Jump to content

beheadings brought to you by the religion of peace


cooltigger21

Recommended Posts

Don't remember reading that recommendation from anyone. What I have seen are two key points:

-- Second, there are conservatively 300m muslims world wide that think Jihad, suicide bombing, etc., a legitimate response to whatever grievances they feel the world has perpetrated against them...not exactly a small, closet group of radicals. I went thru math on this in another post...it's based on the Pew muslim research study...someone else quoted the research in this thread as well. As long as they leave us alone; I could care less what they do...but, when they act directly against us and try to undermine our interests; we should deal with them.

So 300,000 out of 1,600,000,000 is a little less than 2% right?

No, 300,000,000. Read the research..that is using the US Muslim population numbers and ignoring the rest of the Muslim world; which if you used their numbers...you'd get a much higher number. Again, I was being conservative.
Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

As for the rest of your post, yeah, the entire situation is a Cluster F. Obama, to his credit doesn't want to jump into it, but circumstances have dictated that we must.

I think what he is now trying to do is to limit our involvement to whatever extent he can. But I agree with USN. This looks like a Libya re-do. Unless there are enough effective infantry on the ground to take and hold territory, all this bombing is for naught.

Apparently Obama would like to have local countries supply those troops. I have no idea if that is a feasible proposition or not. Regardless, it means we will be fairly heavily involved at least in Iraq on an ongoing basis for the foreseeable future.

We basically have three basic options IMO:

1. Reduce our involvement and avoid further involvement

2. Become involved but rely on foreign ground forces (trained, led or coordinated by the U.S.)

3. Escalate to whatever it takes for a definitive victory (turning territory over to friendly governments)

Those are the three basic categories in which our various options reside. None of them look very good to me. They all have terrific downside possibilities. But as far as I can tell, Obama is resisting his natural inclinations for category #1 in favor of category #2. Whether or not we wind up escalating to #3 depends on the American people which I think is unlikely, at least in the short term.

I think the likely-hood will be we stay at #2 for a long time and if things don't improve with the terrorist threat aspects of this we'll gradually escalate to #3. But it will likely take another 9/11 incident before we go full out.

So what would YOU do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't remember reading that recommendation from anyone. What I have seen are two key points:

-- Second, there are conservatively 300m muslims world wide that think Jihad, suicide bombing, etc., a legitimate response to whatever grievances they feel the world has perpetrated against them...not exactly a small, closet group of radicals. I went thru math on this in another post...it's based on the Pew muslim research study...someone else quoted the research in this thread as well. As long as they leave us alone; I could care less what they do...but, when they act directly against us and try to undermine our interests; we should deal with them.

So 300,000 out of 1,600,000,000 is a little less than 2% right?

No, 300,000,000. Read the research..that is using the US Muslim population numbers and ignoring the rest of the Muslim world; which if you used their numbers...you'd get a much higher number. Again, I was being conservative.

Sorry, I use a capital "M" for millions. 300,000,000 sounds way high to me. Where did that come from again?

Are you talking about this poll?

http://www.islamist-watch.org/blog/2011/09/pew-poll-quantifies-the-radical-minority-of-us

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't remember reading that recommendation from anyone. What I have seen are two key points:

-- Some make the assertion that ISIS is not Islamic (our President the lead cheerleader)...when the facts presented demonstrate that what ISIS'L is trying to put in practice is fundamental Islam as practiced and codified for 1300 years... No one likes to be lied to...FDR never said "the German's are not Nazi's" .... Reagan never said "the Russians are not Soviet's"....Reagan called evil what it was and said "tear down this wall".

Could it be at least possibly true that He meant that ISIS weren't representative of true Islam, just like one of you might say Westboro Baptist church is not Christian meaning they didn't represent true Christianity.

Can you see where that could be a possible interpretation?

No one at Westboro is beheading anyone. Stop with the lame attempts at moral equivalence.

That's a red herring. I am not making a "moral equivalence.

I am making a semantical equivalence. I think your interpretation is just flat out wrong. Obviously so for that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the rest of your post, yeah, the entire situation is a Cluster F. Obama, to his credit doesn't want to jump into it, but circumstances have dictated that we must.

I think what he is now trying to do is to limit our involvement to whatever extent he can. But I agree with USN. This looks like a Libya re-do. Unless there are enough effective infantry on the ground to take and hold territory, all this bombing is for naught.

Apparently Obama would like to have local countries supply those troops. I have no idea if that is a feasible proposition or not. Regardless, it means we will be fairly heavily involved at least in Iraq on an ongoing basis for the foreseeable future.

We basically have three basic options IMO:

1. Reduce our involvement and avoid further involvement

2. Become involved but rely on foreign ground forces (trained, led or coordinated by the U.S.)

3. Escalate to whatever it takes for a definitive victory (turning territory over to friendly governments)

Those are the three basic categories in which our various options reside. None of them look very good to me. They all have terrific downside possibilities. But as far as I can tell, Obama is resisting his natural inclinations for category #1 in favor of category #2. Whether or not we wind up escalating to #3 depends on the American people which I think is unlikely, at least in the short term.

I think the likely-hood will be we stay at #2 for a long time and if things don't improve with the terrorist threat aspects of this we'll gradually escalate to #3. But it will likely take another 9/11 incident before we go full out.

