I am amused and bemused.
See.. I have a problem responding to this post. I am not sure there is a way for me to respond in which you will be able to see my perspective on this. That said, I will make an effort.
Quote:
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Uhh.. I am not one to support a response with hashtags, likes and the retarded flags on fb profiles, but fighting, here understood as putting Americans in harms way on the ground, should be a last resort and not ...
So because we're too afraid to put US troops in harms way "on the ground" (presumably in some remote location), we put US civilians (or in this case French civilians) in harms way "on their own soil"? What math makes that sensible to you? And before you spout of with this being in response to our actions of the last decade and a half, let me remind you that the 9/11 attacks were far into the planning stages prior to Bush even taking office. Clearly, the causes of these sorts of attacks are not as simplistic as some might suggest. Simply saying "we should leave them alone!" isn't a sufficient course of action IMO.
French civilians are not US responsibility. Period. They never were. They are Hollande's responsibility. If he wants, he can ask US for help, or maybe to incorporate France as 52nd state, or a protectorate of sorts. Hell, how about we annex EU.
The fact that we prance around the world waving our ***** around is the culprit. And the fact that you pre-emptively trying to tie in 9/11 into this is amusing. You do realize that US has been waving its **** for a fair amount of time now, right? Cause and effect, as Gbaji once said.
Why is it not sufficient? Thus far, invading, re-invading, bombing, propping up puppet regimes, training opposition, toppling former puppets did not work. How about we ******* try?
Quote:
Quote:
Come to think of it, we were sold war in Syria hard only few years ago. Thankfully, it did not happen then.
Thankfully for you? Or the hundred something French folks who died last Friday? Because I can virtually guarantee you that had we taken an active role in the Syrian conflict say 3 years ago when it started, those people would all be alive today. Cause and effect.
Yes. It is a cause and effect. I can see you are able to recognize simple patterns now. I am not sure how closely you were following the 'refugee crisis' ( EU-version ), but this is absolutely a result of a retarded refugee policy generated by bureaucrats who seem even less common sense than, say, Orrin Hatch. That policy was not helped by Angela Merkel actually inviting refugees over without any ******* controls in place. It was not helped by pretending there is no problem with the Muslim population in Belgium, England, Germany and France; it was not helped by the PC efforts that hid that they do not assimilate well with the rest of the society. You reap what you sow, eventually.
And last, but not least, France was trying to **** around the way US did. ISIS did not like that. Again, cause and effect. Not our problem.
Small disclaimer here before one of you jumps in defending poor Syrian refugees:
US has two oceans and a relatively decent screening process; do you know what EU had? An unguarded border and member states singing 'nothing is happening!' and yelling 'bad, racist, xenophobic Hungary, bad -- you let them in'.
So yeah, cause and effect. And still no reason to involve US. At all.
Quote:
Quote:
With the recent events and the oh-so-subtle call to arms against our newest bestest enemy ( cuz you know, Saddam is ded, Osama is ded, Putin is hanging by a thread ) ISIS/ISIL/Daesh I cannot help but wonder whether that particular group was allowed to thrive just to garner support for an actual invasion. Nothing sells like an atrocity.
Yes. The question is what is being sold? The Right would respond to such atrocities by going to the source and rooting it out (ie: putting troops on the ground in foreign lands). The Left would respond to such atrocities by decreasing freedoms here at home. More security. Enhanced search powers. Perhaps checkpoints maybe. Both "sides" will do something, the question is which one's actions are aimed at solving the problem, and which one seems to be using it to push a domestic power agenda? I'll answer my own question: The Left uses foreign policy as a tool to push their domestic agenda.
It's why, in the wake of the Benghazi attacks, the solution was to go after the guy who exercised his first amendment right to make an offensive video. Think really hard about that for a moment.
So we are sold Bush war part 3. Great. Lets go on that ride again. We root it out, and then wait for ISIS 2.0 rise from the ashes. Maybe we could try doing something else?
I also loooove how you defined left as ones to push decrease freedoms at home, when it is rather obvious to most casual observer that any freedoms we may have left are becoming a casualty of a perpetual war. So yeah, nice try no cigar.
Both 'sides' can be equally blamed here. And both use it to push their agenda. It is not a new tool either.. Patriot act comes to mind.
Quote:
Quote:
It may be hard to create a thousand year caliphate with most of the world against you.
