The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: ABX on August 03, 2015, 06:06:35 pm
-
As the first GOP presidential debate approaches, Republican Senator and 2016 presidential candidate Rand Paul just launched a bomb against the crowded field, attempting to differentiate himself from the other candidates.
Senator Paul told the leftist Washington Post in Iowa over the weekend that he’s the only GOP candidate who doesn’t want to “blow up the world” and that is a significant difference between him and the rest of the GOP field, and that he plans to make that case at the first debate on Thursday.
According to the Post, Paul said that the debate will pit him against the other GOP candidates who want to “send half a million of your sons and daughters back” to Iraq and that he will ask the other GOP candidates whether they “want to always intervene in every civil war around the world.”...
http://politistick.com/rand-paul-im-the-only-gop-candidate-who-doesnt-want-to-blow-up-the-world/
-
I do love Paul for this.
-
I do love Paul for this.
I don't! He will get you DEAD!
-
I don't! He will get you DEAD!
Hyperbole much? **nononono*
-
I do love Paul for this.
If you want to see Paul's foreign policy in action, just look at Obama's "ignore it and it will go away" policy.
-
If you want to see Paul's foreign policy in action, just look at Obama's "ignore it and it will go away" policy.
I simply do not want to see another war in the Middle East with American boots on the ground or planes in the air. Period.
We've left enough blood, body parts and treasure in that swamp land.
-
I simply do not want to see another war in the Middle East with American boots on the ground or planes in the air. Period.
We've left enough blood, body parts and treasure in that swamp land.
I absolutely agree. But I would modify your statement a tad.
"We've left enough blood, body parts and treasure in that swamp land and accomplished nothing because of cowardly leadership in DC and treated our vets and active duty like second class citizens."
-
I absolutely agree. But I would modify your statement a tad.
"We've left enough blood, body parts and treasure in that swamp land and accomplished nothing because of cowardly leadership in DC and treated our vets and active duty like second class citizens."
Agree with the cowardly leadership in DC (starting with GWB). But it's now moot. No more American soldiers should be sent to die in the Middle East.
(And, yes, the treatment of our Vets is a national disgrace.)
-
I do love Paul for this.
Uh....the world needs blowing up if you're going to excise this Middle Eastern tumor.
Of course, the only way it will happen with the support of the American People is for a catalyst event to take place on American soil.
And Obama's actions seem to insure that's going to happen at some point.
-
Full of himself as usual. His personality will keep him from ever becoming much more than an ankle-biter.
-
Uh....the world needs blowing up if you're going to excise this Middle Eastern tumor.
I'm still all for arming them all with the best weapons our money can buy. And then turning around and locking the door so no one gets out.
There is no reason why American men and women have to fight again and again in the Middle East. It's enough. I'm not sending my kids, their friends, relatives or total American strangers on one more Army charter to that hellhole.
-
I'm still all for arming them all with the best weapons our money can buy. And then turning around and locking the door so no one gets out.
There is no reason why American men and women have to fight again and again in the Middle East. It's enough. I'm not sending my kids, their friends, relatives or total American strangers on one more Army charter to that hellhole.
It is obvious that many people with the means, have left the Mideast and continue to do so.
Typically most are reluctant to talk entirely openly, if questioned is it muslim violence or some other thing?
-
I'm still all for arming them all with the best weapons our money can buy. And then turning around and locking the door so no one gets out.
There is no reason why American men and women have to fight again and again in the Middle East. It's enough. I'm not sending my kids, their friends, relatives or total American strangers on one more Army charter to that hellhole.
I totally agree with you, if we're talking about a drawn-out land war.
But today, battles against a rogue country (vs rogue leadership)...and that's what Iran is, wars can be fought sitting at a computer. With drones and missiles.
We knocked out Saddam in what? 38 days. How many Americans died in the initial assault before the statue toppled?
Destroy their complete infrastructure and the ability to feed themselves. The UN will come suing for 'peace'.
I am sick and damned tired of this horrific religion called Islam. It's time for Crusades II. it can be done in less than six month. With minimum loss of American/Allied life.
They want to live in the Seventh Century? Let's oblige them.
Going door to door like the pacified Fallujah afterwards should be a cakewalk.
-
I simply do not want to see another war in the Middle East with American boots on the ground or planes in the air. Period.
We've left enough blood, body parts and treasure in that swamp land.
No one likes war and certainly no one wants the killing to continue or the blood and body parts to continue. Smoking a peace pipe or a handshake with your enemy isn't going to do it. We were attacked on 9-11 period. Our current president, against the advice his military advisors, withdrew troops too early. As a result we are witnessing the destabilization of the Middle East and the strong emergence of ISIS. We cannot ignore that. ISIS is in the U.S and Paul's idea of isolationism would leave us extremely vulnerable and would be a disaster for us. Then we have the Obama "nuke deal". Who do you think is interested in blowing up who?
-
No one likes war and certainly no one wants the killing to continue or the blood and body parts to continue. Smoking a peace pipe or a handshake with your enemy isn't going to do it. We were attacked on 9-11 period. Our current president, against the advice his military advisors, withdrew troops too early. As a result we are witnessing the destabilization of the Middle East and the strong emergence of ISIS. We cannot ignore that. ISIS is in the U.S and Paul's idea of isolationism would leave us extremely vulnerable and would be a disaster for us. Then we have the Obama "nuke deal". Who do you think is interested in blowing up who?
