"Doesn't sound very tough to me"

[2quills]

"Apparently they're afraid of widows and orphans entering into the United States of America."...he said.

Meanwhile, in California we have new mothers building pipe bombs and engaging in suicidal murder sprees against our citizens.

You do realize they're contained, right?

 

[darthtang aw]

To combat terrorism there is no such thing as containment. It can not be done. The only thing that can be chosen is what region it takes place in. And even that I do not think will affect things anymore. We took our eye off the ball because we are a weak population of citizens.

 

[snakeblitz33]

Well, the US and many other countries are now experiencing blowback from 50+ years of interventions in the middle East. If you bomb and invade those countries long enough, you are no longer helping them liberate themselves. Unfortunately, a stable dictatorship is sometimes better then a fragile republic.

With the world connected more than ever, through airplanes and better ships and so on, there is no doubt that terrorism will be a global and pervasive force in this world. You can not kill an ideology.

 

[MarkShimala]

Well, the US and many other countries are now experiencing blowback from 50+ years of interventions in the middle East. If you bomb and invade those countries long enough, you are no longer helping them liberate themselves. Unfortunately, a stable dictatorship is sometimes better then a fragile republic.

With the world connected more than ever, through airplanes and better ships and so on, there is no doubt that terrorism will be a global and pervasive force in this world. You can not kill an ideology.

I have to agree with you. Look at how Iraq was when Hussein was alive and in control......look at it now. I served a combat tour there and you couldnt tell a terrorist from a peanut. They dont have a "look" to them. To me....they were ALL suspicious....man woman and child. I didnt trust a single one of them. I knew one thing.....me and my buddies were going to come home to our families.

Now we have them killing and bombing here on American soil because we have spineless leaders.

 

[2quills]

To combat terrorism there is no such thing as containment. It can not be done. The only thing that can be chosen is what region it takes place in. And even that I do not think will affect things anymore. We took our eye off the ball because we are a weak population of citizens.

I think containment is possible. Eradication, not so much. But if you look at Al Qaeda we did have them pretty well contained and fairly nuetralized until we drew back our forces.

 

[2quills]

Well, the US and many other countries are now experiencing blowback from 50+ years of interventions in the middle East. If you bomb and invade those countries long enough, you are no longer helping them liberate themselves. Unfortunately, a stable dictatorship is sometimes better then a fragile republic.

With the world connected more than ever, through airplanes and better ships and so on, there is no doubt that terrorism will be a global and pervasive force in this world. You can not kill an ideology.

Yeah but let's not forget why we were involved in the first place. To help end the tearany and liberate the non violent people who were looking for a better way to live. And ofcorse to protect our interests in foreign oil which makes people in that region rich because we buy it from them. Believe me, if we wanted to take their oil, we could.

The bombings are simply propoganda used by those who use their own brand of violence against non violent people.

They hate the west, they hate our ideology. They kill other Muslims who don't agree with them and they kill christians in the region who have not bombed them.

So this idea that it's all our fault for getting involved is bs IMO.

 

[2quills]

I have to agree with you. Look at how Iraq was when Hussein was alive and in control......look at it now. I served a combat tour there and you couldnt tell a terrorist from a peanut. They dont have a "look" to them. To me....they were ALL suspicious....man woman and child. I didnt trust a single one of them. I knew one thing.....me and my buddies were going to come home to our families.

Now we have them killing and bombing here on American soil because we have spineless leaders.

I somewhat agree. Hussain, was almost a necessary evil once we pretty much nuetralized him as a threat.

We knew he had wmd's at one point and used them.

But after the first gulf war he really wasn't a threat to us anymore. However, we didn't know that for sure. He kept up this bluff that he could still possibly have them because he didn't want his enemies in the region to realize how weak he had truly become. So he led the world to think he was still dangerous even though he wasnt. And at the time after 9/11 we didn't want to take chances. A lot of Americans felt this way.

 

[beth]

To combat terrorism there is no such thing as containment. It can not be done. The only thing that can be chosen is what region it takes place in. And even that I do not think will affect things anymore. We took our eye off the ball because we are a weak population of citizens.

More like self-serving interference rather than intervention. Free the people my rear-end. Our soldiers died and got wounded for oil domination. Thanks.

 

[2quills]

More like self-serving interference rather than intervention. Free the people my rear-end. Our soldiers died and got wounded for oil domination. Thanks.

Not necessarily. To some degree yes. But the majority of our oil is not imported from the middle east. I know that's probably a big shock to some of the leftists out there but our reason for going back to Iraq was not all about the oil. If it was then we should have been the largest benifactor of middle eastern production. Turns out that China is the one who relies on it the most.

