How Do We Combat This?

[homersapien 12,172]

Making jokes as a reply to actual and serious world events has always been such a positive response to just about anything.

Anyone who doesn't comprehend that these folks would treat you, your loved ones and anyone else they could find in much the same manner as the men in the video , prolly would have also believed the Jews were being sent to summer camps, for their own safety, during WW2.

Just remeber to smile, and wave to the camera ! They really like that.

Some of us here remember being told we must fight the VC there, instead of here. :-\

[homersapien 12,172]

...... We are not the solution to their problem. We are a distraction from their problem. Perhaps if we take a step away from the region, they will be able to clearly see that their problem is themselves.

......The rest of the region seems to feel like no action is necessary on their part, and as long as they can successfully maintain that position and status quo, groups like this can never be truly defeated or contained.

Good points.

[AUFAN78 4,130]

...... We are not the solution to their problem. We are a distraction from their problem. Perhaps if we take a step away from the region, they will be able to clearly see that their problem is themselves.

......The rest of the region seems to feel like no action is necessary on their part, and as long as they can successfully maintain that position and status quo, groups like this can never be truly defeated or contained.

Good points.

Being under the weather, I viewed a good deal more cable and network news today. As you can imagine, the ME was a primary topic. Military expert after military expert were paraded across the screen and each disagree with your views. Why?

[TheBlueVue 177]

icanthearyou, on Yesterday, 04:48 AM, said:

...... We are not the solution to their problem. We are a distraction from their problem. Perhaps if we take a step away from the region, they will be able to clearly see that their problem is themselves.

You give those people way too much credit. If they couldn't drill money out of the desert sands, these people would still be living in the stone ages. They have never contributed anything positive to society at large. They are violent and murderous and if you dont stop them where are, you'll have to stop them where they want to go.

Containment of terrorist ambitions is the duty of the sane world. That portion of the world is shrinking daily. Their caliphate is imminent and seeing a terrorist organization, that barry called a JV operation 3 months ago, attain statehood and become a nation on his watch has to be an embarrassing possibility since he ran for president chanting the mantra, "Bin Laden is dead and Al Qaeda is on the run" intimating that he had terrorist activity well in hand and under control.

[homersapien 12,172]

...... We are not the solution to their problem. We are a distraction from their problem. Perhaps if we take a step away from the region, they will be able to clearly see that their problem is themselves.

......The rest of the region seems to feel like no action is necessary on their part, and as long as they can successfully maintain that position and status quo, groups like this can never be truly defeated or contained.

Good points.

Being under the weather, I viewed a good deal more cable and network news today. As you can imagine, the ME was a primary topic. Military expert after military expert were paraded across the screen and each disagree with your views. Why?

What views? My agreement with with ICHY and Strychnine's statements?

And what exactly is the counter-view these military "experts" support?

[AURaptor 1,137]

I'm totally confident that if we just step away from the middle east, let them blow up the oil wells and refineries, then they'll eventually come around and realize that they're all just hurting themselves.

Yep.

So, let me see if I understand you. The problem is no longer their violence. Now the problem is oil and gas? Is that correct? What is your proposed solution?

It's not an either or issue. The matter is made more dire because of the oil and gas, but regardless, these religious nut jobs will push to eliminate Israel ( I know, who care about them anyway ? ) and then... just stop ? You honestly think they wouldn't push forward, as we're seeing in Africa, where violence is spreading in the name of Allah, where NO oil and gas deposits are in play ? And what of S.E. Asia ? Islam isn't exactly living up to the religion of peace slogan there either.

I think you need to use a wider angle lens when looking at the problem.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

...... We are not the solution to their problem. We are a distraction from their problem. Perhaps if we take a step away from the region, they will be able to clearly see that their problem is themselves.

......The rest of the region seems to feel like no action is necessary on their part, and as long as they can successfully maintain that position and status quo, groups like this can never be truly defeated or contained.

Good points.

Being under the weather, I viewed a good deal more cable and network news today. As you can imagine, the ME was a primary topic. Military expert after military expert were paraded across the screen and each disagree with your views. Why?