I don't know why Paul is attacking the GOP, in his mind Hillary and Obama are war pigs.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9S7yhD5M9A
-
For me any indications that Rand was more sane than his dad, just got blown away.
When are the republicans running going to step out of the circular firing squad and start attacking the true enemy?
-
Does anyone remember the party of Ike and Reagan? The GOP was fundamentally a non-interventionist party. Somewhere along the line we traded "Walk softly and carry a big stick" for "make shady deals with shady characters to such an extent that even the American people don't know what side our government is on."
I am glad Paul is positioning himself as the least trigger-happy of the bunch. I've had my fill of trigger-happy neocons. And, no, Paul's foreign policy is not a mirror of OPapaDoc's. I assume Paul would have had the good sense not to intervene in Libya and Egypt, and not to use the USA's covert assets to enable the formation of ISIS.
-
Does anyone remember the party of Ike and Reagan? The GOP was fundamentally a non-interventionist party. Somewhere along the line we traded "Walk softly and carry a big stick" for "make shady deals with shady characters to such an extent that even the American people don't know what side our government is on."
I am glad Paul is positioning himself as the least trigger-happy of the bunch. I've had my fill of trigger-happy neocons. And, no, Paul's foreign policy is not a mirror of OPapaDoc's. I assume Paul would have had the good sense not to intervene in Libya and Egypt, and not to use the USA's covert assets to enable the formation of ISIS.
This is a little ridiculous. Could you imagine Ronald Reagan saying something like this? His problem is his mouth and attitude.
-
Does anyone remember the party of Ike and Reagan? The GOP was fundamentally a non-interventionist party. Somewhere along the line we traded "Walk softly and carry a big stick" for "make shady deals with shady characters to such an extent that even the American people don't know what side our government is on."
I am glad Paul is positioning himself as the least trigger-happy of the bunch. I've had my fill of trigger-happy neocons. And, no, Paul's foreign policy is not a mirror of OPapaDoc's. I assume Paul would have had the good sense not to intervene in Libya and Egypt, and not to use the USA's covert assets to enable the formation of ISIS.
I remember them both quite well and have no doubt that if either were in charge today the foreign policy problems we are currently facing would have been dealt with long ago!
-
Right_in_Virginia wrote above:
[[ I simply do not want to see another war in the Middle East with American boots on the ground or planes in the air. Period.
We've left enough blood, body parts and treasure in that swamp land. ]]
Based on our past experiences, I have to agree with your logic, but...
...Eventually, we are going to have to deal with islam there again, and it will be a far stronger enemy by then than any we have faced previously.
How would you propose to "deal with them"?
That's posed as a serious and honest question...
-
Right_in_Virginia wrote above:
[[ I simply do not want to see another war in the Middle East with American boots on the ground or planes in the air. Period.
We've left enough blood, body parts and treasure in that swamp land. ]]
Based on our past experiences, I have to agree with your logic, but...
...Eventually, we are going to have to deal with islam there again, and it will be a far stronger enemy by then than any we have faced previously.
How would you propose to "deal with them"?
That's posed as a serious and honest question...
I would change the word Islam to the word Iran in the above and that is my ONLY quibble. Iran is the key to the entire thing and the longer we wait to deal with them the worse the situation is going to get! Wait long enough and the vidios fo people being put into cages and drowned enmass won't be taken in Iraq! They will be filmed HERE!
-
I still have yet to hear a reasonable strategy for stopping extremism in the Middle East.
-
I would change the word Islam to the word Iran in the above and that is my ONLY quibble. Iran is the key to the entire thing and the longer we wait to deal with them the worse the situation is going to get! Wait long enough and the vidios fo people being put into cages and drowned enmass won't be taken in Iraq! They will be filmed HERE!
Stopping mullahs in Iran is not going to end extremism in the Middle East. ISIS wouldn't even be a threat if they didn't have USA made weapons and armor.
-
If you want to see Paul's foreign policy in action, just look at Obama's "ignore it and it will go away" policy.
Precisely.
-
Stopping mullahs in Iran is not going to end extremism in the Middle East. ISIS wouldn't even be a threat if they didn't have USA made weapons and armor.
Nothing is ever going to do anything 100% but dealing with the Mullah regime in Iran will put a big dent in the ability of troublmakers to function in that region for a LONG time to come!
-
Precisely.
Not ignoring it didn't fix the problem either. This is not a problem we can solve with guns.
-
Nothing is ever going to do anything 100% but dealing with the Mullah regime in Iran will put a big dent in the ability of troublmakers to function in that region for a LONG time to come!
Why did we invade Afghanistan and then Iraq if Iran is the root of the problem?
-
Why did we invade Afghanistan and then Iraq if Iran is the root of the problem?
A POLITICAL decision based on where OBL was supposed to be hiding at the time.
-
A POLITICAL decision based on where OBL was supposed to be hiding at the time.
Why even bother with Bin Laden if Iran is the source of the problem that caused 9/11? Also, what about Iraq? What did invading Iraq achieve?
-
A POLITICAL decision based on where OBL was supposed to be hiding at the time.
Also, to structure a way to keep closer tabs on a nuclear Pakistan and India.
-
Why even bother with Bin Laden if Iran is the source of the problem that caused 9/11? Also, what about Iraq? What did invading Iraq achieve?
