Paris attacks

[Ten oz]

I already answered your first question, that handling an internal criminal you have your own law enforcement community to help you, where as handing a criminal that is outside your borders, you have to get agreement with the other place's law enforcement, violate their sovereignty, declare war, or "let it go".

The distinction between internal and external is seldom clear as you are describing it. Which category do terrorists like the Tsarnaev brothers, Nidal Hassan, and Mohammed Abdulezeez fall in? Our own law enforcement is the front line vs all terrorism regardless or what label you give it. TSA are our airports, Coast Guard in our Harbors, Local PD in our neighborhoods, and etc. The preverbial "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" often fails on two fronts: who "them" are is tends to be poorly defined and prejudical actions often create sympathizers.

 

 

TARbesides, if the KKK is like ISIL in this example, then the Sunni's are like the Republican party and Maliki is like ObamaHow closely would you like to conflate the two issues?

Why the KKK and republicans? How about narco-terrorism vs Islamic terrorism? Lost of people killed on the streets of the U.S. as part of larger drug cartel battles. Whom shall we invade to deal with the violence? Edited November 30, 2015 by Ten oz

[tar]

Overtone,

 

There are facts and then there are the ways facts are interpreted and disagreements on the causes and in some cases we still not knowing all the causes and facts associated with a situation. We do not ever know everything that is going on, who is trying to gain our support and who is playing us for a fool. As individuals and as leaders. Even with our 20-20 hindsight the view can differ depending on which part of the scene you are concentrating on.

Two ways we differ. Not on the facts, but on the interpretation of those facts. What they mean and how they should inform our current decisions.

Children died during the sanctions. Fact. Bush and Cheney killed them. Overtone’s interpretation. Tar’s interpretation. Saddam killed them by not acting in the way the sanctions were in place to force him to act, and by bringing in other than food for his children when he was given the chance to bring in food, not giving rations to areas that held his political enemies, and for not telling his people to feed their children before they fed themselves. It .was to Saddam’s political advantage to have children die. So people like you, Overtone would lift the sanctions. Holding them for ransom. Like ISIL does when they kidnap someone and ask their parents to pay a huge ransom. Our government does not allow it. Our government still does not allow it. We don’t pay ransom to terrorists. The kid gets his head chopped off and its Obama’s fault, but you still say it’s Bush and Cheney’s fault. Really? Who has the blinders on?

We are not in an election cycle. Bush already lost. Obama has been in charge of the situation. The mistakes that have been made, the good decisions that have been made, the stance that America has taken on each issue and at each point was my decision, your decision, America’s decision. It is not a Republican or Democrat thing. We vote these people in. And we vote the congress in as well, and the congress and the president and our diplomatic corp and our CIA and our military decide on how best to protect us and our interests, and our citizens at home and around the world. Your simplistic Republicans are bad, Democrats are good, is not helpful. The situation is much more complex than that and open to various interpretations.

 

Regards, TAR

Ten Oz,

 

Why indeed. Why not go after gangs and drug lords and research the causes of suicide and try to solve the economic issues, and make it easy for people to start businesses and help each other out in making a living.

 

Why blame it on Republicans.

 

Besides, we are talking about Paris, how they should respond and how we can help. We have a common enemy and its not the Republicans. And it is not me. Any reading comprehension issues I might have are not really important. What is important is whether or not we are united in defeating ISIL and how best to go about doing such without causing a war between Russia and NATO, while at the same time helping Syria return to normalcy (which I hope means girls can wear short shirts.) Along with my reading comprehension problem I have this thing where a get a fairly nice dopamine fix when I see a pretty female shape. I would rather young boys get their dopamine fix by girl watching, than by stoning and whipping and cutting off heads, having slave wives, shooting people and cleansing the world of me.

 

Regards, TAR

Well we are in an election cycle, but the argument to remove somebody that is not handling international affairs well, in this case would be to have a commander in chief other than our current one, if currently we are doing it wrong.

http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/seven-roles-one-president

Edited November 30, 2015 by tar

[Willie71]

I have not assigned motivations to you, then - we are agreed. So you will not post that any more. You don't know when or where that happened.

You do not see the same set of facts at all. You deny facts, and substitute imaginary situations and events.

1) A Shiite massacre occurred as a result of the US invasion. Actual events carry more weight, with me, than stuff your imagination thinks might have happened if the world were a different place.

