President Obama's speech on the murder of James Foley

[pjohns]

Sadly, President Obama's speech today, as regarding the savage execution of James Foley, was milquetoast.

In a nod to multilateralism, he articulated his desire for a "common effort" with America's allies to stop ISIS--albeit with no specific vision.

He declared that the terror group that beheaded an American journalist "has no place in the twenty-first century," as if his merely saying as much made it so.

He described ISIS's ideology as "bankrupt," as if that means that it could not possibly do much more harm. (Some of us would assert that the Nazis' ideology was similarly bankrupt; but that did not prevent the Nazis from murdering upwards of six million innocents between 1939 and 1945.)

Oh, and he declared that ISIS (or ISIL) is destined to "fail," because--wait for the platitude--"the world is won by those who build and not destroy, and the world is shaped by people like Jim Foley."

On the plus side, American airstrikes continued in northern Iraq today. I have heard it reported, variously, that there were either 14 or 15 such airstrikes; which is roughly double the typical amount. And that is a very good thing.

But I do believe that perception is very important; especially among a people who believe in the significance of the "strong horse," vis-à-vis the "weak horse." So I would have much preferred that president Obama had pledged to ensure that ISIS will be utterly crushed, by whatever means necessary--not merely contained, or rolled back, but crushed--however, regrettably, he said no such thing.

[Peter1469]

Sadly, President Obama's speech today, as regarding the savage execution of James Foley, was milquetoast.

In a nod to multilateralism, he articulated his desire for a "common effort" with America's allies to stop ISIS--albeit with no specific vision.

He declared that the terror group that beheaded an American journalist "has no place in the twenty-first century," as if his merely saying as much made it so.

He described ISIS's ideology as "bankrupt," as if that means that it could not possibly do much more harm. (Some of us would assert that the Nazis' ideology was similarly bankrupt; but that did not prevent the Nazis from murdering upwards of six million innocents between 1939 and 1945.)

Oh, and he declared that ISIS (or ISIL) is destined to "fail," because--wait for the platitude--"the world is won by those who build and not destroy, and the world is shaped by people like Jim Foley."

On the plus side, American airstrikes continued in northern Iraq today. I have heard it reported, variously, that there were either 14 or 15 such airstrikes; which is roughly double the typical amount. And that is a very good thing.

But I do believe that perception is very important; especially among a people who believe in the significance of the "strong horse," vis-à-vis the "weak horse." So I would have much preferred that president Obama had pledged to ensure that ISIS will be utterly crushed, by whatever means necessary--not merely contained, or rolled back, but crushed--however, regrettably, he said no such thing.

Obama has no intention of using force sufficient to "crush" the Islamic State. The American people would never go with the commitment of treasure, lives, and time to achieve that goal.

[Cigar]

The first bomb dropped on ISIS was on August 8th ...

Since then, more that 85 bombs have been dropped ... 12 just today.

Yes Ladies and Gentlemen ... Obama does have intention of using force sufficient to "crush" somebody :laugh:

Obama has 60 days minus there 12 days already used, before Congress has to get of their Lazy Ass and debate any further action.

[Peter1469]

The first bomb dropped on ISIS was on August 8th ...

Since then, more that 85 bombs have been dropped ... 12 just today.

Yes Ladies and Gentlemen ... Obama does have intention of using force sufficient to "crush" somebody :laugh:

Obama has 60 days minus there 12 days already used, before Congress has to get of their Lazy Ass and debate any further action.
Cigar, 85 bombs does not crush a military force. I suggest you look for my thread that discusses the issue in a more serious way than appropriate for this Forum.

[Green Arrow]

What is your specific course of action on dealing with ISIS, pjohns? What would President Pjohns do?

[Peter1469]

What is your specific course of action on dealing with ISIS, @pjohns (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=251)? What would President Pjohns do?

Kill them all.

[Green Arrow]

Kill them all.

How? And what do we do after we kill them all?

[Cigar]

How? And what do we do after we kill them all?


I said it once and I'll say it again ... The Middle East has been fighting for ever, and will be fighting long after we're all gone.

[Peter1469]

How? And what do we do after we kill them all? We don't, I am making fun of the slack jaws.

[Green Arrow]

We don't, I am making fun of the slack jaws.

I know, my question (to you anyway) was rhetorical. We both know if I asked it to the slack jaws we'd get no answer :tongue:

[Green Arrow]

I said it once and I'll say it again ... The Middle East has been fighting for ever, and will be fighting long after we're all gone.

So next time you're on the golf course, tell Obama to stop acting like Bush and GTFO out of the Middle East.

http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=340&d=1363986637

[Peter1469]

I know, my question (to you anyway) was rhetorical. We both know if I asked it to the slack jaws we'd get no answer :tongue:

Oops. I probably should not disclose that they are slack jaws. I am sure they know. Best to be quiet about that stuff.

[Cigar]

So next time you're on the golf course, tell Obama to stop acting like Bush and GTFO out of the Middle East.

http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=340&d=1363986637


I did ... and just like Bush ... it never got past the switchboard ...

