bbauska wrote:You missed the part where they could leave.

Thank you for your non-answer. I am used to it from others as well.

bbauska wrote:Fine. When you recover, I would love to hear your opinion. Heal well.

Sassenach wrote:

2 Million at Aleppo. Doesn't even make it above Shaka's Conquests...

If you look, I said the biggest individual artrocity. I'm guessing Shaka never killed 2 million people in one battle...

You asked another question w/o answering mine. Surely you realize the rudeness and selfishness you are exhibiting.

I actually don't agree with this at all. What I'm saying is that I don't feel confident enough to give you an answer because I don't feel that I have an answer to give. I don't know what the best course of action to tackle ISIS would be. If there's one thing we've learned over the last decade or so of interventions in the Islamic world it's that this is a very unpredictable place with no obvious right thing to do and the potential for unforeseen consequences to our actions that could be very severe. Back in 2003 I was confident that invading Iraq was the right thing to do and that it work out for the best in the long run. There's part of me that still clings to that belief, but it would be foolish to try and deny that I was very naive in that assumption. I don't know what should be done here and I don't see why I should be forced to answer your question rather than simply admit it.

You may feel that my refusal to give you an answer somehow disqualified me from commenting on your own proposals but if so then I'll have to respectfully disagree. It's quite possible to have an opinion on somebody else's proposed solution without being able to better it with your own. I know in my gut and also in my brain that a Mongol style scorched earth offensive would be foolish.

bbauska wrote:Thank you for your input. I will ask you the same thing as Sass.

Do you think your minimum is achieving success, or does it need to be increased to achieve the desired effect?

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Thank you for your input. I will ask you the same thing as Sass.

Do you think your minimum is achieving success, or does it need to be increased to achieve the desired effect?

Leading question. The "minimum" is to do nothing, which is some way less that I described as the current action.

And it does depend what you measure "success" by and whether you are prepared to take the time and effort instead of reach for the "quick" solution.

Kobane was relieved, which was a success. They are not making inroads towards Baghdad as they were before. Their tactic of tryinh to blackmail Jordan has hopefully backfired.

I would say that things are going slowly, but in the right general direction. It will take many years.

bbauska wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

These were not wanted to be done. It is sad that war comes to this. That is what war is. If we are not capable of bringing ourselves to the level needed for victory (that level has not yet been determined, btw), then we should not even start hostilities.

This is why I asked what the high and low level is for everybody. We can dicker about whatever level someone wants, but to not self analyze prior to conflict is crazier than the war itself.

Ray Jay wrote:

bbauska wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

These were not wanted to be done. It is sad that war comes to this. That is what war is. If we are not capable of bringing ourselves to the level needed for victory (that level has not yet been determined, btw), then we should not even start hostilities.

This is why I asked what the high and low level is for everybody. We can dicker about whatever level someone wants, but to not self analyze prior to conflict is crazier than the war itself.

Although it is an extremely repugnant regime, ISIS hasn't created the level of destruction of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. Nor do they have that potential. I'm all for the continued use of air power against them, but I wouldn't recommend nukes or destruction of whole cities.

bbauska wrote:No leading meant...

I asked not "The minimum", but "Your minimum"
I was not asking the the world's definition of success. I was asking for yours.

Just my desire to learn more about what YOU think.