Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: ISIS can't attack the US


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: ISIS can't attack the US Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: ISIS can't attack the US - 11/20/2015 5:40:54 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
DS I have mixed feelings about ground action in the Mid East. On one hand we know, based upon history, that you can't pound anyone into submission with aircraft. On the other sending ground troops could well open a huge can of worms that we might not want either.

I also don't believe that anywhere in the world can be considered absolutely safe. If that were the case no country would have Spec Ops operators. A small dedicated group of warriors can do a great deal of damage. Even a single operator like the DC Freeway Shooter or the Phoenix Freeway shooter can cause a great deal of fear. And they can't watch the entire world for bad operators and determine in advance that they are all found.

I am not sure what should be done. But if something isn't done, I feel sure that the world will become a much worse place.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: ISIS can't attack the US - 11/20/2015 5:50:32 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
DS I have mixed feelings about ground action in the Mid East. On one hand we know, based upon history, that you can't pound anyone into submission with aircraft. On the other sending ground troops could well open a huge can of worms that we might not want either.
I also don't believe that anywhere in the world can be considered absolutely safe. If that were the case no country would have Spec Ops operators. A small dedicated group of warriors can do a great deal of damage. Even a single operator like the DC Freeway Shooter or the Phoenix Freeway shooter can cause a great deal of fear. And they can't watch the entire world for bad operators and determine in advance that they are all found.
I am not sure what should be done. But if something isn't done, I feel sure that the world will become a much worse place.


There is a difference between being "absolutely safe" and relatively safe. The only time that we're going to be free from risk of harm is after we're dead. But, that' doesn't mean we involve ourselves wherever and whenever. That it has to be rationalized as "National Security" with huge brushstrokes only means that the risk truly isn't very high.

It wasn't that long ago that the President wanted to take action (I think it was Syria) because it was a National Security issue. I think it was even rationalized as an "imminent" danger to the US. I opposed it because there was no authority for the Federal Government to enter into military action. We hadn't been attacked directly. We weren't in imminent threat of direct attack. Congress hasn't declared war, and I don't think it has authorized the President to use our military to fight ISIS. There is a call for an AUMF to fight ISIS, but one has not yet been passed and sent to the President.

Could we get attacked in the US by ISIS? Absolutely. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a pro-ISIS group within the US already plotting. That does not authorize the US to go to war in the ME.

Here's an interesting read.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: ISIS can't attack the US - 11/20/2015 8:02:05 PM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
DS definately I agree that there is no AUMF. And I think the action taken is an over reach of authority. Not sure what to do about it. If we look back at history, I think Obama's legacy is in jepordy. No matter how much good he does, it only takes one fuck up to screw him forever and this might be it. Who knows.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: ISIS can't attack the US - 11/20/2015 8:27:20 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

There's a lot we agree on and why I haven't had reason to go after your posts but I still fail to see the socialism. In fact food stamps were cut, no SS raise. I mean what is the difference between people taking advantage of govt. programs that existed before Obama got in and Exxon or GE doing the same ? We've had corp. 'food stamps' for 40 years and even CATO has published studies on corp. welfare and welfare for corps. with Billion$ in profits.

Plus presidents get angry at the sniping all of the time so what's new about people, partisans or not carping about differences in reaction at any given moment ? And just how is it that Obama is a muslim ? I mean this admin.'s drone war has killed more Muslims than any previous admin. Even on immigration, by the numbers, Obama is called 'Deporter in Chief.'



Because you have never engaged in ad hominem attacks, I will post this, one more time. I have posted it many times, before. I get bored with providing information to the less research-minded posters when they demand "links!" only to have them ignore those links. I doubt you'll do that.

Also, I should say that at the time Dumbo ears was running for his first time, it was my job to research him. I did NOT post my research here but what I am about to post is (similar) results from another user.

Here it is (in a different color for clarity):

quote:

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1]


Obama believes this.

quote:

Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other.


And fits this bill.

quote:

Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.


Obama is the latter.

quote:

Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs; Libertarian socialism (which includes Socialist Anarchism and Libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy


He's the former.

So on listed definitions, Obama is four out of four. Should you wish to move past socialism and into Marxist Communism, I personally think he fulfills 7 of 10 planks if you grade liberally.

The amusing part is if Obama had been running for an office in some country in Europe, he could have just been upfront and said "I'm a socialist", and noone would care.



Socialist. Always has been, always will be.

While I don't have three sources that are willing to come forward (even to this day), I have four people who have knowledge of Obummer's religious leanings. Only two are willing to go on record (and even that needs to be semi-anonymous). However; mark my words: when Dumbo ears is out of office about 3 years or so, he will admit to being a Nation of Islam member and a bunch of douche canoes around here will owe me an apology or they will be exposed as the ignorant and ill-mannered slugs that they are (again; that's not about you, Mr. Rodgers).

Remember, please: his intent was to "fundamentally change America." I say: "The scumbag's done it."



Michael


Even if most if not all of those much more modern-day versions of socialism are true, if one were among the investor class, the corp. elite and generally speaking...the 1%ers, since about 1980, they have to love America's (and Obama's, since 2008) brand of socialism.