2) The US invasion was not motivated by a desire to prevent an imminent massacre of any Iraqis (or even lift the sanctions, which were killing Iraqi children by the tens of thousands. And it was a horrible disaster for everyone involved except the Iranians and maybe the Kurds. So it was a mistake, even if it prevented some alternative universe where bad things we weren't considering happened. Imaginary alternative universes do not justify avoidable disasters caused by bad things done for bad reasons in this one. We should stop doing bad, wrong, evil, ignorant, and self-destructive things - agreed? That requires understanding what we've been doing. How else do you propose to avoid repeating mistakes of the past?

 

If, say, you live in some bubblefantasy where Obama's troop withdrawal in Iraq led to the Paris bombings by allowing the formation of ISIL, you are badly crippled in any efforts to do anything in the real world.

There may be no "solution" - W&Cheney's administration may have created a disaster we can't realistically do anything about right now. Also, there may easily be no solution that includes giving political power to the faction currently in control of the Republican Party in the US - to that or any other major problem the US faces as a country and a people.

 

That means we should not allow the current Republican Party to avoid accountability for the bad things it has done and is doing. Because if we do, we make it easier for those using it as their political force to do even more, gain even more power, etc.

This is bigger than W and Cheney. It goes back to the Cold War, but W and Cheney certainly threw gasoline on that fire.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmbkoiI5IYg

Edited November 30, 2015 by Willie71

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,Why indeed. Why not go after gangs and drug lords and research the causes of suicide and try to solve the economic issues, and make it easy for people to start businesses and help each other out in making a living.Why blame it on Republicans.Besides, we are talking about Paris, how they should respond and how we can help. We have a common enemy and its not the Republicans. And it is not me. Any reading comprehension issues I might have are not really important. What is important is whether or not we are united in defeating ISIL and how best to go about doing such without causing a war between Russia and NATO,

This is about Paris and how we all should respond; ironically the French were against the U.S. led invasion of Iraq which played a role in destabilizing the region which is partly responsible for ISIL.

Look at the average age of an ISIL member/supporter. Many were merely young boys when 9/11 happened. We went hard at Al Quada and the Taliban and accomplished little. A whole generation raised during our prosecution of the war on terror grew up and became ISIL. Obviously something something we are doing doesn't work.

As for not causing war with Russia....isn't that part of the foundation for all this as well? The U.S. giving the Taliban and Al Quada money, weapons, and training over our concerns about the Soviet Union. One reaction to perceived threat creating endless negative outcomes that perpetuate more threats. Do you believe this finishes in Syria? That ISIL is the last head of the Hydra?

 

while at the same time helping Syria return to normalcy (which I hope means girls can wear short shirts.) Along with my reading comprehension problem I have this thing where a get a fairly nice dopamine fix when I see a pretty female shape. I would rather young boys get their dopamine fix by girl watching, than by stoning and whipping and cutting off heads, having slave wives, shooting people and cleansing the world of me.Regards, TAR

Well, we have many more countries to invade than Syria to rid the world of masaginistic violence and abuse against women.

 

You ignored the challange to you rather black and white external vs internal responses to threats. Replace Islamic terror with Drugs. Many organizations external to the United States are directly responsible for the flow of drugs and associated violence in the United States. Far more U.S. citizens die as a result of drug related crime than Islamic Terror. Yet we do not invade countries in an attempt to destory these external organizations. We primarily prosecute the war on drugs with domestic law enforcement assets and even with that a healthy percentage of the country feels we go too far.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

Well actually we did try and fight the cartels in central America. And we are actually sensitive to the drugs that come across our border with Mexico.

 

But this world domination thing that some blame the U.S. for, and this requirement to be the policeman of the world that some demand, are two aspects of our personality.

 

We can be moral leaders, but not without a specific set of moral standards. And not without choosing the winners and losers.

 

Let's say we know everything that went down, who was supporting who, and so on...we still get situations like the Ukraine, with some leaning toward the West and some leaning toward Mother Russia.

 

I happen to live in the West. I happen to live in the U.S.. We already fought the crusades, we already fought the revolution and the civil war and two world wars and the Korean War and Vietnam and Iraq and so on. In Cambodia the Khmer Rouge, in Viet Nam the Viet Cong. The French made that mess. Or was it the Communists? Should we have fought the Soviet Union or let her take Afghanistan?

