Reply With Quote
Who's afraid of law abiding gun owners?
As long as you aren't in certain neighborhoods the risk of gun violence is on par with the safest places in the world. The risk from law abiding gun owners is zero.
Who's afraid of law abiding gun owners?
a white guy with a rifle walking around a black neighborhood scares black people (happened a couple weeks ago)
My observation that you live in fear was not a derogatory personal comment. I just took my pre-teen daughter to New York to see the city at christmastime. Terrorism didn't cross my mind. If you're thinking twice about going to a mall, you live in fear.
It's a good thing we make people register as Law Abiding before we let them purchase a gun.
Too late, there is already 6M, about 2%, Muslims in USA. They're annulling all US law and installing Sharia everywhere.
Ditto. Assimilation is key. IMO, the US needs to close its borders and assimilate all the immigrants. It probably takes 1-2 generations to fully assimilate. I've noticed that no matter how much one speaks to a child in a native language, once the child goes to public school, English becomes the language of choice. Then the next generation significantly loses the language. Here in Miami, there are so many Spanish speakers that there is no need (for the older people) to ever learn English.
As far as the Muslims are concerned, a lot depends on where they settle. If scattered, assimilation is easier, but if they settle in large pockets or one place, keeping the culture/religion is much easier.
of course not. there are no easy answers to stuff like this.
do you think it's a good idea to do stuff in response just so we can say we did something about it, even if it does no good, or in fact makes things worse, like the last decade and a half of US invasion, occupation and war in the middle east and south Asia?
You can say that about Sao Paulo too. That crime is segmented socioeconomically doesn't mean its valid to just bias like that when discussing policy.
Well what you are really asking when you reference the last decade and a half is if I think half measures are a good idea and of course the answer is no. I don't agree that there are no easy answers because the question for the West is pretty simple. Do we want to defeat radical Islamist ideology through military action or not?
If the answer is yes then we have to accept military action is war and that the only way to win a war is through overwhelming force and brutality. History shows that this is the only way to win a war against an ideology. If we choose yes, we need to live with the consequences of that answer.
If the answer is no we need to stop using "limited" military operations and interventions because history shows they cannot defeat an ideology. If we choose no, we need to live with the consequences of that answer.
I don't know which answer we should choose but if we don't make a decision to either or get off the pot then we'll be having this conversation for generations.
The Repugs started this Middle East disaster, stirred up a hornet nest, and they have no ing idea of how to stop it, even in USA.
There was nothing "limited" about US military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, or even in VN, hit them with all they could. Still lost.
The only American winner in this is the MIC pocketing $Ts. The Repugs, as they are paid to be, are vehemently, corruptly pro-MIC-business.
The whole game changed when the Russians became involved. I see no problem with the multilateral approach. Keep working with the French, British and Turks in the south. Leave the Germans, Poles, etc to hold the northern flank.
lol every example you named required a "surge" which means they were limited operations.
"We" = the West = multilateral
Russia has nothing to do with the "War on Terror". Their interest is limited to Syria and supporting the Assad regime. Something I think they are right about.
the surges weren't limited. The Iraq surge got a lot more US military killed and the only way it was successful was in lying Petraeus padding his career.
It's very obvious that fighting a state-less terrorist war in unwinnable, and not because mighty USA isn't seriously trying to win.
Thanks, Repugs. y'all the best
It doesn't matter if it's multilateral or not. At best dropping bombs or even using limited forces will only drive radical Islamists from one area to another. ISIS already controls part of northern Afghanistan and is waging a brutal war against the Taliban. Afghanistan is a perfect example of how we went in with half measures and then compounded the problem by forgetting who our enemy was. We are doing the same in Syria by deciding that Assad is our enemy.
If the longest war in US history (Afghanistan,) the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the ongoing drone wars in half a dozen countries at least, and the proxy wars in Yemen and Syria are half measures, what would a comprehensive military effort look like, and why do you think it wouldn't incubate generations of backlash in all the countries we attack?