Iraq, was fast becoming a hot bed for terrorist to coalesce around that time. Once we went back to the region we had them fairly well contained in Syria and scattered about in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Then we left and look at Iraq, now. The fragile republic buckled and ran from the fight when it came time to defend themselves because big brother no longer had their back.

 

[beth]

Yep, its not about securing resources for ourselves....that might be unstandable. Its about securing globalization and resources for others.

 

[2quills]

Agreed, Beth.

Main reason we went there the first time was to maintain stability in the region to keep production going. Which keeps the global price of a barrel down, which benefits every nation who depends on oil, not just ourselves.

We're just the ones who spent the most consiquentially.

The second invasion really was about the war on terrorism IMO. And now all of the money we spent and blood of our soldiers has been wasted when we could have left a small security force behind to help maintain the peace in that region.

 

[snakeblitz33]

You have to hand it to the dictators that came to power over there though. They ran their countries cruelly, but the rest of the world didn't have so many problems with terrorism like we do today.

America bombs schools, hospitals, civilian facilities, mosques and so on,... Is it any wonder why those people hate us? Is it so hard to understand why it is so easy to recruit terrorists when US drones kill their parents, brothers and sisters?

Don't say its not about the resources. Those that control the flow of energy, the flow of money, dominate the world. And as an American citizen, I am thankful for it but I also disagree with it.

 

[snakeblitz33]

I'm a libertarian, for the most part. I have both liberal and conservative ideas. I'm a free market capitalist and a small government advocate. Essentially, if you pay attention, you know who I'm voting for in 2016.

 

[2quills]

It always comes down to the resources, Seth. In every war and in virtually every way. From now all the way back to pre history. People fight to control resources. They who hold the resources holds power.

But in the case with the first gulf war it wasn't just our decision. Had we allowed the middle east to fall into chaos back at that time it would have had the power to literally cripple nations economies around the world. Not just ours.

If there's a shortage of resources then those who have them are going to sell them to the highest bidder. That's just the way it goes. Could you imagine what it would be like if prices at the pump rose to over $10 a gallon and what kind of impact that would have on everyone?

I think it's been a huge eye opener to everyone around the world what it means to be dependent on those types of recourses.

What should we have done?

 

[snakeblitz33]

In a free market society, the supply meets the demand and matches the price that people will pay for it.

You said it yourself, earlier, that the US produces most of its own energy and that oil from the middle East is technically unnecessary.... Therefore, why is it our fight? If the Chinese are the largest buyers for middle East oil, then let the middle East supply the resource at a price that the Chinese can pay.

The problem is that the US holds roughly 42% of the world's monetary reserves, and most international trade is done in US dollars, so the US has a high stake in fighting these wars.

America is geographically protected from mass invasion, unlike the rest of the world,... And we have a strong economy, which makes us feel like we need to intervene in foreign affairs all the time... But we don't.

Going to countries that have dictatorships for the purpose of "establishing Republics" and giving people "freedom" shouldn't be our business.

 

[2quills]

In a free market society, the supply meets the demand and matches the price that people will pay for it.

You said it yourself, earlier, that the US produces most of its own energy and that oil from the middle East is technically unnecessary.... Therefore, why is it our fight? If the Chinese are the largest buyers for middle East oil, then let the middle East supply the resource at a price that the Chinese can pay.

The problem is that the US holds roughly 42% of the world's monetary reserves, and most international trade is done in US dollars, so the US has a high stake in fighting these wars.

America is geographically protected from mass invasion, unlike the rest of the world,... And we have a strong economy, which makes us feel like we need to intervene in foreign affairs all the time... But we don't.

Going to countries that have dictatorships for the purpose of "establishing Republics" and giving people "freedom" shouldn't be our business.

It's simple.

In a free market society and a free trade world the supply can't always keep up with the demand.

Had the middle east fallen into chaos then the economies in places like China and the rest of Asia and Europ would have came to a screaming hault. Meaning they would have turned to Canada and Latin America to get it.

That means all of them and including us would have been competing to get it. Shooting global prices sky high from the bidding wars.

The ripple effect would have been felt globaly because as much as we would like to be we simply are not energy independent and neither is everyone else.

We could be but it's going to take time. And leftists don't like the idea of tapping our resources because it's harmful to the environment.

When we went into world war 2 we were like 18th in the world's militaries. When we emerged we became #1 with the strongest economy. Once that happened we were forever changed. And our role in the world changed as did our dependancy on foreign resources.

We didn't ask for it. We were attacked by Japan and provoked by a dictator hell bent on taking over the world in Germany.
Had to do something.