 

I am thinking we are all to blame. I am thinking we all want to see the world go a certain way. I worked for a Japanese company for 26 years even though she bombed Pearl Harbor and I dropped two atomic weapons on her. The world is the way it is, because at each point we do the right thing. That means everybody has the responsibility to do the right thing tomorrow. Not yesterday. That is past. Not next year, that is too late. Now.

 

What do you suggest is the right thing to do, now.

 

Regards, TAR

My dad is a strong democrat. He lost the full use of his left hand to a German Machine gun bullet during the battle of the Bulge.

I am a registered Republican with liberal leanings, an Atheist raised Presbyterian that spent two years of my life protecting West Germany from Soviet tank invasion. I saw my flag getting burned and trod upon by 6 or 7 Iranians, at a festival on the streets of Kaiserslaughtern, during the hostage crisis. I have friends, like everybody else has friends, that are religious, non-religious, democrat and republican, rich and poor, from all over the world, with all different backgrounds.

 

The world is our place. We are all responsible. What do we do about ISIL?

If those young men and woman were your sons and daughters, what would you do, what would you say?

 

Come home, or fight jihad and kill everybody that is not Muslim?

What kind of sense does killing everybody that is not Muslim make?

Only works in 6th century Arabia. After that, and in other places, we have to use different standards of excellence.

Edited November 30, 2015 by tar

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,Well actually we did try and fight the cartels in central America. And we are actually sensitive to the drugs that come across our border with Mexico.

That is sort of my point; none of it worked. The war on drugs accomplished little and today we take more of a domestic enforcement approach. Drugs may be external but we are realizing over time it is better dealt with internally. Which is an example of why your dichotomy isn't accurate.

 

But this world domination thing that some blame the U.S. for, and this requirement to be the policeman of the world that some demand, are two aspects of our personality.We can be moral leaders, but not without a specific set of moral standards. And not without choosing the winners and losers.Let's say we know everything that went down, who was supporting who, and so on...we still get situations like the Ukraine, with some leaning toward the West and some leaning toward Mother Russia.I happen to live in the West. I happen to live in the U.S.. We already fought the crusades, we already fought the revolution and the civil war and two world wars and the Korean War and Vietnam and Iraq and so on. In Cambodia the Khmer Rouge, in Viet Nam the Viet Cong. The French made that mess. Or was it the Communists? Should we have fought the Soviet Union or let her take Afghanistan?I am thinking we are all to blame. I am thinking we all want to see the world go a certain way. I worked for a Japanese company for 26 years even though she bombed Pearl Harbor and I dropped two atomic weapons on her. The world is the way it is, because at each point we do the right thing. That means everybody has the responsibility to do the right thing tomorrow. Not yesterday. That is past. Not next year, that is too late. Now.What do you suggest is the right thing to do, now.Regards, TAR

ISIL is part of the War on Terror we leaped into post 9/11 and not some new affirmation of evil in the world. We did not conquer Al Quada, then conquer Saddam, and now must conquer ISIL. This is part of the same battle and thus far there doesn't to have been any victories. Reflecting upon Iraq in the same terms as we reflect on WW2 is nonsensical. WW2 is concluded while nothing we've engaged in post 9/11 is yet. Afghanastan, Iraq, and Syria are all still day to day.

Should we have let The Soviet Union have Afghanastan? That question assumes only two possible outcomes existed: what we did or the Soviet Union controlling Afghanastan. Many other possibilities existed. Creating one vs the other, this vs that, good vs evil, us vs them, option restricted choices is generally how propaganda works.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

Well Ok. My point is your point and your point mine. But putting the republicans on the evil side of the good vs evil battle is what I am saying one should not do. If learning to make concessions and stop trying to be right, and stop trying t o punish the other for being unjust, is the way out of this mess, then you cannot do it, by ridding the world of religious people, or selfish people or people that hunt, or people that like to gamble, or gay people, or any group. Thinking that the world will be better off once it goes the way you want to see it go, IS the problem. It is not likely to go Athiest until there is nobody left that believes in god. It is not likely to go progressive until there is nobody left that wants to do it the old way. And it is not likely to go the way the top 15 percent think it should go, until the 85 percent are all properly subjugated.

 

I think we are stuck, figuring it out, one crisis at a time. And I have no doubt that the medicine that cures one crisis will be the poison that creates the next, but that seems to be the way it goes.

 

In regards, to this thread, my question stands. What do we do next?