It achieved the freedom of thirty million people for a while! Until the Iranian agent in the White House was elected!
-
It achieved the freedom of thirty million people for a while! Until the Iranian agent in the White House was elected!
The decision to withdraw our troops did not create ISIS. Billions of dollars worth of USA made weapons and armor created ISIS. You still didn't answer my question about Iran. Why bother with anything else if they are the source of the problem?
-
The decision to withdraw our troops did not create ISIS. Billions of dollars worth of USA made weapons and armor created ISIS. You still didn't answer my question about Iran. Why bother with anything else if they are the source of the problem?
No! The decision by this administration to run guns to Syrian Rebels out of Benghazi created ISIS!
-
The decision to withdraw our troops did not create ISIS. Billions of dollars worth of USA made weapons and armor created ISIS. You still didn't answer my question about Iran. Why bother with anything else if they are the source of the problem?
Because Saddam already once had attempted to control the flow of oil by grabbing Kuwait's production. We feared that he would use oil as a weapon in the form of sanctions toward the West and specifically the USA.
Also, by successfully building a democratic republic next door to Iran would give the Iranian People some courage to rise up and depose the Ayatollahs.
And as you said earlier, there's nothing like a military conflict to jump start a stagnant economy, coming out of 9-11.
-
The decision to withdraw our troops did not create ISIS. Billions of dollars worth of USA made weapons and armor created ISIS. You still didn't answer my question about Iran. Why bother with anything else if they are the source of the problem?
Did the US create Islam? Did the US manufacture the prophet muhammed? Did the US come up with the radicalized, violent version of Islam ISIS adheres to?
If not, then the US did not create ISIS.
-
The decision to withdraw our troops did not create ISIS. Billions of dollars worth of USA made weapons and armor created ISIS. You still didn't answer my question about Iran. Why bother with anything else if they are the source of the problem?
Because there is not the political will to do what is needed! The Green Revolution presented an EXCELLENT opportunity to have the Iranian people themselves take out the Mullah regime in Iran but of course the Iranian agent in the White House would have nothing to do with that!
-
Did the US create Islam? Did the US manufacture the prophet muhammed? Did the US come up with the radicalized, violent version of Islam ISIS adheres to?
If not, then the US did not create ISIS.
Gimme a break.
ISIS is Al Qaeda. We give birth to ISIS straight out of Benghazi at the so-called "Consulate"...[read =arms depot warehouse].
It was Obama and Hillary's "plan B", after the unsuccessful takeover of Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood.
-
Gimme a break.
ISIS is Al Qaeda. We give birth to ISIS straight out of Benghazi at the so-called "Consulate"...[read =arms depot warehouse].
It was Obama and Hillary's "plan B", after the unsuccessful takeover of Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Gimme a break. What drives those groups is ideology - of the home-brew sort.
-
Gimme a break. What drives those groups is ideology - of the home-brew sort.
Ideology alone doesn't make for a very effective force!
-
Dexter wrote:
[[ I still have yet to hear a reasonable strategy for stopping extremism in the Middle East. ]]
The struggle in which we are engaged has less to do at its core with "stopping extremism in the Middle East" and much to do with stopping something else...
-
Ideology alone doesn't make for a very effective force!
:thumbsup:
-
Dexter wrote:
[[ This is not a problem we can solve with guns. ]]
Kinda agree with ya on that.
It's going to take a much bigger "bang" ...!
-
Dexter wrote:
[[ This is not a problem we can solve with guns. ]]
Kinda agree with ya on that.
It's going to take a much bigger "bang" ...!
Ah, yes. Kill everybody; that will solve this problem.
-
Ah, yes. Kill everybody; that will solve this problem.
In WWII the Allies faced strong forces from Germany and Japan, and eventually defeated them by killing enough military and civilian people, until they realized we could and would go on killing those on their side.
When they surrendered unconditionally we did not need to "Kill everybody" but rather just enough to make it stop.
Now 14 years after 9/11/2001, and we have never had the will to do everything and anything necessary to bring it to an early end. Instead we opted for half-measures, hoping it would solve itself.
But it is futile to be talking now, when the urgency has waned. I think we should retreat from the muslim world, to as great an extent as possible. But in so doing, we should issue a warning. Mess with us, at your peril.
-
I think we should retreat from the muslim world, to as great an extent as possible.
Agreed.
-
No one likes war and certainly no one wants the killing to continue or the blood and body parts to continue. Smoking a peace pipe or a handshake with your enemy isn't going to do it. We were attacked on 9-11 period. Our current president, against the advice his military advisors, withdrew troops too early. As a result we are witnessing the destabilization of the Middle East and the strong emergence of ISIS. We cannot ignore that. ISIS is in the U.S and Paul's idea of isolationism would leave us extremely vulnerable and would be a disaster for us. Then we have the Obama "nuke deal". Who do you think is interested in blowing up who?
goopo
-
Does anyone remember the party of Ike and Reagan? The GOP was fundamentally a non-interventionist party. Somewhere along the line we traded "Walk softly and carry a big stick" for "make shady deals with shady characters to such an extent that even the American people don't know what side our government is on.
I don't know much about Eisenhower, but I have read that he gave us the Domino Theory to justify a war in Vietnam.