One word.........funding. Military is always going to play up the threat of everything in order to stop cuts and increase their funding.

Most countries complain about us policing the world, well I think it is time we do what they ask. Let the rest of the world deal with this for awhile. If they become a true danger to us, fine then act.

[AUFAN78 4,130]

...... We are not the solution to their problem. We are a distraction from their problem. Perhaps if we take a step away from the region, they will be able to clearly see that their problem is themselves.

......The rest of the region seems to feel like no action is necessary on their part, and as long as they can successfully maintain that position and status quo, groups like this can never be truly defeated or contained.

Good points.

Being under the weather, I viewed a good deal more cable and network news today. As you can imagine, the ME was a primary topic. Military expert after military expert were paraded across the screen and each disagree with your views. Why?

What views? That we should simply pull out. That we should do nothing. That we should not concern ourselves with terrorists regimes. My agreement with with ICHY and Strychnine's statements?

And what exactly is the counter-view these military "experts" support? Most agree we've waited 16/18 months too long to react, but some intervention now is better than the alternative, i.e. pulling out/doing nothing/having no concern for terrorists regimes.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

I'm totally confident that if we just step away from the middle east, let them blow up the oil wells and refineries, then they'll eventually come around and realize that they're all just hurting themselves.

Yep.

So, let me see if I understand you. The problem is no longer their violence. Now the problem is oil and gas? Is that correct? What is your proposed solution?

It's not an either or issue. The matter is made more dire because of the oil and gas, but regardless, these religious nut jobs will push to eliminate Israel ( I know, who care about them anyway ? ) and then... just stop ? You honestly think they wouldn't push forward, as we're seeing in Africa, where violence is spreading in the name of Allah, where NO oil and gas deposits are in play ? And what of S.E. Asia ? Islam isn't exactly living up to the religion of peace slogan there either.

I think you need to use a wider angle lens when looking at the problem.

I disagree. History is a pretty "wide angle lens", wouldn't you say? The sectarian violence has little to do with us. We have tried manipulation. We have tried diplomacy. We have tried military intervention.

If you allow them to focus on their real problem, we will be an after-thought. How will they spread when they are busy killing one another? You hawks fail to realize that some bombs, create more terrorists than they kill. The only thing that seems to unite them is their hatred for us when we intervene in their internal problems.

Let's try doing nothing for a little while. You cannot argue with the price. It's free! Do you truly believe the answer is putting more of our money and young people's lives into that sink hole. Have we learned nothing? Why beat your head against the wall? Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish. We need to be prepared for the next big threat. We don't need to be distracted by this nonsense any longer. I know you hate Obama and, I will admit that there isn't much to like but, he is right about playing Whack-A-Mole.

GWB had us on the right track before he allowed Cheney and Rummy to go play army. Intelligence and stealth are are our best weapons against terrorist threats. We would be wise to utilize the CIA and, stop expending our military resources.

[homersapien 12,172]

What views? That we should simply pull out. That we should do nothing. That we should not concern ourselves with terrorists regimes. My agreement with with ICHY and Strychnine's statements?

Where did I say that?

You are making assumptions. To clarify, I don't think we should insert troops into any ME country that hasn't asked us to come, nor should we necessarily pull out if they want us to remain. Otherwise, I don't oppose providing help as long as it makes sense.

And I certainly don't think we should ignore terrorist regimes.

[AURaptor 1,137]

No bombs created 9-11, and yet it still happened.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

No bombs created 9-11, and yet it still happened.

Literally true but, practically deceptive. You know and understand the history our intervention in the region. Why not address the entire post? Do you agree or disagree with the CIA being a better alternative to the military in the effort to protect ourselves from terrorists? Do you have a better solution?

[homersapien 12,172]

No bombs created 9-11, and yet it still happened.

The US has been directly involved militarily in the Middle East since WWII to some degree, not to mention our support of Israel. In 1984, Reagan shelled areas of Beirut with a battleship no less. Not exactly a bomb, but the net effect is pretty much the same.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish."

