Basically, this. The terrorist/ISIS/Islamic Radical playbook has been out in the open for decades. They are playing things textbook and our political ideologues are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.
How do you kill an idea? Especially, one so virulent. Maybe changing the conditions of the people whose minds it infects? Who knows? At this point, eliminating their funding would go a long ways. Not just targeting oil sites, but transitioning from fossil fuel dependence to devalue the source of wealth for the entire region. This would help deal with the many people who funnel money to these groups that our government must know about but doesn't target for political reasons.
Christianity went through reform and became far less violent. It once stoned women for Adultery remember? And for things like apostasy. At some point, reform happened because Christians themselves rejected their own fanatics. Of course back then it was much harder for fanatics to be terrorists with the tools at hand. Today I think something similar has to happen. The solution is that mainstream Islam rejects fanaticism to such a degree that to be fanatical is to be shunned. Groups like ISIS can not exist without tolerance of their extremism. Question is why this anger towards the west exists and how can we address it. Sending more troops in seems to only exacerbate the situation. We've been through this pattern for a very long time: Mujahideen -> Taliban -> Al Qaeda -> ISIS. Each time it's worse and worse. The Mujahideen were in fact our allies and supported by the CIA. You really think about it, extremists aren't coming from radicalized moderates, it's not like people read the Quran and become radicals. It comes from those who have an agenda, prey upon the young and vulnerable and tap into their frustrations about the way the world is and perceived injustices. They use that to brainwash these young people into killing machines. Think about it - all these suicide bombers and jihadists all start young. In the San Bernardino case, it looks like he was radicalized by his own wife - but still he was young and impressionable. I don't think it's enough to change the conditions in Muslim countries, but that is necessary. But look, many of these radicals are born to moderate affluent families. The one thing they have in common is they are vulnerable as many young people are these jihadists know how to find weak people and give them a way to feel important and relevant. Those are the institutions we need to fight against on our side and in these countries. We need to get their gov'ts involved and all around find ways to prevent those who mean to radicalize from doing what they are doing. At the same time we need to reward and strengthen those Muslims who not only speak out against radical Islam, but also do something about it - we have to elevate them into our hero's and the right kind of jihadist. And they would be hero's because they would be putting their lives on the line as they would instantly be targets. We have to celebrate Islam as a world culture and not fear it because Islam isn't our enemy, extremism is. All extremism of any type. And that is something any Muslim can get behind.
If we have learned anything from Iraq and Syria, it's that those regimes are keeping the lid on some powerful social and cultural forces and contradictions that have yet to resolve themselves or reach equilibrium. Yeah, an Islamic Reformation is necessary, but that is gonna be difficult given that powerful third party nations actively involved in the regional political economy serve as convenient boogie men for ideologues seeking power. Islamic moderates/reformers have to do so on terrain much different from Martin Luther, Calvinists, and Shakers. I do think a combination of economic and cultural change in how we in the West relate to Islam is necessary. Material change will disrupt the rather strict hierarchies and inequitable distribution, which is often based on tribe and religious sect. Often, it is because the US has historically supported the local oppressors that make the US a target of these extremists. Even the extremists from families that have benefited from relations with the US tend to see the US/US influence as the target of their reform efforts than their society. And, as you pointed out, venerating "Muslims we like" has to be a part of the strategy. There was a time we could respect an historian like Ibn Khaldun right alongside St. Augustine. We can get there again. We need to make it clear we don't fear Muslims. We fear nut cases.
What's your vision of the endgame Texx? What would the Middle East look like if the US committed ground troops to combat ISIS? Who would be our allies? who would control what ground? what would be your pacification program? how much US treasure are you willing to invest, who would pay the taxes to pay for it? "There are limits to military power," Gen. Raymond Odierno said last week when asked about Trump's plan. "It's about sustainable outcome. And the problem we've had is, we've had outcomes, but they've been only short-term outcomes because we haven't looked at, we haven't properly looked at, the political and economic sides of this. It's got to be all three that come together. And if you don't do that, it's not going to solve the problem." http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/10/politics/donald-trump-fact-check-bomb-oil-fields-iraq/
He refuses to answer that question because he doesn't have a response. He created an entire thread about President Obama's lack of strategy in Syria, but refused to answer multiple pages of posters asking him what his vision for a sound strategy in Syria would be. He'll *snort* pussyfoot around it again like he always does.
And in case he tries to deny it, here's his thread: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=269844 Nearly 8 pages without a coherent answer.
If you had clicked on the "stepped up campaign" article, you would have found that we've been bombing the oil infrastructure since 2014. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...cks-by-u-s-seek-to-foil-islamic-state-repairs The delay in you hearing about this campaign has to do with the media you consume, biased partisans tossing out misrepresentations and lies for the sheep (that would be you) to swallow. No, it shows that you have imposed constraints on your ability to find accurate news. If it doesn't in some way disparage Obama, you ignore it. If it does disparage Obama, you believe it even when 30 seconds of research would give you the actual facts. Yes, almost all of your comments are unacceptable. No, I'm pointing out your penchant for believing bullsh!t artists and then regurgitating that crap without the slightest bit of critical thinking or actual research. bigpuffery's SOP.