I also have read that Reagan sold arms to Iran for hostages, using proceeds to fund the Contras in violation of the Boland amendment really realy secret like. He also covertly sold weapons to Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/26/world/us-secretly-gave-aid-to-iraq-early-in-its-war-against-iran.html
He also armed Afghanistan rebels who would later become the Taliban.
Other than that your argument is flawless.
-
I think there is no public support for war in Iran, so the next President will have to do it covertly like Reagan, or massage the evidence like Dubya. I don't intend to disparage either men, as I think they were the 2 best Presidents of my lifetime. I think Reagan's method of arming both sides, keep them killing each other and weakened, was brilliant. And Dubya had both fronts( Iraq and Afghanistan) covered to invade Iran if there had been public sentiment. I think that was the plan, unfortunately America's will to fight is not there.
I think the next President will have to do something about Iran. I think the next President will be a Republican. I think GOP Presidents do what needs to be done, based on the information they are privy to.
Should Rand Paul win he will have an easier time making the case for war with Iran to the American people as a reluctant warrior, than say Sen Cruz, who has an interventionist foreign policy view much closer to my own.
-
Ideology alone doesn't make for a very effective force!
Sure seems that way when Conservatism is held up as the model. :shrug:
-
But it is futile to be talking now, when the urgency has waned. I think we should retreat from the muslim world, to as great an extent as possible. But in so doing, we should issue a warning. Mess with us, at your peril.
Not so sure, when your enemy is not afraid to die...when they believe it guarantees them a card to paradise?
It's what made the kamikaze pilots so hard to deal with in your example of WWII.
-
I'm still all for arming them all with the best weapons our money can buy. And then turning around and locking the door so no one gets out.
There is no reason why American men and women have to fight again and again in the Middle East. It's enough. I'm not sending my kids, their friends, relatives or total American strangers on one more Army charter to that hellhole.
Good points. I'm fine letting European and regional powers handle security over there. I'm not in a 1942 frame of mind. I'd rather secure our border(s) and take care of business at home.
-
AT this point and under today's reality, we don't need to kill everybody. We just need to start killing the "right people".
-
Not so sure, when your enemy is not afraid to die...when they believe it guarantees them a card to paradise?
It's what made the kamikaze pilots so hard to deal with in your example of WWII.
Agreed. That's why the only sure answer is to send their crazy assed leaders to their happy hunting ground.
-
truth_seeker wrote above:
[[ But it is futile to be talking now, when the urgency has waned. I think we should retreat from the muslim world, to as great an extent as possible. ]]
If I recall, that was precisely Osama bin Laden's objective:
To force The West out of the islamic world.
I've asked this question many, many times on this forum:
Who's winning?
Having said that, I actually tend to agree with you, particularly regarding the second half of your post:
[[ But in so doing, we should issue a warning. Mess with us, at your peril. ]]
However, there are few living who have witnessed the consequences of such a warning, when carried to the extremis.
How might this be demonstrated to islam?
-
How might this be demonstrated to islam?
Mushrooms come to mind.... :whistle:
-
Mushrooms come to mind.... :whistle:
Which would immediately justify Iran's reason for obtaining nukes. :shrug:
-
Which would immediately justify Iran's reason for obtaining nukes. :shrug:
Iran needs justification?
Either fix this now or your grandkids will have to... your choice..
-
Iran needs justification?
Either fix this now or your grandkids will have to... your choice..
I was basically saying that in reality, we are on record as saying Iran must not obtain the nuke capability.
And in reality, what right do we have to do that? What if roles were reversed? Would we give a fig what they thought?
Making mushroom clouds over the Middle East to deal with this crazy bass turds, only incentivizes their current path.
I'd rather go the route we supposedly used with Libya. Drop a bomb thru a chimney and kill their leaders before we talk about using nukes.
-
I was basically saying that in reality, we are on record as saying Iran must not obtain the nuke capability.
And in reality, what right do we have to do that? What if roles were reversed? Would we give a fig what they thought?
Making mushroom clouds over the Middle East to deal with this crazy bass turds, only incentivizes their current path.
I'd rather go the route we supposedly used with Libya. Drop a bomb thru a chimney and kill their leaders before we talk about using nukes.
Damn sensible position, DC.
I'm not interested in demonstrating American power either.
I'm sure even the Islamo-crazies understand American might. But what they haven't seen demonstrated lately is American resolve. And that does not mean us having to be spread across the Middle East. Our money and influence can go along way to assist regional opposition to ISIS. There are some sane regimes in the Middle East that want ISIS gone, too.
-
There are some sane regimes in the Middle East that want ISIS gone, too.
The problem with the Middle East is that the same powers claiming to want ISIS gone are funding ISIS through back channels. That is how business is done in the Middle East. Wars are just one more method of fluid negotiation, not a means to bring an end to conflict, which is why this same basic war has been ongoing for thousands of years.
We are being played for suckers. Rand Paul is the only Republican in the field who seems to recognize this fundamental truth. I think he needs to articulate how we can do more to instill in Middle Easterners a better understanding of the term "Don't Tread on Me," but his fundamental default choice of non-interventionism is not wrong IMHO.
-
I was basically saying that in reality, we are on record as saying Iran must not obtain the nuke capability.
And in reality, what right do we have to do that? What if roles were reversed? Would we give a fig what they thought?
Making mushroom clouds over the Middle East to deal with this crazy bass turds, only incentivizes their current path.