 

Regards, TAR

I was reading about the NOI the other day on Wiki. They spoke about the 5 percent. That the world was broken into the 85% and the top 15%. And of the 15% there was the 10% that ruled over the 85% and the 5% that warned the 85% about the 10%.

 

Tricky business placing yourself in the 5% and making sure you are not in the 10%. Especially hard to know what is going on, if you are in the 84th percentile, unable to discern the 5% from the 10%.

or if the leader of your team is not a black Muslim, you must then either be in the 85% or in the 10% leaving you no choice but to follow the 5% which thinks you should have nothing to do with white devils, so you are out of luck if you are white

Edited November 30, 2015 by tar

[DimaMazin]

 

ISIL is part of the War on Terror we leaped into post 9/11 and not some new affirmation of evil in the world. We did not conquer Al Quada, then conquer Saddam, and now must conquer ISIL. This is part of the same battle and thus far there doesn't to have been any victories. Reflecting upon Iraq in the same terms as we reflect on WW2 is nonsensical. WW2 is concluded while nothing we've engaged in post 9/11 is yet. Afghanastan, Iraq, and Syria are all still day to day.

Should we have let The Soviet Union have Afghanastan? That question assumes only two possible outcomes existed: what we did or the Soviet Union controlling Afghanastan. Many other possibilities existed. Creating one vs the other, this vs that, good vs evil, us vs them, option restricted choices is generally how propaganda works.

If Republicans made mistakes then why Democrats didn't correct them? Why Islamic world doesn't believe Democrats too?

Increasing of population should correspond to scientific development. When it doesn't conform then the population needs a war.

[iNow]

But putting the republicans on the evil side of the good vs evil battle is what I am saying one should not do.

How about just those republicans who spout ignorant nonsense and propose actions that will only make the situation worse? See also: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/30/want-to-help-the-islamic-state-recruit-treat-all-muslims-as-potential-terrorists/

 

Note: It's not just a republican issue, I grant that, but let's avoid false equivalencies since even a brief review of the facts before us immediately reveal that it's MOSTLY a republican issue.

[tar]

iNow,

 

I will not yield that point, until you explain how the Democrats cleaned up the mess the Republicans left 7 years ago. You can't, because we didn't make the right decisions over the last 7 years.

 

Maliki and ISIL grew on Obama's watch.

 

Regards, TAR

People tend to be drawn to the winning side. ISIS has been winning the last two years. They have proven their strength, they are not the JV squad. Turns out we gave Maliki's freshmen squad our Abrams in error. Acting in a way that would not encourage new recruits at this point would be to not let ISIS win.

AND to not entrust our weaponry to anybody but our troops

AND to not fight a proxy war for the Saudis or the Russians or the Iranians, but to fight a proxy war for France and others that share our interests and values. Which may or may not include Turkey, depending on what their values are. After all, they cheered Allakuakbar during the moment of silence, and they according to Putin, are trading with ISIS.

 

""We have every reason to think that the decision to shoot down our plane was dictated by the desire to protect the oil supply lines to Turkish territory," Putin said during a news conference on the fringes of UN climate talks near Paris."

 

So we have to choose which of our principles are the most important to stand behind.

And the fact that Trump says crude and unworkable stuff and the fact that Hillary says stupid and unworkable stuff, does not mean in the least that our decisions are between Democratic and Republican thinking, nor that we should use one part of our brains or the other, or that we should be fearful and strike out, or tolerant and lose the day. We have to protect ourselves against ISIL and we have to do it in such a way as that we win without sacrificing too many of our principles. We have to sacrifice a few though, because we have run out of cheeks to turn.

Edited November 30, 2015 by tar

[John Cuthber]

Maliki and ISIL grew on Obama's watch.

 

Under which recent US governments did (so called) Islamic terrorism not grow?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

 

It would be interesting to "rewind" history and see what would have happened with presidents who were actually Left wing.

