency. If we lose that and it collapses than the Chinese, the multinational corporations, hedge funds and anybody else who has claims against the U.S. will be lined up to get their loot back.

When the IMF comes in to bail a country out, All the National assets will be sold off to satisfy debts. Federal land, water systems, highways, . gov buildings, all of it will go on the auction block. America means nothing to them. This internationalist gang of Jackels are going to reek Havok when everything is said & done

Rainmaker
02-20-2015, 03:12 PM
That's exactly what the stated plan was: to bankrupt the U.S. and force us to overreach. Bingo. Each atrocity perpetrated by IS is aimed and further drawing us in. Where they may miscalculate is that by targeting other Islamic countries' citizens, they're going to get what they didn't want. I am perfectly happy to sit back and let Jordan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, the Kurds, etc, provide the group forces. Strange bedfellows, when we're in the side of Hezbollah, Iran, Assad, etc.

Stated by who?

Speakit
02-20-2015, 04:10 PM
ISIS is a national threat and not just a threat to the U.S. and as such, the U.S. shouldn’t be solely acting against these insane idiots. Middle-Eastern countries should stand up and take the fight to ISIS with middle-eastern ground troops and their airpower. The U.S. should continue to support with aerial bombardments, intelligence support etc. but shouldn’t commit ground troops; as that will be giving ISIL what they want.

I don’t even know why we have troops in Iraq to train Kurdish fighters; didn’t we do that before we pulled out of Iraq? I even wonder why the U.S. is entertaining the idea of imbedding U.S. troops with Kurdish forces, in order to retake Mosul. Doesn’t that place the U.S. in a ground war?

I too wonder why, the mission to retake Mosul is scheduled for April or May, most importantly why would the world or ISIL need to know that; nothing better than attacking the enemy when they expect it.

sandsjames
02-20-2015, 04:23 PM
This is very Naïve Friend... We're already dead broke. all these "wars" are to sustain the $ as the world's reserve currency. If we lose that and it collapses than the Chinese, the multinational corporations, hedge funds and anybody else who has claims against the U.S. will be lined up to get their loot back.

When the IMF comes in to bail a country out, All the National assets will be sold off to satisfy debts. Federal land, water systems, highways, . gov buildings, all of it will go on the auction block. America means nothing to them. This internationalist gang of Jackels are going to reek Havok when everything is said & done


Thanks for being completely off topic in order to pass on your rhetoric.

CYBERFX1024
02-20-2015, 06:17 PM
That's exactly what the stated plan was: to bankrupt the U.S. and force us to overreach. Bingo. Each atrocity perpetrated by IS is aimed and further drawing us in. Where they may miscalculate is that by targeting other Islamic countries' citizens, they're going to get what they didn't want. I am perfectly happy to sit back and let Jordan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, the Kurds, etc, provide the group forces. Strange bedfellows, when we're in the side of Hezbollah, Iran, Assad, etc.

I am asking as well who said this? Also I am all for BOG IF we leave out the ROE's that have been hindering us so badly. IF we have ROE's then we don't need to go there.

Rainmaker
02-20-2015, 07:02 PM
Thanks for being completely off topic in order to pass on your rhetoric.

It's not off topic..... .. But, try and use your critical thinking skills and follow along......We have economic system that's based on solely on usury and we've busted long ago...... We have rampant Corruption, because we have Private Bank Cartel acting as the Creditors of the United States.......we're not told specifically who they are. But, These "Creditors" are not all American Citizens....... That's what these people are doing...... They're selling off claims to every asset in this country..... Brian Williams and Wolf Blitzer aren't going to tell you that (because if they did they'd get Cosby'd), so you can't believe it.....

Selling our debt is the ONLY thing that allows this spending on deficit to continue 70% of the .gov budget is wealth redistribution (Welfare, Social Security, HealthCare and .gov employee pensions /paychecks) if we can't run a deficit, then that all stops, because you tax every American 100% and you still couldn't cover the IOU.....and you would have total chaos...... see Argentina for an example when they busted and the IMF came in the middle class was destroyed and 70% of the country became poor overnight. If that happens here we'd have a civil war.

Rusty Jones
02-20-2015, 07:04 PM
Oh, we WILL be going. It's going to happen sooner or later and, with that being the case, it may as well be sooner. I don't know what we're waiting for. Maybe we need them to blow something up on American soil?

sandsjames
02-20-2015, 07:06 PM
It's not off topic..... .. But, try and use your critical thinking skills and follow along......We have economic system that's based on solely on usury and we've busted long ago...... We have rampant Cronyism, because we have Private Bank Cartel acting as the Creditors of the United States.......we're not told who they are. But, These Creditors are not all American Citizens....... That's what these people are doing...... They're selling off claims to every asset in this county..... Brian Williams and Wolf Blitzer aren't going to tell you that, so you can't believe it.....

Selling our debt is the ONLY thing that allows this spending on deficit to continue 70% of the .gov budget is wealth redistribution (Welfare, Social Security, HealthCare and .gov employee pensions /paychecks) if we can't run a deficit, then that all stops, because you tax every American 100% and you still couldn't cover the IOU.....and you would have total chaos...... see Argentina for an example when they busted and the IMF came in the middle class was destroyed and 70% of the country became poor overnight. If that happens here we'd have a civil war.

You hit all the buzzwords and talking points. Well done.

Rainmaker
02-20-2015, 07:09 PM
Ok, great. Now. Tell me which of "the talking points and buzzwords" do you think are false?

Rainmaker
02-20-2015, 07:22 PM
I am asking as well who said this? Also I am all for BOG IF we leave out the ROE's that have been hindering us so badly. IF we have ROE's then we don't need to go there.

Rainmaker will take full odds on Captain Alfredo quoting you the Al(Gore)-Jazerra Bin Laden confession from 2004, as that's were that narrative comes from...

After nearly 15 years It should be obvious to anyone that (like the war on Drugs and the War on Poverty) The people calling the shots have decided that these wars are not meant to be won....In which case we should stay the hell out.

sandsjames
02-20-2015, 07:38 PM
Tell me which part of What I said do you think is false?

I'm not saying any of it is false. I'm just saying that what you are saying has nothing to do with whether or not we should be involved in a war with ISIS.

Rainmaker
02-20-2015, 07:57 PM
Ok, let's play TJ vs Abs.. so, .you say we should be willing to go to war no matter if we go broke or not. True? So, What Rainmaker is trying to tell you is that we ARE going to war because, we ARE broke.

We have 2 choices. 1. Pay down the National debt (which requires technological energy revolution or us to actually start making and exporting something the world wants (like we used too) or 2. just Keep rolling it over indefinitely(which requires the $ to remain as the reserve currency of the world, and getting people to buy it at virtually no interest).

We have NO other choice. If the US defaults. We can't run deficits, and then the EBT cards shut down and we will have a civil war with the Free Shit Army in a week.

There is a 3rd choice but, you wouldn't even be able to grasp the concept, so I'll leave that out for now.

Were the Fuck exactly do you think ISIS came from? What you think they just magically went from JV team goat herders to the unstoppable scourge of the Earth in just under a year?? Why are the Israelis treating their wounded fighters in Field Hospitals? I know...I know... Anderson Vanderbilt Cooper hasn't told you about that yet...Why don't they attack the Saudis for enabling us their great Satan?(could it be maybe cause that's whose secretly funding them?) How do you think ISIS is paying for this shit? cash under the mattress? It's got to be in bank accounts somewhere right??