Do you have any contacts in the White House :grin:

[Peter1469]

Moi? :smiley:
I did ... and just like Bush ... it never got past the switchboard ...

Do you have any contacts in the White House :grin:

[Green Arrow]

I did ... and just like Bush ... it never got past the switchboard ...

Do you have any contacts in the White House :grin:

Well, actually, one of my mom's cousins works in the secret service, but other than that, nope.

[pjohns]

What is your specific course of action on dealing with ISIS, @pjohns (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=251)? What would President Pjohns do?

Fair question.

For openers, I would supply the Kurdish Peshmerga forces with heavy arms--please note the adjective--despite the fear of some that these arms might be seized by ISIS. (It is a bit like a baseball manager's having his pitcher intentionally walk the batter, in the bottom of the ninth, with a one-run lead and runners on second and third, with one out: Yes, an additional walk would then tie the ballgame; but one should have more faith in one's pitcher than that; and a double play--setup by the force at any base--will end the ballgame.)

It will probably be necessary, also, for America to put more "boots on the ground" in Iraq--not in an actual combat capacity, but in order to gather the necessary intelligence to make continued airstrikes effective. At least, that is what I have heard from those who surely know far more about the matter than I do.

And I would treat this as a literal war--not as a mere law-enforcement problem--and prosecute that war with no less vigor than our ancestors prosecuted WII.

[Green Arrow]

Fair question.

For openers, I would supply the Kurdish Peshmerga forces with heavy arms--please note the adjective--despite the fear of some that these arms might be seized by ISIS. (It is a bit like a baseball manager's having his pitcher intentionally walk the batter, in the bottom of the ninth, with a one-run lead and runners on second and third, with one out: Yes, an additional walk would then tie the ballgame; but one should have more faith in one's pitcher than that; and a double play--setup by the force at any base--will end the ballgame.)

It will probably be necessary, also, for America to put more "boots on the ground" in Iraq--not in an actual combat capacity, but in order to gather the necessary intelligence to make continued airstrikes effective. At least, that is what I have heard from those who surely know far more about the matter than I do.

And I would treat this as a literal war--not as a mere law-enforcement problem--and prosecute that war with no less vigor than our ancestors prosecuted WII.

Would you also arm the Iraqis in addition to the Kurds?

[pjohns]

Would you also arm the Iraqis in addition to the Kurds?

I believe the US has already armed the Baghdad army--although some of its hardware has now been lost to ISIS.

However, if that army's weapons now appear deficient, I would certainly wish to re-supply them.

[Green Arrow]

I believe the US has already armed the Baghdad army--although some of its hardware has now been lost to ISIS.

However, if that army's weapons now appear deficient, I would certainly wish to re-supply them.

If we are arming Kurds and Iraqis, what happens after ISIS is defeated? The Iraqis and Kurds hate each other, and the Kurds have claimed northern Iraq - particularly the Kurdish capital of Kirkuk - as an independent South Kurdistan.

[zelmo1234]

How? And what do we do after we kill them all?

Nothing unless you want to bury them all with pigs so they don't get to go to Heaven to further send the message.

Start with cruise missiles at Friday morning Prayers in the Mosques that we know teach terrorism

[zelmo1234]

If we are arming Kurds and Iraqis, what happens after ISIS is defeated? The Iraqis and Kurds hate each other, and the Kurds have claimed northern Iraq - particularly the Kurdish capital of Kirkuk - as an independent South Kurdistan.

If they don't commit acts of terror against the world and want to work out there differences with a war, that is not our business is it.

But if you fight until radical Islam unconditionally surrenders? There will plenty of land for everyone and for generations the radicals will have a hard time convincing the people that a very large portion of their population dying is what Allah is demanding.

[Peter1469]

Fair question.

For openers, I would supply the Kurdish Peshmerga forces with heavy arms--please note the adjective--despite the fear of some that these arms might be seized by ISIS. (It is a bit like a baseball manager's having his pitcher intentionally walk the batter, in the bottom of the ninth, with a one-run lead and runners on second and third, with one out: Yes, an additional walk would then tie the ballgame; but one should have more faith in one's pitcher than that; and a double play--setup by the force at any base--will end the ballgame.)

It will probably be necessary, also, for America to put more "boots on the ground" in Iraq--not in an actual combat capacity, but in order to gather the necessary intelligence to make continued airstrikes effective. At least, that is what I have heard from those who surely know far more about the matter than I do.

And I would treat this as a literal war--not as a mere law-enforcement problem--and prosecute that war with no less vigor than our ancestors prosecuted WII.

Boots on the ground is diplomatic speak for conventional combat forces. It deliberately doesn't include SoF forces who are constantly deployed in dozens of nations around the world. The last open source info on SoF in Iraq supporting the fight against the Islamic States is 800.

And treat it like WWII? Put over 1 million men (and women) into the military and invade en masse?

[Mainecoons]

Yes but after these big bad words, he headed straight to the golf course!

[Cigar]

Yes but after these big bad words, he headed straight to the golf course!


