-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
benjipwns
Banned
It's not downplaying their threat, it's being realistic about their threat.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
I would say improve security and defend the homeland by disrupting their activities in their base of operations.
Is it that unrealistic to imagine a couple of misguided Muslim youths enlisted by ISIS in the US or Europe carrying out an act similar to the Tsarnaev brothers? The odds of any terrorist attack by their own virtue is always going to be low but why should that excuse complacence or a lack of will to pursue those who carry them out?
benjipwns
Banned
Okay, and?
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
and what?
benjipwns
Banned
What makes the almost non-existent and unchangeable risk to American lives from terrorism worth billions in air strikes, a good number of innocents killed and the likelihood of continued anger at further US intervention?
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Sometimes you do what you gotta do.
benjipwns
Banned
We don't have to kill innocents, waste billions and engender anger. We can recognize our limits, stop living in fear of non-threats and focus on more relevant things like eliminating the state entirely.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
I suppose that a philosophical debate. Perhaps in an ideal world things could be that way but realistically we gotta deal with this stuff the way it is.
This is cray.
The best way to encourage people to undertake terrorist activities against the United States is attack them on the pretense that they might undertake terrorist activities against the United States.
Why is it suddenly 2002 again? If we're worried about attacks on America, we should work on our internal security. Or we should get over ourselves since we already invested a ton of effort into a huge and essentially worthless internal security system to fight the last war, and accept that we've demonstrated enough of an irrationally violent reaction to being attacked that it's very unlikely there will be an attack on American soil any time soon. At least that's the one positive legacy Bush left us -- everybody thinks we're totally crazy. But that doesn't mean we have to actually BE CRAZY all the time.
I feel like we literally spent a decade working on this argument. What the hell happened?
STOP MAKING ME AGREE WITH BENJI
FOR THE RECORD I AM PRO THE STATE
benjipwns
Banned
Yeah, but these guys have threatened us and they follow a murderous Islamic ideology!
Ah, the old 'Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the Obama administration' conspiracy theory. Haven't seen that one in a while.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
The war on terror is still ongoing. This is just another phase of it. Why are you both acting like it was over and now it's starting again. Drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, etc. Nothing has changed since 2002 besides the media needing a story to run with.
benjipwns
Banned
The War on Terror is like the War on Drugs (except slightly less inhumane and expensive). It is impossible for us to eliminate the abstract concept of terror, not least because we keep committing acts of terror and it would be politically difficult to drone strike ourselves.
So what is the purpose of this war, besides to justify a never-ending military intervention into every country that isn't Christian in an effort to spread the American way of life across the globe by force?
Because we ALREADY HAD THAT WAR TOO
LIKE TWICE EVEN
And I'm tired of reruns on this level of destruction. Who is the actual, present, imminent threat to the welfare of the United States of America?
Besides Ted Cruz. Who, again, we cannot drone strike, for spin reasons.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Man, the genie is out of the bottle already. The cycle of violence has started and I don't see how it can be stopped at this point. The resentment on all sides runs too deep to change any time soon.
Just the way it is.
benjipwns
Banned
The "war on terror" was never necessary. The bulk of response to 9/11 in the first few months was about almost all that was needed from a "war footing": destabilizing al-Qaeda's bases in Afghanistan and elsewhere, seizing or placing holds on al-Qaeda's global assets and killing a shit load of them. The capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow top ten or twelve operational figures who were captured in the wake of Tora Bora through secret small scale operations (not major bombing campaigns or invasions) are what effectively buried the knife in the immediate operational threat of al-Qaeda.
Everything after that of significant and visible scale just bled us dry and gave their fellow travelers new life.
I don't understand your position here.
First it sounded like you were arguing that we needed to act militarily to defend America.
Now you're saying that it's just inevitable because of the cycle of violence?
That's a very different argument!
Do you actually think we should be intervening militarily (and I mean more than airstrikes) to stop ISIS, or do you just think we're probably going to?
I disagree on both, but for different reasons.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Seems like you guys are caught up on the argument side of things rather than the reality of it all. Sometimes you have to grudgingly accept the world for what it is. ISIS is a tangible threat I know some would disagree but let's just play devil's advocate.
The confrontation has already begun. ISIS is being attacked by US strikes on a daily basis. I don't think they see the difference between being bombed in Iraq or Syria. So to them they are already in battle with us.
The confrontation has already begun. ISIS is being attacked by US strikes on a daily basis. I don't think they see the difference between being bombed in Iraq or Syria. So to them they are already in battle with us.
Now I really have no idea what you're saying.
Some would definitely disagree about ISIS. For example, I disagree about ISIS. This is, like, the entire point I'm making. It's not a tangible threat to us at all. I don't see why you expect me to "play devil's advocate" and just accept that they're a danger to us. Obviously if they were actually a danger to the national security of the United States we'd probably do something about them, but they aren't. So I'm not going to beg the question on the entire issue we're talking about.