If we had stayed out of Syria in the 1st place Assad would've wiped them off the planet. But, that wouldn't fit into the PNAC plan of toppeling all these regimes that are hostile to Israel

efmbman
02-20-2015, 08:08 PM
Without clear military and political objectives, I am absolutely against getting involved.

With clear military and political objectives, I would probably still be against getting involved because I find it increasingly more difficult to believe anything that comes out of Washington DC.

sandsjames
02-20-2015, 08:16 PM
Ok, let's play TJ vs Abs.. so, .you say we should be willing to go to war no matter if we go broke or not. True? So, What Rainmaker is trying to tell you is that we ARE going to war because, we ARE broke.

We have 2 choices. Pay down the National debt (which requires technological energy revolution or us to actually start making and exporting something the world wants) or just Keep rolling it over indefinitely(which requires the $ to remain as the reserve currency of the world, and getting people to buy it at virtually no interest). We have NO other choice. If the US defaults, and we can't run deficits, then the EBT cards shut down and we will have a civil war with the Free Shit Army in a week. There is a third choice but, you wouldn't be able to grasp the concept, so I'll leave that out.

Were the Fuck exactly do you think ISIS came from? What you think they just magically went from JV team goat herders to the unstoppable scourge of the Earth in just under a year?? How stupid can you get?? Why are the Israelis treating their wounded fighters in Field Hospitals? I know...I know... Anderson Vanderbilt Cooper hasn't told you about that yet...Why don't they attack the Saudis for enabling US the great Satan?(could it be maybe cause that's whose secretly funding them?) How do you think they're paying for this shit? cash under the mattress? It's in bank accounts somewhere right?? If we had stayed out of Syria in the 1st place Assad would've wiped them off the planet. But, that wouldn't fit into the PNAC plan of toppeling all these regimes that are hostile to Israel

There are 2 questions to ask that should ALWAYS determine whether or not we go to war:

1) Is it about National Security?
2) Are we willing to do whatever it takes to win?

If the answer to number one is "NO" then we aren't authorized to do so. If the answer to number two is "NO" then we obviously are really concerned about number one.

Rainmaker
02-20-2015, 08:24 PM
There are 2 questions to ask that should ALWAYS determine whether or not we go to war:

1) Is it about National Security?
2) Are we willing to do whatever it takes to win?

If the answer to either of those is no, then we should not get involved because it's a losing battle.

The answer to both is NO. and yeah, that'd be great if we weren't already involved...But, As my old Uncle Joe used to say.... Son, you can wish in one hand and shit the other and see which one fills up first.

SomeRandomGuy
02-20-2015, 08:25 PM
Sometimes I think that was the purpose of the 9/11 attacks. Just to suck us into their fights to help solidify their power. I can just imagine that for a long time they was telling people that we was going to invade them but receiving the look of "You're an idiot, the U.S. wouldn't do that". Come game time it's "Okay, you was right. Where do I sign up?"

Close. The actual goal of ISIS is to draw fulfill the prophecy of Muhammed. See the quote below.


The mistake some make when viewing ISIS is to see it as a rational actor. Instead, as the magazine documents, its ideology is that of an apocalyptic cult that believes that we are living in the end times and that ISIS' actions are hastening the moment when this will happen.

The name of the Dabiq magazine itself helps us understand ISIS' worldview. The Syrian town of Dabiq is where the Prophet Mohammed is supposed to have predicted that the armies of Islam and "Rome" would meet for the final battle that will precede the end of time and the triumph of true Islam.

In the recent issue of Dabiq it states: "As the world progresses towards al-Malhamah al-Kubrā, ('the Great Battle' to be held at Dabiq) the option to stand on the sidelines as a mere observer is being lost." In other words, in its logic, you are either on the side of ISIS or you are on the side of the Crusaders and infidels.

ISIS is attempting to fulfill Muhammed's prophecy. In order for that to happen we need to get drawn into "al-Malhamah al-Kubrā"

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/16/opinion/bergen-isis-enemies/

sandsjames
02-20-2015, 08:31 PM
The answer to both is NO. and yeah, that'd be great if we weren't already involved...But, As my old Uncle Joe used to say.... Son, you can wish in one hand and shit the other and see which one fills up first.

The question wasn't "will we?". It was "should we"?" Big difference.

Rainmaker
02-20-2015, 08:34 PM
Close. The actual goal of ISIS is to draw fulfill the prophecy of Muhammed. See the quote below.



ISIS is attempting to fulfill Muhammed's prophecy. In order for that to happen we need to get drawn into "al-Malhamah al-Kubrā"

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/16/opinion/bergen-isis-enemies/

Wait Rainmaker confused again.....so now ISIS did 9-11 to get us to attack Syria?? and here I thought it was the Taliban or those Al-Qada guys from Saudi Arabia that took over the world with a couple of box cutters and 3 months of flying lessons with help from Saddam Hussein.....Thank God we have CNN to keep it all straight.

Rainmaker
02-20-2015, 08:48 PM
The question wasn't "will we?". It was "should we"?" Big difference.

Ok, Friend... thanks for playin along with this little mental exercise...It's been "enlightening"...as they say..... Now, Rainmaker's headed to the Buggout location to drink homemade skittles wine, prep his garden for the impending Rapture while he celebrates, Shabbat Shekalim and Lent and Hsih Nien/Suhl/Tet just to hedge all his bets against the coming ISIS/L Anti-Christ. Out Bitchez....

waveshaper2
02-20-2015, 08:54 PM
If we had stayed out of Syria in the 1st place Assad would've wiped them off the planet.

Now that I can agree with, would've saved about 170,000 Syrian lives, and the conflict most likely would've ended in 2 years or less. Assad's daddy faced the same type "Sunni Civil War/insurgency" and crushed the Sunni's in short order with only 30,000 killed. The mid-east needs tough/brutal dictators like Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, Egyptian military junta, etc. We need to stop knocking these guys off.

Step 1 for dealing with ISIL/ISIS; ID our mistakes (just about everything we've done in the Islamic world since the 1970's), Learn from our mistakes/stupidity/wishful thinking, better educate ourselves on the history of the region/its religions/tribes/conflicts/etc, etc. This is key; Don't repeat these same/stupid mistakes ever again. Then and only then are we ready for Step 2.

garhkal
02-20-2015, 09:22 PM
I too wonder why, the mission to retake Mosul is scheduled for April or May, most importantly why would the world or ISIL need to know that; nothing better than attacking the enemy when they expect it.

It does make me scratch my head that our government keeps giving out intel like this, when if it was you or I, we would be done for OPSEC breaches.

sandsjames
02-20-2015, 09:50 PM
It does make me scratch my head that our government keeps giving out intel like this, when if it was you or I, we would be done for OPSEC breaches.

Maybe we want them to build up their forces as much as possible so we, and others, can kill as many as we can in one location at one time.

BENDER56
02-20-2015, 11:49 PM
Anyone who wants to know what ISIS is about should read this article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

It's a long read but worth it. We had a previous thread related to this and I went on record as being 100% against our involvement in ISIS' internal Islamic war. Now I'm not so sure.

Seriously, set aside about twenty minutes of your time and read it.