Yea ... he should done what every other Republican did in Washington ... oh wait ... there are none. :rollseyes:

What is the President suppose to do ... tell everyone to go Shopping like some other President did or maybe he should have paid a ransom like Europe does, or maybe he could have gone and cried in the bathroom.

Fuck ISIS ... they are not changing ANYTHING I do ... did they change any you did yesterday?

[Mainecoons]

8618

[Ransom]

Nike sox.......lookn good Mr. P.

[Green Arrow]

If they don't commit acts of terror against the world and want to work out there differences with a war, that is not our business is it.

It apparently is when "Kurdistan" and "Iraq" is changed to "Ukraine" and "Russia."


But if you fight until radical Islam unconditionally surrenders? There will plenty of land for everyone and for generations the radicals will have a hard time convincing the people that a very large portion of their population dying is what Allah is demanding.

Clearly, you don't understand radical Islam if you think they will ever "unconditionally surrender."

[texan]

He will soon be spinning his no troops comments.................I can't wait to see how it is explained when we send them.

[Cigar]

8618


Don't that picture just piss you off to no end :laugh:

[Cigar]

He will soon be spinning his no troops comments.................I can't wait to see how it is explained when we send them.


But until that happens we'll keep making predictions :grin:

[Green Arrow]

But until that happens we'll keep making predictions :grin:

Psst...Cigar...there are already over 700 troops in Iraq.

[pjohns]

Obama has no intention of using force sufficient to "crush" the Islamic State. The American people would never go with the commitment of treasure, lives, and time to achieve that goal.

Currently, it is probably true that war-weary Americans would not support such a commitment. That is what leadership means. That is what the Bully Pulpit means. But President Obama--sadly--seems to govern according to polls. (Is there any such word as "followship"?) Even worse, his worldview would appear to be that a strong and decisive America is a bad thing; so he would doubtless prefer that we simply recede, and lead (?) from behind...

[pjohns]

If we are arming Kurds and Iraqis, what happens after ISIS is defeated? The Iraqis and Kurds hate each other, and the Kurds have claimed northern Iraq - particularly the Kurdish capital of Kirkuk - as an independent South Kurdistan.

Indeed.

The Kurds were never given their own state, almost 100 years ago, when the Middle East was divvied up, following WWI. They surely want their own state now; and I can see no good reason to deny them exactly that. (The former Yugoslavia, similarly, was comprised of different ethnic and religious groups that were hostile to each other. Its eventual fracturing into several different countries was surely predictable enough; and really quite natural.)

[pjohns]

Nothing unless you want to bury them all with pigs so they don't get to go to Heaven to further send the message.

Let's see: They could each have either a pig or 72 virgins.

On the one hand...on the other hand...

Decisions, decisions...

[Redrose]

There aren't 72 virgins in the entire Middle East. What a crock!

Those losers are stoning, maiming, mutilating, killing their girls and women. Pretty soon they'll be romancing the sheep and camels. Oh wait, they already do that.

[pjohns]

Boots on the ground is diplomatic speak for conventional combat forces. It deliberately doesn't include SoF forces who are constantly deployed in dozens of nations around the world. The last open source info on SoF in Iraq supporting the fight against the Islamic States is 800.

And treat it like WWII? Put over 1 million men (and women) into the military and invade en masse?

The "boots on the ground," of which I spoke, would be "not in an actual combat capacity, but in order to gather the necessary intelligence to make continued airstrikes effective." At least, that is true of our "boots on the ground." The Iraqis and the Kurds already have "boots on the ground" in a military capacity.

As to my analogy to WWII, what I actually said is that we should treat this as "a literal war--not as a mere law-enforcement problem"; and that we should prosecute it "with no less vigor than our ancestors prosecuted WWII." And I meant it. But please notice that I did not say this would require a similar amount of military personnel.

I do believe that Islamofascism, however--as regarding which, ISIS is only a small (but rather important) part--represents an existential threat to the entire West; and to America in particular. Our only real choice, therefore, is not whether we would prefer to confront them or avoid them; rather, it is whether we would prefer to confront them now (throughout the rest of the world) or confront them later (in the US).

[Peter1469]

Currently, it is probably true that war-weary Americans would not support such a commitment. That is what leadership means. That is what the Bully Pulpit means. But President Obama--sadly--seems to govern according to polls. (Is there any such word as "followship"?) Even worse, his worldview would appear to be that a strong and decisive America is a bad thing; so he would doubtless prefer that we simply recede, and lead (?) from behind...


Leaders are still constrained by reality. If a leader honestly told Americans what it would take to "crush" IS, the American people would say no, before he finished his speech.

[Peter1469]

The "boots on the ground," of which I spoke, would be "not in an actual combat capacity, but in order to gather the necessary intelligence to make continued airstrikes effective." At least, that is true of our "boots on the ground." The Iraqis and the Kurds already have "boots on the ground" in a military capacity.

As to my analogy to WWII, what I actually said is that we should treat this as "a literal war--not as a mere law-enforcement problem"; and that we should prosecute it "with no less vigor than our ancestors prosecuted WWII." And I meant it. But please notice that I did not say this would require a similar amount of military personnel.