I'd rather go the route we supposedly used with Libya. Drop a bomb thru a chimney and kill their leaders before we talk about using nukes.
We have killed hundreds of their "leaders", what did that get us?
-
Good points. I'm fine letting European and regional powers handle security over there. I'm not in a 1942 frame of mind. I'd rather secure our border(s) and take care of business at home.
I don't know, aligncare...... the 1942 frame of mind saved the world from Nazis and Japanese Imperialists.
I'm not sure that's such a bad thing to emulate.
-
We have killed hundreds of their "leaders", what did that get us?
More leaders waiting their turn.
(IOW, it ain't working).
-
We have killed hundreds of their "leaders", what did that get us?
Haven't got the right ones yet! They are the ones currently running things in Iran!
-
I don't know, aligncare...... the 1942 frame of mind saved the world from Nazis and Japanese Imperialists.
I'm not sure that's such a bad thing to emulate.
Respectfully, ISIS merely aspires to the might and lethality of those regimes.
However, I do understand that ISIS is not a JV team: they've conquered much territory and inspire a lot of fear wherever they go – and with reason. They're nuts!
-
Respectfully, ISIS merely aspires to the might and lethality of those regimes.
However, I do understand that ISIS is not a JV team: they've conquered much territory and inspire a lot of fear wherever they go – and with reason. They're nuts!
I completely agree that ISIS is not yet as powerful as either German or Japan, which is for me one of the reasons that we should be able to apply American military might to them and defeat them.
The problem is that even liberal FDR understood that they were the enemy.
Obama is too ideologically blind to even NAME the enemy, much less defeat them.
-
We have killed hundreds of their "leaders", what did that get us?
A good start. Up the program by 500%
-
I completely agree that ISIS is not yet as powerful as either German or Japan, which is for me one of the reasons that we should be able to apply American military might to them and defeat them.
The problem is that even liberal FDR understood that they were the enemy.
Obama is too ideologically blind to even NAME the enemy, much less defeat them.
Yes, we should apply our military might to defeat them; but the problem still remains that they are already inside the U.S and Obama is running the show for another year.
-
Respectfully, ISIS merely aspires to the might and lethality of those regimes.
However, I do understand that ISIS is not a JV team: they've conquered much territory and inspire a lot of fear wherever they go – and with reason. They're nuts!
Keep in mind, that ISIS is the flavor de jour, the world has endured islamic terrorists attacks for the last 6 decades, if not centuries.
This is not a movement that is going away until they are made to understand it will no longer be condoned.
-
Keep in mind, that ISIS is the flavor de jour, the world has endured islamic terrorists attacks for the last 6 decades, if not centuries.
This is not a movement that is going away until they are made to understand it will no longer be condoned.
The United States Marines made that point on the shores of Tripoli more than 200 years ago and it lasted a LONG time!
-
The United States Marines made that point on the shores of Tripoli more than 200 years ago and it lasted a LONG time!
Surely you don't believe the two things are equivalent? How many billions and how many lives have we wasted trying to deal with Islamic radicalism. 200 we sent a couple hundred soldiers and sailors to deal with a decadent people. What we are dealing with today is completely different.
-
Mushrooms come to mind.... :whistle:
"As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."
-
Surely you don't believe the two things are equivalent? How many billions and how many lives have we wasted trying to deal with Islamic radicalism. 200 we sent a couple hundred soldiers and sailors to deal with a decadent people. What we are dealing with today is completely different.
The methodology is the exact same!
-
The methodology is the exact same!
I don't think so or we would have cleaned them out without spending more than a couple of million dollars and a handful of casualties. Face it, unless you are willing to kill millions, possibly billions they're not going away any time soon.
-
"As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."
Like taking a knife to a gunfight?
Ok, Dex, let me know that works out for ya.
Nice sentiment but guaranteed to lose.
-
Nice sentiment but guaranteed to lose.
Extremists from the Middle East will never defeat the United States.
-
Extremists from the Middle East will never defeat the United States.
Well, I am not willing to let you bet my life on that.
-
Well, I am not willing to let you bet my life on that.
No, instead of coming to terms with the fact that your fear is irrational you will continue to support sending soldiers to die.
-
No, instead of coming to terms with the fact that your fear is irrational you will continue to support sending soldiers to die.
Your funny Dex....
Those animals just locked some guys in a cage and lowered them into the water to drown.
They decapitated a bunch of kids recently.
They just killed a bunch of our troops in Chattanooga, or do you buy the administrations BS?
Most of our agency heads are from the ME and we are getting closer everyday to adoption of sharia law.
BO refuses to secure the border
We are not allowed to investigate ANYone from the ME and see just what the hell they are doing here and we are bringing them over by the boatloads every day.
So I would suggest your vision of sugar plums and rainbows is what needs to be examined.
If I was calling the shots, none of ours would die but if left up to our cowards on the hill and the pentagon, yes, that is likely what would happen.
-
Your funny Dex....
Those animals just locked some guys in a cage and lowered them into the water to drown.
They decapitated a bunch of kids recently.
They just killed a bunch of our troops in Chattanooga, or do you buy the administrations BS?
You don't need to convince me that extremists are extreme. My point is more bombs are not going to make extremists go away. Our intervention has only made things worse. ISIS wouldn't be able to do what it does without the equipment we brought to that region.
we are getting closer everyday to adoption of sharia law.
