We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Sunday, September 14. 2014
Is this all about yellow journalism? Why the American Public Wants to Strike ISIS
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Yes they are and it's no big mystery and they aren't PR geniuses. It's been known since the Viet Nam era that if you run a "look at the carnage of war" PR campaign the West's politicians will fold pretty quickly. They're just continuing a long tradition. Wait till the bombing starts and the dead civilian (especially women and children) videos will come out. More than likely they'll kill the subjects for the videos themselves.
That's a good question. Many of the violent Islamist groups do want the USA to engage in the fight against them, as it elevates them, and gets other hardcores to enlist to fight, and gives the hardcores lots of excuses to commit atrocities.
That said, we really have two choices: engage or not. If we do not engage, the hardcores will continue to do the hardcore thing, until there is a point when we are forced to fight. Hence, September 11, which occurred because the US, ie, the Clinton admin, didn't take Islamists serious enough. We need to understand that Islamists, whether the violent ones or the non-violent ones, such as CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood, do want to forcibly spread their version of Islam and force compliance. We either take them seriously early or we end up in a situation not of our choosing.
I'm not afeared of 'em neither. But, of "all enemies, foreign and domestic," right this moment it is the domestic ones that concern me most. I'm hoping that it does not come down to us all being behind every blade of grass.
Methinks the terror is far enough away at the moment to not know the fear. If you were in fear of losing your head each and every day an attitude adjustment might be in order.
Perhaps you are not paying attention to their actions, stated intents, and capabilities at present and likely. They are not "jerks and idiots" but well-trained, experienced, ruthless, and determined warriors who are led by able commanders with clear purpose and knowledge of our measures and have taken the measure of Obama et. al. (much of it fed them by our dottering leaders exhibiting public fecklessness).
Bruce, good to see you back, commenting sensible thoughts.
(Formerly Luther, til that wing ankled ass went round the bend a few times too many.)
"Kill them all and the Lord shall know his own."
Does Obama know what he is doing? Is he listening to the right advisers? What are his aims? Is it to eradicate ISIL or is it something more devious and treacherous? Wednesday's speech chilled me, how about you?
We need to tread carefully here. "You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows" and whistling in the wind is “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”
You're not paranoid if they are watching you.
Between the bad leadership of both Bush and Obama we are really in a bad place. Until we stop politicizing the hell out of this, and on both sides we have major concerns.
The only reason to be engaged in the Middle East is the US and EU oil supplies. If ISIS threatens our access to oil, then fight them. If all they do is set up a "caliphate" in the desert, let them alone.
I note that none of our NATO allies nor anyone in the Middle East other than Assad, Shia Iraq and Shia Iran take the threat seriously enough to do anything.
Also, ISIS has financing from Qatar and assistance from Turkey. Shouldn't they be on the target list, too?
I think ISIS is exactly what they claim to be. That is they intend to take over the muslim world and then destroy the non-muslim world. They are disgusting 7th century throwbacks who will use any terror tactic without hesitation or conscience. They will get nukes and they will use them. Mutually assured destruction doesn't scare them because it ispart of their religious prophecy that the world must be destroyed before the 12th Imam can bring about an Islamic world caliphate. If we leave them alone they will nuke someone. Israel; maybe but they are too smart to ignore the threat and too tough to be taken by suprise. Europe; probably, they are weak, unprotected and hated by the twelvers. The U.S.; most certainly, we are considered the biggest barrier to their success. China; not a chance china would kill them all mercilessly. Russia; maybe. So if we leave them alone to build their caliphate they will nuke the West. So that's our choice. Fight them now over their in their homeland or fight them later over here in our homeland. Any other choice is really a decision to fight them over here after they nuke NYCity.
Afraid? No. Greatly concerned? You betcha. Euros will have to decide to spend money for military men and equipment and not for social programs. They may have to forcibly remove their Arabs. The Russkis found Afghanistan too tough for them. The Chinese have the manpower and the ruthlessness, but do they have the knowledge of their enemy and the skills to overcome them? Interesting times a'comin'.
I have always liked the rapid, in-and-out, "oh, sorry, we didn't mean to hit you so hard" response to this neverending string of groups. The american people who disapprove have short attention spans. They complain a lot for a few weeks.
I agree that part of their campaign is to fire up their base and to recruit, but our official responses are gradually pushing us into a corner where we will have to use a "one size fits all weapon".
I hear that ISIS is using oil revenues for funding. Wouldn’t that be the first line of attack. They cannot conjure oil across borders, ergo they must be reliant on pipelines, ports, terminals, or trucking.
I know it is counter intuitive but defensive wars are way more expensive than offensive wars. Think about defending everyone, everywhere 24/7. Then consider the resources it would consume and multiply that exponentially by the lost opportunity costs. No one has the wealth to sustain that indefinitely. In the USA, there are 300+ million soft targets, 10s upon 10s of thousands of public and infrastructure targets, and multiple means of attack (child hostages on school buses, bringing in Ebola, contaminating a reservoir, attacking a nuclear power plant, bridges, LNG tankers . That is why, it might be better to take the battle to the enemy (make then consume their resources), especially the enemies capacity to make war, ala Patton and Sherman.
I’m just a regular Joe, but it appears to me that the Bush administration used a honey pot defense to buy time to build up a security infrastructure.