I do believe that Islamofascism, however--as regarding which, ISIS is only a small (but rather important) part--represents an existential threat to the entire West; and to America in particular. Our only real choice, therefore, is not whether we would prefer to confront them or avoid them; rather, it is whether we would prefer to confront them now (throughout the rest of the world) or confront them later (in the US).

How in the world is militant Islam an existential threat to anyone outside of their small part of the Middle East? Are you claiming that they have the ability to conquer us?

Regarding a war with IS, it would require at least 150K troops for a decade. And you aren't going to make the Sunnis and Shia like each other. It seems like a silly policy to advocate.

[zelmo1234]

It apparently is when "Kurdistan" and "Iraq" is changed to "Ukraine" and "Russia."



Clearly, you don't understand radical Islam if you think they will ever "unconditionally surrender."

NO I don't expect them to surrender, I expect the to die!

Just as imperial Japan in WWII eventually enough of the radical are gone and the so called moderate heads prevail.

The ideology will take centuries to rebuild itself

Nation building is not what our military is good at, Nation Destroying, that we can handle

[Green Arrow]

NO I don't expect them to surrender, I expect the to die!

Just as imperial Japan in WWII eventually enough of the radical are gone and the so called moderate heads prevail.

The ideology will take centuries to rebuild itself

Nation building is not what our military is good at, Nation Destroying, that we can handle

If you don't expect them to surrender, then why make your end goal their "unconditional surrender"?

[zelmo1234]

How in the world is militant Islam an existential threat to anyone outside of their small part of the Middle East? Are you claiming that they have the ability to conquer us?

Regarding a war with IS, it would require at least 150K troops for a decade. And you aren't going to make the Sunnis and Shia like each other. It seems like a silly policy to advocate.

NO a nation building effort would take at least 10 years, 150K troops, bombing the hell out of them and then going door to door to disarm and kill those that resist would take a few months.

When they say enough setting up an oil ministry to pay for the wars in oil would take a few more months. then it is the job of Private Security forces [aid for by the oil of their nation to keep the peace. They would not be constrained by such useless laws, when dealing with the radicals

[Peter1469]

Since we have abandoned reason, I say just poison all fresh water in the Middle East and call it a day.

Wow that was easy. No need to analyze a long term strategy to actually achieve our goals.

[zelmo1234]

If you don't expect them to surrender, then why make your end goal their "unconditional surrender"?

The moderates will surrender, just as they did in Japan, the Radicals will die!

[zelmo1234]

Since we have abandoned reason, I say just poison all fresh water in the Middle East and call it a day.

Wow that was easy. No need to analyze a long term strategy to actually achieve our goals.

Almost as foolish as saying that they pose no threat to the USA, 911 comes to mind, unless that is considered acceptable losses for the policy of appeasement.

If it is illogical to kill you enemy, then call me crazy. but we are back into a pre 911 mind set of they are not at war with the USA. So we should get the hell out and await the next attack that will change public opinion again.

We can only pray that it comes to one of the cities that hold mostly liberals that feel appeasement is the way to go

[zelmo1234]

Since we have abandoned reason, I say just poison all fresh water in the Middle East and call it a day.

Wow that was easy. No need to analyze a long term strategy to actually achieve our goals.

Also what do you think that our goal should be? A peaceful middle east is not possible, So neutralizing the threat is the other option. Dead is a great way to end the possibility of an attack

[Green Arrow]

Since we have abandoned reason, I say just poison all fresh water in the Middle East and call it a day.

Wow that was easy. No need to analyze a long term strategy to actually achieve our goals.

Oh, what the hell, why bother. We're already abandoning reason. Just mash all the big red buttons. Reagan Christ will return mounted on his celestial raptor, waving the American flag in one hand and an AK-47 in the other as he guides the nukes to every ISIS stronghold in the world.

Our salvation is nigh.

[zelmo1234]

Isn't appeasement great.

Then when an attack happens and you get what you asked for? You can pretend that you are shocked and appalled by it and demand that something be done to keep the USA safe.

This effect produces Gems like the Patriot Act and the NSA

[Green Arrow]

Isn't appeasement great.

Then when an attack happens and you get what you asked for? You can pretend that you are shocked and appalled by it and demand that something be done to keep the USA safe.

This effect produces Gems like the Patriot Act and the NSA

This is, again, neocons blaming the guys that said no for their own mistakes.

[zelmo1234]

This is, again, neocons blaming the guys that said no for their own mistakes.

Trust me I have never supported nation building, so I agree that this was a mistake, That pulling out thing is working out great though?

[Green Arrow]

Trust me I have never supported nation building, so I agree that this was a mistake, That pulling out thing is working out great though?

That overthrowing the only guy keeping the radicals in check thing is working out great, though?

[zelmo1234]

That overthrowing the only guy keeping the radicals in check thing is working out great, though?

See now we agree on something. Though I don't think he had any good intentions for the USA or US citizens.