That doesn't mean that airstrikes are not a good idea if they would accomplish a practical foreign policy goal. But if they won't, then they're not a good idea. So we should not just airstrike them because we've already started airstriking them and YOLO, we should airstrike them only when it achieves our goals.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
I don't understand what you're saying either. Not every strike has to be a part of some grand foreign policy scheme. Breaking the siege of Mount Sinjar for instance. But regardless of the intention of the strike once it happened ISIS doesn't care why or where they consider it an attack and responded by executing James Foley.
Like I was saying earlier. If the strikes can disrupt ISIS so that other forces like the Kurds can fight them then maybe it's a worthwhile effort. The problem is ISIS is mainly based in Syria so even if you drive them out of Iraq what's stopping them from constantly regrouping there and coming back.
"Stop Dithering, Confront ISIS"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/30/opinion/john-mccain-and-lindsey-graham-confront-isis.html
It's like a nightmare.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/30/opinion/john-mccain-and-lindsey-graham-confront-isis.html
It's like a nightmare.
Joe Molotov
Member
If you remove the semicolon, it sounds like a pretty awesome article.
"John McCain and Lindsey Graham Confront ISIS Now"
I could support that. It could be like The Expendables 4.
"John McCain and Lindsey Graham Confront ISIS Now"
I could support that. It could be like The Expendables 4.
PhoenixDark
Banned
My argument is that airstrikes have limited capacity against stateless actors like ISIS. We can succeed with limited operations, such as protecting a dam or saving people on a mountain, but airstrikes are not going to strike a critical blow to the organization as a whole. If they can't destroy the dam they'll continue their death march elsewhere, for instance. And given the guarantee of collateral damage it would be impossible to take out their leadership.
In short I'm not convinced they can be defeated without some type of ground engagement. They have overrun poorly trained Iraq soldiers but wouldn't be able to handle US or Iran troops. Obviously I don't support US troops on the ground, I'm just arguing that I don't see a way to "defeat" ISIS without ground troops. They aren't like AQ where you can systematically destroy their network and assassinate their leaders across the globe. They're 80k+ barbarians occupying contested land including towns with innocent people involved.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I had a much much longer thing typed but it was going to go in circles. But "they pose no threat to the US" response.
1) ignores us interests in the region
2) american lives in the region
3) safe haven for training
This dismissal of a JV team sounds like the response to bin Ladens declaration of war against the US in 1996. He told us what he wanted to do and had the means. ISIS has done similar things. This is a global jihad for them driven by a perverse interpiration of a religion that sees the middle east as a place for them and their coreligionists and no one else, by penalty of death.(the global lefts constant desire to dismiss this as even a factor and ignore the constant statements of the perpetrators is wilful ignorance).
There's no complete eradication but there must be talk about how we can best tackle it (not always military action mind you) this 'no our problem' is absurd.
1) ignores us interests in the region
2) american lives in the region
3) safe haven for training
This dismissal of a JV team sounds like the response to bin Ladens declaration of war against the US in 1996. He told us what he wanted to do and had the means. ISIS has done similar things. This is a global jihad for them driven by a perverse interpiration of a religion that sees the middle east as a place for them and their coreligionists and no one else, by penalty of death.(the global lefts constant desire to dismiss this as even a factor and ignore the constant statements of the perpetrators is wilful ignorance).
There's no complete eradication but there must be talk about how we can best tackle it (not always military action mind you) this 'no our problem' is absurd.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Now you just seen to mishear what others are calling for. Because what I support isn't really much different than what youre discribing.
I don't hear anyone but neocons calling for eliminating ISIS from their air. You're right. Its not going to happen. I just think there is a place for the US to contain them and potentially have drone type strikes occasionally destabilizing them for other forces to fight back.
I do support other kinds of elimination and support for those fighting Isis and monitoring those returning from the fight over there.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Speaking of ISIS I just took this. They're already here
Couldn't they change Senate rules though, like Reid did?
PhoenixDark
Banned
Actually most neocons don't support eliminating ISIS from the air, they're calling for "limited" ground operations; which, as anyone familiar with neocon playbooks understands, would lead to an even larger ground presence later. Meanwhile the media, moderates, and liberals are calling for airstrikes and arming the Syrian rebels - neither of which will "destroy" or cripple ISIS.
As I've said before, it really reminds me of 2011 Libya when everyone was clamoring for a "no fly zone" and calling Obama weak...despite the fact that a no fly zone had no impact on the situation on the ground since it couldn't stop fucking tanks. Likewise we're seeing war drums beaten by people who want to look strong while advocating half measures. My view is that these people need to be held accountable: if you want to treat ISIS like the most dangerous group of all time, stop advocating half measures and match your rhetoric with a proper response: ground engagements.