Capt Alfredo
02-21-2015, 01:18 AM
Who said it? Bin Laden. Maybe this is what Rainmaker was referring to, but I don't really spend much time reading his shtick, especially since he's a self-admitted troll account.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/

Rainmaker
02-21-2015, 05:35 AM
Who said it? Bin Laden. Maybe this is what Rainmaker was referring to, but I don't really spend much time reading his shtick, especially since he's a self-admitted troll account.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/

Yes, that's it Captain....Thankfully we have CNN to honestly record the history as it happens.....after denying any involvement in 9-11. 3 years later Bin-Laden mysteriously appeared long enough to reverse himself and come clean and admit it...in an Al Gore Jazzera taped interview (just before the 2004 election)

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a092801osamadenial

Stalwart
02-21-2015, 01:17 PM
There are 2 questions to ask that should ALWAYS determine whether or not we go to war:

1) Is it about National Security?
2) Are we willing to do whatever it takes to win?

If the answer to number one is "NO" then we aren't authorized to do so. If the answer to number two is "NO" then we obviously are really concerned about number one.

A perpetual issue here is, when you ask if ISIS/ISIL or any issue is a threat to National Security ... what is the timeframe for your lens of observation?

-Can ISIS/ISL mount a significant attack on the U.S. tomorrow? No.

-Can ISIS/ISIL coordinate to have a single person or small group infiltrate into the U.S. and attack targets (military or civilian)? Yes.

-Is it foreseeable that ISIS/ISIL could become a significant threat to the U.S. in 5-10 years? Yes.

So, do we wait the 5-10 years or do we act on the issue now while the impact (lives lost, property lost, money spent etc.) is smaller? What if Germany had been stopped before taking over most of Europe and getting entrenched from 1940 - 1944? Granted, Germany was a legitimate Nation-State and ISIS/ISIL is not ... but it is a similar scenario.

I agree with your point that if we are going to send people into harm's way we need to be prepared / willing to do whatever it takes to win. My three questions from earlier:

-What are we willing to kill for?
-What are we willing to die for?
-what are we willing to pay for?

are all litmus tests of our resolve. I agree, we should be willing to do whatever victory takes, but I think there also exists windows of opportunity to resolve a situation with as little damage / cost as can be done (paying for an oil change is cheaper than paying to rebuild my engine block.)

An interesting point about our resolve, is that we sent a poor message when we withdrew from Somalia (plenty of readings on this are available). The perception from many of our enemies was that if they could put enough American soldiers into body bags we would lose our will to fight, which may be true. I think our resolve to fight is different when we are (as we have been) fighting overseas vice fighting on our own soil.

garhkal
02-21-2015, 09:10 PM
A perpetual issue here is, when you ask if ISIS/ISIL or any issue is a threat to National Security ... what is the timeframe for your lens of observation?

-Can ISIS/ISL mount a significant attack on the U.S. tomorrow? No.

-Can ISIS/ISIL coordinate to have a single person or small group infiltrate into the U.S. and attack targets (military or civilian)? Yes.

-Is it foreseeable that ISIS/ISIL could become a significant threat to the U.S. in 5-10 years? Yes.


You also have to take into account that ISIS has beheaded several US citizens, so imo that should class taking them down as a matter of national interest.

Stalwart
02-21-2015, 09:23 PM
You also have to take into account that ISIS has beheaded several US citizens, so imo that should class taking them down as a matter of national interest.

Don't get me wrong, while I find that completely reprehensible I don't know if revenge for the sake of revenge is in our national interest ... but we have had terrorists et al kill many Americans in the past and we did not respond with military force.

sandsjames
02-21-2015, 10:02 PM
A perpetual issue here is, when you ask if ISIS/ISIL or any issue is a threat to National Security ... what is the timeframe for your lens of observation?

-Can ISIS/ISL mount a significant attack on the U.S. tomorrow? No.

-Can ISIS/ISIL coordinate to have a single person or small group infiltrate into the U.S. and attack targets (military or civilian)? Yes.

-Is it foreseeable that ISIS/ISIL could become a significant threat to the U.S. in 5-10 years? Yes.

So, do we wait the 5-10 years or do we act on the issue now while the impact (lives lost, property lost, money spent etc.) is smaller? What if Germany had been stopped before taking over most of Europe and getting entrenched from 1940 - 1944? Granted, Germany was a legitimate Nation-State and ISIS/ISIL is not ... but it is a similar scenario.

I agree with your point that if we are going to send people into harm's way we need to be prepared / willing to do whatever it takes to win. My three questions from earlier:

-What are we willing to kill for?
-What are we willing to die for?
-what are we willing to pay for?

are all litmus tests of our resolve. I agree, we should be willing to do whatever victory takes, but I think there also exists windows of opportunity to resolve a situation with as little damage / cost as can be done (paying for an oil change is cheaper than paying to rebuild my engine block.)

An interesting point about our resolve, is that we sent a poor message when we withdrew from Somalia (plenty of readings on this are available). The perception from many of our enemies was that if they could put enough American soldiers into body bags we would lose our will to fight, which may be true. I think our resolve to fight is different when we are (as we have been) fighting overseas vice fighting on our own soil.

I don't think we should be playing the "what if" game when it comes to war. The bigger question is if we do go to war, is that going to STOP them from trying to infiltrate our country and attack us with terrorism? The answer to that is a clear NO. So then to what end are we fighting? To me it seems like it's just to save face.

And to answer your 3 questions, we should be willing to kill and die for our freedom and national security. We should be willing to pay whatever it takes to ensure those two things.

But you and I both know we will only fight for so long, people will become tired of the war, just as they have done with Afghanistan. Then we'll set a date for withdrawing, and leave a vacuum in whatever country we withdraw from.

This is why the last war we won was 70 years ago. Since then, we haven't been willing to do what it takes because we didn't actually fear losing the freedom/national security.

And as far as the "what if" game goes, I'd say a much bigger threat to us is China. 5 years? 10 years? Who knows...but it will happen. So should we go to war with them because we believe that sometime in the future we will be at war with them anyway?

sandsjames
02-21-2015, 10:05 PM
You also have to take into account that ISIS has beheaded several US citizens, so imo that should class taking them down as a matter of national interest.

They beheaded American citizens who were in the area where that could happen. I'm not defending the beheadings by any means but when you are an American citizen walking around in the areas where you know ISIS is operating, you're making yourself a target. Now, if they were in this country kidnapping and beheading people then it's a different story. Or do you feel that American citizens should feel like there are no consequences to walking around an enemies AOR just because 'Murica?

sandsjames
02-21-2015, 10:06 PM
Don't get me wrong, while I find that completely reprehensible I don't know if revenge for the sake of revenge is in our national interest ... but we have had terrorists et al kill many Americans in the past and we did not respond with military force.

Again, you're using the term "interest". That should not be a factor, by any means. But as Americans, we think we have the right to do anything we want anywhere in the world if we feel it benefits us.

Stalwart
02-22-2015, 01:35 AM
Again, you're using the term "interest". That should not be a factor, by any means. But as Americans, we think we have the right to do anything we want anywhere in the world if we feel it benefits us.

The U.S. national interest helps define our national security ... I use the term out out of a thought that we can do what we want but because the terms and how those subjects interact with policy come out of the National Security Strategy published by the Joint Chiefs.

garhkal
02-22-2015, 04:26 AM
Don't get me wrong, while I find that completely reprehensible I don't know if revenge for the sake of revenge is in our national interest ... but we have had terrorists et al kill many Americans in the past and we did not respond with military force.

