Should we declare war against ISIL or any of the terrorist groups

[other one]

touche. ok so sane liberals don't either.

 

but facts are, sane liberals do tend to view the enemy as the victim, and sympathize more with terrorists than with americans.

 

and they are soooooo rare...

[ayin jade]

Here's a dose of reality for you, BE.  There is no such thing as a sanitary war.  Civilians get killed in war all of the time.   The only time any raises a fuss over civilian casualties is if the US or Israel causes them.  Civilians are being murdered at the hands of ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and in Syria all of the time.  No one cares about them.  Liberals have a very selective moral outrage when it comes to civilian casualties.   So don't tell me the Liberals care about the deaths of civilians until I see the same moral outrage expressed at Muslims when they kill innocent Muslims/Arabs.

 

 

To illustrate this, consider the folks dying in sudan. Where is the outcry over this? I hear silence from the world, the same world that screamed about gaza. How many have been murdered in mexico by the drug cartels in the past few years? Last I heard (which was months ago) it was 60,000. With many thousands more missing and presumed dead. The silence from the world is deafening.

[Qnts2]

Many years ago, I supervised a new technology development team for a large manufacturer. I had a fellow worker who supervised new items in an already existing technology. The other supervisor was extremely detailed, and did not like change. So, if he heard about what I was doing, he would pick at it in fine detail looking for fault, and resist all change. He used to drive me nuts, until I realized something. When I had a new idea, or approach or plan, I would go into his office and tell him what I was thinking. He would pick it apart in fine detail, telling me every possible problem he thought it had. I would take notes, and go back to my office to explore what he said. I know he did not like change and would veto any change but my job was to create new, which meant change. But his strength was that in his picking, he would sometimes point out real potential problems. So, I knew change was coming, and through him, I found out what others might object to, and possibly eliminate some future problems that might occur. His view, although very very different then mine, was valuable.

 

It used to be that politicians knew that some level of comprimise was needed in order to pass anything substantial. This required comprimise would keep any one group from getting all that they wanted, but at the same time, extreme views or actions would never get thru. Politics today have changed. For some reason, groups will not comprimise but rather blame each other for a lack of progress when nothing passes. The President has more power to work independently, so we have lost the balance of power, and the actions have become very one sided, and more extreme. 

 

Truthfully, both conservatives and liberals have extremes. But the existence of conservatives and liberals, forced into comprimise, means the more extremes can not make it thru. Not all of the problems belong to either conservatives or liberals, but rather to either extreme shutting the other out. Conservatives need liberals and Liberals need conservatives to run this country and to keep one ideology from going to far in a dictatorial fashion.   

[Burning_Ember]

 

 

 

Remember how you said sane conservatives don't commit terrorism? Sane liberals don't either. If Being liberal made you a terrorist then Canada would be under a far greater domestic terrorism threat than America, but the opposite is true.

 

 

touche. ok so sane liberals don't either.

 

but facts are, sane liberals do tend to view the enemy as the victim, and sympathize more with terrorists than with americans.

 

Liberals sympathize with the victims of the conflict, not people who shoot people. Liberals would like the least number of people to be killed in a conflict, the easiest way to do that is often to not cause more military conflict with more military intervention.

 

Liberals don't like ISIS or Al-Queda any more than any conservative does. There's simply a difference of opinion on how to deal with it. For example...

 

 

If it were up to Liberals, we would do nothing.  Terrorists would strike and we would just take it on the chin.  Liberals enable terrorism.  They create a safe environment for terrorists to operate in.  Their answer is to just let innocent people die.

 

 

Usama Bin Laden WANTED America to invade after 9/11. If you go over his tapes, he celebrated the fact that America was spending trillions of dollars in war in the middle east. He wanted America to fight in the middle east because it's much easier to organize and recruit fighters for conflict in Afghanistan/Iraq. That is their home turf. They understand better how to exploit local geography, terrain, guerrilla tactics, culture, and politics than America does in that region. Sending soldiers to fight in the middle east is quite literally exactly what Al-Queda (and now ISIS wants for many different reasons. From their perspective;

 

and that didn't work out too well for them.  They lost far more fighters than we did.  They expected us to come marching down the road in formation.  They didn't take into account our overwhelming air power which decimated them.  Many of them never got to exploit the terrain or geography.