But it would seem to me that 2 wrongs don't make a right, so why should we wait until this ISIL, OR ISIS or whatever they are calling themselves today actually are able to pull of a terrorist attack in the USA before we end the threat?

[Green Arrow]

See now we agree on something. Though I don't think he had any good intentions for the USA or US citizens.

But it would seem to me that 2 wrongs don't make a right, so why should we wait until this ISIL, OR ISIS or whatever they are calling themselves today actually are able to pull of a terrorist attack in the USA before we end the threat?

Because we can't realistically end the threat, that's why. The best we can do is leave them to kill each other and they'll have no time for us. Close off the border and make the U.S. a hard target. Make the U.S. populace like the Swiss populace: a gun in every household and training in how to use it. Then tell any country that harbors ISIS, if they come over here, we'll kill them all and then come for you next.

[zelmo1234]

Because we can't realistically end the threat, that's why. The best we can do is leave them to kill each other and they'll have no time for us. Close off the border and make the U.S. a hard target. Make the U.S. populace like the Swiss populace: a gun in every household and training in how to use it. Then tell any country that harbors ISIS, if they come over here, we'll kill them all and then come for you next.

I don't have a problem with anything that you are saying in this post!

I could get behind this policy and support it!

It is not reality today, just the opposite is true in many cases, so that is why I am for limiting there ability to wage terrorist attacks.

[Green Arrow]

I don't have a problem with anything that you are saying in this post!

I could get behind this policy and support it!

It is not reality today, just the opposite is true in many cases, so that is why I am for limiting there ability to wage terrorist attacks.

But you can't, unless you want to turn American troops into meat sacks and just keep throwing them at ISIS forever. And you'll have to seriously ramp up the printing of those already worthless dollars to pay for it.

[Peter1469]

Of course it is foolish. So is saying defeat them with no real plan. That is my point.
Almost as foolish as saying that they pose no threat to the USA, 911 comes to mind, unless that is considered acceptable losses for the policy of appeasement.

If it is illogical to kill you enemy, then call me crazy. but we are back into a pre 911 mind set of they are not at war with the USA. So we should get the hell out and await the next attack that will change public opinion again.

We can only pray that it comes to one of the cities that hold mostly liberals that feel appeasement is the way to go

[Ethereal]

Almost as foolish as saying that they pose no threat to the USA, 911 comes to mind, unless that is considered acceptable losses for the policy of appeasement.

If it is illogical to kill you enemy, then call me crazy. but we are back into a pre 911 mind set of they are not at war with the USA. So we should get the hell out and await the next attack that will change public opinion again.

We can only pray that it comes to one of the cities that hold mostly liberals that feel appeasement is the way to go

The only ones who have been appeased are the insane, money-grubbing, neo-con war-mongers who think repeating the word "appeasement" over and over again is some kind of an argument for endless war with no realistic objective.

And how many times do I have to explain to you that 9/11 had nothing to do with "appeasement" but with a failure to share actionable intelligence between the CIA and the FBI?

Face it, you are not really interested in protecting American but rather profiting off of endless war. You worship your god money and pretend to be a Christian. Just sad.

[Ethereal]

But you can't, unless you want to turn American troops into meat sacks and just keep throwing them at ISIS forever. And you'll have to seriously ramp up the printing of those already worthless dollars to pay for it.

That's exactly what he wants. It's how he makes his money.

[Codename Section]

That's exactly what he wants. It's how he makes his money.

We do some merc work, too. Nothing I am proud of though.

[Ethereal]

We do some merc work, too. Nothing I am proud of though.

It's one thing to meet an organic demand for your services, it's entirely another to use politics as a means of artificially boosting demand for them. The former is typically referred to as "capitalism" while the latter is referred to as "crony capitalism". People like Zelmo are crony capitalists. All their political posturing and rhetoric is just a pretext for making money.

[pjohns]

Leaders are still constrained by reality. If a leader honestly told Americans what it would take to "crush" IS, the American people would say no, before he finished his speech.

Well, FDR was apparently not "constrained" after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, in December 1941.

And I really do not believe that the American people, in general, are either cowardly or indifferent to a genuine (and deadly serious!) threat to the homeland; which is precisely what Islamofascism represents. But as long as many people remain uninformed--as long as they are permitted to think of war as an elective action, rather than as a sheer necessity--they will not mobilize in favor of our doing whatever is necessary to defeat this horrible threat to Western civilization (and to America--"the Great Satan"--in particular).

[pjohns]

How in the world is militant Islam an existential threat to anyone outside of their small part of the Middle East? Are you claiming that they have the ability to conquer us?

Well, Abu Mosa (some speculate that he was recently killed), speaking on behalf of ISIS, recently threatened to "raise the flag of Allah in the White House."

The Islamofascists might not "have the ability to conquer us"; but they certainly have the ability to create much havoc, and murder many Americans, if we have to fight them here instead of fighting them over there.


[Y]ou aren't going to make the Sunnis and Shia like each other.