It's not revenge though. Has not the President said several times now, "THESE Criminals will be brought to justice"?
Or like a lot of other things Obama has said, was that a lie?


They beheaded American citizens who were in the area where that could happen. I'm not defending the beheadings by any means but when you are an American citizen walking around in the areas where you know ISIS is operating, you're making yourself a target. Now, if they were in this country kidnapping and beheading people then it's a different story. Or do you feel that American citizens should feel like there are no consequences to walking around an enemies AOR just because 'Murica?

While i agree, these people did kind of bring it on themselves, for being in said war zone. That plenty of people in high positions, have said Justice will be done, to me still means we need to go after them. Otherwise HOW will justice be done??

Capt Alfredo
02-22-2015, 04:43 AM
It's not revenge though. Has not the President said several times now, "THESE Criminals will be brought to justice"?
Or like a lot of other things Obama has said, was that a lie?



While i agree, these people did kind of bring it on themselves, for being in said war zone. That plenty of people in high positions, have said Justice will be done, to me still means we need to go after them. Otherwise HOW will justice be done??

Have you been paying zero attention? Do you not open your eyes and ears? What do you suppose our Special Operations community has been doing for the past 14 years straight but "going after them"?

sandsjames
02-22-2015, 12:11 PM
The U.S. national interest helps define our national security ... I use the term out out of a thought that we can do what we want but because the terms and how those subjects interact with policy come out of the National Security Strategy published by the Joint Chiefs.

I realize what DOES happen. I'm talking about how it is supposed to happen. Our "interests" should not determine our military actions unless they directly impact our security within the borders of our country. ISIS has done absolutely nothing, other than make threats (which countries like North Korea do on a daily basis), within our borders.

What we've become used to is getting involved because of what we project could happen. That's a "strategy" we need to get away from.

Stalwart
02-22-2015, 12:34 PM
I realize what DOES happen. I'm talking about how it is supposed to happen. Our "interests" should not determine our military actions unless they directly impact our security within the borders of our country. ISIS has done absolutely nothing, other than make threats (which countries like North Korea do on a daily basis), within our borders.

What we've become used to is getting involved because of what we project could happen. That's a "strategy" we need to get away from.

The U.S. interests currently include things like: freedom of navigation in international waters and airspace, a pseudo-stable Middle East, and nuclear weapons proliferation.

We have a situation where I am talking about how things are (and have been) since the founding of the nation, where the U.S. has acted overseas in support of the national interest. Just a few examples off the top of my head:

The Barbary wars (late 1700's - early 1800's - fought to end the attacking by pirates of U.S. flagged and U.S. friendly merchant shipping)
The Convention of Kanagawa (1850's? - Commodore Perry negotiated the opening of Japan to the U.S. for economic trade)
Panama (early 1900's -- led to the building of the Panama Canal)

Trust me, I get your point ... but saying we have "gotten used" to acting in our interests is inaccurate ... the U.S. has acted in it's interests overseas for a long, long time. An isolationist policy will hurt us, maybe not tomorrow or next year, but it eventually will ... it happened after WWI before WWII; and part of our continued presence and actions overseas is as a lesson from that.

sandsjames
02-22-2015, 02:23 PM
The U.S. interests currently include things like: freedom of navigation in international waters and airspace, a pseudo-stable Middle East, and nuclear weapons proliferation. International waters and airspace, that's fine. Nuclear weapons proliferation, that's fine. A pseudo-stable Middle East is great, but we've already found several times that getting involved over there does absolutely nothing to stabilize the area. It's only gotten worse since we got involved over there in the late 70s, but we refuse to learn from that.


We have a situation where I am talking about how things are (and have been) since the founding of the nation, where the U.S. has acted overseas in support of the national interest. Just a few examples off the top of my head:

The Barbary wars (late 1700's - early 1800's - fought to end the attacking by pirates of U.S. flagged and U.S. friendly merchant shipping) Great...they were open waters and we were being attacked. Justified.

The Convention of Kanagawa (1850's? - Commodore Perry negotiated the opening of Japan to the U.S. for economic trade)
Panama (early 1900's -- led to the building of the Panama Canal) I'm really not educated enough on either of these to comment.


Trust me, I get your point ... but saying we have "gotten used" to acting in our interests is inaccurate ... the U.S. has acted in it's interests overseas for a long, long time. An isolationist policy will hurt us, maybe not tomorrow or next year, but it eventually will ... it happened after WWI before WWII; and part of our continued presence and actions overseas is as a lesson from that. That's over 70 years ago. We can't play "Minority Report" forever. It's not working. It hasn't worked in a long time. There is no example of it ever working.

People always argue against isolationism because the only comparisons that can be made are those before global communication and travel was so simple. Of course we can't get rid of trade, supporting allies, etc, but as far as it impacts our economics it's not the same as it was then. Keeping our military in our country for National Defense does not equate to isolation.

waveshaper2
02-22-2015, 02:26 PM
We have a situation where I am talking about how things are (and have been) since the founding of the nation, where the U.S. has acted overseas in support of the national interest. Just a few examples off the top of my head:

The Barbary wars (late 1700's - early 1800's - fought to end the attacking by pirates of U.S. flagged and U.S. friendly merchant shipping)
The Convention of Kanagawa (1850's? - Commodore Perry negotiated the opening of Japan to the U.S. for economic trade)
Panama (early 1900's -- led to the building of the Panama Canal)

Trust me, I get your point ... but saying we have "gotten used" to acting in our interests is inaccurate ... the U.S. has acted in it's interests overseas for a long, long time. An isolationist policy will hurt us, maybe not tomorrow or next year, but it eventually will ... it happened after WWI before WWII; and part of our continued presence and actions overseas is as a lesson from that.

A few more for your list/nothing new; Back in the day we seemed to have a fruit problem/today we have a Islamic Extremist problem.

Watermelon War; Panama 1856.

A few of the Banana Wars;
Nicaragua; 1912 -1933.
Haiti; 1915 - 1934.
Dominican Republic; 1903 - 1904, 1914, 1916 - 1924.
Honduras; 1903, 1907, 1911, 1912, 1924, 1925.

Here's the rest of the "long" list and this is only for Latin America.
http://www.yachana.org/teaching//resources/interventions.html

Rainmaker
02-23-2015, 03:27 PM
A perpetual issue here is, when you ask if ISIS/ISIL or any issue is a threat to National Security ... what is the timeframe for your lens of observation?

-Can ISIS/ISL mount a significant attack on the U.S. tomorrow? No.

-Can ISIS/ISIL coordinate to have a single person or small group infiltrate into the U.S. and attack targets (military or civilian)? Yes.

-Is it foreseeable that ISIS/ISIL could become a significant threat to the U.S. in 5-10 years? Yes.

So, do we wait the 5-10 years or do we act on the issue now while the impact (lives lost, property lost, money spent etc.) is smaller? What if Germany had been stopped before taking over most of Europe and getting entrenched from 1940 - 1944? Granted, Germany was a legitimate Nation-State and ISIS/ISIL is not ... but it is a similar scenario.
I agree with your point that if we are going to send people into harm's way we need to be prepared / willing to do whatever it takes to win. My three questions from earlier:

-What are we willing to kill for?
-What are we willing to die for?
-what are we willing to pay for?

are all litmus tests of our resolve. I agree, we should be willing to do whatever victory takes, but I think there also exists windows of opportunity to resolve a situation with as little damage / cost as can be done (paying for an oil change is cheaper than paying to rebuild my engine block.)