 

 

 

 

 

1) If your enemy is a across the ocean, you get them to come to you so you can fight them on your terms. The best way to deal with that might be to not walk into the trap your enemy wants you to walk into. Afghanistan is called the graveyard of empires for a reason. Iraq likely requires more force to secure now than it did after the fall of Saddam, which was already a big strain on the military at it's peak.

 

But we didn't fight them on their terms.   You really don't know what you are talking about, BE.  We did pretty much what they never expected.  We learned from the mistakes made by the Russians back in the 80's.

 

 

2) Military intervention and civilian casualties are the single biggest recruiting tool those terrorist groups have. There have been several specific cases of villages that had been convinced to fight on the American side, at which point a special forces operation with faulty intelligence or a drone strike kills innocent civilians. Those village won't side with America for generations to come. The best way to avoid that is to simply not kill civilians which means being way more careful about how military force gets used, if at all.

 

Here's a dose of reality for you, BE.  There is no such thing as a sanitary war.  Civilians get killed in war all of the time.   The only time any raises a fuss over civilian casualties is if the US or Israel causes them.  Civilians are being murdered at the hands of ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and in Syria all of the time.  No one cares about them.  Liberals have a very selective moral outrage when it comes to civilian casualties.   So don't tell me the Liberals care about the deaths of civilians until I see the same moral outrage expressed at Muslims when they kill innocent Muslims/Arabs.

 

 

3) Usama wanted to draw America into a war to bankrupt America. If you look into his tapes, he talked a LOT about how much money America was spending and how it was affecting the economy, etc etc. If you spend trillions of dollars fighting wars over 13 years, that money does not go to social programs, healthcare, infrastructure, tax cuts, R&D, or balancing the budget. It instead gets dumped into the war machine where it does not get spent on America, but on fighting one of the longest wars across the ocean to an overall negative effect.

 

If I understand why those terrorist groups engage in the strategy they use, it doesn't mean I sympathize with them. It means I'd rather win by not walking into their traps.

 

 

Liberals, over the last 6 years, have done more to bankrupt America than fighting Osama Bin Laden could have ever done.  Liberalism is what's wrong with America.

 

So what liberal policy makers say that nothing should be done against terrorism? Could you cite a non-partisan study proving that liberals enable terrorism? If the idea of liberals is to do nothing, why is Obama ordering airstrikes against ISIS? That's the opposite of what you say is happening.

 

Any civilian death as a result of any war, famine, disaster, terrorist attack, etc is tragic. I don't care which country, race, religion, ethnicity, cultural group, or brand of peanut butter they belong to. It's wrong.

 

I have better things to do with my time than make sure I go on Worthyboards to condemn every individual act of violence by every group in the world. I may be concerned with world events going on, but I choose to not dwell on every act of violence and think about how awful it is that it happened because that would be really depressing if I did that all day.

 

As I have said before, I may not go out of my way to condemn every evil act in the world, but the fact that I have not condemned something does not in any way constitute support for those acts, nor does it it mean I lack sympathy for the victims of these armed conflicts, as I consider every individual human life to be equal.

 

If the overall result of those wars were a huge factor in destabilizing the region when they were meant to bring security, I really don't think those lessons were learned. 

 

So do you have any non-partisan sources that prove that it was in fact liberal policies that are bankrupting America? Also, how much did those wars cost? Do you know what the overall cost is going to be and how that fits into the debt/deficit as it exists now?

[Guest shiloh357]

So what liberal policy makers say that nothing should be done against terrorism? Could you cite a non-partisan study proving that liberals enable terrorism? If the idea of liberals is to do nothing, why is Obama ordering airstrikes against ISIS? That's the opposite of what you say is happening.