Should we allow ISIS to continue to grow and take over the middle east? Then what? What would have happened if we let, Hitler just do his thing?

 

[snakeblitz33]

When supply can't meet demand, the price is raised to match demand or supply. That's how the free market works.

Today, the US has so much extra oil that it is driving the price of oil down. Today at one point it was valued at ~ $24 a barrel. The government is considering letting US oil companies sell it to foreign countries. I think your argument for having to fight for the middle East because of oil is invalid at this point, no offense.

Why, then, are we fighting in the middle East? You can not fight against an ideology. Bombing their cities doesn't make them like us any more then if they bombed our cities.

Republicans want endless war and corporate capitalism, democrats want political correctness, and more socialist programs (on the two very extreme sides of the spectrum). I don't like or agree with either end.

If Hitler was allowed to do his thing, we might not be fighting Muslims.

 

[2quills]

Thanks, Seth.

Perhaps you missed the distinction that I was trying to make between the two gulf wars. The first was about oil and the second one was not.

These large futures of reserves you're talking about that we have today were only marginally existent 25 years ago. And virtual non existing in the 70's. The fears over shortages were pretty real as we had already been through oil crises's in the 70's, one of which included an international embargo. Much has changed since then to cushion oil prices in the event that one of the major producers were to cut off the tap.

I am a conservative person. As are many friends, family members and just people I know in general. I don't know any of them, including myself that actually wants war. But all of them understand the need and the desire for security because there are a lot of crazy people in this world that do a lot of crazy things for any other reason than they are crazy.

What we did to the Japanese peoplr in ww2 was 1000 times worse than anything we've done in the middle east but we don't see them promoting terrorism. Why?

 

[snakeblitz33]

Those who desire security over liberty, deserve neither.

Security of our nation is done by the second amendment. Everyone has a gun, basically. Our soil can not be invaded by an army, but it can be done through liberal policy of multiculturalism and tolerance.

I wasn't around during the 70s and know very little of exactly what happened. Most of my history education is from the 1950s on back. But your right, I'm assuming. Circumstances have changed.

The Japanese are a parliamentary country that generally has a separation of church and state... And has been that way pretty much since the end of WW2. The problem with middle eastern countries is that they often mix religion and government. Just like the Bible has some verses (Deuteronomy 17) in the old testament that discusses killing of non-believers, the Koran also has such speech in it and is often not overlooked as an unnecessary part of their holy book. Their governments are often ruled by Imams, which are religious zelots that dictate fatwas - or religious laws, collectively known as sharia law. If your a Muslim, you believe in the Koran and you abide by Sharia Law.

In America, we have a constitution and freedom of religion and a separation of church and state. We do not have the ability as a country to fight a war against a pervasive, extremist part of a religion that is rooted deeply in one of the most popular religions on Earth.

Muslims are using our laws and our free society to their advantage. They are using political correctness to invade our boarders. They are breeding in large numbers. The thing is, we are so tolerent of people now, that there will not be a single shot fired.... We will simply be bred out over time. Muslims tend to play the long game.

 

[2quills]

There are multiple interpretations and versions of the religions. Extremists tend go focus on one version and one version only. They find what's fits their own ideology and latch onto it. Every religion has had its zealots. And they believe anyone who doesnt believe in what they believe are seen as the enemy. Jews, Christians and Muslims have all had their extremist sects.

But if you look in some of the teachings of Jesus and even Mohamad you'll find messages of tolerance and peace in there as well.

Our security comes from tolerance and our blend of cultures is what makes us unique and a beacon of hope. It's what brought so many great people here looking for a better way. Those who seek to divide us and take away our liberties are the real threat.

That doesn't mean we still don't have to be smart. We are a nation of laws after all. And we can't simply keep ignoring them for political gain or correctness. And we can't be afraid to stand up for ourselves because of people like ISIS who twist the truth while they seek to manipulate the misguided youth.

ISIS, reminds me of my cousin when we were kids.

He was jealous of me and my older cousin because we had a pretty tight relationship. We tried to include him in things and let him hang out with us. But he had a tendency to do dumb stuff that just wasn't cool.

Then he would get jealous and start provoking us to the point we would go after him and make him scream "uncle". We didn't do it because we were evil. We did because he asked for it. Then he would run and hide behind his mom and say how mean and horrible we were to him. Then once we were reprimanded he would snicker to himself and grin as though he was proud for getting us in trouble. But it was only because his mom wasn't around or paying attention to what he was really doing. Eventually as years went on she started to see. And at one point he really crossed the line and we got him good. He didn't mess with us too much after that.

So yeah, sometimes when you're dealing with an immature, twit that just won't grow up. You just have to chase em down and make em cry "uncle".

My .02