Look where equities and the increases of wealth have gone. In fact there are studies now being done on the cost to the economy of having so much of capitalism's capital...going into paper, it's beginning to hurt. [It] doesn't create growth.

Suffice to to say Michael, if one looks at the practical difference in policies and what's really happened on the street as it were, the socialists of the 21st century have been an abject failure.

Some socialists believe or propose a lot of things, most don't and fewer yet actually...come to be.



_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: ISIS can't attack the US - 11/21/2015 7:46:03 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
And nobody will ever accuse nutsuckers of having a vigorous social agenda.

They read the constitution as: I, the People; all the while bellying up to the welfare trough and free riding.

They are pigs in swine clothing.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: ISIS can't attack the US - 11/21/2015 7:53:57 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
Otter You know it isn't nice to talk about all the men and women that like to suck on nuts, whest they be liberal, moderate, conservative, etc., on here that like to suck on nuts. It just isn't true that they are pigs (who I seriously doubt can type and are dressed up as pigs.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: ISIS can't attack the US - 11/21/2015 8:13:55 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5K4CwWo6Os

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: ISIS can't attack the US - 11/22/2015 4:12:25 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
Otter Don't watch cartoons, never liked the Beatles, Presley, AC/DC, etc.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: ISIS can't attack the US - 11/22/2015 7:24:24 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
DS definately I agree that there is no AUMF. And I think the action taken is an over reach of authority. Not sure what to do about it. If we look back at history, I think Obama's legacy is in jepordy. No matter how much good he does, it only takes one fuck up to screw him forever and this might be it. Who knows.


The one-fuck up to ruin a legacy is only for the short term. If he is truly doing what he thinks is in the best interest of the USA, and those in the future agree with him, when they look back in history, his legacy will be just fine. Isn't it just a bit narcissistic to govern based upon your concern for your "legacy?" I'm not so sure Obama is that narcissistic.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: ISIS can't attack the US - 11/22/2015 7:59:27 AM   
MercTech


Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline
The concept that the war in Iraq is over is ridiculous. The war still continues and will continue. The number of U.S. troops in the war is being reduced and the locals are being left to fight it out.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: ISIS can't attack the US - 11/23/2015 1:12:03 AM   
MariaB


Posts: 2969
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

My government subsidised housing can be sold for profit. Many of us makes hundreds of thousands of dollars flipping them, so if we can sell our government housing for profit, it's as good as a commercial mortgage. Also our government subsidised housing is not cheap. It's smaller than the homes you have in US. My brother is getting a newly built one and his still paying 600k for it, after subsidized price. People still need a certain wealth to own one. That still says alot about how they are eliminating poverty and allowing people to afford government housing at non-cheap price.



This is what Thatcher did during her divide and rule reign. Good luck with that.

_____________________________

My store is http://e-stimstore.com

(in reply to Greta75)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: ISIS can't attack the US - 11/23/2015 1:18:29 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

The concept that the war in Iraq is over is ridiculous. The war still continues and will continue. The number of U.S. troops in the war is being reduced and the locals are being left to fight it out.

The war in Iraq is over. Maybe you forgot that Obama said so in oct 2011

http://news.yahoo.com/iraq-war-over-us-troops-coming-home-obama-212231415.html;_ylt=AwrTccyi2VJWnUIAc3AnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEyaWVndnFzBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjExMTVfMQRzZWMDc3I-

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: ISIS can't attack the US - 11/23/2015 3:51:12 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
I'm not sure that the lack of an AUMF is going to change anything.

These wars are being fought through proxies. As I understand it, an AUMF is irrelevant to proxies.

Even if the US could be somehow prevented from arming its proxies directly, all it has to do to circumvent any constraint is arm them through third parties. Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey (the last two being important US allies in the region) are more than happy to act as conduits to the Syrian rebels - they've shown such an aptitude for it that they will arm anyone who opposes Assad including IS. And finance them too if $ are short. Hey the Saudis will even be glad to supply them with happy pills too, if that's what it takes.

So the flow of arms to various anti-Assad outfits of varying political hues (from fundamentalist Islamists through to nominal democrat) continues unabated. It's likely to continue for as long as it takes ..... But that doesn't mean that the US (or the UK which is behaving in exactly the same fashion as the US) isn't involved.

Those who thought that the enemy was Islamic fundamentalists need to think again. If the evidence from Syria is anything to go by, getting rid of Assad is a much higher priority in Washington and London.

_____________________________



(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: ISIS can't attack the US - 11/23/2015 8:36:23 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey


quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

The concept that the war in Iraq is over is ridiculous. The war still continues and will continue. The number of U.S. troops in the war is being reduced and the locals are being left to fight it out.

The war in Iraq is over. Maybe you forgot that Obama said so in oct 2011

http://news.yahoo.com/iraq-war-over-us-troops-coming-home-obama-212231415.html;_ylt=AwrTccyi2VJWnUIAc3AnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEyaWVndnFzBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjExMTVfMQRzZWMDc3I-



Because Bush said so, by treaty or agreement or whatever.