Whereas I have no magic solution by which to accomplish this, it does not strike me as being outside the realm of possibility. After all, at a slightly earlier time, most people would probably have opined that Protestants and Catholics would continue, indefinitely, to despise each other.

[Peter1469]

FDR was operating well within his window of acceptable policy actions after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. In fact Americans were demanding war at that point. He could not get America into the war prior to Pearl. I hope that illustrates the phrase constraint.




Well, FDR was apparently not "constrained" after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, in December 1941.

And I really do not believe that the American people, in general, are either cowardly or indifferent to a genuine (and deadly serious!) threat to the homeland; which is precisely what Islamofascism represents. But as long as many people remain uninformed--as long as they are permitted to think of war as an elective action, rather than as a sheer necessity--they will not mobilize in favor of our doing whatever is necessary to defeat this horrible threat to Western civilization (and to America--"the Great Satan"--in particular).

[Peter1469]

Your second paragraph contradicts your first paragraph. But right, militant Islam has zero ability to conquer the US.

Fight them there rather than here is a slogan. Currently the Islamic State is acting as a militia and is attempting to create a nation-state. It is not likely that they are expending resources to develop true operatives who have the skill set necessary to travel across the globe, operate independently with a skill set very different from militia activity in order to strike the US. If they are serious about a Caliphate, they will have their hands full for a while.

Anyway we don't have to fight them over there in order to protect ourselves here. We could harden our defenses.

The Reformation between the Protestants and Catholics burned out on its own. No outside force solved it.


Well, Abu Mosa (some speculate that he was recently killed), speaking on behalf of ISIS, recently threatened to "raise the flag of Allah in the White House."

The Islamofascists might not "have the ability to conquer us"; but they certainly have the ability to create much havoc, and murder many Americans, if we have to fight them here instead of fighting them over there.



Whereas I have no magic solution by which to accomplish this, it does not strike me as being outside the realm of possibility. After all, at a slightly earlier time, most people would probably have opined that Protestants and Catholics would continue, indefinitely, to despise each other.

[pjohns]

FDR was operating well within his window of acceptable policy actions after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. In fact Americans were demanding war at that point. He could not get America into the war prior to Pearl. I hope that illustrates the phrase constraint.

You are certainly correct that it required the bombing of Pearl Harbor to bring America into the war. But the destruction of the Twin Towers about 13 years ago (and the attendant killing of about 3,000 innocents) was surely just as much of an act of war as the bombing of Pearl Harbor was. And, as others have put it, FDR did not seek to identify the individual pilots who dropped the bombs on our fleet, and bring them to justice in an American criminal court. Rather, he guided us into war against Imperial Japan.

[Green Arrow]

You are certainly correct that it required the bombing of Pearl Harbor to bring America into the war. But the destruction of the Twin Towers about 13 years ago (and the attendant killing of about 3,000 innocents) was surely just as much of an act of war as the bombing of Pearl Harbor was. And, as others have put it, FDR did not seek to identify the individual pilots who dropped the bombs on our fleet, and bring them to justice in an American criminal court. Rather, he guided us into war against Imperial Japan.

Right, because it was the leadership of imperial Japan that ordered the attack. There is no national government that ordered 9/11. It was a transnational terrorist organization, and you can't fight a transnational terrorist organization like a nation-state.

[Peter1469]

You are certainly correct that it required the bombing of Pearl Harbor to bring America into the war. But the destruction of the Twin Towers about 13 years ago (and the attendant killing of about 3,000 innocents) was surely just as much of an act of war as the bombing of Pearl Harbor was. And, as others have put it, FDR did not seek to identify the individual pilots who dropped the bombs on our fleet, and bring them to justice in an American criminal court. Rather, he guided us into war against Imperial Japan.

No argument there.

[pjohns]

Your second paragraph contradicts your first paragraph. But right, militant Islam has zero ability to conquer the US.

Fight them there rather than here is a slogan. Currently the Islamic State is acting as a militia and is attempting to create a nation-state. It is not likely that they are expending resources to develop true operatives who have the skill set necessary to travel across the globe, operate independently with a skill set very different from militia activity in order to strike the US. If they are serious about a Caliphate, they will have their hands full for a while.

Anyway we don't have to fight them over there in order to protect ourselves here. We could harden our defenses.

The Reformation between the Protestants and Catholics burned out on its own. No outside force solved it.

(1) I really do not see the (alleged) contradiction. Allow me, please, to elucidate:

The Islamofascists desire to "raise the flag of Allah in the White House"--which is to say, they desire to conquer America militarily. Frankly, I do not see how they might be able to accomplish this. But they can create an enormous amount of havoc during the attempt--and kill and maim many Americans. I really do not wish to have this transpire, even if it should ultimately fail.

(2) The hatred (and mistrust) between Protestants and Catholics did not end when the Reformation "burned out on its own," around the mid-eighteenth century. Two hundred years after that, Protestants and Catholics in America (which was not even a nation at the time, but just a collection of colonies) still despised each other. But that is no longer typically the case.

