|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12632
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | Conjecture Alert: The following is just a theory that has no basis in evidence or media reports. Take it with a grain of salt.
I suspect that Snowden's motivation right now is that he has figured out that Putin's logical end game is to kill him and blame it on the United States. Putin has milked Snowden for all he is worth. Snowden has damaged our relationships with our European allies and with countries like Brazil. His only remaining value to Putin is as a martyr. So Snowden dies mysteriously, Putin points the finger at the United States, and we have no ability to disprove it. Snowden will take the risk of a conviction if he can limit the likely sentence to ten years or so (with a chance of winning if his lawyer can turn the trial into a circus). Breathing free air in 2025 beats wearing a toe tag in 2015. |
I will offer my conjecture here: If Snowden dies mysteriously in Russia, what with recent events and those of the past, I'm not thinking US.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | Conjecture Alert: The following is just a theory that has no basis in evidence or media reports. Take it with a grain of salt.
I suspect that Snowden's motivation right now is that he has figured out that Putin's logical end game is to kill him and blame it on the United States. Putin has milked Snowden for all he is worth. Snowden has damaged our relationships with our European allies and with countries like Brazil. His only remaining value to Putin is as a martyr. So Snowden dies mysteriously, Putin points the finger at the United States, and we have no ability to disprove it. Snowden will take the risk of a conviction if he can limit the likely sentence to ten years or so (with a chance of winning if his lawyer can turn the trial into a circus). Breathing free air in 2025 beats wearing a toe tag in 2015. |
I will offer my conjecture here: If Snowden dies mysteriously in Russia, what with recent events and those of the past, I'm not thinking US. |
Is this the House of Cards thread or am I in the wrong one? 
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29353
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/07/africa/nigeria-boko-haram-isis/index.html
Articles like this make me perplexed on the "solution" to Muslim terrorist groups wanting to hurt US allies and interests.
I'm not saying that sarcastically.
If Boko Haram and ISIS work together towards some meaningful attack against an American ally or interest, what's the proper response?
I like our President's approach. Strategic drones in response (no US casualties) and publicly downplay the terrorist group(s) responsible for attack(s).I think the rope-a-dope stategy is effective in the long run. If American media stopped publishing articles like this and politicians/parties stopped having campaign platforms against Muslim extremism, I think the phenomenon would diminish.
The sole purpose of these organizations is to create excessive combat with us. That's how they recruit.
Just like a crazy person on the street. Do not engage.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ISIS is essentially a death cult. They want a military response from us. In their odd world view, that would be another crusade, and they are all about fighting crusaders. It would be a terrible mistake if we let them provoke us into sending ground troops. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/07/africa/nigeria-boko-haram-isis/index.html
Articles like this make me perplexed on the "solution" to Muslim terrorist groups wanting to hurt US allies and interests.
I'm not saying that sarcastically.
If Boko Haram and ISIS work together towards some meaningful attack against an American ally or interest, what's the proper response?
I like our President's approach. Strategic drones in response (no US casualties) and publicly downplay the terrorist group(s) responsible for attack(s).I think the rope-a-dope stategy is effective in the long run. If American media stopped publishing articles like this and politicians/parties stopped having campaign platforms against Muslim extremism, I think the phenomenon would diminish.
The sole purpose of these organizations is to create excessive combat with us. That's how they recruit.
Just like a crazy person on the street. Do not engage. |
I think it's constructive that you're describing the essence of modern terrorism and what may turn out to be an effective engagement protocol by the U.S. (as to the latter, only time will tell). However, I might add that this perspective fails to inform the reader that this particular brand of asymmetrical conflict has been the status quo in the Middle East during the entirety of the 20th century (and if everyone is being honest, much further back in history across the world).
Contrary to popular opinion, terrorism is not a Muslim issue. It's a regional issue stemming from often incalculable (and always unsustainable, I might further add) power imbalances. As to specific acts, we should be especially mindful not to confuse strategy and tactics in this regard. And frankly, its modern origins in the region made victims of the indigenous people (by and large, individuals who have associated themselves with Islam for a very, very, very long time). The prevailing narrative is a clever and highly-effective contrivance of those with skin in this game and the power to shape the contours of discourse ...