I would argue this it is a logical fallacy to assert that American intervention created more terrorists. Do you not realize that terrorism has increased in its activities since we pulled out of Iraq. The surge had Iraq in a relatively peaceful environment...no be headings, mass murders or any terrorist activities. Obama calls ISIS a JV team not worthy of dictating the need for a status of forces agreement that he now tries to blame on Maliki and now a calipahte is a real possibility. This would NOT be happening if we hadn't completely withdrawn.

Presumably, you do realize America has, even still, over 100,000 troops in the 3 defeated Axis Powers countries. That war ended almost 70 years ago. Leaving a sufficient status of forces behind would have prevented the current proliferation of terrorist activity. Im sure you wont agree to that as you've proven adamantly unwilling to move past 2002.

[AURaptor 1,137]

No bombs created 9-11, and yet it still happened.

Literally true but, practically deceptive. You know and understand the history our intervention in the region. Why not address the entire post? Do you agree or disagree with the CIA being a better alternative to the military in the effort to protect ourselves from terrorists? Do you have a better solution?

I think there undeniably has been colossal blunders, and much of it has to do w/ infighting between different agencies. As well as the problems from the Gorelick wall of NON information transfer, which was a MAJOR factor in our intel not being able to act on tips and info which would have prevented 9-11 in the first place.

Stuff like that has plagued the US bureaucracy for decades, and I don't see that getting better any time soon. Certainly not w/ a President who refuses to engage, beyond playing video games and trying to Drone the jihadists back to the ..well, what ever the hell came before the stone age.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

"Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish."

I would argue this it is a logical fallacy to assert that American intervention created more terrorists. Do you not realize that terrorism has increased in its activities since we pulled out of Iraq. The surge had Iraq in a relatively peaceful environment...no be headings, mass murders or any terrorist activities. Obama calls ISIS a JV team not worthy of dictating the need for a status of forces agreement that he now tries to blame on Maliki and now a calipahte is a real possibility. This would NOT be happening if we hadn't completely withdrawn.

Presumably, you do realize America has, even still, over 100,000 troops in the 3 defeated Axis Powers countries. That war ended almost 70 years ago. Leaving a sufficient status of forces behind would have prevented the current proliferation of terrorist activity. Im sure you wont agree to that as you've proven adamantly unwilling to move past 2002.

Not surprisingly, we disagree. IMHO, the two sentences in bold represent a total absence of logic. In fact, I believe those two sentences support my argument. We invaded, we bombed, we occupied and, as soon as we relent a little, there are more terrorists than ever. Do you see what I am getting at here? It seems pretty obvious.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish."

I would argue this it is a logical fallacy to assert that American intervention created more terrorists. Do you not realize that terrorism has increased in its activities since we pulled out of Iraq. The surge had Iraq in a relatively peaceful environment...no be headings, mass murders or any terrorist activities. Obama calls ISIS a JV team not worthy of dictating the need for a status of forces agreement that he now tries to blame on Maliki and now a calipahte is a real possibility. This would NOT be happening if we hadn't completely withdrawn.

Presumably, you do realize America has, even still, over 100,000 troops in the 3 defeated Axis Powers countries. That war ended almost 70 years ago. Leaving a sufficient status of forces behind would have prevented the current proliferation of terrorist activity. Im sure you wont agree to that as you've proven adamantly unwilling to move past 2002.

Not surprisingly, we disagree. IMHO, the two sentences in bold represent a total absence of logic. In fact, I believe those two sentences support my argument. We invaded, we bombed, we occupied and, as soon as we relent a little, there are more terrorists than ever. Do you see what I am getting at here? It seems pretty obvious.

Look, its no surprise that the sectarian problems that have existed for over a 1000 years persist in the middle east. If these people could not dig money from just below the surface of the desert sand they'd ALL still be living in the stone age. Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it. That's the way it has ALWAYS been and Im guessing the way it will always be..

[icanthearyou 4,468]

"Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish."

I would argue this it is a logical fallacy to assert that American intervention created more terrorists. Do you not realize that terrorism has increased in its activities since we pulled out of Iraq. The surge had Iraq in a relatively peaceful environment...no be headings, mass murders or any terrorist activities. Obama calls ISIS a JV team not worthy of dictating the need for a status of forces agreement that he now tries to blame on Maliki and now a calipahte is a real possibility. This would NOT be happening if we hadn't completely withdrawn.

