Does General Mattis favor boots on the ground to defeat ISIS?

That doesn't answer my question.

 

I think the U.S. and Russia will begin to work together to eradicate the ISIS and under Trump there will be common ground.

But also under Trump there is NO WAY Putin will get away with the S#!T he has been pulling!!

AA

 

Now that's what I wanted to hear. Shame you spoil it by having a snidey little dig at Putin though. You just can't help yourself can you?

 

Russia and the U.S. needs to cooperate to teach the Muslim world a valuable lessons. A little help from China and India might be in order.

 

Obama didn't increase US oil production.. He has zero control of that. The SAG did that because they do control Saudi ARAMCO.

 

Hardly. You can prove this with an admission to that effect, or, say, proof that he was briefed by the DoD or CIA or whoever that they know the weapons are not there.
If you cannot prove he knew what he said is false you cannot prove he lied - and so, all you have is your opinion to that effect.

 

I see where you are going with this. If the fight against Islamic terrorism is a war, than use of military force is justified. That is just plain wrong. Terrorism, Islamic or otherwise, cannot be fought by military force. This is due to the limitations of the military and the nature of terrorist organizations. Terrorist organizations do not hold ground as a rule. ISIS currently holds ground but that is temporary and is the exception that proves the rule. They are not a national entity with a capital. In the strictest sense of the word terrorist organizations do not have an army, air force, or navy to be conquered. Terrorists are guerilla fighters who use population centers as their base. They meld into the populace. Unless a terrorist is holding a gun to your head, one wouldn't know if he/she were an enemy combatant. Terrorists are cowardly. They attack soft targets. They do not engage opposing military forces. They run instead, as is the case with Fallujah and Ramadi, and will be the case with Mosul and Raqqa.

For those reasons combat troops are useless against terrorists. Islamic terrorist organizations, ISIS, cannot be defeated by military force. That has never happened. Islamic terrorist organizations can be controlled by effective coordination of law enforcement agencies and quality intelligence. You say it is an international war. Okay who is fighting ISIS in France, Germany, an other European countries? Their armies? No, of course not. Law enforcement agencies combined with intelligence are engaging ISIS.

As for engaging Islamic terrorist organizations in the Middle East that has proven to be a futile endeavor for the past 100 years or more. Despite the efforts of Western, Israeli, and Muslim militaries, ISIS, AQ, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and several more Islamic terrorist organizations continue to exist and they are not going away any time soon.

I agree the fight against Islamic terrorist organizations is obviously international, but it is not a war requiring the use of military force. Nor does terrorism involve an existential threat to any nation, Western or Islamic. The fight does not fit the definition of war or even asymmetric warfare. Islamic terrorism is a law enforcement and intelligent issue. Proof of the pudding, who is actually fighting ISIS in Europe and the U.S.? Law enforcement, not combat troops. Who is trying to find that assassin in Turkey who recently killed 39 people? Combat troops or law enforcement? Obviously, the latter with the aid of intelligent services, including, probably, our own. G.I. Joe has nothing to do with any of this.

Syria, now we are talking semantics here. The news media invariably refers to the activity in Syria as a civil war. If you want to call it something else, be my guest.

 

You ask the impossible for affect. If I don't know what was in Bush's briefings or what he knew, then obviously I can't know that he lied. That is an impossible bar to overcome. I wasn't anywhere near the Presidential briefing room.

You are assuming the President is stupid. I am giving Bush credit for having some intelligence. I told you, before the war started I wrote articles opposed to the invasion because I knew the casus belli was false. I strongly assert Bush knew far more than I did. Ergo, he lied.

Now that makes sense. What you are saying makes no sense.

Tell me, how do you know the world is round? Have you personally seen the round sphere? Get my point?

 

I am aware he doesn't have any control of it but it is well known that Presidents in the past have through usually their Chief of Staff asked certain companies, entities and various public business sectors to either increase of decrease production of specific resources, commodities and products in order to effect price which can dictate economic windfalls or collapses.

Margot it would be naive in the extreme for anyone to think the U.S. Government has not done this before.

AA