[tar]

Putin has caused a lot of recruits from the Caucasus. Maybe some more from Turkey after some of his bombing runs. We know he is targeting people we are allied with and not totally fighting ISIS, but supporting Assad against all the rebels, including ISIS. We may not be able to fly in Syrian skies if we alienate the Russians, who have sophisticated anti aircraft weapons now installed. Terrorists and rebels are sometimes our friends and sometimes our enemies. If we join with Russia to fight ISIS we will have a hard time fighting Assad. So are we to break faith with the people we have encouraged to rebel against Assad, 250,000 lives later, and allow the soviets to reinstall Assad? Are we just to step back and have Russia and Turkey settle their differences? This is not Republican vs Democrat, or Religious vs. secular, or Global vs Anarchist, or Capitalist vs. Communist. It is all of the above, and it is better to frame it as freedom and law and order and civil rights against repression and corruption and totalitarianism, because those are things you can support and that you can defend against, just being a good person.

If my memory serves me correctly there were reports of a major ISIS leader being successfully targeted by coalition planes just .days ahead of the concert shooting in Paris.

 

Often during Bush's term, in the hunt for Bin Laden, it seemed we would find out where he was, but not act, as to not anger Pakistan, or to not activate sleeper cells poised to awaken in such an eventuality as his death by our hands.

 

This reprisal threat is obviously effective in keeping us from acting against ISIS. I am thinking that, like not paying ransom, we should take the hit that might come should we act, and not be afraid to cause more recruits by our actions. If we would be afraid of causing more recruits we would be losers and would have allowed them to win.

 

Better, as others have suggested to attempt to win the hearts and minds, because freedom and law and order and human rights is appealing to everybody, and promise to capture or kill anyone joining up with the anti freedom and law and order and human rights group, of their own free will.

wait...that sounds contradictory. Kill the anti freedom people...that have joined of their own free will.

 

will have to think about that

[overtone]

Why blame it on Republicans.

You mean, why recognize what the Republican Party did and is doing, and hold those responsible to account?

 

Because that is a necessary step in ridding the US of its most serious political problem, and its major obstacle to restoring reasonable government and enjoying the benefits thereof - or at least beginning the recovery and rehab.

 

 

I will not yield that point, until you explain how the Democrats cleaned up the mess the Republicans left 7 years ago. You can't, because we didn't make the right decisions over the last 7 years.

So now the Dems are to blame for the consequences of W&Cheney because they were unable to clean things up, and it's still a mess? Seriously?

 

You must have a very, very high opinion of the Democratic Party, if you expected it to make right the disaster of W&Cheney in a few years - so that failure to completely clean up after that re-elected eight year Republican garbage fire of an administration is somehow a letdown.

 

And that would be true even if the Dems had had actual control of the US government at any time, and could get done what was necessary to accomplish any such cleanup. You apparently expected not only miracle working from Obama, but miracle working in the face of continual and brutal Republican opposition - Republican perfidy and vandalism and intransigence and destruction of all reasonable governmental efforts is apparently your idea of normal life. You take that for granted, as reality, and grade the Dems on how well they deal with it as if it were the weather.

 

Bad weather and Republican trashing of governance are neither of them accountable, or responsible, in your view. They are background, something we must accept as the way things are. That is kind of odd.

 

 

Maliki and ISIL grew on Obama's watch.

They were both creations of W&Cheney, as was the situation in which they could grow, and the onerous restrictions on any US administration's options in dealing with them.

 

 

And the fact that Trump says crude and unworkable stuff and the fact that Hillary says stupid and unworkable stuff, - -

No. What Clinton is saying is more intelligent, and less stupid, than what Trump is saying.

 

Clinton is a rightwing authoritarian with an ass-covering deflection of the US invasion of Iraq, anti-terrorism efforts, drug wars, etc - nobody any lefty or liberal wants to see in the Presidency - but c'mon.

 

The fact that the Republican core voter - the 27% - can't tell the difference between the fantasy base of Trump's rantings and the reality base of Clinton's speeches is a major aspect of the problem the US faces with these people.

 

It's a much bigger threat than ISIL.

Edited November 30, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

I disagree with your take. And 7 years is not a few years, and if the splits in the Iraqi soul could not be sewed up by democrats in 7 years, Bush giving them a chance, does not qualify Bush for your demonization.

 

Besides, if you are not voting for Hilary and you are not voting for Trump, who are you voting for?

 

 

I ask myself the same question. Just wondering what your take is?

 

And what exactly does that have to do with what America should do tomorrow about ISIS and Syria, since Obama is our leader now, and will be still a year from now? What stupidity either sides presidential candidates come up with is not the main problem. Support for the president and helping the president make some very tough calls, is what we have to do right now.