Presumably, you do realize America has, even still, over 100,000 troops in the 3 defeated Axis Powers countries. That war ended almost 70 years ago. Leaving a sufficient status of forces behind would have prevented the current proliferation of terrorist activity. Im sure you wont agree to that as you've proven adamantly unwilling to move past 2002.

Not surprisingly, we disagree. IMHO, the two sentences in bold represent a total absence of logic. In fact, I believe those two sentences support my argument. We invaded, we bombed, we occupied and, as soon as we relent a little, there are more terrorists than ever. Do you see what I am getting at here? It seems pretty obvious.

Look, its no surprise that the sectarian problems that have existed for over a 1000 years persist in the middle east. If these people could not dig money from just below the surface of the desert sand they'd ALL still be living in the stone age. Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it. That's the way it has ALWAYS been and Im guessing the way it will always be..

I do not believe there is any evidence that suggests, " Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it." However, I do believe there is evidence that suggests it's most extreme beliefs are galvanized by what they see as unwanted influences from outside the region.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish."

I would argue this it is a logical fallacy to assert that American intervention created more terrorists. Do you not realize that terrorism has increased in its activities since we pulled out of Iraq. The surge had Iraq in a relatively peaceful environment...no be headings, mass murders or any terrorist activities. Obama calls ISIS a JV team not worthy of dictating the need for a status of forces agreement that he now tries to blame on Maliki and now a calipahte is a real possibility. This would NOT be happening if we hadn't completely withdrawn.

Presumably, you do realize America has, even still, over 100,000 troops in the 3 defeated Axis Powers countries. That war ended almost 70 years ago. Leaving a sufficient status of forces behind would have prevented the current proliferation of terrorist activity. Im sure you wont agree to that as you've proven adamantly unwilling to move past 2002.

Not surprisingly, we disagree. IMHO, the two sentences in bold represent a total absence of logic. In fact, I believe those two sentences support my argument. We invaded, we bombed, we occupied and, as soon as we relent a little, there are more terrorists than ever. Do you see what I am getting at here? It seems pretty obvious.

Look, its no surprise that the sectarian problems that have existed for over a 1000 years persist in the middle east. If these people could not dig money from just below the surface of the desert sand they'd ALL still be living in the stone age. Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it. That's the way it has ALWAYS been and Im guessing the way it will always be..

I do not believe there is any evidence that suggests, " Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it." However, I do believe there is evidence that suggests it's most extreme beliefs are galvanized by what they see as unwanted influences from outside the region.

Yeah an impending caliphate would certainly seem to suggest your naivete.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

"Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish."

I would argue this it is a logical fallacy to assert that American intervention created more terrorists. Do you not realize that terrorism has increased in its activities since we pulled out of Iraq. The surge had Iraq in a relatively peaceful environment...no be headings, mass murders or any terrorist activities. Obama calls ISIS a JV team not worthy of dictating the need for a status of forces agreement that he now tries to blame on Maliki and now a calipahte is a real possibility. This would NOT be happening if we hadn't completely withdrawn.

Presumably, you do realize America has, even still, over 100,000 troops in the 3 defeated Axis Powers countries. That war ended almost 70 years ago. Leaving a sufficient status of forces behind would have prevented the current proliferation of terrorist activity. Im sure you wont agree to that as you've proven adamantly unwilling to move past 2002.

Not surprisingly, we disagree. IMHO, the two sentences in bold represent a total absence of logic. In fact, I believe those two sentences support my argument. We invaded, we bombed, we occupied and, as soon as we relent a little, there are more terrorists than ever. Do you see what I am getting at here? It seems pretty obvious.

Look, its no surprise that the sectarian problems that have existed for over a 1000 years persist in the middle east. If these people could not dig money from just below the surface of the desert sand they'd ALL still be living in the stone age. Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it. That's the way it has ALWAYS been and Im guessing the way it will always be..