An interesting point about our resolve, is that we sent a poor message when we withdrew from Somalia (plenty of readings on this are available). The perception from many of our enemies was that if they could put enough American soldiers into body bags we would lose our will to fight, which may be true. I think our resolve to fight is different when we are (as we have been) fighting overseas vice fighting on our own soil.

No It's NOT a similar scenario. ISIS ain't exactly the Wermacht, Which was arguably man for man the finest fighting force ever assembled.

All this fear porn, Comparing ISIS to Nazi Germany, is the rage in the Hebrew owned media. But, it has no air force, no Navy and most importantly, No industrial production capacity whatsoever.

Don't get me wrong. Israel should be an ally. But, Since, then end of the cold war Our entire foreign policy has been hijacked by these Neocon Zionists... Their whole goal (Consequences be damned) is to deny sanctuary to the enemies of the chosenites in Israel . We have a busted economy with 100 Million people out of work, Americans are fed up with this stupid shit, It's bankrupting us (Financially and Morally) and these maniacs in both parties are doubling down on this fucking stupidity.

None of this makes sense when you really think about it. If ISIS/L terrorism is such a threat to the Homeland, then why is Obmao and the Republocrats leaving the borders open and even quadrupling the number of Syrian Nationals we're bringing into the US as refugees?

Speakit
02-23-2015, 03:51 PM
Maybe we want them to build up their forces as much as possible so we, and others, can kill as many as we can in one location at one time.

That will be wishful thinking, but the Iraqi’s will supposedly lead this fight, we’d be lucky if their guns don’t point at us, or "Allah" wills them not to fight. If the U.S. were to take lead, ROE’s are so restrictive, ISIL will just use it against us.

How do you fight an enemy that has no rules to follow? ROE has made the U.S. "soft"; I blame the hearts and minds campaign.

Stalwart
02-23-2015, 04:25 PM
No It's NOT a similar scenario. ISIS ain't exactly the Wermacht, Which was arguably man for man the finest fighting force ever assembled.


No, they aren't. I am not sure where they could get in 5-10 years if left alone.

On par with the U.S. military? Very doubtful.

Proficient enough to be troublesome to those who actually will have to fight them? I can see that.

Rainmaker
02-23-2015, 05:39 PM
No, they aren't. I am not sure where they could get in 5-10 years if left alone.

On par with the U.S. military? Very doubtful.

Proficient enough to be troublesome to those who actually will have to fight them? I can see that.

Rainmaker can't believe that people are still buying into this ISIS is the boogeyman stuff. The whole thing is a Sham.... Seriously, How many times do you have to see the same movie before you know how the plot ends?

This weekend Rainmaker actually heard one of the MSM's so called 'experts' talking about how ISIS was going to take over Europe by first conquering Italy with an armada of hijacked ferries from Libya..... The buxom blonde bimbo interviewing this moron, was knowingly nodding her head the whole time he talked.

Right or wrong, Full Spectrum dominance is about Controlling Strategic Resources....

This means that when you can't take over a country's resources (or put a friendly regime in), then you destabilize the hell out of the place to deny those resources from being controlled by anyone else..... That's what we've got in Iraq today and that's why ISIS is still being allowed to exist.

This whole Globalist philosophy of a world peace enforced by a world police is a pipe dream and is INSANE.

It's not in the National Interest (other than a few oligarchs), It's not sustainable and the Republic is going into the dustbin of history... IF the American people don't put a stop to it...

garhkal
02-23-2015, 10:00 PM
upidity.

None of this makes sense when you really think about it. If ISIS/L terrorism is such a threat to the Homeland, then why is Obmao and the Republocrats leaving the borders open and even quadrupling the number of Syrian Nationals we're bringing into the US as refugees?

Cause that is part of obama's plan to fundamentally change America.

Rainmaker
02-24-2015, 02:30 PM
Cause that is part of obama's plan to fundamentally change America.

It ain't his plan man... He's just the face they put on it. Gnomsayin?

Rainmaker
02-24-2015, 02:32 PM
That will be wishful thinking, but the Iraqi’s will supposedly lead this fight, we’d be lucky if their guns don’t point at us, or "Allah" wills them not to fight. If the U.S. were to take lead, ROE’s are so restrictive, ISIL will just use it against us.

How do you fight an enemy that has no rules to follow? ROE has made the U.S. "soft"; I blame the hearts and minds campaign.

Hopefully the COIN doctrine goes the way of its author.

sandsjames
02-24-2015, 06:01 PM
Does the tinfoil hat go under or over the KKK hood?

Rainmaker
02-24-2015, 06:25 PM
Does the tinfoil hat go under or over the KKK hood?

Spoken like such a good little self-destructive white liberal....

sandsjames
02-24-2015, 08:33 PM
Spoken like such a good little self-destructive white liberal....

You may be the only person who has ever described me as a liberal. I guess I am a liberal if the requirements to be conservative are to be racist and paranoid.

Rainmaker
02-24-2015, 09:11 PM
You may be the only person who has ever described me as a liberal. I guess I am a liberal if the requirements to be conservative are to be racist and paranoid.

Yes , Rainmaker describes you as a good little liberal, because you've been programed to think that anyone who notices (and then states) the obvious ,that checks and balances have been subverted and the people in power are taking advantage of the system, must be labled as a racist and a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

What?? You think because you make $65K a year (busting knuckles on a MEP Generator) and only pay 3% effective federal tax rate (again your welcome and get off the dole you bum), that you're smart and have got it all figured out??

We could have it so much better. But, You don't even know how bad you've been fleeced you sheep!



.

sandsjames
02-24-2015, 09:30 PM
Yes , Rainmaker describes you as a good little liberal, because you've been programed to think that anyone who notices (and then states) the obvious ,that checks and balances have been subverted and the people in power are taking advantage of the system, must be labled as a racist and a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

What?? You think because you make $65K a year and only pay 3% effective federal tax rate (again your welcome and get off the dole you bum), that you're smart and have got it all figured out?? You don't even know how bad you've been fleeced you sheep!



.

Get off the dole? So would you like me just to send in extra tax money? Is that what I should do?

I don't have much figured out. What I do know is that I can live my life constantly trying to figure out how people are trying to "get" me and pull the wool over my eyes or I can enjoy my life, realizing that things are no different now than they have been over the last 75 years.

You have all these theories, constantly telling people how to deal with it. What are you doing to make things better, other than bitching about it on anonymous web pages? The "sheep" you speak of are the ones who have been made to believe that ranting in places like this, instead of making the effort to change things you don't like, actually makes a difference.

Rainmaker
02-24-2015, 09:45 PM
What I'm telling you is that you're satisfied with the status quo, because you're part of the 47% that're taking in more (taxes) than they put in. The thing you don't get is that at $65K you think you're doing good. But, these people at the top spend more than that in Hookers and Blow on a weekend party. Trust me , I know I help broker deals for them in SW Florida.

So, You think our troops benefit package is unsustainable at 2% of the annual DoD budget, so we need sacrifice to gut it (and risk readiness) just to save a supposed $20B a year? for what? to buy a couple of concept planes that don't work? what a joke. just the growth in Contractor support Services salaries will eat that "savings" up in less than 2 years of CPI increases. While the oligarchs make $2Trillion in profits with no risk and chip in 12%. You're what's known to them as a useful idiot.