 

I don't need to cite "studies."   Obama is only responding to polls.  He is leading from behind.  In fact, it is the US public that is leading.  If we didn't have the outrage over the beheadings of two Americans and a Brit, the US would not be doing anything at all.  Liberals enable terrorism because they try to contextualize the terrorists.  They try to excuse terrorists by blaming their poverty stricken childhood, or some other unfortunate circumstance that led to them becoming terrorism.

 

Liberals enable terrorism by trying to separate ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hizbollah, etc.  from Islam and they ignore centuries of blood thirsty history perpetrated by the religion of Islam. 

 

Any civilian death as a result of any war, famine, disaster, terrorist attack, etc is tragic. I don't care which country, race, religion, ethnicity, cultural group, or brand of peanut butter they belong to. It's wrong.

 

I have better things to do with my time than make sure I go on Worthyboards to condemn every individual act of violence by every group in the world. I may be concerned with world events going on, but I choose to not dwell on every act of violence and think about how awful it is that it happened because that would be really depressing if I did that all day.

 

Yes, you have only enough time to criticize the US and Israel.  But I am actually speaking of Liberals, in general.  They have no voice when it comes to any other entity causing civilian deaths, beyond Israel and the US.

 

If the overall result of those wars were a huge factor in destabilizing the region when they were meant to bring security, I really don't think those lessons were learned. 

 

Had this administration maintained a Status of Forces Agreement we would not be in this unstable condition in the first place.  It was the Obama administration that caused the instability.

 

 

So do you have any non-partisan sources that prove that it was in fact liberal policies that are bankrupting America? Also, how much did those wars cost? Do you know what the overall cost is going to be and how that fits into the debt/deficit as it exists now?

 

In the first four years of the Obama Administration, He has added more debt than all previous administrations combined in US history.  Obamacare which is a huge failure and disappointment, not to mention a major millstone around the necks of Democrats will had an additional  6 Trillion to the national debt over the next ten years, if obamacare survives.  The amount we spent on the wars, is peanuts compared to the amount of debt this current administration is adding.

[Burning_Ember]

 

So what liberal policy makers say that nothing should be done against terrorism? Could you cite a non-partisan study proving that liberals enable terrorism? If the idea of liberals is to do nothing, why is Obama ordering airstrikes against ISIS? That's the opposite of what you say is happening.

 

I don't need to cite "studies."   Obama is only responding to polls.  He is leading from behind.  In fact, it is the US public that is leading.  If we didn't have the outrage over the beheadings of two Americans and a Brit, the US would not be doing anything at all.  Liberals enable terrorism because they try to contextualize the terrorists.  They try to excuse terrorists by blaming their poverty stricken childhood, or some other unfortunate circumstance that led to them becoming terrorism.

 

Liberals enable terrorism by trying to separate ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hizbollah, etc.  from Islam and they ignore centuries of blood thirsty history perpetrated by the religion of Islam. 

 

Any civilian death as a result of any war, famine, disaster, terrorist attack, etc is tragic. I don't care which country, race, religion, ethnicity, cultural group, or brand of peanut butter they belong to. It's wrong.

 

I have better things to do with my time than make sure I go on Worthyboards to condemn every individual act of violence by every group in the world. I may be concerned with world events going on, but I choose to not dwell on every act of violence and think about how awful it is that it happened because that would be really depressing if I did that all day.

 

Yes, you have only enough time to criticize the US and Israel.  But I am actually speaking of Liberals, in general.  They have no voice when it comes to any other entity causing civilian deaths, beyond Israel and the US.

 

If the overall result of those wars were a huge factor in destabilizing the region when they were meant to bring security, I really don't think those lessons were learned. 

 

Had this administration maintained a Status of Forces Agreement we would not be in this unstable condition in the first place.  It was the Obama administration that caused the instability.

 

 

So do you have any non-partisan sources that prove that it was in fact liberal policies that are bankrupting America? Also, how much did those wars cost? Do you know what the overall cost is going to be and how that fits into the debt/deficit as it exists now?