The terrorism "card" (if I can safely use that word) has been used throughout history, but never more disingenuously than it has been by the U.S. and her allies in the past 60 - 70 years. For further reading, I recommend "To Dare and to Conquer: Special Operations and the Destiny of Nations, from Achilles to Al Qaeda" by Leebaert. As to the term's use of late, the ghost of Patrick Henry must be nauseous from all of the grave spinning ...
And as with the issue re: the use of "the race card", the intentional perversion of "terrorism" in the modern era has been nothing more than 1/2 century + of despicable dog whistle politics ... "terrorism" is too often deceptively used to discredit an individual or group, with the underlying intent that the ideas and positions of said individual or group (no matter how legitimate) will be discarded in the reflexive purge that results. It's an old tactic, but a wildly effective one ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanexelent
Retired Number
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
I thought Republicans, Tea Party one's at that, were against new, unnecessary laws?:
| Quote: | State lawmakers in Texas this week held a hearing on a curious new proposal. According to state Sen. Donna Campbell (R), Texas needs a new law to prohibit foreign control of the Alamo – and if you’re thinking this is a foolish effort, trust your instincts. The Texas Tribune reported:
Campell proposed the Protect the Alamo Act in response to a nomination that could make the San Antonio Missions – including the emblematic Alamo – a World Heritage site through the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). A decision is expected to be announced in July. Campbell said that without the law to protect the Alamo, there would be a risk that the Texas General Land Office, which manages the Alamo and surrounding properties, could sell it...
As we discussed a while back, UNESCO decided to grant World Heritage status to the Alamo, giving the Texas historical site the same status as other American treasures such as Independence Hall, the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, and the Statue of Liberty. It would seem like the sort of thing that Texans could be proud of, and which might even help boost tourism in the area.
But it hasn’t quite turned out that way. Almost immediately, conservatives, pushed by the San Antonio Tea Party, began circulating warnings that the United Nations might seize control of the Alamo. The Texas Land Commissioner’s office tried to explain how silly the fears were, but they persisted.
And now legislation based on the paranoia is under consideration in Austin.
Zack Beauchamp added yesterday, “According to the Houston Chronicle, Campbell has admitted that making the Alamo a UNESCO site would not actually involve selling it to the UN. She said in warning, however, that ‘UNESCO starts with UN.’” |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: | | "terrorism" is too often deceptively used to discredit an individual or group, with the underlying intent that the ideas and positions of said individual or group (no matter how legitimate) will be discarded in the reflexive purge that results. It's an old tactic, but a wildly effective one ... |
There is some truth in what you say, to the extent that the "terrorism" label sometimes gets applied to asymmetrical warfare. However, when a group commits a heinous act like 9-11, the Boston Marathon bombing, the recent Paris attacks, and so forth, I have no problem with discarding the "ideas and positions" of that group. Patrick Henry would have no problem with it, either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| vanexelent wrote: | I thought Republicans, Tea Party one's at that, were against new, unnecessary laws?:
| Quote: | | State lawmakers in Texas this week held a hearing on a curious new proposal. According to state Sen. Donna Campbell (R), Texas needs a new law to prohibit foreign control of the Alamo – and if you’re thinking this is a foolish effort, trust your instincts. |
|
Yeah, this got shot down as stupid even by the conservatives here in Texas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | the association wrote: | | "terrorism" is too often deceptively used to discredit an individual or group, with the underlying intent that the ideas and positions of said individual or group (no matter how legitimate) will be discarded in the reflexive purge that results. It's an old tactic, but a wildly effective one ... |
There is some truth in what you say, to the extent that the "terrorism" label sometimes gets applied to asymmetrical warfare. However, when a group commits a heinous act like 9-11, the Boston Marathon bombing, the recent Paris attacks, and so forth, I have no problem with discarding the "ideas and positions" of that group. Patrick Henry would have no problem with it, either. |
Unfortunately, this seems like a worldview overwhelmed by absolutism (which I would always reject).
As to Patrick Henry's tastes, I suspect he would have much more of a philosophical problem with our drone program (and that's just by way of example; there are, of course, seemingly countless other egregious examples of U.S. geopolitical tyranny that I could have used) than he would with the run-of-the-mill "terrorism" tactics and results that you cited above.