As far as making a difference, You don't shit about me, or who all I'm helping (in a rigged game you can only do it on the micro-level) ....so you can stick that racism shit up your ass with the rest of these brain dead left/right bitches

efmbman
02-24-2015, 09:58 PM
Well at least page one had a few interesting points of view on this issue. No surprise this devolved into a pissing contest and name-calling.

sandsjames
02-24-2015, 10:01 PM
What I'm telling you is that you're satisfied with the status quo, because you're part of the 47% that're taking in more (taxes) than they put in. The thing you don't get is that at $65K you think you're doing good. But, these people at the top spend more than that in Hookers and Blow on a weekend party. Trust me , I know I help broker deals for them in SW Florida. Honestly, I don't care what others are doing with their money. If that's how they want to spend it then that's on them. I own a home, have 2 nice cars, the TVs I want, a very happy life, and a steady job. There's nothing more I could want, no matter how much people like you tell me it's wrong to be happy being happy.


So, You think our troops benefit package is unsustainable at 2% of the annual DoD budget, so we need sacrifice to gut it (and risk readiness) just to save a supposed $20B a year? for what? to buy a couple of concept planes that don't work? what a joke. just the growth in Contractor support Services salaries will eat that savings up in less than 2 years of CPI increases. While the oligarchs make $2Trillion in profits with no risk and chip in 12%. You're what's known to them as a useful idiot. Where did you get that I think this? Where in all my statements, ever, have I said anything remotely related to this? Your response above is like me saying "So you're ok with the NBA raising the minimum age to become a professional?" It's not relevant to the conversation.

What I will say about it is that if that's the package that people are aware of before they join, then I'm ok. I'm not ok with it being changed for those who signed up with a different deal.


As far as making a difference, You don't shit about me, or who all I'm helping (in a rigged game you can only do it on the micro-level) ....so you can stick that racism shit up your ass with the rest of these brain dead left/right bitchesI do know shit about you. I've heard your story before in places like Waco.

And maybe people wouldn't think you were racist if all of your comments weren't about how the Blacks, Mexicans, and Jews were destroying our country.

Rainmaker
02-24-2015, 10:02 PM
Well at least page one had a few interesting points of view on this issue. No surprise this devolved into a pissing contest and name-calling.

Don't worry. EF man.. Brothers in Arms/ Christ argue sometimes.... If you wanna make omlettes you've gotta break a few eggs! Gnomsayin?

Mjölnir
02-24-2015, 10:18 PM
http://www.doodletogs.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/k/e/keep_calm_and_just_chill.png

garhkal
02-24-2015, 11:12 PM
It ain't his plan man... He's just the face they put on it. Gnomsayin?

It wouldn't surprise me to find out he is just a figure head for something bigger.

Rainmaker
02-25-2015, 03:10 AM
Honestly, I don't care what others are doing with their money. If that's how they want to spend it then that's on them. I own a home, have 2 nice cars, the TVs I want, a very happy life, and a steady job. There's nothing more I could want, no matter how much people like you tell me it's wrong to be happy being happy.

Where did you get that I think this? Where in all my statements, ever, have I said anything remotely related to this? Your response above is like me saying "So you're ok with the NBA raising the minimum age to become a professional?" It's not relevant to the conversation.

What I will say about it is that if that's the package that people are aware of before they join, then I'm ok. I'm not ok with it being changed for those who signed up with a different deal.

I do know shit about you. I've heard your story before in places like Waco.

And maybe people wouldn't think you were racist if all of your comments weren't about how the Blacks, Mexicans, and Jews were destroying our country.

Glad you have everything you want in life. You seem to be of the opinion that you got yours, so fuck all the future Enlistees.

Those people partying on Fed printed money are not partying with their money. They're gambling with the country's money. since, we pick up the tab when they're too big to fail.... I could distill it down to its simplest terms and you still wouldn't get it...

The AF Diversity (Brainwashing) program has served you well. Rainmaker says everyone should have to pay their own freight and SJ hears Rainmaker hates blacks, RM says borders should be respected and SJ hears RM hates Mexicans, RM says citizens with dual nationalities in .gov should have to chose and SJ hears RM hates Jews.

So, The Branch Davidians at Waco (Elk) TX were a threat to National security, and deserved to be burned alive. ok. SJ.. Good Sheep goes Baah Baah Baah.....

sandsjames
02-25-2015, 11:20 AM
Glad you have everything you want in life. You seem to be of the opinion that you got yours, so fuck all the future Enlistees. Future enlistees have the choice of whether they join or not. I'm not saying that I agree with the cuts...far from it. But the only way to fix it is going to be for those who find the pay and benefits too shitty not to join. If there are recruiting problems then the pay and benefits will have to be fixed. The reason we can be screwed with, from corporations and the government, is because we continue to accept it by taking the jobs or voting for the people making the decisions. We have a voice, and that is heard by forcing those controlling everything to feel it in the pocket book. We could force the oil companies to quit messing around with prices but people aren't willing to NOT buy gas for a couple days. Sure, they'll bitch about it on an internet forum, talking about how greedy these people are, but they won't actually boycott...not on a large scale. Until that happens, any bitching about it is pointless.


Those people partying on Fed printed money are not partying with their money. They're gambling with the country's money. since, we pick up the tab when they're too big to fail.... I could distill it down to its simplest terms and you still wouldn't get it... So what should be done with all this money? You don't want people living on the dole, so where should all this taxpayer money go? Why even have anyone pay taxes?


The AF Diversity (Brainwashing) program has served you well. Rainmaker says everyone should have to pay their own freight and SJ hears Rainmaker hates blacks, RM says borders should be respected and SJ hears RM hates Mexicans, RM says citizens with dual nationalities in .gov should have to chose and SJ hears RM hates Jews.

So, The Branch Davidians at Waco (Elk) TX were a threat to National security, and deserved to be burned alive. ok. SJ.. Good Sheep goes Baah Baah Baah.....If the Branch Davidians at Waco, and every other crackpot cult this country has ever seen, had been Mexican, or Black, or Jewish, you'd be beating a different drum about it.

Stalwart
02-25-2015, 02:03 PM
So, The Branch Davidians at Waco (Elk) TX were a threat to National security, and deserved to be burned alive. ok. SJ.. Good Sheep goes Baah Baah Baah.....

No, they were a reported threat to the underage children in the compound, there were specific reports of child physical and sexual abuse.

I am pretty sure you know that the Attorney General never ordered the compound set on fire and that the fire was not a result of the injection of tear gas into the building but a result of the Davidians setting multiple fires around the compound. I agree that the situation was handled by the ATF really poorly, but let's be honest about it.

Rainmaker
02-25-2015, 02:39 PM
Future enlistees have the choice of whether they join or not. I'm not saying that I agree with the cuts...far from it. But the only way to fix it is going to be for those who find the pay and benefits too shitty not to join. If there are recruiting problems then the pay and benefits will have to be fixed. The reason we can be screwed with, from corporations and the government, is because we continue to accept it by taking the jobs or voting for the people making the decisions. We have a voice, and that is heard by forcing those controlling everything to feel it in the pocket book. We could force the oil companies to quit messing around with prices but people aren't willing to NOT buy gas for a couple days. Sure, they'll bitch about it on an internet forum, talking about how greedy these people are, but they won't actually boycott...not on a large scale. Until that happens, any bitching about it is pointless.

So what should be done with all this money? You don't want people living on the dole, so where should all this taxpayer money go? Why even have anyone pay taxes?