 

In the first four years of the Obama Administration, He has added more debt than all previous administrations combined in US history.  Obamacare which is a huge failure and disappointment, not to mention a major millstone around the necks of Democrats will had an additional  6 Trillion to the national debt over the next ten years, if obamacare survives.  The amount we spent on the wars, is peanuts compared to the amount of debt this current administration is adding.

 

The wars preceded the failure to negotiate a SOF. The reason H.W. Bush didn't remove Saddam was because he knew that removing Saddam would cause huge problems like we are seeing today. It's not the fault of Obama that Bush invaded Iraq and put into place a Government friendly to Iran.

 

The idea that liberals are only concerned with civilian deaths caused by the US and Israel is absurd. I converse with other liberal minded people, who are most concerned about ISIS and the Ukraine, and are concerned about Sudan, Nigeria, Egypt, Iran, etc, etc... The list Goes on. It would be very easy to find cases of many prominent Democratic, or Liberal politcians who are also concerned about those things.

 

You didn't answer my question shiloh, how much of the current debt is due to the wars? Do you know what the breakdown of which part of the debt was caused by who? I'd love to see you cite some sources to prove your case on that.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

So what liberal policy makers say that nothing should be done against terrorism? Could you cite a non-partisan study proving that liberals enable terrorism? If the idea of liberals is to do nothing, why is Obama ordering airstrikes against ISIS? That's the opposite of what you say is happening.

 

I don't need to cite "studies."   Obama is only responding to polls.  He is leading from behind.  In fact, it is the US public that is leading.  If we didn't have the outrage over the beheadings of two Americans and a Brit, the US would not be doing anything at all.  Liberals enable terrorism because they try to contextualize the terrorists.  They try to excuse terrorists by blaming their poverty stricken childhood, or some other unfortunate circumstance that led to them becoming terrorism.

 

Liberals enable terrorism by trying to separate ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hizbollah, etc.  from Islam and they ignore centuries of blood thirsty history perpetrated by the religion of Islam. 

 

Any civilian death as a result of any war, famine, disaster, terrorist attack, etc is tragic. I don't care which country, race, religion, ethnicity, cultural group, or brand of peanut butter they belong to. It's wrong.

 

I have better things to do with my time than make sure I go on Worthyboards to condemn every individual act of violence by every group in the world. I may be concerned with world events going on, but I choose to not dwell on every act of violence and think about how awful it is that it happened because that would be really depressing if I did that all day.

 

Yes, you have only enough time to criticize the US and Israel.  But I am actually speaking of Liberals, in general.  They have no voice when it comes to any other entity causing civilian deaths, beyond Israel and the US.

 

If the overall result of those wars were a huge factor in destabilizing the region when they were meant to bring security, I really don't think those lessons were learned. 

 

Had this administration maintained a Status of Forces Agreement we would not be in this unstable condition in the first place.  It was the Obama administration that caused the instability.

 

 

So do you have any non-partisan sources that prove that it was in fact liberal policies that are bankrupting America? Also, how much did those wars cost? Do you know what the overall cost is going to be and how that fits into the debt/deficit as it exists now?

 

In the first four years of the Obama Administration, He has added more debt than all previous administrations combined in US history.  Obamacare which is a huge failure and disappointment, not to mention a major millstone around the necks of Democrats will had an additional  6 Trillion to the national debt over the next ten years, if obamacare survives.  The amount we spent on the wars, is peanuts compared to the amount of debt this current administration is adding.

 

The wars preceded the failure to negotiate a SOF. The reason H.W. Bush didn't remove Saddam was because he knew that removing Saddam would cause huge problems like we are seeing today. It's not the fault of Obama that Bush invaded Iraq and put into place a Government friendly to Iran.

The current problem is the direct result of this administration's failure to secure a SoF agreement.   This current problem can't be blamed on Bush.  Bush has been gone for six years now.   Trying run back and blame Bush is just not going to cut it anymore.   It's been six years and this Obama's problem and he caused.  It's time for the Left to grow up and be adults and take responsibility for their failures and stop trying to look for someone, anyone else to blame.