You remember, right? The drone program built around high school graduates sitting on Aeron chairs in air-conditioned commercial buildings in Arizona and elsewhere, directing deadly airstrikes in the extrajudicial slaughter of possible enemy combatants (and the occasional wedding party) in the middle of the desert almost 8,000 miles away ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: | | Unfortunately, this seems like a worldview overwhelmed by absolutism (which I would always reject). |
I have no idea what you mean by that. I really don't.
| the association wrote: | | As to Patrick Henry's tastes, I suspect he would have much more of a philosophical problem with our drone program (and that's just by way of example; there are, of course, seemingly countless other egregious examples of U.S. geopolitical tyranny that I could have used) than he would with the run-of-the-mill "terrorism" tactics and results that you cited above. |
9-11 is "run-of-the-mill" terrorism? Good heavens, I hope not.
| the association wrote: | | You remember, right? The drone program built around high school graduates sitting on Aeron chairs in air-conditioned commercial buildings in Arizona and elsewhere, directing deadly airstrikes in the extrajudicial slaughter of possible enemy combatants (and the occasional wedding party) in the middle of the desert almost 8,000 miles away ... |
Personally, I don't have much problem with it. It's a symmetrical response to asymmetrical warfare. I have issues with numerous aspects of our foreign policy toward the Muslim world, especially the Bush-Cheney invasion of Iraq on false pretenses, but I don't have a problem with using drones against terrorist organizations. Yes, we are going to kill some civilians, and we are going to make some mistakes. That sucks. But if that deters us from acting, then the asymmetrical tactics have succeeded. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | the association wrote: | | Unfortunately, this seems like a worldview overwhelmed by absolutism (which I would always reject). |
I have no idea what you mean by that. I really don't.
| the association wrote: | | As to Patrick Henry's tastes, I suspect he would have much more of a philosophical problem with our drone program (and that's just by way of example; there are, of course, seemingly countless other egregious examples of U.S. geopolitical tyranny that I could have used) than he would with the run-of-the-mill "terrorism" tactics and results that you cited above. |
9-11 is "run-of-the-mill" terrorism? Good heavens, I hope not.
| the association wrote: | | You remember, right? The drone program built around high school graduates sitting on Aeron chairs in air-conditioned commercial buildings in Arizona and elsewhere, directing deadly airstrikes in the extrajudicial slaughter of possible enemy combatants (and the occasional wedding party) in the middle of the desert almost 8,000 miles away ... |
Personally, I don't have much problem with it. It's a symmetrical response to asymmetrical warfare. I have issues with numerous aspects of our foreign policy toward the Muslim world, especially the Bush-Cheney invasion of Iraq on false pretenses, but I don't have a problem with using drones against terrorist organizations. Yes, we are going to kill some civilians, and we are going to make some mistakes. That sucks. But if that deters us from acting, then the asymmetrical tactics have succeeded. |
1. Political absolutism is a theory that favors unlimited power being vested in one ruler or a small ruling class. Based on your shared thoughts that I've read here at LG and particularly your comments above, you seem content with the evolving role of the U.S. in world events. Perhaps I'm misreading you, but I don't think so. Therefore, my observation seems to be a reasonable way to describe your particular worldview. And I reject that worldview for myself.
2. I believe that most of the events that you cited earlier are examples of run-of-the-mill (i.e., typical or ordinary) terrorism by the standards of nearly every other nation across the globe. Conflict is unpleasant; that's the entire point. I believe that most of those events were nothing less than heinous affronts to humanity. But unfortunately, that's not saying much because our conduct on the global stage over the past 50 - 60 years is often viewed by the rest of the world similarly.
9/11 was extraordinary in many ways, but I'd venture that 1/5 - 1/4 of the denizens of our planet have seen worse atrocities in their own backyard during their lifetimes ... I understand that you (and others) might find it offensive, but a body count of less than 3,000 people must seem almost trivial in comparison to the vast numbers of civilians that were slaughtered (or disfigured, maimed, crippled, etc.) in Afghanistan and Iraq (and elsewhere during our "war on terror" campaigns) over the past 12 - 13 years. Tragically errant U.S. foreign policy over the past 50 - 60 years, along with all manner of geopolitical shenanigans and treachery (incl. OEF and OIF of late), has resulted in incalculable damage to our global standing. Yes, conflict is unpleasant, but we haven't earned the right to value our dead over theirs quite yet ...