I do not believe there is any evidence that suggests, " Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it." However, I do believe there is evidence that suggests it's most extreme beliefs are galvanized by what they see as unwanted influences from outside the region.

Yeah an impending caliphate would certainly seem to suggest your naivete.

They don't seem highly organized to me. The only common cause they ever seem to rally around is their hatred towards us. Their leadership (even those who are "friendly" to us) have always used us as a scapegoat. Why feed it? Do you have a better idea? Do believe that we should permanently occupy the region.

Do you propose spending an unlimited amount of money over an indefinite period of time? That doesn't sound very "conservative". What is the basis of your "impending caliphate"?

[TheBlueVue 177]

"Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish."

I would argue this it is a logical fallacy to assert that American intervention created more terrorists. Do you not realize that terrorism has increased in its activities since we pulled out of Iraq. The surge had Iraq in a relatively peaceful environment...no be headings, mass murders or any terrorist activities. Obama calls ISIS a JV team not worthy of dictating the need for a status of forces agreement that he now tries to blame on Maliki and now a calipahte is a real possibility. This would NOT be happening if we hadn't completely withdrawn.

Presumably, you do realize America has, even still, over 100,000 troops in the 3 defeated Axis Powers countries. That war ended almost 70 years ago. Leaving a sufficient status of forces behind would have prevented the current proliferation of terrorist activity. Im sure you wont agree to that as you've proven adamantly unwilling to move past 2002.

Not surprisingly, we disagree. IMHO, the two sentences in bold represent a total absence of logic. In fact, I believe those two sentences support my argument. We invaded, we bombed, we occupied and, as soon as we relent a little, there are more terrorists than ever. Do you see what I am getting at here? It seems pretty obvious.

Look, its no surprise that the sectarian problems that have existed for over a 1000 years persist in the middle east. If these people could not dig money from just below the surface of the desert sand they'd ALL still be living in the stone age. Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it. That's the way it has ALWAYS been and Im guessing the way it will always be..

I do not believe there is any evidence that suggests, " Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it." However, I do believe there is evidence that suggests it's most extreme beliefs are galvanized by what they see as unwanted influences from outside the region.

Yeah an impending caliphate would certainly seem to suggest your naivete.

They don't seem highly organized to me. The only common cause they ever seem to rally around is their hatred towards us. Their leadership (even those who are "friendly" to us) have always used us as a scapegoat. Why feed it? Do you have a better idea? Do believe that we should permanently occupy the region.

Do you propose spending an unlimited amount of money over an indefinite period of time? That doesn't sound very "conservative". What is the basis of your "impending caliphate"?

No actually, on this one, the way i see it the ox is already in the ditch and getting him out approaches the impossible. I have never advocated sending troops back to Iraq. I have said, however, unilateral withdrawal was not wise given the history of these people and the region. Now, we are left with no good options. I think the region is irretrievably lost with regard to anything remotely resembling stabilization. Under-estimating an adversary, which Obama is guilty of when it comes to ISIS, is one of the first major No-Nos discussed in Sun-Tzu's The Art of War...clearly he skipped that lesson.

The basis of my prediction of impending caliphate is that I believe ISIS is going to establish itself as a state because NOBODY is going to stop them and that will be a fisrt in modern history that a terrorist organization became a state. At that point, I also believe their militaristic ambitions will escalate even further. Of this i am certain, they will NEVER stop what they're doing right now!

[icanthearyou 4,468]

"Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish."

I would argue this it is a logical fallacy to assert that American intervention created more terrorists. Do you not realize that terrorism has increased in its activities since we pulled out of Iraq. The surge had Iraq in a relatively peaceful environment...no be headings, mass murders or any terrorist activities. Obama calls ISIS a JV team not worthy of dictating the need for a status of forces agreement that he now tries to blame on Maliki and now a calipahte is a real possibility. This would NOT be happening if we hadn't completely withdrawn.

Presumably, you do realize America has, even still, over 100,000 troops in the 3 defeated Axis Powers countries. That war ended almost 70 years ago. Leaving a sufficient status of forces behind would have prevented the current proliferation of terrorist activity. Im sure you wont agree to that as you've proven adamantly unwilling to move past 2002.