 

How do we help France? How do we address global warming without causing economic hardship? How do we proceed WITH the part of the country you believe are destructive to our future? How do we proceed WITH a third of the world walking around a stone reciting memorized lines from 14 hundred years ago. It is possible. We have been doing it for 1400 years. But I am feeling we can not do it well with ISIS establishing a state that circles the Mediterranean. Too many losers would accrue. Too many lives, too many principles. Far more loses than letting some good ole boys in West Virginia go hunting for deer.

 

Regards, TAR

Overtone,

 

As an aside, the 27% you fear is not the only group that is easily manipulated. The majority of the Democratic electorate are city folks, and not all are in the top 15% of those that vote democrat. In fact 85% are just as vulnerable to propaganda from the left as are the 85% of right leaning folk vulnerable to the propaganda from the right. You act like there are no illiterate democrats .

 

I am afraid that we are stuck with having to trust that the top 15 percent of our nation. Those people with the trust of the people they lead, and the capability to lead will remain trustworthy and capable regardless of the party they align themselves with.

 

Regards, TAR

Sheldon Silver's verdict for instance, does not cause me to devalue anything you have said, or my aunt or my father, just because he is a democrat.

He still had the responsibility to not take bribes. He broke my trust, as well as yours. Our party affiliations don't play into the Paris Attacks, and what we should do now.

Edited November 30, 2015 by tar

[Ten oz]

If Republicans made mistakes then why Democrats didn't correct them? Why Islamic world doesn't believe Democrats too?

Increasing of population should correspond to scientific development. When it doesn't conform then the population needs a war.

What are you and Tar carrying on about? Please provide a the post were I made this about Democrats and Republicans. Both of you are aragruing against points of view I do not hold and at no point in this thread have expressed.

[tar]

Maybe it was a friendly fire incident. But some of your tracer rounds were coming from the same part of the woods, as Overtone's.

Ten Oz,

 

Please don't associate me with DimaMazin. I am not sure what he is talking about most of the time, and couldn't tell you where he is making sense and where he is not. For instance, I would not think any war should be undertaken for population control.

 

Regards, TAR

I would rather you associate me with Overtone. She at least says stuff that my Aunt might say.

[overtone]

And 7 years is not a few years, and if the splits in the Iraqi soul could not be sewed up by democrats in 7 years, Bush giving them a chance, does not qualify Bush for your demonization.

It wasn't a "split in the soul": it was a full scale war with Iraq on the losing side, occupation by a foreign army and the agents of foreign powers, millions of refugees and casualties, the large scale destruction of infrastructure, the removal and destruction of all functioning civilian government, years of incompetent and destructive mismanagement by imposed rulers, and so forth.

 

And W&Cheney launched that war voluntarily; all that damage that will take generations to heal was done for at best mistaken reasons using at best ineffective methods, given the declared goals. The horrors of war were unleashed on the people of Iraq for no good reason, the aftermath managed to no good end. That is a factual description of what took place - agreed and seconded by basically everyone. So that is what you are labeling "demonization" - a simple recounting of historical event, what happened and who did it.

 

And your notion that the Democratic Party in the US is capable of fixing something like that in Iraq in seven years - even if they had had any chance of doing anything given the Republican vandalism of US politics in that time - is very strange. What magical powers do you think they have?

 

 

But I am feeling we can not do it well with ISIS establishing a state that circles the Mediterranean

You may be right. But after W&Cheney got through trashing the place, and the US's capabilities of dealing with it, we might have to step back from what we can no longer do much about, and hope other people with better understanding and less damaged relationships step up.

 

 

Support for the president and helping the president make some very tough calls, is what we have to do right now.

Which brings us to the main obstacle in providing that support and help, for many years now: the Republican Party.

 

Do you at least agree that no one in the current leadership or public representation of the Republican Party should be allowed any influence on the the US response to the Paris attacks? Given their record and public statements.

Edited December 1, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Nobody I associate with says the things DimaMazin says.

Overtone,

 

Well then the vote is 8 billion to one against Bush and Cheney. I still think they did the right thing.

 

Regards, TAR

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,Well Ok. My point is your point and your point mine. But putting the republicans on the evil side of the good vs evil battle is what I am saying one should not do.

What is this? Allow me to summarize our conversation for you:

I referenced massed shootings, planned parenthood attacks, Oklahoma city bombing and etc and asked why Islamic terror demanded such a greater response than other types of terror. Your answer was to create a dichotomy between internal and external threats. I then challanged that by pointing out the terror attacks like Tsarnaev brothers, hasan nidal, and etc were internal Islamic terrorists and also compared your dichotomy against the way we handle the war on drugs. Nothing about Republicans vs democrats in any of my posts.