3. "That sucks." ... two words that really get to the heart of the matter, right? I imagine you shrugging your shoulders when I read those nine letters. Obviously, I don't know you personally. But allow me to share with you my simple view vis-a-vis your apparent philosophy of life: I believe your resigned manner of validating brutal atrocities undermines your right to complain (or feign outrage) when similar atrocities materialize on your own doorstep ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12632
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: |
9/11 was extraordinary in many ways, but I'd venture that 1/5 - 1/4 of the denizens of our planet have seen worse atrocities in their own backyard during their lifetimes ... I understand that you (and others) might find it offensive, but a body count of less than 3,000 people must seem almost trivial in comparison to the vast numbers of civilians that were slaughtered (or disfigured, maimed, crippled, etc.) in Afghanistan and Iraq (and elsewhere during our "war on terror" campaigns) over the past 12 - 13 years. Tragically errant U.S. foreign policy over the past 50 - 60 years, along with all manner of geopolitical shenanigans and treachery (incl. OEF and OIF of late), has resulted in incalculable damage to our global standing. Yes, conflict is unpleasant, but we haven't earned the right to value our dead over theirs quite yet ...
|
Quite a powerful paragraph. But Americans, being one of the new kids on the block and with oceans protecting us for so long, don't have the sense of tragedy like what you described. Then there is Joesph, Mao and Pol Pot besides good ol' Adolf who offered such tragedy than Americans cannot begin to comprehend--well at least this one.
I wish I could say that if Americans really knew the effects of our policies over the last, I'll say 50 - 100 years, with say the Shah, or the Contras or with Pinochet to name only a few of the many scores of conflicts we were directly or indirectly involved, they would feel just a little more shame, but I'm afraid most would not.
Let me add, lest there will be someone who says I don't love my country. I do, just as I love my children, but when they are wrong, I tell them as well.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: | | 1. Political absolutism is a theory that favors unlimited power being vested in one ruler or a small ruling class. Based on your shared thoughts that I've read here at LG and particularly your comments above, you seem content with the evolving role of the U.S. in world events. Perhaps I'm misreading you, but I don't think so. Therefore, my observation seems to be a reasonable way to describe your particular worldview. And I reject that worldview for myself. |
Your first sentence has nothing to do with your second sentence, so none of that makes any sense. You seem to have some sort of agenda in play here, but I'm not sure what it is. Anyway, I reject your worldview about my worldview.
| the association wrote: | 2. I believe that most of the events that you cited earlier are examples of run-of-the-mill (i.e., typical or ordinary) terrorism by the standards of nearly every other nation across the globe. Conflict is unpleasant; that's the entire point. I believe that most of those events were nothing less than heinous affronts to humanity. But unfortunately, that's not saying much because our conduct on the global stage over the past 50 - 60 years is often viewed by the rest of the world similarly.
9/11 was extraordinary in many ways, but I'd venture that 1/5 - 1/4 of the denizens of our planet have seen worse atrocities in their own backyard during their lifetimes ... I understand that you (and others) might find it offensive, but a body count of less than 3,000 people must seem almost trivial in comparison to the vast numbers of civilians that were slaughtered (or disfigured, maimed, crippled, etc.) in Afghanistan and Iraq (and elsewhere during our "war on terror" campaigns) over the past 12 - 13 years. Tragically errant U.S. foreign policy over the past 50 - 60 years, along with all manner of geopolitical shenanigans and treachery (incl. OEF and OIF of late), has resulted in incalculable damage to our global standing. Yes, conflict is unpleasant, but we haven't earned the right to value our dead over theirs quite yet ... |
I sort of see where you're coming from, but it seems awfully naïve. From the perspective of the terrorist organizations, one of the justifications for things like 9-11 is "look what you're doing to us." I understand why they would say that, but I'm surprised to see someone else falling for it. We actually try to avoid creating civilian casualties, but that's hard to do when your adversary imbeds within civilian populations. That's one of the aspects of asymmetrical warfare, and this is why drones and the like are a symmetrical response. We are going to minimize civilian casualties, but we cannot eliminate them. Using the imperfection of our response as a justification for terrorist acts is intellectually unsound.