So what would YOU do?

I went to great length about 2 years ago on a Middle East strategy. Don't have enough time tonight to rehash it all tonight. It is fundamentally a US interest based set of policies focused on Energy Independence (an Apollo program for energy), Unequivocal support of Israel, Clear guidelines for the Saudi's and Iranian's on exporting terror (an Ike type approach to these nations). Fun for another day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to great length about 2 years ago on a Middle East strategy. Don't have enough time tonight to rehash it all tonight. It is fundamentally a US interest based set of policies focused on Energy Independence (an Apollo program for energy), Unequivocal support of Israel, Clear guidelines for the Saudi's and Iranian's on exporting terror (an Ike type approach to these nations). Fun for another day.

Actually, pretty reasonable ideas. (Although while I support Israel's right to exist and believe we should defend that right, I can't unequivocally promise to support any particular nation in the future. That would depend upon that nation's future actions.)

Energy independence is a great idea for many reasons, reducing our involvement in the Middle East being one. Unfortunately, U.S. independence will not free the planet from the disproportionate influence and power that oil wields today, and we passed the point where we can safely become complete isolationists many decades ago. Also unfortunately, energy independence cannot free anyone from the threat of WMD's in dangerous hands. Even if oil became worthless, technology now allows relatively poor groups or individuals to threaten us all with catastrophic destruction. So neither energy independence nor a total planetary transition away from an oil-based economy would allow sane people to turn their backs on insanely violent persons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like conservatives are just like liberals: Support the troops but hate the mission.

No, the issue is we don't know what the mission is...

What does it matter? Based on the views of the Islamaphobes here, unless the mission is to kill all muslims en masse, then the mission is a failure...

There isn't enough bullets to do that. I am openly questioning going back in there at all. History has clearly shown that in the ME, unless you actually have a very large occupying force, it quickly leads to a quagmire. The Romans left, the Brits left, etc. We have only made the matter worse IMHO and more blood being spilt wont do us any short-medium term good.

We started the DOEnergy specifically for Energy Independence. It has failed miserably.

We need exactly as was said, an Apollo Program for EI. We need it 41 Years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like conservatives are just like liberals: Support the troops but hate the mission.

No, the issue is we don't know what the mission is...

What does it matter? Based on the views of the Islamaphobes here, unless the mission is to kill all muslims en masse, then the mission is a failure...

There isn't enough bullets to do that. I am openly questioning going back in there at all. History has clearly shown that in the ME, unless you actually have a very large occupying force, it quickly leads to a quagmire. The Romans left, the Brits left, etc. We have only made the matter worse IMHO and more blood being spilt wont do us any short-medium term good.

We started the DOEnergy specifically for Energy Independence. It has failed miserably.

We need exactly as was said, an Apollo Program for EI. We need it 41 Years ago.

we have the resources for energy independence but the environmentalist wwckos have prevented us from accessing them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Energy resources are fungible and the market is global.

Unless you are proposing that we nationalize energy production, "energy independence" is a red herring. .

This is another classic statement that is simply incorrect. Energy independence is a real possibility for America but not as long as Tom Steyer is controlling the left with his money. There is enough known reserves of coal and gas to last a 1000 years at current levels of consumption. Its the politics that prevents not the lack of domestic energy sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Energy resources are fungible and the market is global.

Unless you are proposing that we nationalize energy production, "energy independence" is a red herring. .

This is another classic statement that is simply incorrect. Energy independence is a real possibility for America but not as long as Tom Steyer is controlling the left with his money. There is enough known reserves of coal and gas to last a 1000 years at current levels of consumption. Its the politics that prevents not the lack of domestic energy sources.

We can't use that though. that stuff is going to cause global warming. We have to get rid of that. We have to use solar and wind and green energy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Energy resources are fungible and the market is global.

Unless you are proposing that we nationalize energy production, "energy independence" is a red herring. .

This is another classic statement that is simply incorrect. Energy independence is a real possibility for America but not as long as Tom Steyer is controlling the left with his money. There is enough known reserves of coal and gas to last a 1000 years at current levels of consumption. Its the politics that prevents not the lack of domestic energy sources.

It will ultimately be the physics that prevents us from using that carbon-based energy. This is exactly why there is an emerging movement to dis-invest in the carbon-based fuel industry. Much of their assets will be unusable.

http://www.economist...-fuel-firms-are

excerpt:

...If governments were determined to implement their climate policies, a lot of that carbon would have to be left in the ground, says Carbon Tracker, a non-profit organisation, and the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change, part of the London School of Economics. Their analysis starts by estimating the amount of carbon dioxide that could be put into the atmosphere if global temperatures are not to rise by more than 2°C, the most that climate scientists deem prudent.

The maximum, says the report, is about 1,000 gigatons (GTCO2) between now and 2050. The report calls this the world’s “carbon budget”.

Existing fossil-fuel reserves already contain far more carbon than that. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), in its “World Energy Outlook”, total proven international reserves contain 2,860GTCO2—almost three times the carbon budget. The report refers to the excess as “unburnable carbon”....

Of course, as someone who believes it's all a scientific hoax, you are free to stick your head back in the sand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a hoax....Pure lies of the highest level....You are welcome!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...