[tar]

I had hopes, same as Bush, that the Iraqis would have free elections, and the Kurds, and the Sunni and the Shia would govern the place together, free from corruption and reprisal. Pulling out our troops, that were engaged in nation building turned out, not so good.

[overtone]

As an aside, the 27% you fear is not the only group that is easily manipulated.

They are nevertheless the current problem - the group that has in fact been manipulated and pandered to in the establishment of the current Republican Party.

 

In fact 85% are just as vulnerable to propaganda from the left as are the 85% of right leaning folk vulnerable to the propaganda from the right. You act like there are no illiterate democrats .

And you act as if there is equivalent propaganda from "the left", manipulating and organizing people. There is no such thing. There is no "left" version of the rightwing authoritarian propaganda machine currently dominating the US media and political discourse.

 

Maybe there are such vulnerable Dems, in theory. In reality, we've got the 27% Republican core voter, who has been made into a threat to the country, and then everybody else - all kinds of people, not a "side" at all but a public.

 

I had hopes, same as Bush, that the Iraqis would have free elections, and the Kurds, and the Sunni and the Shia would govern the place together, free from corruption and reprisal. Pulling out our troops, that were engaged in nation building turned out, not so good.

Pulling out our troops, as W arranged with Maliki, had nothing to do with it. The place had completely fallen apart by the end of 2004, and our troops - which we were specifically promised would not be doing any "nation building" anyway, and could not have begun to if they had tried - were not forced out by the W/Maliki agreement until years later.

 

As far as your fearless leader's "hopes", W&Cheney had Adnan Chalabi flown in by helicopter to become the new strongman, supposedly temporary until the Iraqis could be educated about democracy and the dangerous leftists excluded (the usual pattern in US-supported violent changes of government). It was the Iraqis who forced the attempt at democracy, partially excluded Chalabi, etc. It turns out they were already registered to vote, even - one of those little details, like the fact that before the invasion Iraqi women had more rights and freedoms than in any US-allied Muslim country in the Middle East, that were somehow not well publicized in the US.

Edited December 1, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

Except that white extremist terrorism is associated with KKK which is associated with the tea party which is associated with republicans which is associated with Bush and Cheney who are associated with me. I took your comments as coming from Overtone's position.

 

Regards, TAR

[overtone]

Are we agreed that no current Republican Party leadership should be allowed to have any influence on the US response to the Paris attacks?

 

Given their record, and their public statements, that is.

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,Except that white extremist terrorism is associated with KKK which is associated with the tea party which is associated with republicans which is associated with Bush and Cheney who are associated with me. I took your comments as coming from Overtone's position.Regards, TAR

I referenced mass shootings in general (even got a bit of a warning from a moderator not to turn the debate into a gun control debate) along with narco terrorism and other various types of terror not associated with Islam. I do not see an obvious connections between what I have posted and the KKK, Tea Party, Republicans, and etc. You are doing something of a bait and switch. I have yet to see you respond directly to much of what I have posted. Rather you are conflating multiple conversations you are having with multiple posters and using various unrelated ideas to string together a singular partisan narrative. It is not fair of you to twist things up to the point we are now having to debate what has already been posted and can be easily reviewed.

[overtone]

Well then the vote is 8 billion to one against Bush and Cheney. I still think they did the right thing.

You still haven't recognized what they did. You deny what they did, call it "demonizing" to describe its horrors and consequences in plain English, and then talk about voting for the next guy with their agenda and their line of bull and representing what they represented.

 

And when it all turns ugly, and the money has disappeared into the offshore banks, and the dead and the ruined pan by on TV, and the refugees need to be fed and sheltered, and nothing works any more, you blame "both sides" and talk about how we all need to work together and give each other the benefit of the doubt.

 

Again: you need to get your facts straight. All the principles in the world will not help if you never know what is happening or who is doing it. Your gullibility is a threat to your neighbors, and a betrayal of everything you claim to value.

 

Let's try an easy one: nobody closely associated with the political faction represented by W&Cheney, their financial support, or their intellectual justifications, should be allowed to have any influence on the US response to the Paris attacks. Agreed?

Edited December 1, 2015 by overtone