There's no evidence that ISIS is even capable of doing what AQ managed to do in 2000 with the USS Cole bombing. Worse yet for them, our defenses and surveillance capabilities are a lot stronger now. Radical Muslims are always going to exist, and there are some in the United States. And the best way to deal with them is by strengthening the homeland, monitoring shit, etc. Continuing to bomb Iraq would merely bolster support for ISIS.
These card reading vending machines are all over the Naval Station I'm at.
They've already took control.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I saw the sum of all fears
Not in 2014. They still won't be able to pass anything over Obama's veto, and they know there's a nonzero chance Dems will take both houses in 2016, at which point the filibuster will be all that protects them. Why discard that just to score a few ineffective political points?
Yes but with control of both chambers, if they shut down the government again, it could very well boil down to reopening it contingent on a full repeal of the ACA or nothing. Then Obama will have to choose between taking executive action to open the government which could get him in some real hot water, or finally letting the GOP get what they always wanted, otherwise the global economy collapses under his watch...
Repealing the ACA won't be popular enough by then for the GOP to have a leg to stand on. Remember, they'd have to be willing to throw billions of dollars away and millions of Americans off health care again in order to repeal it. That's a fight they can't win, especially if the alternative is shutting down the government.
Man, the calls from defensive industry lobbyists to McCain and Graham's offices must be reaching a fever pitch. I love it, keep embarrassing yourselves you fucking psychopaths.
And again, there is no substantive difference between ISIS in Iraq and the Taliban/Haqqani Network in Pakistan. They are a regional problem, and any threat they pose to US interests can be handled by drones, special forces, and the FBI. NOT OUR PROBLEM.
And again, there is no substantive difference between ISIS in Iraq and the Taliban/Haqqani Network in Pakistan. They are a regional problem, and any threat they pose to US interests can be handled by drones, special forces, and the FBI. NOT OUR PROBLEM.
The Senate is spineless and the House GOP gives zero fucks because their majority is gerrymandered in lily white districts whose residents would not vote Democratic if their lives depended on it (i.e. access to healthcare).
If the House GOP throws a hissy fit again, without Democrats in control of the Senate, the Senate GOP will likely end up following suit. Republicans do not care about people in need. They've demonstrated this incessantly. They don't care about the consequences because when it comes to controlling Congress they don't have to.
If the GOP wins the Senate and the Government shuts down again I fully expect Obamacare to be front and center, at which time it would be in grave danger, as well as the people benefiting from it (and the health insurance industry as a whole).
The Librarian
Banned
*slaps forehead*
Aaron Strife
Banned
First post-primary poll of Florida has Crist leading by 2
Good news as Rick Scott took the lead in several polls recently. Crist has only recently started advertising on TV while Scott has been for a while.
Hopefully if all goes well, Democrats will pick up at least 6 governorships - Florida, Maine, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Kansas, and Wisconsin - while losing 2 at most (Illinois and Arkansas).
Good news as Rick Scott took the lead in several polls recently. Crist has only recently started advertising on TV while Scott has been for a while.
Hopefully if all goes well, Democrats will pick up at least 6 governorships - Florida, Maine, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Kansas, and Wisconsin - while losing 2 at most (Illinois and Arkansas).
RustyNails
Member
Here's my strategy for fighting ISIS:
Parachute John McCain and Lindsey Graham inside the enemy lines. Cpt. Rand Paul is the pilot of the infiltration helicopter. Rick Perry is the mission commander.
Parachute John McCain and Lindsey Graham inside the enemy lines. Cpt. Rand Paul is the pilot of the infiltration helicopter. Rick Perry is the mission commander.
PhoenixDark
Banned
But Crisco, they're beheading people and filming it. Clearly we must lead the world's effort to stop this *wrings hands, writes Politico article*
Aaron Strife
Banned
It's worth mentioning that a barrage of negative ads against Crist have only driven his numbers down - Scott hasn't budged. Once Crist goes into full campaign mode his numbers will rise.
Also is it weird you're only concerned about margin of error when a Democrat is leading? I don't think you would give any benefit of the doubt if you switched Crist and Scott's numbers.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
You guys do realize that special forces are boots on the ground despite what people say right? You guys are fretting over semantics.
Not sure where you guys are getting this invade and occupy rhetoric from. Even crazy old John McCain doesn't want that.
In that scenario, which one is Mr. T?
speculawyer
Member
Oh come on . . . Rand Paul would not be involved at all. But the rest of them are all hawks with military experience . . . them them lead the ground game. Get Daryll Issa, Steve King, Rubio, and other boots on the ground as well.
It's a GOP group, there's no room for someone from Mister T's continental origination.
StopMakingSense
Member
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked