off topic The politics of terrorism

[Eleven]

Seriously, if there were no oil in the Middle East, we still would have an obligation to protect a country that's there and that seems to be quite hated by a number of other countries, right?

[LastPommerFan]

Well, we freaking need to care because they want to kill us in large numbers, and the bozo in the White House has just handed them the keys to the nuclear Cadillac.

 

What would you do about the Hostile Islamic Theocracy that already has the Bomb? A non-Nuclear Islamic world became a fantasy in 1998.

[K-9]

There was no way an extension was going to be approved by the Iraqi Government. Al Maliki asked for the Obama administration, what even Obama wouldn't give,  to extend the agreement: Criminal jurisdiction over US forces to get an agreement through the Iraqi parliament. It was a non-starter (Al Maliki knew that). There was no political will from the  Iraqi's for US troops to stay -  no partner, no agreement.

And so I repeat, the largest single contributing factor to enabling ISIS to establish a foothold in Iraq, other than the removal of Hussein as a check in the entire region, was the conscious decision by Maliki to exclude the Sunni minority and deny them a seat at the table in establishing a new Iraq. His prejudice made it too easy for military and police personnel to defect and bring a ton of weaponry along. Nobody seams to want to hold Maliki accountable it seems.

[K-9]

Seriously, if there were no oil in the Middle East, we still would have an obligation to protect a country that's there and that seems to be quite hated by a number of other countries, right?

Israel would be a concern, still.

 

But a vast sector of the region, literally, was shaped on a map, divided up, renamed, and developed by big oil over the last hundred years.

 

I ask myself what is the difference between the oil rich countries in the region without internal strife and those that are always fertile ground for recruitment by radical factions? In a word: economics. Those countries that give their people a stake in the wealth, like Kuwait, vs. those that don't.

 

I'm looking at you, Saudi Arabia.

[Neo]

What would you do about the Hostile Islamic Theocracy that already has the Bomb? A non-Nuclear Islamic world became a fantasy in 1998.

Information, please, as I follow along. Is 1998 the year we believe Israel got a nuke? I would've guessed earlier.

 

Google is my friend .... Pakistan and India. Carry on.

Edited November 15, 2015 by N'eo

[K-9]

Information, please, as I follow along. Is 1998 the year we believe Israel got a nuke? I would've guessed earlier.

Google is my friend .... Pakistan and India. Carry on.

That is when Pakistan successfully tested and then declared themselves aa nuclear weapons state.

[Neo]

Grateful grateful ...

[Eleven]

That is when Pakistan successfully tested and then declared themselves aa nuclear weapons state.

 

And yet they've managed not to blow up India.

 

Of course, Pakistan is liberal compared to the countries we're talking about.

Israel would be a concern, still.

 

But a vast sector of the region, literally, was shaped on a map, divided up, renamed, and developed by big oil over the last hundred years.

 

I ask myself what is the difference between the oil rich countries in the region without internal strife and those that are always fertile ground for recruitment by radical factions? In a word: economics. Those countries that give their people a stake in the wealth, like Kuwait, vs. those that don't.

 

I'm looking at you, Saudi Arabia.

 

Some of the countries simply don't have wealth, though.  Afghanistan comes to mind.  I would like those with wealth to start acting like they have a stake in the region.  Sort of like a Monroe Doctrine type of thing.

Edited November 15, 2015 by eleven

[Taro T]

There was no way the Iraqi parliament was going to approve an extension even if Obama had wanted to. 

 

Anyway....since it has come up. Politifact was dealing with the question in MAY

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/may/18/jeb-bush/obama-refused-sign-plan-place-leave-10000-troops-i/

 

 

Anyway.....part of SOFA negotiated by Bush was this:

 

Article 24 Withdrawal of the United States Forces from Iraq Recognizing the performance and increasing capacity of the Iraqi Security Forces, the assumption of full security responsibility by those Forces, and based upon the strong relationship between the Parties, an agreement on the following has been reached: 1. All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011. 2. All United States combat forces shall withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and localities no later than the time at which Iraqi Security Forces assume full responsibility for security in an Iraqi province, provided that such withdrawal is completed no later than June 30, 2009. 3. United States combat forces withdrawn pursuant to paragraph 2 above shall be stationed in the agreed facilities and areas outside cities, villages, and localities to be designated by the JMOCC before the date established in paragraph 2 above. | 16 4. The United States recognizes the sovereign right of the Government of Iraq to request the departure of the United States Forces from Iraq at any time. The Government of Iraq recognizes the sovereign right of the United States to withdraw the United States Forces from Iraq at any time. 5. The Parties agree to establish mechanisms and arrangements to reduce the number of the United States Forces during the periods of time that have been determined, and they shall agree on the locations where the United States Forces will be present.