It's a lot easier when the west's response to your attempts to do so is largely clucking helplessly and wringing their hands, all while arguing how useless it would be to actually take any action against you. Seriously curious: What do you think we should be doing in response to these attacks?
Nothing. We were not attacked. France was. US is not France. France is part of EU. When something changes in that regard, let me know.
Quote:
Quote:
If it was such a resounding success as you claim, the army that was left would be ran over by ISIL the way it was. It was not a success..
Because the "army" was reduced to a number sufficient only to administratively maintain a handful of bases and not actually do anything else. Well, that and failing to actually stop the formation of IS in Syria in the first place. Failing to negotiate a new SOFA in Iraq was one of several key foreign policies mistakes made by the Obama administration.
I am willing to agree here with you, for the most part, here. Of course, were it not for Bush and war started with a false claims of WMDs we probably would not be having this conversation...
Quote:
Quote:
Wait. Do you want to say that US troops should have stayed there indefinitely? What is the end game there? 51st state? If so, say so.
Do you know how long we had US troops and bases in Germany? Japan? Other random spots around the world where we'd previously engaged in warfare? Want to know what they tend to have in common? They didn't collapse 5 years later and become sources of additional violent action against us. I just find the whole notion silly, as if it's unthinkable for us to retain troops and bases in a nation we defeated, even long after a new government has been established. That's "normal". It's what we should do. It's not some strange thing as you suggest.
Oh. And it has a long historical precedent for working. So why talk about it like it's some terrible thing we should be avoiding at all costs?
I am against those as well. US should seriously start rolling down the empire. It costs too much. Do you really think we should not leave Germany or Japan, because it is about to become a source of violent action? I just find the notion silly.
It is not that it is unthinkable, but it is not 'normal' either. It is, however, very American. And silly. And wasteful.
And it is absolutely a strange thing to suggest to put your dic... base in in a sovereign country. Does US have China bases operating on its territory? Why not?
[quote]We still have troops and bases in Germany, Japan, and Italy. When was the last time we were hated and attacked by any of those nations (or from people inside them)? Seriously. Do you even stop and think about this? Or just spout rhetoric you heard without bothering to engage the ol noggin?[/quote]
Please refer to the previous response.
[quote]For the record, Paris is not Obama's responsibility.
The US has been the primary force protecting the west (that includes Europe, which includes France) for the better part of 60 years. I get that they dislike us for this, but the reality is that our willingness to be the big bad bully is what's allowed them to live in a pretty peaceful environment for that time. The US withdrawing from the global stage will upset that. This attack is just one symptom of the effect of our absence.
And that's entirely Obama's choice and fault.[/quote][/quote]
Just because Jared Fogle has been ******* underage girls for x amount of years does not automatically mean that it was the right thing to do. Less offensive example, just because Aztecs practiced live human sacrifice for over 60 years does not mean it was right. Likewise, just because for 60 years US was doing this does not make right either.
For the record, some of those bases were listed by Osama as reasons for being such a ****. Cause and effect.
[quote]France has some of the most draconian laws in EU countries when it comes to surveillance. The fact that they could not, and apparently did not, catch wind of this attack with their new sweeping powers just granted to them after Hebdo attack is nothing but astonishing.[/quote]
It's not. Not to those of us who innately grasp that "more domestic surveillance" is not the answer. Amusing that you went directly to the stock Liberal response of "make ourselves safer with draconian laws at home". You really don't see that this is a problem? You fear the Right's response of military action, but welcome a response that makes you less free? That's... strange.[/quote]
I think you misunderstood me on purpose here. I am not arguing for more surveillance. I am saying you can't whine no fair in a match after you are given superpowers.
[quote]Naturally, now that they have failed, much like after US Boston marathon bombing, intelligence community is going to whine that they need even more. Brennan, Comey and Feinstein are already giving speeches.
Yes. If only there were another option. Like say looking outward rather than inward? But that would look too much like a Bush policy, and we just can't have that, now can we?[/quote]
Was that supposed to be deep or something? I have no idea what that means.
Edit: I am done editing. It is late.
Edited, Nov 19th 2015 8:17pm by angrymnk Edited, Nov 19th 2015 8:19pm by angrymnk Edited, Nov 19th 2015 8:20pm by angrymnk Edited, Nov 19th 2015 8:21pm by angrymnk Edited, Nov 19th 2015 8:24pm by angrymnk Edited, Nov 19th 2015 8:28pm by angrymnk Edited, Nov 19th 2015 8:29pm by angrymnk