| the association wrote: | | 3. "That sucks." ... two words that really get to the heart of the matter, right? I imagine you shrugging your shoulders when I read those nine letters. Obviously, I don't know you personally. But allow me to share with you my simple view vis-a-vis your apparent philosophy of life: I believe your resigned manner of validating brutal atrocities undermines your right to complain (or feign outrage) when similar atrocities materialize on your own doorstep ... |
Wow, you really are a judgmental person, aren't you? Well, I'll return the favor. You seem highly satisfied with your naïve sense of moral superiority, but in the real world most educated people would laugh at you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | the association wrote: | | 1. Political absolutism is a theory that favors unlimited power being vested in one ruler or a small ruling class. Based on your shared thoughts that I've read here at LG and particularly your comments above, you seem content with the evolving role of the U.S. in world events. Perhaps I'm misreading you, but I don't think so. Therefore, my observation seems to be a reasonable way to describe your particular worldview. And I reject that worldview for myself. |
Your first sentence has nothing to do with your second sentence, so none of that makes any sense. You seem to have some sort of agenda in play here, but I'm not sure what it is. Anyway, I reject your worldview about my worldview.
| the association wrote: | 2. I believe that most of the events that you cited earlier are examples of run-of-the-mill (i.e., typical or ordinary) terrorism by the standards of nearly every other nation across the globe. Conflict is unpleasant; that's the entire point. I believe that most of those events were nothing less than heinous affronts to humanity. But unfortunately, that's not saying much because our conduct on the global stage over the past 50 - 60 years is often viewed by the rest of the world similarly.
9/11 was extraordinary in many ways, but I'd venture that 1/5 - 1/4 of the denizens of our planet have seen worse atrocities in their own backyard during their lifetimes ... I understand that you (and others) might find it offensive, but a body count of less than 3,000 people must seem almost trivial in comparison to the vast numbers of civilians that were slaughtered (or disfigured, maimed, crippled, etc.) in Afghanistan and Iraq (and elsewhere during our "war on terror" campaigns) over the past 12 - 13 years. Tragically errant U.S. foreign policy over the past 50 - 60 years, along with all manner of geopolitical shenanigans and treachery (incl. OEF and OIF of late), has resulted in incalculable damage to our global standing. Yes, conflict is unpleasant, but we haven't earned the right to value our dead over theirs quite yet ... |
I sort of see where you're coming from, but it seems awfully naïve. From the perspective of the terrorist organizations, one of the justifications for things like 9-11 is "look what you're doing to us." I understand why they would say that, but I'm surprised to see someone else falling for it. We actually try to avoid creating civilian casualties, but that's hard to do when your adversary imbeds within civilian populations. That's one of the aspects of asymmetrical warfare, and this is why drones and the like are a symmetrical response. We are going to minimize civilian casualties, but we cannot eliminate them. Using the imperfection of our response as a justification for terrorist acts is intellectually unsound.
| the association wrote: | | 3. "That sucks." ... two words that really get to the heart of the matter, right? I imagine you shrugging your shoulders when I read those nine letters. Obviously, I don't know you personally. But allow me to share with you my simple view vis-a-vis your apparent philosophy of life: I believe your resigned manner of validating brutal atrocities undermines your right to complain (or feign outrage) when similar atrocities materialize on your own doorstep ... |
Wow, you really are a judgmental person, aren't you? Well, I'll return the favor. You seem highly satisfied with your naïve sense of moral superiority, but in the real world most educated people would laugh at you. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | the association wrote: | | 1. Political absolutism is a theory that favors unlimited power being vested in one ruler or a small ruling class. Based on your shared thoughts that I've read here at LG and particularly your comments above, you seem content with the evolving role of the U.S. in world events. Perhaps I'm misreading you, but I don't think so. Therefore, my observation seems to be a reasonable way to describe your particular worldview. And I reject that worldview for myself. |
Your first sentence has nothing to do with your second sentence, so none of that makes any sense. You seem to have some sort of agenda in play here, but I'm not sure what it is. Anyway, I reject your worldview about my worldview.
| the association wrote: | 2. I believe that most of the events that you cited earlier are examples of run-of-the-mill (i.e., typical or ordinary) terrorism by the standards of nearly every other nation across the globe. Conflict is unpleasant; that's the entire point. I believe that most of those events were nothing less than heinous affronts to humanity. But unfortunately, that's not saying much because our conduct on the global stage over the past 50 - 60 years is often viewed by the rest of the world similarly.