If the Branch Davidians at Waco, and every other crackpot cult this country has ever seen, had been Mexican, or Black, or Jewish, you'd be beating a different drum about it.

Man SJ you really went full retard when you jumped the shark comparing Rainmaker to a Cult leader.

Anyhow, The only time Rainmaker was ever in Waco was when he came down from Ft. Hood to party with some Baylor Co-eds, when a HS teammate of his was playing JUCO baseball against McClennon CC in 1989. I don't recall any of us ever getting a safety brief to watch your back because those Evil Branch Davidians where bothering anyone out there.

Wait till some Leftist ideologue in the Leviathan decides that your non-denominational christian church is also a cult. what will you do then?

So, Obviously you buy the whole Janet Reno "they were beating babies, so we had to kill them to keep them safe story".... Once, again like a good little self-hating white liberal you turn even that into a race debate.....

Congratulations you've been successfully programmed now bend over so Wolf Blitzer can ram a Red, White and Rainbow colored giant dildo up your ass.

And trying to teach you the general concept of Zero Interest rate policies and devaluation of currency through inflationary tax or the Congress allowing the FED to invest our money to prop up foreign governments would be like trying to teach Trigonometry to a Pig. Rainmaker Out//

Rainmaker
02-25-2015, 03:07 PM
No, they were a threat to the underage children in the compound, there were specific reports of child physical and sexual abuse.

I am pretty sure you know that the Attorney General never ordered the compound set on fire and that the fire was not a result of the injection of tear gas into the building but a result of the Davidians setting multiple fires around the compound. I agree that the situation was handled by the ATF really poorly, but let's be honest about it.

yep..... nice thread jack guys....compare RM to a cult leader...my brother has 100K followers on twitter does that count? but, anyhow Rainmaker'll play along..... so after 51 days of letting them get abused. Janet Reno decided to cross the rubicon and have the ATF assault the compound, and (if what you say is true) let the homicidal maniac burn the kids instead, all because the agents were getting tired and because of supposed reports that right wing Militia groups were en route to Waco to wage war with either the ATF or Koresh himself. they weren't sure which .These are the same idiots running the show at the Obama administration right now.

Stalwart
02-25-2015, 03:12 PM
yep..... nice thread jack guys....compare RM to a cult leader...my brother has 100K followers on twitter does that count? but, anyhow Rainmaker'll play along..... so after 51 days of letting them get abused. Janet Reno decided to cross the rubicon and have the ATF assault the compound, and (if what you say is true) let the homicidal maniac burn the kids instead, all because the agents were getting tired and because of fabricated reports of right wing Militia groups were en route to Waco to wage war with ATF.These are the same idiots running the show at the Obama administration right now.

yeah, this thread was jacked a while ago (kettle black)

I didn't compare you to a cult leader.

I say again, the situation in Waco, very poorly handled.

You can find the video of the fires being set in the compound easily if you look.

Rainmaker
02-25-2015, 03:20 PM
yeah, this thread was jacked a while ago (kettle black)

I didn't compare you to a cult leader.

I say again, the situation in Waco, very poorly handled.

You can find the video of the fires being set in the compound easily if you look.

oh, You mean the videos where they piece together the audio to cya and craft the narrative they wanted, like they did with George Zimmerman 9-11 calls? those videos? Yes, to say it was very poorly handled is the understatement of the year.. More like criminal incompetence... . My older brother (Former Marine. You'd like him) worked for the ATF in Nashville at the time....his opinion about it probably clouds my objectivity on the matter....... They were tracking this guy running guns for years before...you guys would make great customers for PT Barnum. Nomsayin?

TJMAC77SP
02-25-2015, 03:40 PM
oh, You mean the videos where they piece together the audio to craft the narrative they wanted, like they did with George Zimmerman 9-11 calls? those videos? Yes, I'm very aware that it was handled poorly. My older brother (Former Marine. You'd like him) worked for the ATF in Nashville at the time. They were tracking this guy running guns for years before...

RM, I have been trying to avoid jumping into the threadjack but you are WAY off base with the Waco thing. While mistakes were certainly made (starting with tactical decisions made in the original ATF raid) I have viewed some of the 'evidence' videos put out by the people who seem to hold your beliefs over who and what set the fires on that day.

I worked for a guy part time in Florida who really believed all this nonsense. He was a very decent guy but on this point he and I were diametrically opposed. He lent me a VHS tape and when I viewed it I actually laughed (for the ludicrous botched attempt to rewrite history not over the horrible results). It was so obviously edited by reversing the video to show the fire being blown into the building when in truth it was coming out of the building when a Bradley FV (referred to as a tank) backed out of the hole it had just breeched in the wall. If you have a raging inferno in a building basically made of plywood and you punch a large hole in the side, what happens to the fire inside?

There were outcries about using 'tanks' in the first place when the truth is (and while the detractors remain silent on this it is one truth that is obvious on the video) the BFVs were used so that raiding LEOs could attach delivery nozzles at the end of the 25mm gun barrel and run a hose into the interior of the FV allowing them to deliver CS into the buildings on the compound and not have a repeat of the original raid when 4 ATF agent were murdered (and 6 Branch Davidians were also killed). Of course no one could have predicted that the Davidians would set fires to the compound.

Why do people believe; knowing full well the rich and varied history of the end-game activity of many cults in the US and worldwide; that there is no way the Davidians set the fires but that the US government, led by the FBI, knowing full well the breadth of media coverage in broad daylight, would set the whole compound on fire deliberately? Baffle the logical mind. It really does.

Measure Man
02-25-2015, 03:46 PM
RM, I have been trying to avoid jumping into the threadjack but you are WAY off base with the Waco thing. ...Why do people believe; knowing full well the rich and varied history of the end-game activity of many cults in the US and worldwide; that there is no way the Davidians set the fires but that the US government, led by the FBI, knowing full well the breadth of media coverage in broad daylight, would set the whole compound on fire deliberately? Baffle the logical mind. It really does.

Here's your first clue....there may be people out there that believe some of the nonsense Rainman posts on here...but, he isn't one of them.

He think he's the new PTGod and created a crazy man character to continually troll the 3 of you who still interact with him.

Such a complete waste time.

Later, guys...

Rainmaker
02-25-2015, 04:09 PM
RM, I have been trying to avoid jumping into the threadjack but you are WAY off base with the Waco thing. While mistakes were certainly made (starting with tactical decisions made in the original ATF raid) I have viewed some of the 'evidence' videos put out by the people who seem to hold your beliefs over who and what set the fires on that day.

I worked for a guy part time in Florida who really believed all this nonsense. He was a very decent guy but on this point he and I were diametrically opposed. He lent me a VHS tape and when I viewed it I actually laughed (for the ludicrous botched attempt to rewrite history not over the horrible results). It was so obviously edited by reversing the video to show the fire being blown into the building when in truth it was coming out of the building when a Bradley FV (referred to as a tank) backed out of the hole it had just breeched in the wall. If you have a raging inferno in a building basically made of plywood and you punch a large hole in the side, what happens to the fire inside?

There were outcries about using 'tanks' in the first place when the truth is (and while the detractors remain silent on this it is one truth that is obvious on the video) the BFVs were used so that raiding LEOs could attach delivery nozzles at the end of the 25mm gun barrel and run a hose into the interior of the FV allowing them to deliver CS into the buildings on the compound and not have a repeat of the original raid when 4 ATF agent were murdered (and 6 Branch Davidians were also killed). Of course no one could have predicted that the Davidians would set fires to the compound.