 

 

There was no way an extension was going to be approved by the Iraqi Government. Al Maliki asked for the Obama administration, what even Obama wouldn't give,  to extend the agreement: Criminal jurisdiction over US forces to get an agreement through the Iraqi parliament. It was a non-starter (Al Maliki knew that). There was no political will from the  Iraqi's for US troops to stay -  no partner, no agreement.

 

At the extremely reduced levels of troops that the US was offering that is true. There is no way Maliki would have taken the political risk for so little. But, in 2008 there was belief that the SOFA wouldn't get agreed to (in large part due to troop imunity issues) and the troops would leave when the UN mandate expired. That belief was misguided.

 

It was in both nations interests to get the deal worked out and at terms both leaders could live with. It is a great tragedy that they wouldn't get it done.

And yet they've managed not to blow up India.

 

Of course, Pakistan is liberal compared to the countries we're talking about.

 

 

Some of the countries simply don't have wealth, though.  Afghanistan comes to mind.  I would like those with wealth to start acting like they have a stake in the region.  Sort of like a Monroe Doctrine type of thing.

Acting like that there would be awesome. Doing so in sub-Saharan Africa would be awesome as well.

[nfreeman]

What would you do about the Hostile Islamic Theocracy that already has the Bomb? A non-Nuclear Islamic world became a fantasy in 1998.

Well, one seething cauldron with nukes is a bad situation, but it's much less bad than 2, especially when #2 is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, has "death to America" as its semi-official catchphrase and is run by fundamentalist lunatics.

 

As for what I would do about Pakistan, the only thing that anyone can really do at this point is remember which president let it happen, internalize the fact that the democrats have heads implanted in rectums when it comes to untrustworthy nations getting nukes and factor it into voting decisions.

[Taro T]

And my apologies for my role in taking this thread off-topic.

 

Condolences to all who have lost friends & family.

[K-9]

And yet they've managed not to blow up India.

 

Of course, Pakistan is liberal compared to the countries we're talking about.

 

 

Some of the countries simply don't have wealth, though.  Afghanistan comes to mind.  I would like those with wealth to start acting like they have a stake in the region.  Sort of like a Monroe Doctrine type of thing.

Not oil rich, no. But it has vast untapped reserves of minerals and natural gas. And it is a strategic crossroads in the world given its borders.

 

Agree entirely about those wealthy nations as I touched upon previously.

[Eleven]

Anyone who wants to know just how ingrained this violence is in everyday, normal culture might want to read this account I found on reddit.  Warning, there is objectionable language, and it is decidedly NOT politically correct:

 

https://np.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/3su5pt/rant_about_paris/

[LastPommerFan]

Well, one seething cauldron with nukes is a bad situation, but it's much less bad than 2, especially when #2 is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, has "death to America" as its semi-official catchphrase and is run by fundamentalist lunatics.

 

As for what I would do about Pakistan, the only thing that anyone can really do at this point is remember which president let it happen, internalize the fact that the democrats have heads implanted in rectums when it comes to untrustworthy nations getting nukes and factor it into voting decisions.

 

So, in light of North Korea's test in 2006, do we all vote Green Party? Can we get Ross Perot to run again?

 

_________________________________________

 

I spoke with some members of the family I lived with when I was in Paris this morning. They are French-Armenian. They have an interesting viewpoint in all of this, as they have Family still in Armenia. Armenia is a Christian enclave sandwiched between Georgia, Turkey, Iran, and Azerbaijan. Their instincts were to cut off the refugees until a security solution can be found, but they recognized that they, themselves, immigrated to France to escape the Soviets. They are very conflicted. 

[nfreeman]

So, in light of North Korea's test in 2006, do we all vote Green Party? Can we get Ross Perot to run again?

 

 

You're aware of the nuclear agreement the Great Grifter signed with North Korea in 1994, yes? The one that was supposed to prevent them from going nuclear -- just like the one Obama signed with Iran?

 

Democracies have short memories.

 

Anyone who wants to know just how ingrained this violence is in everyday, normal culture might want to read this account I found on reddit. Warning, there is objectionable language, and it is decidedly NOT politically correct:

 

https://np.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/3su5pt/rant_about_paris/

Wow.

 

I'd like to hear SFiNS' reaction to that thread.

[Neo]

It's hard being anything when a shrinking web/cable world brings everything in contact with everything else.

Anyone who wants to know just how ingrained this violence is in everyday, normal culture might want to read this account I found on reddit.  Warning, there is objectionable language, and it is decidedly NOT politically correct:

 

https://np.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/3su5pt/rant_about_paris/

Grateful ... Fewer firebombs than I might have thought. Firebombs, sure, but some legitimate empathy all around.

So, in light of North Korea's test in 2006, do we all vote Green Party? Can we get Ross Perot to run again?