Dodge, dodge, dodge. When Gladiato starts a cussin', you know he doesn't have any substance. Tough to have much when you're trying to defend a performance that even Hillary claims isn't winning.
Bullsh!t. Obama tried, repeatedly, to unite the country, only to be slapped in the face (figuratively) by people whose primary goal was to make him a one-term president. The only way he could have united those partisans would have been to change parties after his election.
Yes, dodging is all you do. This sentence was nothing but a way for you to dodge the facts I posted for you. Awwww, did my comment about "bullsh!t artists" get sand in your vagina? Poor bigpuffery. Dodge, deflect, and ignore, the only tactics used by bigpuffery in every single thread. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
NATO says won't send ground troops to fight IS: report http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-nato-idUKKBN0TQ0HU20151207 U.S. Seeks to Avoid Ground War Welcomed by Islamic State http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/08/w...e-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1
I could see how someone with your political leanings might feel that way, but you are mistaken. Do you really think that Obama faced a more hostile congress than Clinton did? Hell Clinton managed to work with the congress that impeached him....Let's not make excuses for Obama, his failures are his own. It's ALWAYS hard to work with an opposition run congress, it requires legitimate compromises to be made, it requires concession at times. Two things this president is simply unwilling to do. I don't know how old you are, but if you are old enough to remember the "IMPEACH CLINTON (and her husband too)" merchandise that you could find all over the place during Clinton's first term you wouldn't be acting like anyone was just picking on Obama. Hell, you don't think that Democrats hated Bush? Like, actual hate. It pretty much comes with the job. Either you find a way to work with an opposition congress (note: that doesn't mean just trying to get them to push your agenda) for the good of the nation, or you stand fast as a hard nosed ideologue and let nothing get done. It's pretty clear what this president picked....even if you agree with him for doing so.
Was there a significant tea party wing of the Republican party during Clinton years? The current Republican party (should probably be called the RINO being lead by the Tea members) have absolutely no interest in compromise or work with Obama on nearly anything. Remember a few things - refuses to raise $1 in tax for ANY amount of deficit reduction; if not for RINO waking up, would lead the nation to default over principle; called POTUS during an address to the nation a liar; stated primary goal is to make Obama a one term President and have done so over the interest of the American people; etcs. You bring up the example of impeachment. They tried once and then they moved on. If that was Obama today pulling that stunt, they would impeach him on a weekly basis. And here is another little fact. The Republican Congress under Clinton actually voted to raise tax, something that would NEVER ever be possible with the tea party led Republican Congress. Pretty much every single member of the Republican party had signed a letter of never to raise a single dime in taxes since Obama took office. That was not the case under Clinton as they did raise tax. There have been many Republican (RINO) that came out and state exactly that the Tea members and the Republican party has poison the political spectrum in their unwillingness to govern. Heck, just look at who is the leading Republican candidate today. That should give you an idea how far the Republican party has fallen off the clip.
They didn't call themselves that but yes. There was a stated primary goal to make Clinton a one term president, they even impeached him and tried to forcibly remove him from office. Perhaps you aren't old enough to remember just how hostile it was. You say that as if that was the only time they suggested impeaching Clinton...perhaps you really are too young to remember. [/QUOTE]And here is another little fact. The Republican Congress under Clinton actually voted to raise tax, something that would NEVER ever be possible with the tea party led Republican Congress. Pretty much every single member of the Republican party had signed a letter of never to raise a single dime in taxes since Obama took office. That was not the case under Clinton as they did raise tax.[/QUOTE] When you actually work with congress, all sorts of things can happen. It sounds an awful lot like you are just trying to make excuses for your guy's failure. Clinton was an exceptional politician, one that we can only wish that Obama was able to live up to. It's probably unfair to compare an ideologue like Obama to a polished politician like Clinton, but since they both held the same office and faced motivated opposition the comparison is going to happen. [/QUOTE]There have been many Republican (RINO) that came out and state exactly that the Tea members and the Republican party has poison the political spectrum in their unwillingness to govern. Heck, just look at who is the leading Republican candidate today. That should give you an idea how far the Republican party has fallen off the clip.[/QUOTE] Again, I think you are probably just too young to remember things properly. The only difference between now and then is that now some Republicans are actually talking about cutting spending a bit instead of just pushing for tax cuts by themselves. You can bring up Trump all you want, but his popularity is a direct result of the people being really angry at politicians failing them. It's a stupid, knee-jerk response that will be short lived. Trump isn't a legitimate candidate but his popularity should show the extent of the divisiveness and the overall failure to get anything done during the Obama years.
When Mitch McConnell says that his #1 priority is to make Obama a one-term president, The Republicans were never going to work with Obama.
The #1 goal of the congress Clinton had to deal with was impeaching him and removing him from office.....yet he still managed. It's just the difference between a skilled politician and a hard nosed ideologue that refuses to make legitimate compromises. All of the excuses in the world won't change that.
Furthermore, when you say "elections have consequences" when your party wins big and you control everything, you have to realize that they still have consequences even after your party loses big and you don't control congress anymore.