Why do people believe; knowing full well the rich and varied history of the end-game activity of many cults in the US and worldwide; that there is no way the Davidians set the fires but that the US government, led by the FBI, knowing full well the breadth of media coverage in broad daylight, would set the whole compound on fire deliberately? Baffle the logical mind. It really does.

Yes RM agree that much misinformation abounds. Thanks to the information revolution they can no longer just pull the wool over our eyes.....That's why they're moving to lock down the internet..... Anyhow, We'll just have to agree to disagree about the incompetent malfeasance of the Justice dept. under the Hill-Billary Clinton administration....Can we at least agree that It's a Safe bet to say that CNN (Clinton News Network) don't always tell us the truth. Wonder why?

Actually this TRAGEDY happened in Elk, TX not Waco. The crisis actors posing as reporters at CNN didn't even know where they were..

It's long overdue to clear up Waco's rep.

I'm tired of the great city of Waco,TX, home of the Texas Rangers, Baylor University and Dr. Pepper always being dragged through the mud by you bunch of Leftist Historical Revisionists... Now like Moses, RM led y'all to water. But, he Can't make you drink from the fountain of truth....Get a clue. Bitchez...

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hre15

sandsjames
02-25-2015, 04:10 PM
Here's your first clue....there may be people out there that believe some of the nonsense Rainman posts on here...but, he isn't one of them.

He think he's the new PTGod and created a crazy man character to continually troll the 3 of you who still interact with him.

Such a complete waste time.

Later, guys...

I thought this for awhile, and he even "admitted" one day that it was an act, to a point. I don't buy that, though. Sure, he's exaggerating a little, but he believes most of what he's saying.

You are right, however, and it is a complete waste of time. Luckily, that time I'm wasting doesn't have anything else assigned to it so, really, it's more of a time filler.

TJMAC77SP
02-25-2015, 04:28 PM
Yes RM agree that much misinformation abounds. Thanks to the information revolution they can no longer just pull the wool over our eyes.....That's why they're moving to lock down the internet..... Anyhow, We'll just have to agree to disagree about the incompetent malfeasance of the Justice dept. under the Hill-Billary Clinton administration....Can we at least agree that It's a Safe bet to say that CNN (Clinton News Network) don't always tell us the truth. Wonder why?

Actually this TRAGEDY happened in Elk, TX not Waco. The crisis actors posing as reporters at CNN didn't even know where they were.. It's long overdue to clear up Waco's rep. I'm tired of the great city of Waco,TX, home of the Texas Rangers, Baylor University and Dr. Pepper always being dragged through the mud by you bunch of Leftist Historical Revisionists... Now like Moses, RM led y'all to water. But, he Can't make you drink from the fountain of truth....Get a clue. Bitchez...

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hre15

Well, this is a first and one for the books........................ME being labeled a Leftist Historical Revisionist. Thanks for that chuckle.

TJMAC77SP
02-25-2015, 04:29 PM
Here's your first clue....there may be people out there that believe some of the nonsense Rainman posts on here...but, he isn't one of them.

He think he's the new PTGod and created a crazy man character to continually troll the 3 of you who still interact with him.

Such a complete waste time.

Later, guys...

yeah, I know he has admitted as much but I figured I would respond in the sad event that someone else buys this nonsense. I have been listening to it since the day after the raid. It was nonsense then and is certainly nonsense now.........only sadder.

And, as SJ mentioned.......I don't have anything else going on today.

Rainmaker
02-25-2015, 04:51 PM
Here's your first clue....there may be people out there that believe some of the nonsense Rainman posts on here...but, he isn't one of them.

He think he's the new PTGod and created a crazy man character to continually troll the 3 of you who still interact with him.

Such a complete waste time.

Later, guys...

Yes, the first thing to do when you Program someone is put fear into them.... That's what the shock therapy when you get off the bus at Boot Camp is all about...conditioning the mind to accept the message to come....we are all programmed to some degree....

Don't be afraid to talk to Rainmaker just because he might tell us something we don't want to hear.....Just Know that He comes in peace to serve his fellow brothers on the MTF.

He can only give you small doses and Rainmaker has to use humor as a sword, to try and get the message out to those who have the ears to hear..... Your political correctness is killing you...... Don't reject the message from the one who watches, because, it can come to you in any form.....

Academic Time out//

In 2007 following his near death from a ruptured appendix, while convalescing at home alone and watching an Edgar Cayce documentary, RM somehow accidentally, tapped into the flow of synchronicity in the esoteric realm. I'm just passing on the knowledge boys. It comes through me not from me.// ok time in...

Not sure how much time we have left together. But, RM pledge to the MTF is to keep running the good race till such time as his God calls him home or they institute the internet kill switch.... or the messenger stops transmitting....Could be any time. Hopefully not.... But, RM will not deterred by the NSA trolls here that are trying to destroy me..... reject everything and then do your own research.

The false flags are coming at warp speed now(now).... You are in denial..... Wake the hell up Bitchez..... I guess the fertilizer explosion right outside Waco, TX (in West) on the 20th anniversary of the siege was just another strange "coincidence" hmm??

Rollyn01
02-25-2015, 05:20 PM
I will admit Rainmaker, you make me laugh sometimes and sometimes you make me think. Most of the time however, I take what you say with a grain of salt. You are definitively out of you mind and should be committed with no chance of escape plus heavily sedated.


Which makes you good in my book. Post away you nutcase you. :tinfoil hat on:

Rainmaker
02-25-2015, 06:06 PM
I will admit Rainmaker, you make me laugh sometimes and sometimes you make me think. Most of the time however, I take what you say with a grain of salt. You are definitively out of you mind and should be committed with no chance of escape plus heavily sedated.


Which makes you good in my book. Post away you nutcase you. :tinfoil hat on:

The hardest thing is deciding what to tell you and what not to!

Rollyn01
02-25-2015, 06:18 PM
The hardest thing is deciding what to tell you and what not to!

That's because you're trying too hard to think about it too much. Remember, don't think, just do. ;)

Rainmaker
02-25-2015, 06:23 PM
That's because you're trying too hard to think about it too much. Remember, don't think, just do. ;)

But, what do you do when the voices in your head give conflicting messages?

Rollyn01
02-25-2015, 06:44 PM
But, what do you do when the voices in your head give conflicting messages?

The same thing you do when your subordinates give you conflicting messages: you inform them of your intent and that if their contribution doesn't help to achieve the intent, they will be ignored until they alter their contribution does. Remember, you're the leader, your job is to point them in the right direction. Being the led, their job is to be willing to work hard to accomplish the task at hand. Those are the two greatest expectations of people who can and will succeed.

Rainmaker
02-25-2015, 07:04 PM
The same thing you do when your subordinates give you conflicting messages: you inform them of your intent and that if their contribution doesn't help to achieve the intent, they will be ignored until they alter their contribution does. Remember, you're the leader, your job is to point them in the right direction. Being the led, their job is to be willing to work hard to accomplish the task at hand. Those are the two greatest expectations of people who can and will succeed.

Thanks for the reminder Rollyn. And you can bet, during our Next NLP, subconscious will-power, direction session , the one that calls hisself Pookie Chocola'tay will be getting a stern Reprimand from The Rainmaker about talking out of turn.