[Peter1469]

1. If we focus on defense, they won't be able to cause much havoc at all. Cells will emerge and we will purge them.

2. Right, the Protestants and Catholics stopped killing each other a long time ago. Unlike the Shia and Sunnis.


(1) I really do not see the (alleged) contradiction. Allow me, please, to elucidate:

The Islamofascists desire to "raise the flag of Allah in the White House"--which is to say, they desire to conquer America militarily. Frankly, I do not see how they might be able to accomplish this. But they can create an enormous amount of havoc during the attempt--and kill and maim many Americans. I really do not wish to have this transpire, even if it should ultimately fail.

(2) The hatred (and mistrust) between Protestants and Catholics did not end when the Reformation "burned out on its own," around the mid-eighteenth century. Two hundred years after that, Protestants and Catholics in America (which was not even a nation at the time, but just a collection of colonies) still despised each other. But that is no longer typically the case.

[pjohns]

[Y]ou can't fight a transnational terrorist organization like a nation-state.

Well, about 200 years ago, we fought the Barbary pirates (belatedly; but better late than never), and prevailed. And that was not "a nation-state."

[pjohns]

1. If we focus on defense, they won't be able to cause much havoc at all. Cells will emerge and we will purge them.

2. Right, the Protestants and Catholics stopped killing each other a long time ago. Unlike the Shia and Sunnis.

(1) If terrorists manage to acquire suitcase nukes--which is entirely possible, if the Obama administration allows Iran to go nuclear, and then Iran decides to sell a few of its nukes to terrorists--our simply concentrating on defense will probably not be enough. Some suicidal jihadist, anticipating 72 virgins in Paradise, would surely be happy to detonate such an explosive.

(2) Yes, Protestants and Catholics stopped the killing "a long time ago." But not the hating. Which is what I thought we were discussing.

[Green Arrow]

Well, about 200 years ago, we fought the Barbary pirates (belatedly; but better late than never), and prevailed. And that was not "a nation-state."

The Barbary pirates were acting on the authority of the Barbary States (themselves controlled by pirates), so yes, we were acting against nation-states.

[Peter1469]

(1) If terrorists manage to acquire suitcase nukes--which is entirely possible, if the Obama administration allows Iran to go nuclear, and then Iran decides to sell a few of its nukes to terrorists--our simply concentrating on defense will probably not be enough. Some suicidal jihadist, anticipating 72 virgins in Paradise, would surely be happy to detonate such an explosive.

(2) Yes, Protestants and Catholics stopped the killing "a long time ago." But not the hating. Which is what I thought we were discussing.

Acquiring suit case nukes doesn't equal acquiring the ability to use them. Two separate things. Without the ability to use them, they are paperweights.

Not really. The killing is the important part.

[pjohns]

The Barbary pirates were acting on the authority of the Barbary States (themselves controlled by pirates), so yes, we were acting against nation-states.

Well, I suppose one could say that Algeria and Libya harbored the Barbary pirates--just as some Middle Eastern countries today harbor terrorists--but not that they were actively sponsoring those pirates. At least, not according to any history that I have ever read.

[pjohns]

Acquiring suit case nukes doesn't equal acquiring the ability to use them. Two separate things. Without the ability to use them, they are paperweights.

Not really. The killing is the important part.

(1) Why would you suppose that the terrorists would remain (forever) so unsophisticated as to be unable "to use" those suitcase nuclear weapons?

(2) If Sunnis and Shiites cease to hate each other, it seems unlikely that they will continue to try to kill each other.

[Private Pickle]

Well, I suppose one could say that Algeria and Libya harbored the Barbary pirates--just as some Middle Eastern countries today harbor terrorists--but not that they were actively sponsoring those pirates. At least, not according to any history that I have ever read.

Thats funny... I like how you bolded the parts you thought were hyperbole fed to you to convince you to go to war. That was a good one there...

[Green Arrow]

Well, I suppose one could say that Algeria and Libya harbored the Barbary pirates--just as some Middle Eastern countries today harbor terrorists--but not that they were actively sponsoring those pirates. At least, not according to any history that I have ever read.

Uh, no, they were fought directly against the governments of the Barbary States. The Barbary Pirates were basically the navy of the Barbary States. We wouldn't blockade Tripoli if it was just random pirates loosely connected to the Barbary States. Virtually any historian you read will mention it was against the Barbary States.

[Peter1469]

(1) Why would you suppose that the terrorists would remain (forever) so unsophisticated as to be unable "to use" those suitcase nuclear weapons?

(2) If Sunnis and Shiites cease to hate each other, it seems unlikely that they will continue to try to kill each other.

1. Lack of talent,

2. focus on the kill part. That is what matters. Even you pointed out that some Protestants and Catholics hate each other still. Yet they aren't killing each other

[Peter1469]

The Barbary States were real places. (https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/barbary-wars)


The Barbary States were a collection of North African states, many of which practiced state-supported piracy in order to exact tribute from weaker Atlantic powers. Morocco was an independent kingdom, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli owed a loose allegiance to the Ottoman Empire. The United States fought two separate wars with Tripoli (1801–1805) and Algiers (1815–1816), although at other times it preferred to pay tribute to obtain the release of captives held in the Barbary States.