Millions of people have been displaced and hundreds of thousands killed. Does that seem a deterrent to radicalization, in your view?
Also, is our own military ready for such an effort and will the country support it? Leaving aside the question of whether a purely military response is strategically wise, whether it is logistically and more importantly, politically sustainable, are important questions.
If the so-called half measures of the longest war in US history, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the ongoing drone wars and proxy wars -- a dozen years of intense and continuous war -- have been inadequate, why do you place faith in the effectiveness of more of the same?
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-11-2015 at 04:39 AM.
Nazism wasn't defeated, btw. It lives in France and the USA -- and many other places -- today. The ideology wasn't defeated in WWII -- only the contemporaneous exemplars were.
So much for defeating ideologies with warlike brutality.
That's false. Accidents happen and violence doesn't restrict itself to dangerous neighborhoods.
"The risk from law abiding gun owners is zero."
According to data collected by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), an average of 62 children aged 14 and under die each year in the United States as the result of unintentional shootings.
The CDC number was tragic enough. It already meant that U.S. children are 16 times more likely to be unintentionally shot to death than children in other high-income countries.
https://www.minnpost.com/second-opin...ou-might-think
I’m not a military scholar but I’ll just guess…Probably a million+ troops required to secure the peace throughout the middle east/northern Africa. Of course there would be backlash…those would be the people to kill...there would be a lot of them.
Millions of people have been displaced and hundreds of thousands killed without securing the peace is the opposite of a deterrent, that’s basically the point you've been making which I agree with. It’s the result of half measures.
I’m not talking about more of the same. You’re right that the actions to date have been inadequate but you have to ask why they were inadequate.
Afghanistan – CIA led operation attempted with an insufficient number of forces to secure the country. The people of Afghanistan were going to be so pleased with our invasion that they would secure the peace for us.
Iraq – Attempted using Rumsfeld’s vision of modern warfare, small rapidly moving force with superior firepower. Insufficient number of forces to secure the country. The people of Iraq were going to be so pleased with our invasion that they would secure the peace for us. Wiser military minds suggested 300,00 to 500,000 troops would be required, they were ignored.
Drone wars/proxy wars – in response to the failure of using an insufficient number of troops to secure the peace the new military strategy is to try using even less (or zero) troops.
No and No but that is what a military solution looks like imo.
I didn’t say this is what we should do. I said this is what a military solution looks like and we have to live with the consequences of it if we decide military action is the solution. If it sounds like I’m describing WWIII it’s because I am. The reality is if you list all of the countries actively using military force to defeat radical Islam then you see we are already in WWIII. We are just trying to do it without getting ours hands too dirty so we can call ourselves the good guys but there are no good guys in war. There’s just a winner and a loser, the winner gets to call himself the good guy.
So Winehole, you correctly pointed out that what I call half measures (small scale invasions/occupations, drone wars, proxy wars) are inadequate and only exacerbate the problem. From your responses it’s clear you are opposed to the full scale WWIII approach. So it seems your answer to the question “Do we want to defeat radical Islamist ideology through military action?” is No. Can you describe what that approach looks like? Serious question, I would like to hear what a non military solution looks like. Like I said I don't know if the correct answer to the question is yes or no but if it is no then I have no clue what the solution looks like. To me answering no just means we accept the current situation as the norm, perhaps that is the best approach idk.
lol
Last edited by SnakeBoy; 12-11-2015 at 02:29 PM.
"The risk from law abiding gun owners is zero."
According to data collected by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), an average of 62 children aged 14 and under die each year in the United States as the result of unintentional shootings.
The CDC number was tragic enough. It already meant that U.S. children are 16 times more likely to be unintentionally shot to death than children in other high-income countries.
https://www.minnpost.com/second-opin...ou-might-think
Ahhh...the goal of gun control is to prevent accidental shootings. I did not know that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