Nonsense. Do you honestly think Americans would accept Sharia law?
BO refuses to secure the border
We are not allowed to investigate ANYone from the ME and see just what the hell they are doing here and we are bringing them over by the boatloads every day.
So I would suggest your vision of sugar plums and rainbows is what needs to be examined.
If I was calling the shots, none of ours would die but if left up to our cowards on the hill and the pentagon, yes, that is likely what would happen.
How do you suppose extremists would go about defeating our entire military, police force and all of the millions of gun owners in the U.S?
-
Extremists from the Middle East will never defeat the United States.
What is your factual basis for the statement of absolute truth you are making here?
Give us evidence for your assumption that people who kill indiscriminately (and have already done so here in the homeland), who butcher, behead, mutilate, maim, crucify, torture, rape and destroy will never do so here in large enough numbers to defeat us? (btw, they've already done some of this list here as well).
btw, they have already succeeded (along with the PC left) in destroying our spirit with their propaganda. If the military continues to be degraded as Obama is doing (and Hillary will do), why are you confident that these evil people will not bring their fight more aggressively here, and that in our weakness, they will win?
Is Obama giving you this confident attitude? Or are you manufacturing it out of whole cloth?
Or, again, do you actually have facts to back up your chutzpah?
(Because there are plenty of facts to refute it).
-
From a simpler time:
WWII Unconditional Surrender Declaration
The President and the Prime Minister, after a complete survey of the world war situation, are more than ever determined that peace can come to the world only by a total elimination of German and Japanese war power. This involves the simple formula of placing the objective of this war in terms of an unconditional surrender by Germany, Italy and Japan. Unconditional surrender by them means a reasonable assurance of world peace for generations. Unconditional surrender means not the destruction of the German populace, nor of the Italian or Japanese populace, but does mean the destruction of a philosophy in Germany, Italy, and Japan which is based on the conquest and subjugation of other peoples.
Too bad we didn't have the guts to go all the way in 2001.
-
Nonsense. Do you honestly think Americans would accept Sharia law?
I do not have the link to the article but Seattle is paving the way for sharia loans. Mandatory sharia loans.
-
What is your factual basis for the statement of absolute truth you are making here?
Do you actually understand how advanced and powerful our military is compared to the rest of the world? It's one thing to know we have the best military, but do you realize the scale? I don't see how you could without understanding how asinine it is to suggest that extremists could actually defeat us. They do not posses the means to defeat us.
why are you confident that these evil people will not bring their fight more aggressively here, and that in our weakness, they will win?
They will never be capable of more than a sneak attack. If they actually had an organized army on our soil we would completely obliterate them.
Is Obama giving you this confident attitude? Or are you manufacturing it out of whole cloth?
I realized our wars in the Middle East are pointless years ago.
-
I realized our wars in the Middle East are pointless years ago.
I agree with that as far as limited warfare goes, it's pointless. We should have, though, declared war the right way after 911 and I hope we do so after the next 911 or greater scale event.
-
I agree with that as far as limited warfare goes, it's pointless. We should have, though, declared war the right way after 911 and I hope we do so after the next 911 or greater scale event.
Yeah, we should have gone out of our way to kill more innocent people. That's what Jesus would have done.
-
Do you actually understand how advanced and powerful our military is compared to the rest of the world? It's one thing to know we have the best military, but do you realize the scale? I don't see how you could without understanding how asinine it is to suggest that extremists could actually defeat us. They do not posses the means to defeat us.
If we choose not to fight them, anyone can win. It's not a matter of how powerful our military is if we have a CinC who is on the side of the enemy, and a whole host of 'leaders' who are too afraid to even mention the name of the enemy to say we need to fight them.
They will never be capable of more than a sneak attack. If they actually had an organized army on our soil we would completely obliterate them.
Again......... the will to fight is the bottom line, and we don't have it.
I realized our wars in the Middle East are pointless years ago.
So you have elevated your personal 'realization' to the point where it has become, in your mind, 'fact.'
Interesting admission, Dex.......
-
Yeah, we should have gone out of our way to kill more innocent people. That's what Jesus would have done.
According to your previous posts, you don't believe in Jesus.
Why is it that you bring Him into the conversation?
(And if you are interested in finding out more about the real Jesus, I suggest you read the Old Testament and the book of Revelation to find out what happens to His enemies....)
-
Yeah, we should have gone out of our way to kill more innocent people. That's what Jesus would have done.
Suppose the next one is a nuke? What would you do?
-
If we choose not to fight them, anyone can win. It's not a matter of how powerful our military is if we have a CinC who is on the side of the enemy, and a whole host of 'leaders' who are too afraid to even mention the name of the enemy to say we need to fight them.
Again......... the will to fight is the bottom line, and we don't have it.
If they were here on our soil with an actual army we would decimate them. Do you think our military and police would just throw their guns down and let the terrorists kill them? Do you think gun owners would quietly become obedient to Islam? Your fear is irrational and people are losing their lives because of it.
-
Why is it that you bring Him into the conversation?
You and others here claim to live by his teachings.
-
Suppose the next one is a nuke? What would you do?
You just don't get it. No matter how much death and destruction we bring to the Middle East we will NEVER be immune to terrorism.
-
You and others here claim to live by his teachings.
Typical non-Christian judgment of Christians. I do it myself and it's not fair. Not all Christians are pacifists so I imagine it is arguable that Christ was. Render unto Caesar?