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: ISIS can't attack the US - 11/23/2015 8:38:55 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I'm not sure that the lack of an AUMF is going to change anything.

These wars are being fought through proxies. As I understand it, an AUMF is irrelevant to proxies.

Even if the US could be somehow prevented from arming its proxies directly, all it has to do to circumvent any constraint is arm them through third parties. Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey (the last two being important US allies in the region) are more than happy to act as conduits to the Syrian rebels - they've shown such an aptitude for it that they will arm anyone who opposes Assad including IS. And finance them too if $ are short. Hey the Saudis will even be glad to supply them with happy pills too, if that's what it takes.

So the flow of arms to various anti-Assad outfits of varying political hues (from fundamentalist Islamists through to nominal democrat) continues unabated. It's likely to continue for as long as it takes ..... But that doesn't mean that the US (or the UK which is behaving in exactly the same fashion as the US) isn't involved.

Those who thought that the enemy was Islamic fundamentalists need to think again. If the evidence from Syria is anything to go by, getting rid of Assad is a much higher priority in Washington and London.



Saudi Arabia, because of the wealth of the royal family, and the size, is the perpetrator of 9/11. Turkey is a problem because of its Kurdish territory.

(and I talked about this before 2008 I said all this at the outset, before we went into Iraq.) And of course, those are our best allies. We got trouble.



_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: ISIS can't attack the US - 11/23/2015 12:59:30 PM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey


quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

The concept that the war in Iraq is over is ridiculous. The war still continues and will continue. The number of U.S. troops in the war is being reduced and the locals are being left to fight it out.

The war in Iraq is over. Maybe you forgot that Obama said so in oct 2011

http://news.yahoo.com/iraq-war-over-us-troops-coming-home-obama-212231415.html;_ylt=AwrTccyi2VJWnUIAc3AnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEyaWVndnFzBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjExMTVfMQRzZWMDc3I-



Because Bush said so, by treaty or agreement or whatever.


Yup Obama says it so it must be Bush's fault because Obama can only parrot whatever Bush says? I would like to see your reference that Bush said it first.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: ISIS can't attack the US - 11/23/2015 1:37:27 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Dude, grab a goddamn gallon of reality:

The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

He was getting shoes thrown at him, as he ran around in Iraq saying what a great fucking guy he was signing this on behalf of the liberators of the United States, it made the news goddammit, I know it did.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: ISIS can't attack the US - 11/23/2015 2:52:21 PM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
You are right. The SOFA had expired. But Bush didn't say the war was over. That was Obama. And since then a new war has broken out which Obama is fighting under what authority? Especially in Syria? Once the war is over and we pull out it is over. We are no longer involved. Hence, HIM's (my words) Obama words, the war is over. Get a clue.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: ISIS can't attack the US - 11/23/2015 5:10:47 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
I'm not sure that the lack of an AUMF is going to change anything.
These wars are being fought through proxies. As I understand it, an AUMF is irrelevant to proxies.
Even if the US could be somehow prevented from arming its proxies directly, all it has to do to circumvent any constraint is arm them through third parties. Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey (the last two being important US allies in the region) are more than happy to act as conduits to the Syrian rebels - they've shown such an aptitude for it that they will arm anyone who opposes Assad including IS. And finance them too if $ are short. Hey the Saudis will even be glad to supply them with happy pills too, if that's what it takes.
So the flow of arms to various anti-Assad outfits of varying political hues (from fundamentalist Islamists through to nominal democrat) continues unabated. It's likely to continue for as long as it takes ..... But that doesn't mean that the US (or the UK which is behaving in exactly the same fashion as the US) isn't involved.
Those who thought that the enemy was Islamic fundamentalists need to think again. If the evidence from Syria is anything to go by, getting rid of Assad is a much higher priority in Washington and London.


1. An AUMF would allow the US Military to enter the fracas directly.
    Some people want that and some don't. I agree with some, and don't agree with others.


2. The US has a solid history of fighting through proxies, and having that come back and bite us in the ass.
    The US needs to determine what our foreign policy can possibly be, under the Constitution, and then form the specific policy that falls within that range. If we're going to jump in, we need to do so with both feet (and plenty of other body parts), and fight like we mean to win quickly and decisively. If the President says "shock and awe," we damn well better go in with shock and awe, rather than being shocked at how little awe there was.


3. Don't dance around the subject. Be direct. Be intentional. If you say it, do it.
    No more "red line" fiascoes. No more "mission creep." Decide to go in or stay out, and be very bold in following the decision.


Personally, I don't see this as a problem for the US directly (at least not at this time). Indirectly, however, a NATO member-nation has been attacked, and we might have some required actions according to that charter. President Obama has a whole lot on his plate because of this shit.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: ISIS can't attack the US - 11/23/2015 8:48:02 PM   
Greta75


Posts: 9968
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline
This is interesting.

https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2015/11/24/msnbcs-no-fly-list-is-islamophobia-poster-boy-arrested-in-turkey-as-part-of-isis-cell

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: ISIS can't attack the US Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.156