_________________________________________

I spoke with some members of the family I lived with when I was in Paris this morning. They are French-Armenian. They have an interesting viewpoint in all of this, as they have Family still in Armenia. Armenia is a Christian enclave sandwiched between Georgia, Turkey, Iran, and Azerbaijan. Their instincts were to cut off the refugees until a security solution can be found, but they recognized that they, themselves, immigrated to France to escape the Soviets. They are very conflicted.

 

I'd love your report on their view of anything the US should or shouldn't do.

[LastPommerFan]

You're aware of the nuclear agreement the Great Grifter signed with North Korea in 1994, yes? The one that was supposed to prevent them from going nuclear -- just like the one Obama signed with Iran?

 

Democracies have short memories.

 

 

GWB and Colin Powell explicitly stated that they were going to pick up where WJC left off. That the Agreed Framework was a good solution.

 

Then 9/11 happened and they created the Mythical "Axis of Evil" and further isolate North Korea, daring them to abandon the Framework. 2 years later, NK restarts it's reactor that Clinton got shut down, 4 years after that, they have the bomb.

 

Being strong may be part of the solution, being heavy handed probably isn't.

[Eleven]

You're aware of the nuclear agreement the Great Grifter signed with North Korea in 1994, yes? The one that was supposed to prevent them from going nuclear -- just like the one Obama signed with Iran?

 

Democracies have short memories.

 

Wow.

 

I'd like to hear SFiNS' reaction to that thread.

 

 

I almost didn't post it because I don't want to offend him.  But they're not my words, they are the words of someone else.  I don't for a second believe that all Muslims support this violence.  (And I know that he does not.)  But I don't believe that it's just a few extremists, anymore, either.  People have had this stuff drilled into their heads for at least two generations now.

[Stoner]

Anyone who wants to know just how ingrained this violence is in everyday, normal culture might want to read this account I found on reddit.  Warning, there is objectionable language, and it is decidedly NOT politically correct:

 

https://np.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/3su5pt/rant_about_paris/

Something in a comment section, more than likely fiction? Probably not worth the link.

I almost didn't post it because I don't want to offend him.  But they're not my words, they are the words of someone else.  I don't for a second believe that all Muslims support this violence.  (And I know that he does not.)  But I don't believe that it's just a few extremists, anymore, either.  People have had this stuff drilled into their heads for at least two generations now.

And how many "Christians" want to "blow those people off the map" and "bomb them back to the Stone Age"?

I heard the Facebook is taking some heat for activating some kind of emergency feature on the site after the Paris attacks so that people could "mark" that they were OK. But they didn't activate it for similar events in the Middle East, namely Beirut. It really is indicative of a fundamental problem. We should care just as much about the innocents in Lebanon as in France. I'll hold my breath waiting for the Sabres to bathe the arena in the Lebanese colors. It's a shame, really. The good people of the world are essentially the same. Whether it's income inequality here or religious fanatics there, it's the same theme: a few holding everyone else down.

Edited November 15, 2015 by pASabreFan

[SwampD]

You're aware of the nuclear agreement the Great Grifter signed with North Korea in 1994, yes? The one that was supposed to prevent them from going nuclear -- just like the one Obama signed with Iran?

Democracies have short memories.

Wow.

I'd like to hear SFiNS' reaction to that thread.

That person's family sounds eerily similar to your views about them.

[X. Benedict]

Something in a comment section, more than likely fiction? Probably not worth the link.

And how many "Christians" want to "blow those people off the map" and "bomb them back to the Stone Age"?

I heard the Facebook is taking some heat for activating some kind of emergency feature on the site after the Paris attacks so that people could "mark" that they were OK. But they didn't activate it for similar events in the Middle East, namely Beirut. It really is indicative of a fundamental problem. We should care just as much about the innocents in Lebanon as in France. I'll hold my breath waiting for the Sabres to bathe the arena in the Lebanese colors. It's a shame, really. The good people of the world are essentially the same. Whether it's income inequality here or religious fanatics there, it's the same theme: a few ###### holding everyone else down.

 

I've heard arguments that we should have an equality of feeling for those in Beirut and that it is racist that we don't.

 

However, we have no NATO collective security pact with Lebanon, Lebanon is not our 9th largest trading partner, nor do 3-4 million Americans visit or work in Lebanon every year.  We just don't have the same ties. Even my ethnically Lebanese friends have never been to Lebanon. Nor do we have a infrastructure in Lebanon to respond. 

 

It's something other than bigotry that it doesn't get as widely reported. however,  It led the news on NPR last week though. 

[inkman]

Can we just change the name of this thread to "politics 2"?

[WildCard]

France has begun bombing IS strongholds

Just send the FFL over there, those dudes are insane

[JJFIVEOH]

Nice.

[Weave]

Stumbled across this today.  http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

 

I have no idea how accurate it is.  I am unfamiliar with the author, and can't say I know much about the leanings of The Atlantic.  It is a chilling article expanding upon the goals of IS.  Certainly thought provoking.  I imagine our friend, SFiNS, may take issue with some of what's written in the article.