-
You just don't get it. No matter how much death and destruction we bring to the Middle East we will NEVER be immune to terrorism.
So your answer is nothing? You would do nothing? Don't be so sure we cannot be as immune to terrorism as we made ourselves immune to fascism if we are willing to do what it takes.
-
Yeah, we should have gone out of our way to kill more innocent people. That's what Jesus would have done.
DUH!!! May I please ask you to tell us your age?
That's what war is, Dexter. Breaking things and killing people. Lots of things and lots of people.
We're not talking about a pride of Cecils. We're talking about humans and societies that want to destroy OUR way of life and kill us.
Just because we don't believe in their bullshit insane religious views...which they want to impose on everyone.
You bleeding heart, you. :chairbang:
-
Keep it up Dex. I do agree with you that United States is much too powerful a military force to ever succumb to ISIS or any other Islamic extremists on our soil...unless we're talking about Iran + nukes.
-
Keep it up Dex. I do agree with you that United States is much too powerful a military force to ever succumb to ISIS or any other Islamic extremists on our soil...unless we're talking about Iran + nukes.
Who says Isis can't have nukes?
-
So your answer is nothing? You would do nothing?
What would you do? Kill a lot of innocent people in response? Yeah, let's just nuke them before they nuke us. Kill everybody and let God sort it out, right?
Don't be so sure we cannot be as immune to terrorism as we made ourselves immune to fascism if we are willing to do what it takes.
Fascism is a form of government and terrorism is an extreme act carried out by extremists. They are not the same thing, obviously. Dropping bombs in the Middle East will not protect us from sneak attacks carried out by extremists.
-
Do you think our military and police would just throw their guns down and let the terrorists kill them?
That is happening on our soil. Look at that man who killed 4 marines and 1 sailor. The only military guy who shot back is being charged for having and firing a weapon at that military site. Mind you most military people are upset about this but not the ones running the place.
-
If they were here on our soil with an actual army we would decimate them. Do you think our military and police would just throw their guns down and let the terrorists kill them? Do you think gun owners would quietly become obedient to Islam? Your fear is irrational and people are losing their lives because of it.
If you knew anything about Islamic history, you would know that there is nothing in the least 'irrational' about understanding the threat of Islam to free countries.
I am reading the book "The Death of the Grown-up" (it's been around for a while, but I'm just getting around to reading it). and am in the last chapters dealing with the threat of Islam to the not-grown-up West. Here's a quote....
Regarding members of a post-PC generation, who don't realize the threat of Islam and its incompatibility with the secular....
"Far from realpolitik, this is dreampolitik."
The threat of Islam is very real, Dex. Your 'dreampolitik' views notwithstanding, their dreams of a Caliphate are not the musings of the irrational, but a very real danger.
And as flowers as posted above....... they are already making strides in making Sharia in this country, a reality.
-
DUH!!! May I please ask you to tell us your age?
That's what war is, Dexter. Breaking things and killing people. Lots of things and lots of people.
We're not talking about a pride of Cecils. We're talking about humans and societies that want to destroy OUR way of life and kill us.
Just because we don't believe in their bullshit insane religious views...which they want to impose on everyone.
You bleeding heart, you. :chairbang:
Killing more innocent people would not accomplish anything. It would most likely make the situation even worse.
-
You and others here claim to live by his teachings.
Which has nothing to do with the fact that you, who don't believe in Him, have revealed that you don't know anything about His character, or His teachings.
Best stay away from the mockery, Dex.....
-
they are already making strides in making Sharia in this country, a reality.
They are going to be disappointed.
-
Killing more innocent people would not accomplish anything. It would most likely make the situation even worse.
Post-adult American gibberish......
-
They are going to be disappointed.
Not at the pace they are succeeding now.
Especially when they know that a significant number of Americans are blinded by PC to the threat.
-
Which has nothing to do with the fact that you, who don't believe in Him, have revealed that you don't know anything about His character, or His teachings.
Best stay away from the mockery, Dex.....
You're telling me Jesus condoned violence? I'm not trying to mock you. From where I'm standing your approach to the Middle East seems at odds with the principles you supposedly live your life by.
-
Killing more innocent people would not accomplish anything. It would most likely make the situation even worse.
Sometimes you have no choice and it's better to get started fighting sooner rather than later.
-
Sometimes you have no choice and it's better to get started fighting sooner rather than later.
The choice you'd make would not help the outcome you want.
-
You're telling me Jesus condoned violence? I'm not trying to mock you. From where I'm standing your approach to the Middle East seems at odds with the principles you supposedly live your life by.
I'm just going to repeat to you that it would be best to find out what Jesus really taught.
This is not the proper thread for your mocking Christians, or Christianity. (Not that there is one).
-
The choice you'd make would not help the outcome you want.
Sorry dude you just don't know that.
-
You're telling me Jesus condoned violence? I'm not trying to mock you. From where I'm standing your approach to the Middle East seems at odds with the principles you supposedly live your life by.
I'm going to help you out here by pointing out that Jesus is part of the God-head, and what God did to the enemies of Israel in the Old Testament is what "Jesus would do." In addition, He said He is coming back with a sword, triumphant over evil.
Jesus has already told us what He would do with the crucifiers of Christian children.