[The Sage of Main Street]

On the plus side, American airstrikes continued in northern Iraq today. I have heard it reported, variously, that there were either 14 or 15 such airstrikes; which is roughly double the typical amount. And that is a very good thing.

So I would have much preferred that president Obama had pledged to ensure that ISIS will be utterly crushed, by whatever means necessary--not merely contained, or rolled back, but crushed--however, regrettably, he said no such thing. That would lead to Iran taking over Iraq and Kuwait. It's best to let ISIS be strong enough to prevent the Shiite version of itself from doing that, but not strong enough to take over Syria and Iraq.

[Peter1469]

Shiites pose less threat to the west than Suni do.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Fair question.

For openers, I would supply the Kurdish Peshmerga forces with heavy arms--please note the adjective--despite the fear of some that these arms might be seized by ISIS.

those who surely know far more about the matter than I do.
. For a decade we put our hopes on the Kurds, who have a greater population than the Arab Iraqis. That got us nowhere. Besides, they are Muslim nutcases just like all the others, so why let them win anything?

[The Sage of Main Street]

I believe the US has already armed the Baghdad army--although some of its hardware has now been lost to ISIS.

However, if that army's weapons now appear deficient, I would certainly wish to re-supply them. Give them weapons that break if they drop them while they are running away.

[The Sage of Main Street]

We do some merc work, too. Nothing I am proud of though. Everything you do is merc work for Big Oil, which piggybacks off OPEC's 1000%+ profit margins on oil.

[Professor Peabody]

Everything you do is merc work for Big Oil, which piggybacks off OPEC's 1000%+ profit margins on oil.

When ISIS sells that oil they will use the money to attack the U.S.

[pjohns]

Thats funny... I like how you bolded the parts you thought were hyperbole fed to you to convince you to go to war.

Actually, I bolded those verbs that show a distinction between the two events, in order to highlight that distinction.

And the terrorists have already indicated that they are at war with us. It is therefore not necessary to "convince" me to "go to war" with the terrorists. (As Leon Trotsky once put it--and I do not often quote thoroughgoing Marxists; but in this case, I will make an exception--"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.)

[The Sage of Main Street]

When ISIS sells that oil they will use the money to attack the U.S. For over four decades, OPEC has waged a devastating economic jihad against the US. They are protected by our 1% thieves and traitors.

The ruling-class media do not report this. In fact, I just read another example. A preppy progressive fishwrap mentioned that Texas's economic boom is based on oil, not on RICO Perry's policies. As usual, they prove what side they are really on by not going far enough. It's like saying that someone is rich only because he was lucky and won the lottery, when he actually paid off the Lottery Commission to fix it so that his numbers would win.

[The Sage of Main Street]

And the terrorists have already indicated that they are at war with us. It is therefore not necessary to "convince" me to "go to war" with the terrorists. (As Leon Trotsky once put it--and I do not often quote thoroughgoing Marxists; but in this case, I will make an exception--"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.) The reason that, unlike self-appointed experts, I thought the first plane to hit the World Trade Center was a terrorist attack was that the terrorists had promised to attack America and had carried out all their other threats.

Before 9/11 turned Chickenhawks into tough-talking warriors, Dubai Dubya had thought that terrorism was just an Israeli problem; his foreign policy aim was to restart the Cold War with Russia and China. That's why he occupied Afghanistan after 9/11 gave him the excuse to. That's why he had hired Condoleeza Rice, a Russian expert who knew little about the rest of the world. She hadn't even known what Al Qaida was, except after being told to cram for a speech on terrorism just to pacify the Jews. She had never heard of hijacking an airliner and using it as a bomb, but the Israelis had revealed that tactic to the world's "intelligence" services on February 23, 1973.

[pjohns]

The reason that, unlike self-appointed experts, I thought the first plane to hit the World Trade Center was a terrorist attack was that the terrorists had promised to attack America and had carried out all their other threats.

Before 9/11 turned Chickenhawks into tough-talking warriors, Dubai Dubya had thought that terrorism was just an Israeli problem; his foreign policy aim was to restart the Cold War with Russia and China. That's why he occupied Afghanistan after 9/11 gave him the excuse to. That's why he had hired Condoleeza Rice, a Russian expert who knew little about the rest of the world. She hadn't even known what Al Qaida was, except after being told to cram for a speech on terrorism just to pacify the Jews. She had never heard of hijacking an airliner and using it as a bomb, but the Israelis had revealed that tactic to the world's "intelligence" services on February 23, 1973.

Your first (one-sentence) paragraph seems reasonable enough.

But the remainder of your rant seems like the recycled rhetoric of so much of the left: "B-b-b-b-but Bush..."

[The Sage of Main Street]

Your first (one-sentence) paragraph seems reasonable enough.

But the remainder of your rant seems like the recycled rhetoric of so much of the left: "B-b-b-b-but Bush..."

Post Obama-Killed-Osama Stress Disorder. Ironically, your therapy is covered under Obamacare!