Leon Panetta's Revelations and the Crickets on this board.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Don't worry, I didn't feel a thing.  People often yell.   You tell me, do you experience much success with that approach?

 

I find it depends on when I yell more than anything.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I find it depends on when I yell more than anything.

 

I see.  So it's something you given considerable thought to.   I wish you luck in your efforts.  

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I see.  So it's something you given considerable thought to.   I wish you luck in your efforts.  

 

Terrorists are bad, man.

[twa]

I find it depends on when I yell more than anything.

 

maybe ya should post with caps?

[chipwhich]

Some real lawyering going on is this thread.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Terrorists are bad, man.

 

Yes they are.  Maybe you should yell that so that everybody gets the point.  

 

 

Or are you yelling it now?   I can never tell about these things.

[Predicto]

Some real lawyering going on is this thread.

 

 

And I'll take THAT as a compliment.  

[skinsmarydu]

(In general, I think Obama sees the potential problems with every action and so his approach is to minimize the problems by taking partial actions.  I don't think he's really trying to be everything to everybody, I think he sees most people have some validity to their point.)

Totally agree with you. We can always amp up, don't start at the top and overblow things.

Like my hairdresser says, "we can cut more, but only time gives it back".

I'm cool with slow.

[chipwhich]

Totally agree with you. We can always amp up, don't start at the top and overblow things.

Like my hairdresser says, "we can cut more, but only time gives it back".

I'm cool with slow.

 

Well the good thing about slow is 2 years from now someone can't take care of it for ya.

[twa]

Patience and moderation is a virtue.....unless they are trying to kill you of course.

[Corcaigh]

I don't know who has read these books, but one of the primary point of contention I've seen both Gates and Panetta talk about is Obama's inner circle of advisors, not even so much Obama himself. 

 

It seems that both Obama and GW Bush were not well served by the people they chose to surround them.

[skinsmarydu]

Patience and moderation is a virtue.....unless they are trying to kill you of course.

Even then, with the proper plan, time will always be on your side. (pronoun "your" not specific to a person).

You know, the old Eastwood "improvise, adapt, overcome". It's always worked for me.

I'm assuming for you as well, lol

[twa]

Even then, with the proper plan, time will always be on your side. (pronoun "your" not specific to a person).

You know, the old Eastwood "improvise, adapt, overcome". It's always worked for me.

I'm assuming for you as well, lol

 

especially if they are trying to kill others first......wait, what ?

[PeterMP]

Any terrorists.   When you become the party in power, you are no longer a terrorist.   You are the ruling party.   Why do people resort to terrorism?   They want to cause change.   Sitting peacefully by does not accomplish this.   That's why you have terrorists.   This is not all that hard to understand.   Terrorists will always exist, and the who's specifically or the why's are not nearly as important as the realizations that they will always be there.  

 

Life changed forever in this country on Sept. 11th, 2001.   For many countries, terrorism was a fact of life but not for us.   After that, it became a fact of life and that's not going to change any time soon.   Accept that it is a threat, regardless of who is engaging in it, against us and move on.   The idea that we can simply distance ourselves from it is unrealistic.   It exists and it will be something we have to deal with and plan for from here on out. 

 

That's the point.   There is no alternative for us anymore.   You can agree or disagree but the statement is true. 

 

By that definition Charles Manson is a terrorist.  Again, it is so vague that is uninformative and not practically useful for any conversation.

The nature of the threat, the motivation, and the tactics to fight Charles Manson should be and are different than Al Qeada.

 

Terrorists where here prior to 9/11.  Even Islamic extremists.  That wasn't the first attempt to knock down the WTC.  

 

In fact, I'd say they were more present here, then most other non-Middle Eastern countries even at that time.

 

The only thing that happened on 9/11 is that the terrorists had a really good day.

 

Nothing really changed, and you can see it by how the average Americans goes about living their lives every day.

 

9/11 was not Perl Harbor and you can tell it by the response of the the American public, even the most hawkish/militaristic ones.

 

Now, the biggest issue though is the idea that we can't do something about it- to distance ourselves from it.

 

If you want to talk very broadly/vaguely, to the point that it has no practical value, it is true there is nothing we can do.

 

There are always going to be Charles Mansons.

 

However, if we want to talk about the biggest issue with respect to terrorism currently (which is realistically what you are doing when you talk about that peace in the ME doesn't benefit them), there are things we can do.