Not surprisingly, we disagree. IMHO, the two sentences in bold represent a total absence of logic. In fact, I believe those two sentences support my argument. We invaded, we bombed, we occupied and, as soon as we relent a little, there are more terrorists than ever. Do you see what I am getting at here? It seems pretty obvious.

Look, its no surprise that the sectarian problems that have existed for over a 1000 years persist in the middle east. If these people could not dig money from just below the surface of the desert sand they'd ALL still be living in the stone age. Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it. That's the way it has ALWAYS been and Im guessing the way it will always be..

I do not believe there is any evidence that suggests, " Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it." However, I do believe there is evidence that suggests it's most extreme beliefs are galvanized by what they see as unwanted influences from outside the region.

Yeah an impending caliphate would certainly seem to suggest your naivete.

They don't seem highly organized to me. The only common cause they ever seem to rally around is their hatred towards us. Their leadership (even those who are "friendly" to us) have always used us as a scapegoat. Why feed it? Do you have a better idea? Do believe that we should permanently occupy the region.

Do you propose spending an unlimited amount of money over an indefinite period of time? That doesn't sound very "conservative". What is the basis of your "impending caliphate"?

No actually on this one the way i see it the ox is already in the ditch and getting him out approaches the impossible. I have never advocated sending troops back to Iraq. I have said, however, unilateral withdrawal was not wise given the history of these people and the region. Now, we are left with no good options. I thnk the region is irretrievably lost with regard to anything remotely resembling stabilization. Under-estimating an adversary, which Obama is guilty of when it comes to ISIS, is one of the first major No-Nos discussed in Sun-Tzu's The Art of War...clearly he skipped that lesson.

So you, John McCain and Sun Tzu don't like Obama and therefore, you are in favor of permanent occupation and spending an unlimited amount of money over an indefinite time period. Is that about right?

I really believe your primary goal is criticizing the President. I don't think you are looking for a practical solution. What would you do right now if you were President.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish."

I would argue this it is a logical fallacy to assert that American intervention created more terrorists. Do you not realize that terrorism has increased in its activities since we pulled out of Iraq. The surge had Iraq in a relatively peaceful environment...no be headings, mass murders or any terrorist activities. Obama calls ISIS a JV team not worthy of dictating the need for a status of forces agreement that he now tries to blame on Maliki and now a calipahte is a real possibility. This would NOT be happening if we hadn't completely withdrawn.

Presumably, you do realize America has, even still, over 100,000 troops in the 3 defeated Axis Powers countries. That war ended almost 70 years ago. Leaving a sufficient status of forces behind would have prevented the current proliferation of terrorist activity. Im sure you wont agree to that as you've proven adamantly unwilling to move past 2002.

Not surprisingly, we disagree. IMHO, the two sentences in bold represent a total absence of logic. In fact, I believe those two sentences support my argument. We invaded, we bombed, we occupied and, as soon as we relent a little, there are more terrorists than ever. Do you see what I am getting at here? It seems pretty obvious.

Look, its no surprise that the sectarian problems that have existed for over a 1000 years persist in the middle east. If these people could not dig money from just below the surface of the desert sand they'd ALL still be living in the stone age. Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it. That's the way it has ALWAYS been and Im guessing the way it will always be..

I do not believe there is any evidence that suggests, " Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it." However, I do believe there is evidence that suggests it's most extreme beliefs are galvanized by what they see as unwanted influences from outside the region.

Yeah an impending caliphate would certainly seem to suggest your naivete.

They don't seem highly organized to me. The only common cause they ever seem to rally around is their hatred towards us. Their leadership (even those who are "friendly" to us) have always used us as a scapegoat. Why feed it? Do you have a better idea? Do believe that we should permanently occupy the region.

Do you propose spending an unlimited amount of money over an indefinite period of time? That doesn't sound very "conservative". What is the basis of your "impending caliphate"?

