|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:49 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
jay wrote:
| Quote: |
| Obviously Islamic Militancy is a big problem and I think almost everyone would agree with that. |
But that's the crux of the problem: almost everyone does not agree and certainly not the Leftist nutbars on this board. They regard it as a manufactured crisis. But not one of them would willingly live in harm's way, say Beirut, Baghdad, Jerusalem, Cairo, or Kabul.
| Quote: |
| Other than suggesting that we should live in fear, Newt doesn't seem to be offering any suggestions about what we should actually do |
He was asked to speak to the issue by the press corps. His comments were intended for lawmakers and policymakers. He didn't intend to map out strategy. And even if he should have, how does that diminish the urgency of the situation?
| Quote: |
| If you and Newt want to live your lives in fear, go ahead. I'll be sleeping just fine tomorrow at dawn. I also don't see where Newt said anything about confronting Islamic militancy on all fronts. |
I'm not consumed with fear, only fear of remorse, as so many in government had--and deservedly so--after 9/11. I'm not prone to trepidation but a dose of caution is always a good thing in this crazy world today.
As for "all fronts," it's a generalizing euphemism, the sole purpose being to acknowledge that terrorism requires more than good counterintelligence, military ops, and strategy-making. It also requires winning hearts and minds, as he and others have said elsewhere. That last bit should warm the coc-kles of your heart, I'd think.
| Quote: |
| Are you suggesting that the U.S. should invade every Islamic country, presumably starting with Iran? |
Of course not; we should nuke them instead. (A ridiculous question deserves an in-kind response)
| Quote: |
| Hasn't the occupation of Iraq been a big enough disaster for you? Does it make you feel safer to know that there are thousands of new militants who are ready to martyr themselves in suicide attacks? |
Like the typical liberal your foreign policy conceptualization is always reactive rather than proactive. You actually believe that terrorist are rational and respond to real threats, not that they seek out destruction. It's quite naive and dangerous thinking.
And why is it that when anyone dares suggest that we should develop a more robust posture against Islamofascism, he is immediately accused of being a warmonger? Really, can we get beyond this tripe.
And do you really believe that Al-Qaeda wouldn't be increasing its recruitment and training efforts if we had never invaded Iraq? Whatever one thinks of the merits of the war, it at least brought many of the enemy out of hiding by allowing us to flush them out.
| Quote: |
| We now know, and the Bush administration has admitted, that that is not true. |
You're really clueless, aren't you? First off, Mossad has never believed this is the case and there has been an ongoing debate about it in the Pentagon. Moreover, the issue was whether Iran was currently seeking to weaponize its stockpile, not whether it will in the future. Indeed, the latest sanctions come because it has been shown that Iran is accelerating its enrichment of uranium centrifuges, something it has gloated about in public. And if you believe for one minute the Persians aren't interested in nuclear firepower, then I've got a bridge in Arizona to sell to ya, fella. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
But that's the crux of the problem: almost everyone does not agree and certainly not the Leftist nutbars on this board. They regard it as a manufactured crisis.
|
Who specifically are you talking about? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
But that's the crux of the problem: almost everyone does not agree and certainly not the Leftist nutbars on this board. They regard it as a manufactured crisis.
|
Who specifically are you talking about? |
Apparently he's talking about the straw man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Are you suggesting that the U.S. should invade every Islamic country, presumably starting with Iran? |
Of course not; we should nuke them instead. (A ridiculous question deserves an in-kind response) |
Of course it is a ridiculous prospect. Given that alternative is so ridiculous, the question is:what should be done?
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
| Like the typical liberal your foreign policy conceptualization is always reactive rather than proactive. |
You have no idea what my foreign policy conception is. I'm all for being proactive, but let me repeat myself: :The important question is, what can or should we do about it?" Newt said he was in fear but offered no suggestions about what we should actually do. Confronting them on all fronts or developing a more robust posture are just trite meaningless platitudes. Specifically what should we do? Be afraid? I'd say that's the reactive course.
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
| You actually believe that terrorist are rational and respond to real threats, not that they seek out destruction. It's quite naive and dangerous thinking. |
You have no idea what I believe. Maybe you've got me confused with your straw man.
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
And do you really believe that Al-Qaeda wouldn't be increasing its recruitment and training efforts if we had never invaded Iraq? |
Don't you think invading Iraq is the greatest recruiting tool we could have given Al-Qaeda? Don't you think invading Iraq was a huge distraction from what we should have been doing, fighting against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan?
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
| Moreover, the issue was whether Iran was currently seeking to weaponize its stockpile, not whether it will in the future. |
But Newt said they were currently trying to build nuclear weapons. He was wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Apparently he's talking about the straw man. |
I'm sorry, but you have a mistaken impression of Steve. A man (?) of such intellectual accomplishments, not to mention integrity, would never stoop so low as to use a straw man argument to further his point. I can't believe he would ever ever take one comment from someone he disagrees with and attribute that belief to everyone in a category. He is above that kind of thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would like to see the US try these things.
1) Bring back the Clinton mideast plan. ( In fact make Bill Clinton US envoy to the middle east. That way he won't make trouble back home. )
2) Don't attack Iran- not now anyway.
3) Talk to Iran and Syria.
4) Tax imported oil , raise the gas tax
5) Invest in alternative energy , clean coal , nuclear power, better exploration methods with the same effort that the US put in to winning WW II.
6) Pressure the Europeans to , in fact apply horrible pressure to Europe to list Hezzbollah as a terror group.
7) Make the Patriot act permanent.
8 ) Introduce a national ID card like Korea has
9) Set up permanent US military bases in the Kurdish areas.
10) End the CIA ban on assassinations. From now on anyone of note who calls for holy war against the US is legitmate target for assassination. Anyone of note who funds Al Qaeda is a legitmate target for assassination.
11) announce that the US will withdraw from the NPT treaty if Iran tests a nuclear bomb.
12) Do NOT agree to any treaty that limits the deployment of space weapons.
PROJECT THOR (RODS FROM GOD) is the answer for Iran's nuclear program.
13 ) Fully invest in the next generation of weapon systems.
If the US were to do the above what would the results be? I would bet you all that the US would be in a much better strategic situation than now.
Maybe more would need to be done later - in the end it has to be whatever it takes - but the above would be a start. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