-
I'm going to help you out here by pointing out that Jesus is part of the God-head, and what God did to the enemies of Israel in the Old Testament is what "Jesus would do." In addition, He said He is coming back with a sword, triumphant over evil.
Jesus has already told us what He would do with the crucifiers of Christian children.
I didn't realize you are a follower of the old testament. I must admit that I am confused by some of God's seemingly contradictory actions and statements.
-
aligncare wrote above:
[[ I'm sure even the Islamo-crazies understand American might. But what they haven't seen demonstrated lately is American resolve. ]]
America still has some "might" left, but it is physically in decline.
What is completely "in decline" is the "resolve" to USE that "might".
It doesn't matter if we have 900 nuclear warheads, vis-a-vis perhaps two or three for the Iranians.
If the Iranians are willing to USE what they have available, when we are not, who is "the mightier"?
-
aligncare wrote above:
[[ I'm sure even the Islamo-crazies understand American might. But what they haven't seen demonstrated lately is American resolve. ]]
America still has some "might" left, but it is physically in decline.
What is completely "in decline" is the "resolve" to USE that "might".
It doesn't matter if we have 900 nuclear warheads, vis-a-vis perhaps two or three for the Iranians.
If the Iranians are willing to USE what they have available, when we are not, who is "the mightier"?
If Iran dropped a nuke their government would cease to exist within a month.
-
You're telling me Jesus condoned violence? I'm not trying to mock you. From where I'm standing your approach to the Middle East seems at odds with the principles you supposedly live your life by.
Did you ever read about Jesus' visit to the Temple in Jerusalem?
He went total Chuck Norris on the merchants and moneychangers.
-
I didn't realize you are a follower of the old testament. I must admit that I am confused by some of God's seemingly contradictory actions and statements.
I'm a follower of Jesus Christ, and as such, a follower of His entire word....... both Old and New Testaments.
They are not separate entities, just the Old and New Covenant from the same Godhead, of whom Jesus is a part.
-
I'm a follower of Jesus Christ, and as such, a follower of His entire word....... both Old and New Testaments.
They are not separate entities, just the Old and New Covenant from the same Godhead, of whom Jesus is a part.
Did Jesus not also claim to be against violence?
-
Did Jesus not also claim to be against violence?
No.
The peace He came to bring was spiritual. While he talked about submission to authority, interpreting His entire ministry as non-violent is to miss the entirety of who He is.
And, as mentioned before, He said He is coming back with a sword to deal finally with the evil in the world.
He is one with the Father, and the Father is a Righteous, Holy and Just God who will win out over the Enemy........and not peacefully either.
Edited to add: There are obviously Christians who take a non-violent stand, based, I believe on Jesus' teaching to "turn the other cheek." They are in the minority, but it is a valid position to take personally, but IMO, doesn't factor in the entire Person of Jesus Christ as part of the Trinity, and who will lead in the final battle against the Evil One. IOW, it's wrong to slug your neighbor, but not to defeat evil on the battlefield.
Enough theology.......... back to the discussion at hand! ^-^
-
Did you ever read about Jesus' visit to the Temple in Jerusalem?
He went total Chuck Norris on the merchants and moneychangers.
Come on DC, Chuck's not that old.
-
Come on DC, Chuck's not that old.
:laugh:
-
Did Jesus not also claim to be against violence?
You don't know how lucky you are that Churchill was a warrior in a hopeless cause and not your idea of a Christian.
-
The problem with the Middle East is that the same powers claiming to want ISIS gone are funding ISIS through back channels. That is how business is done in the Middle East. Wars are just one more method of fluid negotiation, not a means to bring an end to conflict, which is why this same basic war has been ongoing for thousands of years.
We are being played for suckers. Rand Paul is the only Republican in the field who seems to recognize this fundamental truth. I think he needs to articulate how we can do more to instill in Middle Easterners a better understanding of the term "Don't Tread on Me," but his fundamental default choice of non-interventionism is not wrong IMHO.
Well, well said.
-
Dexter wrote above:
[[ "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy." ]]
Very nice quote, Dexter. So noble of you to post that.
But the fact is that the other side will use ANY and ALL "means" to achieve their victory.
If we are not willing to fight with every tool at our disposal, we will lose.
In an existential struggle for one's own throat, one uses whatever "means" are available.
There is no alternative, if we wish to survive.
-
bkepley wrote above:
[[ I agree with that as far as limited warfare goes, it's pointless. We should have, though, declared war the right way after 911 ]]
Simple question:
Upon whom would you have "declared war"?
-
bkepley wrote above:
[[ I agree with that as far as limited warfare goes, it's pointless. We should have, though, declared war the right way after 911 ]]
Simple question:
Upon whom would you have "declared war"?
Simple answer..see my previous copy of the statement of total war in WWII. It is total war against a totalitarian philosophy of expansion, subjugation, death. It is not against the Germans, Japanese or Italians. It is against those who espouse the hideous philosophy of conquest or death against the rest of the peace loving world.
-
bkepley wrote above:
[[ Simple answer..see my previous copy of the statement of total war in WWII. It is total war against a totalitarian philosophy of expansion, subjugation, death. It is not against the Germans, Japanese or Italians. It is against those who espouse the hideous philosophy of conquest or death against the rest of the peace loving world. ]]
You get an "F", student.
You were asked a simple question, and all you provided was a disingenuous attempt at an answer.
With whom -- or what -- are we engaged in a war?