9/11 was extraordinary in many ways, but I'd venture that 1/5 - 1/4 of the denizens of our planet have seen worse atrocities in their own backyard during their lifetimes ... I understand that you (and others) might find it offensive, but a body count of less than 3,000 people must seem almost trivial in comparison to the vast numbers of civilians that were slaughtered (or disfigured, maimed, crippled, etc.) in Afghanistan and Iraq (and elsewhere during our "war on terror" campaigns) over the past 12 - 13 years. Tragically errant U.S. foreign policy over the past 50 - 60 years, along with all manner of geopolitical shenanigans and treachery (incl. OEF and OIF of late), has resulted in incalculable damage to our global standing. Yes, conflict is unpleasant, but we haven't earned the right to value our dead over theirs quite yet ... |
I sort of see where you're coming from, but it seems awfully naïve. From the perspective of the terrorist organizations, one of the justifications for things like 9-11 is "look what you're doing to us." I understand why they would say that, but I'm surprised to see someone else falling for it. We actually try to avoid creating civilian casualties, but that's hard to do when your adversary imbeds within civilian populations. That's one of the aspects of asymmetrical warfare, and this is why drones and the like are a symmetrical response. We are going to minimize civilian casualties, but we cannot eliminate them. Using the imperfection of our response as a justification for terrorist acts is intellectually unsound.
| the association wrote: | | 3. "That sucks." ... two words that really get to the heart of the matter, right? I imagine you shrugging your shoulders when I read those nine letters. Obviously, I don't know you personally. But allow me to share with you my simple view vis-a-vis your apparent philosophy of life: I believe your resigned manner of validating brutal atrocities undermines your right to complain (or feign outrage) when similar atrocities materialize on your own doorstep ... |
Wow, you really are a judgmental person, aren't you? Well, I'll return the favor. You seem highly satisfied with your naïve sense of moral superiority, but in the real world most educated people would laugh at you. |
I'm tempted to engage in a pissing match with you by bringing to bear my CV so we can haggle over qualifications; but I'll refrain from doing so for the sake of decorum. Suffice it to say that your time isn't worth mine if you sincerely think "most of the educated people" across the globe agree with your positions vis-a-vis the beneficent role of the U.S. in these kinds of matters, much less her intentions with regard to minimizing loss of life.
Your (apparently) intentionally misinformed position is shared by the bellicose ruling class in exactly two countries. Period, full stop. Care to guess the names of those two countries?
And once that's done, I'm sure we can agree to disagree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KobeRe-Loaded
Franchise Player
Joined: 09 Dec 2003
Posts: 14944
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hilary is an amazing woman.... she lives in her own world. 
_________________
#11/08/16 America became GREAT again
#Avatar-gate |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12632
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Does this reference her presser on her emails? Maybe it was unwise in retrospect (how could she not expect this to be an issue with the scrutiny her husband and Barack have received?), but not really a scandal, at least what we know today.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I find it to be a yawner. She shouldn't have used a private email account, for sure, but this is just electoral politics. Her response has been less than inspiring, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: | | the association wrote: |
9/11 was extraordinary in many ways, but I'd venture that 1/5 - 1/4 of the denizens of our planet have seen worse atrocities in their own backyard during their lifetimes ... I understand that you (and others) might find it offensive, but a body count of less than 3,000 people must seem almost trivial in comparison to the vast numbers of civilians that were slaughtered (or disfigured, maimed, crippled, etc.) in Afghanistan and Iraq (and elsewhere during our "war on terror" campaigns) over the past 12 - 13 years. Tragically errant U.S. foreign policy over the past 50 - 60 years, along with all manner of geopolitical shenanigans and treachery (incl. OEF and OIF of late), has resulted in incalculable damage to our global standing. Yes, conflict is unpleasant, but we haven't earned the right to value our dead over theirs quite yet ...
|
Quite a powerful paragraph. But Americans, being one of the new kids on the block and with oceans protecting us for so long, don't have the sense of tragedy like what you described. Then there is Joesph, Mao and Pol Pot besides good ol' Adolf who offered such tragedy than Americans cannot begin to comprehend--well at least this one.
I wish I could say that if Americans really knew the effects of our policies over the last, I'll say 50 - 100 years, with say the Shah, or the Contras or with Pinochet to name only a few of the many scores of conflicts we were directly or indirectly involved, they would feel just a little more shame, but I'm afraid most would not.
Let me add, lest there will be someone who says I don't love my country. I do, just as I love my children, but when they are wrong, I tell them as well. |
I meant to respond to your contribution earlier ...