No actually on this one the way i see it the ox is already in the ditch and getting him out approaches the impossible. I have never advocated sending troops back to Iraq. I have said, however, unilateral withdrawal was not wise given the history of these people and the region. Now, we are left with no good options. I thnk the region is irretrievably lost with regard to anything remotely resembling stabilization. Under-estimating an adversary, which Obama is guilty of when it comes to ISIS, is one of the first major No-Nos discussed in Sun-Tzu's The Art of War...clearly he skipped that lesson.

So you, John McCain and Sun Tzu don't like Obama and therefore, you are in favor of permanent occupation and spending an unlimited amount of money over an indefinite time period. Is that about right?

I really believe your primary goal is criticizing the President. I don't think you are looking for a practical solution. What would you do right now if you were President.

Straw man much? I dont have a clue what John Mccain thinks but I think his old ass should have retired about 10 years ago. Please show me where I advocated permanent occupation of Iraq...Nevermind we have had over 100,000 troops garrisoned in the defeated Axis Powers countries for 70 years. That seemed to have worked out right well. I cant be held responsible for what you believe and I thank the good Lord above for that. because you seem to actually believe some off the wall s***.

if I was president we wouldn't be in the situation we're in right now. Why are you holding me responsible for correcting barry's mis-calculations?

[icanthearyou 4,468]

"Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish."

I would argue this it is a logical fallacy to assert that American intervention created more terrorists. Do you not realize that terrorism has increased in its activities since we pulled out of Iraq. The surge had Iraq in a relatively peaceful environment...no be headings, mass murders or any terrorist activities. Obama calls ISIS a JV team not worthy of dictating the need for a status of forces agreement that he now tries to blame on Maliki and now a calipahte is a real possibility. This would NOT be happening if we hadn't completely withdrawn.

Presumably, you do realize America has, even still, over 100,000 troops in the 3 defeated Axis Powers countries. That war ended almost 70 years ago. Leaving a sufficient status of forces behind would have prevented the current proliferation of terrorist activity. Im sure you wont agree to that as you've proven adamantly unwilling to move past 2002.

Not surprisingly, we disagree. IMHO, the two sentences in bold represent a total absence of logic. In fact, I believe those two sentences support my argument. We invaded, we bombed, we occupied and, as soon as we relent a little, there are more terrorists than ever. Do you see what I am getting at here? It seems pretty obvious.

Look, its no surprise that the sectarian problems that have existed for over a 1000 years persist in the middle east. If these people could not dig money from just below the surface of the desert sand they'd ALL still be living in the stone age. Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it. That's the way it has ALWAYS been and Im guessing the way it will always be..

I do not believe there is any evidence that suggests, " Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it." However, I do believe there is evidence that suggests it's most extreme beliefs are galvanized by what they see as unwanted influences from outside the region.

Yeah an impending caliphate would certainly seem to suggest your naivete.

They don't seem highly organized to me. The only common cause they ever seem to rally around is their hatred towards us. Their leadership (even those who are "friendly" to us) have always used us as a scapegoat. Why feed it? Do you have a better idea? Do believe that we should permanently occupy the region.

Do you propose spending an unlimited amount of money over an indefinite period of time? That doesn't sound very "conservative". What is the basis of your "impending caliphate"?

No actually on this one the way i see it the ox is already in the ditch and getting him out approaches the impossible. I have never advocated sending troops back to Iraq. I have said, however, unilateral withdrawal was not wise given the history of these people and the region. Now, we are left with no good options. I thnk the region is irretrievably lost with regard to anything remotely resembling stabilization. Under-estimating an adversary, which Obama is guilty of when it comes to ISIS, is one of the first major No-Nos discussed in Sun-Tzu's The Art of War...clearly he skipped that lesson.

So you, John McCain and Sun Tzu don't like Obama and therefore, you are in favor of permanent occupation and spending an unlimited amount of money over an indefinite time period. Is that about right?

I really believe your primary goal is criticizing the President. I don't think you are looking for a practical solution. What would you do right now if you were President.