 

The idea that liberals are only concerned with civilian deaths caused by the US and Israel is absurd. I converse with other liberal minded people, who are most concerned about ISIS and the Ukraine, and are concerned about Sudan, Nigeria, Egypt, Iran, etc, etc... The list Goes on. It would be very easy to find cases of many prominent Democratic, or Liberal politcians who are also concerned about those things.

 

The liberal media and international community demonstrate nowhere near the amount of outrage over civilian deaths in any major conflict in the world right now, that they can't pin on either Israel or the United States.    This current US administration all but completely ignored the Christians being slaughtered in Syria and Egypt and in Gaza.   The liberals blame Israel for the civilian casualties in Gaza even though it  was the cockroaches in Hamas that were ramping up the civilian casualties and in some cases, civilians that died as a result of a Hamas rocket misfire were counted as casualties of war attributed to Israel.  

 

I can guarantee you if Israel were doing what ISIS is doing, the liberals would be beside themselves in a furor over that.  But the only reason our administration finally stepped in was for political reasons namely because we are so close to an election.

 

 

You didn't answer my question shiloh, how much of the current debt is due to the wars? Do you know what the breakdown of which part of the debt was caused by who? I'd love to see you cite some sources to prove your case on that.

 

 

The cost of those wars is miniscule compared to what Obama has spent in over the last 6 years.  He has added more debt in his six than any other president in history.  I don't need to post a source for what is common knowledge. 

[Burning_Ember]

Trillions of dollars isn't miniscule.

 

This has been fun shiloh, but you aren't really staying on topic, nor do you address evidence when it's brought up. See you later.

[Guest shiloh357]

Trillions of dollars isn't miniscule.

 

 

I didn't say trillions dollars is miniscule.  I said the cost of those wars are miniscule compared to the amount of debt Obama has racked up.

 

This has been fun shiloh, but you aren't really staying on topic, nor do you address evidence when it's brought up. See you later.

 

I am not off topic.  I was responding directly to your comment above where you said:  "Usama Bin Laden WANTED America to invade after 9/11. If you go over his tapes, he celebrated the fact that America was spending trillions of dollars in war in the middle east. He wanted America to fight in the middle east because it's much easier to organize and recruit fighters for conflict in Afghanistan/Iraq. That is their home turf. They understand better how to exploit local geography, terrain, guerrilla tactics, culture, and politics than America does in that region. Sending soldiers to fight in the middle east is quite literally exactly what Al-Queda (and now ISIS wants for many different reasons. From their perspective;"

 

My response was that Obama's spending outstrips the cost of those wars.   I have responded to and addressed everything you have said.  You haven't provided any evidence.

[Burning_Ember]

 

Trillions of dollars isn't miniscule.

 

 

I didn't say trillions dollars is miniscule.  I said the cost of those wars are miniscule compared to the amount of debt Obama has racked up.

 

This has been fun shiloh, but you aren't really staying on topic, nor do you address evidence when it's brought up. See you later.

 

I am not off topic.  I was responding directly to your comment above where you said:  "Usama Bin Laden WANTED America to invade after 9/11. If you go over his tapes, he celebrated the fact that America was spending trillions of dollars in war in the middle east. He wanted America to fight in the middle east because it's much easier to organize and recruit fighters for conflict in Afghanistan/Iraq. That is their home turf. They understand better how to exploit local geography, terrain, guerrilla tactics, culture, and politics than America does in that region. Sending soldiers to fight in the middle east is quite literally exactly what Al-Queda (and now ISIS wants for many different reasons. From their perspective;"

 

My response was that Obama's spending outstrips the cost of those wars.   I have responded to and addressed everything you have said.  You haven't provided any evidence.

 

I cited military experts who pinned the blame on middle east stability on the two wars. You should probably go back and read that. You want me to cite some more?

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-wars-in-afghanistan-iraq-to-cost-6-trillion/5350789

 

Six Trillion dollars is not miniscule. Is that "minuscule" compared to the amount of debt Obama incurred? whether something costs money or not is not partisan. It's math.