 

There is a reason that Islamic extremists try and strike at the US and the IRA, Basque separatists, Algerian "independence fighters", and Jews fighting for the creation of an Israeli state never did.

 

And it is directly related to their perception of our hindrance of them trying to achieve their goals.

 

If we want to Islamic extremists to stop trying to strike in the US, then we should stop trying to hinder their goals with 1/2 measures.

 

If you want to argue that the 9/11 represents some large historically course setting event, like Perl Harbor, then people have to act like it.

 

And that means instituting a draft, drastically altering the US economy, and even being willing to use nuclear weapons.

 

But let's be realistic, those things aren't happening and even the most hawkish Republicans don't want to pay those costs to defeat Islamic extremism.

 

Heck, we don't eve want to hold the Saudi's feet to the fire with respect to their own laws about converting to another religion beyond Islam.

[alexey]

I personally think the reality is that Terrorists aren't going away.   Fight them here or fight them there, the fight is going to be there for a very long time. 

We have to fight them here either way... so our options are:

 

1) fight them here

2) fight them here AND fight them there

 

Economic development is the only solution to all these problems... but everybody knows you get re-elected by giving taxpayer money to your supporters, not some foreign suckers.

[Larry]

Economic development is the only solution to all these problems... but everybody knows you get re-elected by giving taxpayer money to your supporters, not some foreign suckers.

Not at all sure of that.

The impression I have is that a lot of the most dangerous terrorists we have to worry about, are children of wealthy parents, often college educated, often in the West.

[PeterMP]

Not at all sure of that.

The impression I have is that a lot of the most dangerous terrorists we have to worry about, are children of wealthy parents, often college educated, often in the West.

 

There are always going to be people prone to violence.  They are going to "flock" to what ever causes/belief systems that allow for the practice of violence.

 

That isn't going away.

 

With respect to the US national security, the question becomes how can we minimize the effect on the US.

[alexey]

Not at all sure of that.

The impression I have is that a lot of the most dangerous terrorists we have to worry about, are children of wealthy parents, often college educated, often in the West.

Good point. However, I see powerlessness as a key link in the loop there, and I think it diminishes with economic development. I also see a link between terrorist groups and criminality, which also gets reduced as economic development promotes the rule of law.

[Dan T.]

I saw both Leon's Revelations and the Crickets at the first HFestival at RFK. 

[twa]

Good point. However, I see powerlessness as a key link in the loop there, and I think it diminishes with economic development. I also see a link between terrorist groups and criminality, which also gets reduced as economic development promotes the rule of law.

powerlessness pales next to fanaticism....the poor and downtrodden don't rock the boat near as much.

nothing like a true believer in anything to go the extra mile

[MEANDWARF]

Some real lawyering going on is this thread.

 

 

And I'll take THAT as a compliment.  

I need a mint, I just puke a little in my mouth.

[No Excuses]

I'm not sure what people expect from a foreign policy perspective. We destabilized Iraq and it's a **** show. We invaded Afghanistan and the Taliban established themselves in Waziristan, where we are droning the **** out of them.

 

We could have invaded Syria. We can go back to Iraq. All it will do is create power vacuums that will fill up with fundamentalists really quickly.

 

The question we need to ask is what exactly all the countries in the middle east are doing with the billions of dollars of weapons we have sold them. Saudi Arabia spends close to 10% of its GDP on defense. They are ranked #4 overall in total defense spending in the world. The UAE is ranked 15 but spends 5% of its GDP on defense (2nd highest behind Saudi Arabia). Iran and Turkey have well equipped armies as well.

 

If the fear is rise of fundamentalism, this should either be a high priority for a secular country like Turkey or for the a-holes in the Saudi government who already spend a crap ton of money to keep their own crazy Wahhabis in check.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I no nobody is going to like this but this is the reason I felt it was a mistake to withdraw from the Middle East entirely.  It created a power vacuum.   The U.S. was a stabilizing force in the region.   It's done now but that's what I think.

[twa]

If the fear is rise of fundamentalism, this should either be a high priority for a secular country like Turkey or for the a-holes in the Saudi government who already spend a crap ton of money to keep their own crazy Wahhabis in check.

I wouldn't call Turkey exactly secular any longer,and the Sauds use them

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]