Straw man much? I dont have a clue what John Mccain thinks but I think his old ass should have retired about 10 years ago. Please show me where I advocated permanent occupation of Iraq...Nevermind we have had over 100,000 troops garrisoned in the defeated Axis Powers countries for 70 years. That seemed to have worked out right well. I cant be held responsible for what you believe and I thank the good Lord above for that. because you seem to actually believe some off the wall s***.

if I was president we wouldn't be in the situation we're in right now. Why are you holding me responsible for correcting barry's mis-calculations?

It's always a "straw man" with you. You don't advocate occupation but, you cite WWII as an example of it's success. You have no practical solution. Once again we are back to your basic theme, barry sux. That there is some deep thinkin. You have wasted your time and mine.

[homersapien 12,172]

"Why keep doing something that has a proven record of failure. Spending all of our military resources, only to create more terrorists who are more motivated, is foolish."

I would argue this it is a logical fallacy to assert that American intervention created more terrorists. Do you not realize that terrorism has increased in its activities since we pulled out of Iraq. The surge had Iraq in a relatively peaceful environment...no be headings, mass murders or any terrorist activities. Obama calls ISIS a JV team not worthy of dictating the need for a status of forces agreement that he now tries to blame on Maliki and now a calipahte is a real possibility. This would NOT be happening if we hadn't completely withdrawn.

Presumably, you do realize America has, even still, over 100,000 troops in the 3 defeated Axis Powers countries. That war ended almost 70 years ago. Leaving a sufficient status of forces behind would have prevented the current proliferation of terrorist activity. Im sure you wont agree to that as you've proven adamantly unwilling to move past 2002.

Not surprisingly, we disagree. IMHO, the two sentences in bold represent a total absence of logic. In fact, I believe those two sentences support my argument. We invaded, we bombed, we occupied and, as soon as we relent a little, there are more terrorists than ever. Do you see what I am getting at here? It seems pretty obvious.

Look, its no surprise that the sectarian problems that have existed for over a 1000 years persist in the middle east. If these people could not dig money from just below the surface of the desert sand they'd ALL still be living in the stone age. Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it. That's the way it has ALWAYS been and Im guessing the way it will always be..

I do not believe there is any evidence that suggests, " Radical Islam has metastisized in the absence of the power to check it." However, I do believe there is evidence that suggests it's most extreme beliefs are galvanized by what they see as unwanted influences from outside the region.

Yeah an impending caliphate would certainly seem to suggest your naivete.

They don't seem highly organized to me. The only common cause they ever seem to rally around is their hatred towards us. Their leadership (even those who are "friendly" to us) have always used us as a scapegoat. Why feed it? Do you have a better idea? Do believe that we should permanently occupy the region.

Do you propose spending an unlimited amount of money over an indefinite period of time? That doesn't sound very "conservative". What is the basis of your "impending caliphate"?

No actually on this one the way i see it the ox is already in the ditch and getting him out approaches the impossible. I have never advocated sending troops back to Iraq. I have said, however, unilateral withdrawal was not wise given the history of these people and the region. Now, we are left with no good options. I thnk the region is irretrievably lost with regard to anything remotely resembling stabilization. Under-estimating an adversary, which Obama is guilty of when it comes to ISIS, is one of the first major No-Nos discussed in Sun-Tzu's The Art of War...clearly he skipped that lesson.

So you, John McCain and Sun Tzu don't like Obama and therefore, you are in favor of permanent occupation and spending an unlimited amount of money over an indefinite time period. Is that about right?

I really believe your primary goal is criticizing the President. I don't think you are looking for a practical solution. What would you do right now if you were President.

Straw man much? I dont have a clue what John Mccain thinks but I think his old ass should have retired about 10 years ago. Please show me where I advocated permanent occupation of Iraq...Nevermind we have had over 100,000 troops garrisoned in the defeated Axis Powers countries for 70 years. That seemed to have worked out right well. I cant be held responsible for what you believe and I thank the good Lord above for that. because you seem to actually believe some off the wall s***.

if I was president we wouldn't be in the situation we're in right now. Why are you holding me responsible for correcting barry's mis-calculations?

You keep saying this as if it's remotely relevant.

Are you suggesting we put several hundred thousand troops in the ME for 70 years? You really think that will solve the problem?