Thank you for your thoughts; I found myself nodding my head in the affirmative throughout. I believe our collective perspective has been significantly warped over at least the past five or six decades. And I think our broader political system has been distorted by those who favor a style of statesmanship that appeals to dangerous rounding errors like those who surrounded #43 for far too long, or perhaps to the Gowdy and Cotton brand that's running amok these days ...
And as to your last paragraph, your addendum aligns perfectly with my views on patriotism (though it admittedly feels more and more like fealty these days) and parenting, too.
Thanks again ...
(edit #41 ---> #43)
Last edited by the association on Tue Mar 10, 2015 6:47 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wilt
LG Contributor
Joined: 29 Dec 2002
Posts: 13731
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | I find it to be a yawner. She shouldn't have used a private email account, for sure, but this is just electoral politics. Her response has been less than inspiring, though. |
It gave Chris Matthews an opportunity to talk about email servers for 45 minutes today. At one point there was this exchange:
Guest: "We'll never know what emails she decided to delete."
Matthews: "I'm under the impression that it's all reversible. You can't actually delete email."
Guest: "It could be. I'm no expert."
Embarrassing stuff.
The media needs a competitive race, and they'll do anything to exaggerate every little thing Hillary did. I'm no fan of Hillary, but she's facing a terrible GOP field. And for a while, it looked like it would be a landslide victory. It might still end up being a landslide.
_________________
¡Hala Madrid! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes, there is a whole cottage industry of electronic discovery experts. It is really, really hard to permanently delete e-mail. Many companies have learned this lesson the hard way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67716
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ted Cruz is running for president. I want to see his birth certificate.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You would have to wipe off the syrup. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Buck32
Star Player
Joined: 30 Apr 2001
Posts: 7329
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wonder if there's a Liberty U alumnus on LG? And if there is, if he or she is willing to admit it?
_________________
“Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.”
― Isaac Asimov |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player
Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/07/africa/nigeria-boko-haram-isis/index.html
Articles like this make me perplexed on the "solution" to Muslim terrorist groups wanting to hurt US allies and interests.
I'm not saying that sarcastically.
If Boko Haram and ISIS work together towards some meaningful attack against an American ally or interest, what's the proper response?
I like our President's approach. Strategic drones in response (no US casualties) and publicly downplay the terrorist group(s) responsible for attack(s).I think the rope-a-dope stategy is effective in the long run. If American media stopped publishing articles like this and politicians/parties stopped having campaign platforms against Muslim extremism, I think the phenomenon would diminish.
The sole purpose of these organizations is to create excessive combat with us. That's how they recruit.
Just like a crazy person on the street. Do not engage. |
I think it's constructive that you're describing the essence of modern terrorism and what may turn out to be an effective engagement protocol by the U.S. (as to the latter, only time will tell). However, I might add that this perspective fails to inform the reader that this particular brand of asymmetrical conflict has been the status quo in the Middle East during the entirety of the 20th century (and if everyone is being honest, much further back in history across the world).
Contrary to popular opinion, terrorism is not a Muslim issue. It's a regional issue stemming from often incalculable (and always unsustainable, I might further add) power imbalances. As to specific acts, we should be especially mindful not to confuse strategy and tactics in this regard. And frankly, its modern origins in the region made victims of the indigenous people (by and large, individuals who have associated themselves with Islam for a very, very, very long time). The prevailing narrative is a clever and highly-effective contrivance of those with skin in this game and the power to shape the contours of discourse ...
The terrorism "card" (if I can safely use that word) has been used throughout history, but never more disingenuously than it has been by the U.S. and her allies in the past 60 - 70 years. For further reading, I recommend "To Dare and to Conquer: Special Operations and the Destiny of Nations, from Achilles to Al Qaeda" by Leebaert. As to the term's use of late, the ghost of Patrick Henry must be nauseous from all of the grave spinning ...
And as with the issue re: the use of "the race card", the intentional perversion of "terrorism" in the modern era has been nothing more than 1/2 century + of despicable dog whistle politics ... "terrorism" is too often deceptively used to discredit an individual or group, with the underlying intent that the ideas and positions of said individual or group (no matter how legitimate) will be discarded in the reflexive purge that results. It's an old tactic, but a wildly effective one ... |
Excellent.
_________________
“It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
