No worries, I was using that statement to make a point. Though I did think the rich kids suffering from Affluenza were the people in the tower, not Bin Laden. Thanks for clearing that up.
Paleocon wrote:If your answer to any of the above is "yes", you and I have a fundamental difference of principle and are not likely to agree on what it means to be American.
I welcome the refugees. I stand opposed to those who want to do us harm (please don't put words in my mouth. I mean this statement very specifically).
I was speaking on the strategic level, not the political level.
Paleocon, I am sorry if I missed it, but what is your desired policy to deal with ISIL?
Nice try a the deflection. Let's try this again.
Where is the appeasement?
sometimesdee wrote:Please spell trout for us.
T-R-O-U-T. Trout.
LOL. Damn iPad
Where is the appeasement?
I'm assuming (even with the chance of being an ass and u ming-ing me) that the decision to not send in ground troops and reclaim land that ISIL/ISIS/Daesh has claimed as part of their caliphate is the appeasement. We are 'letting' them take lands that were part of other nations, so it sort-of fits. I don't think I agree, I tend to think of appeasement as actively working to deescalate conflict from aggressive actions, not the mostly passive bombing campaigns and rallying we are doing. It's a far cry from storming the beaches of Normandy, but it's hardly accepting ISIL's status quo, either.
I don't think I agree, I tend to think of appeasement as actively working to deescalate conflict from aggressive actions, not the mostly passive bombing campaigns and rallying we are doing.
I've never heard dropping a bomb on someone described as "passive" before.
Speaking of bombs, apparently we're in danger of running out of them (and Hellfire missiles) because we've dropped or fired 20,000 of them on or at ISIS over the past 15 months.
Atras wrote:I don't think I agree, I tend to think of appeasement as actively working to deescalate conflict from aggressive actions, not the mostly passive bombing campaigns and rallying we are doing.
I've never heard dropping a bomb on someone described as "passive" before.
Speaking of bombs, apparently we're in danger of running out of them (and Hellfire missiles) because we've dropped or fired 20,000 of them on or at ISIS over the past 15 months.
The museum of passive resistance to Hitler.
We are witnessing the early days of appeasement and containment. ISIL has clearly stated their goals. Unconditional war is inevitable.
History is repeating itself. Look at the run up to WWII. There was a lot of hand wringing about how Germany was treated after WWI and how the victors created the problem. The issue with this thinking it is that ignored Germany's stated goals. Half of Europe was wrecked before reality set in.
Is the red line really Turkey?
You compare ISIL to WWII Germany, but I don't think they're remotely comparable. ISIL is no Germany.
I was speaking on the strategic level, not the political level.
On the strategic level, ISIL wants us to invade. They want us to spend more lives and resources. They want us to shut our borders and persecute Muslims worldwide. Obama may not have a clear, effective strategy. I'm not sure one exists honestly. But it seems like the strategy of most of the Republican candidates is to jump headfirst into an obvious trap.
Greg wrote:I was speaking on the strategic level, not the political level.
On the strategic level, ISIL wants us to invade. They want us to spend more lives and resources. They want us to shut our borders and persecute Muslims worldwide. Obama may not have a clear, effective strategy. I'm not sure one exists honestly. But it seems like the strategy of most of the Republican candidates is to jump headfirst into an obvious trap.
Knowing there's a trap is the first step in evading it? Except when spoken by the Duke Leto, he meant getting around that trap and turning it to your advantage... some of the GOP candidates seem dead set on just planting their foot right on the plate trigger and seeing if the trap will spring.
Greg wrote:I was speaking on the strategic level, not the political level.
On the strategic level, ISIL wants us to invade. They want us to spend more lives and resources. They want us to shut our borders and persecute Muslims worldwide. Obama may not have a clear, effective strategy. I'm not sure one exists honestly. But it seems like the strategy of most of the Republican candidates is to jump headfirst into an obvious trap.
Our idiot of a just-removed Prime Minister was recently urging everyone to put boots on the ground. Thankfully our new leader was one of those urging Obama to keep out of it.
I can't speak for internal politics elsewhere, but in the US it seems the Right (or their presidential candidates anyway) is all for appeasement of ISIL and giving them exactly what they want.
Still waiting for clarification from Greg. Until then, we probably won't get anywhere on this train of thought.
Pages