Jordanian pilot burned alive

[TedKennedy]

retreating should work out really well for the grandkids. Choosing not to fight them isn't going to make the stop trying to kill us. That's the part you just don't get. if anything 9/11 proves that the terrorists don't need to fight the U.S. military. They want to get at the civilians - you and ME - our military forces, our funding, or weapons and bombs - all of that is keeping them OVER THERE.

Do you really think that if we walked away right now - just pulled everything out right now - that they would suddenly say "Oh, well the U.S. isn't so bad. We should just leave them alone. " - yeah, right.


No, and I didn't imply that.

We can either take the fight to them, or they will bring the fight to us. one way or another, we will be in conflict with them.

So which do you want "for the grandkids" - planes crashing into buildings in the U.S. or U.S. bombs crashing into their forces over in the sand box?

So it's either/or, huh? Which do you think makes it easier for them to attack Americans us being there, or them having to come over here?

 

[TedKennedy]

How do you manage to do that when they're actively recruiting here in America?

Uh, the same way we catch and punish other criminals? Can we do that?

 

[henschman]

our military forces, our funding, or weapons and bombs - all of that is keeping them OVER THERE.

Horseshit... all of that is what is making ever greater numbers of them want to kill Americans.

What really ticks them off is when Americans overthrow their conuntroes' governments and put corrupt foreign puppet regimes in power.

Even in the Muslim world, there are very few people who are willing to go halfway around the world to attack other people just because they are not Muslim. Certainly not enough to recruit and organize the kind of movements we are currently dealing with. Any insurgency requires a certain level of popular support to be effective, which can not be had without some sort of moral claim that is widely accepted. When the U.S. invades their countries, overthrows their countries' governments, or bribes them with massive foreign aid (in either case reducing them to the corrupt puppets of foreigners), it allows these movements to attract the support of enough of the populace that they reach a critical self-sustaining mass, and presents them with a pressing need to act in order to avoid what they see as unacceptable foreign meddling. By taking the position of the meddler and the invader, the US government allows these movements to claim a moral high ground that really resonates with the population, such that the more the US government cracks down on them, the more support the resistance movements attract.

The cycle has to be broken at some point. Unilateral withdrawal of troops and foreign aid, but the promise that any aggression on U.S. soil will be dealt with mercilessly, is the only viable solution. It may indeed lead Americans back into conflict with certain elements in the Muslim world if they choose to aggress, but it will change the dynamic drastically, and will pull a lot of popular support out from under these jihad groups.

 

[SMS]

No, it's not right, and I never suggested that it was.

I said we should be the meanest SOBs around, yet mind our own business. We have done a piss-poor job of that for quite some time. Some think it's too late to extract ourselves from a situation that we not only inserted ourselves into, but largely helped create.

Now folks are ready to send our boys over or our bombs over - now how's that gonna work out for our grandkids? We are giving recruiting ammo to fundamentalists all the time.

As time goes on, I find myself more and more in agreement with this sentiment...

The stcky point is allowing ISIS, ISIL, IS or whatever gain real power by taking control of the region's oil/gas resources. Up until that point, we should be letting the other ME powers handle it.

 

[Biggsly]

Uh, the same way we catch and punish other criminals? Can we do that?

I see what you are saying, but it won't work. Obama will just trade them back for some of his brothers.

 

[Junior Bonner]

Beware of those who clamor to send in ground troops. This is quicksand.

 

[cjjtulsa]

Horseshit... all of that is what is making ever greater numbers of them want to kill Americans.

What really ticks them off is when Americans overthrow their conuntroes' governments and put corrupt foreign puppet regimes in power.

Even in the Muslim world, there are very few people who are willing to go halfway around the world to attack other people just because they are not Muslim. Certainly not enough to recruit and organize the kind of movements we are currently dealing with. Any insurgency requires a certain level of popular support to be effective, which can not be had without some sort of moral claim that is widely accepted. When the U.S. invades their countries, overthrows their countries' governments, or bribes them with massive foreign aid (in either case reducing them to the corrupt puppets of foreigners), it allows these movements to attract the support of enough of the populace that they reach a critical self-sustaining mass, and presents them with a pressing need to act in order to avoid what they see as unacceptable foreign meddling. By taking the position of the meddler and the invader, the US government allows these movements to claim a moral high ground that really resonates with the population, such that the more the US government cracks down on them, the more support the resistance movements attract.

The cycle has to be broken at some point. Unilateral withdrawal of troops and foreign aid, but the promise that any aggression on U.S. soil will be dealt with mercilessly, is the only viable solution. It may indeed lead Americans back into conflict with certain elements in the Muslim world if they choose to aggress, but it will change the dynamic drastically, and will pull a lot of popular support out from under these jihad groups.

Excellent post.

As time goes on, I find myself more and more in agreement with this sentiment...

The stcky point is allowing ISIS, ISIL, IS or whatever gain real power by taking control of the region's oil/gas resources. Up until that point, we should be letting the other ME powers handle it.

And I agree here.

 

[Oklahomabassin]

Horseshit... all of that is what is making ever greater numbers of them want to kill Americans.

What really ticks them off is when Americans overthrow their conuntroes' governments and put corrupt foreign puppet regimes in power.

Even in the Muslim world, there are very few people who are willing to go halfway around the world to attack other people just because they are not Muslim. Certainly not enough to recruit and organize the kind of movements we are currently dealing with. Any insurgency requires a certain level of popular support to be effective, which can not be had without some sort of moral claim that is widely accepted. When the U.S. invades their countries, overthrows their countries' governments, or bribes them with massive foreign aid (in either case reducing them to the corrupt puppets of foreigners), it allows these movements to attract the support of enough of the populace that they reach a critical self-sustaining mass, and presents them with a pressing need to act in order to avoid what they see as unacceptable foreign meddling. By taking the position of the meddler and the invader, the US government allows these movements to claim a moral high ground that really resonates with the population, such that the more the US government cracks down on them, the more support the resistance movements attract.

The cycle has to be broken at some point. Unilateral withdrawal of troops and foreign aid, but the promise that any aggression on U.S. soil will be dealt with mercilessly, is the only viable solution. It may indeed lead Americans back into conflict with certain elements in the Muslim world if they choose to aggress, but it will change the dynamic drastically, and will pull a lot of popular support out from under these jihad groups.

I agree.

 

[Hobbes]

Long interview with Lindsay Graham on CNN yesterday.
He says we need to put 10,000 troops on the ground to defeat ISIS, and we also have to topple Assad from power or we are "wasting our time".

Sounded like he wanted to get more seriously involved in Ukraine too.

Neocons are making a lot of noise lately.
I'm surprised anyone even listens to them anymore given their dismal record of failed predictions and promises.

 

[TedKennedy]

I assume Mr. Graham will be leading the troops?

Lots of "patriots" are spoiling for a fight they won't be part of.