Dodd, you socialist, don't you know taxpayer dollars are for the War Machine only, so that we create more wealth redistribution to the 1%ers?

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

Anyway, your Clausewitzian thing says "if someone else shoots first ......". How do we define that? Wait for the next 9/11 or worse? .

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

1. Ok, it's a point. But, to me, its one of geography. Americans hang out on other people's soil, they assume risks. If you attack Americans on their soil (i.e., 9/11, a embassy, a military base), then you've "shot first".

Sure, that gives the bad guys a free shot. One. But, see, none of the bad guys is big enough to stand up to unmeasured response.

2. Because that's my main point. You go to the knife, you go all in. You don't measure yourself against civilized standards. Attacking first is a waiver of the right to be treated as anything other than a barbarian.

You don't worry about what happens when the bombing stops. Because you get to decide when the bombing stops.

The Germans have never attacked again. THey're no longer barbarians. The Japanese have never attacked again. They're no longer barbarians.

Choose to be a barbarian if you want. Choose to be a barbarian and attack us? You're on death sentence until *we* decide you've become civilized enough.

Do Americans have that kind of will any more? Probably not. I can't imagine us electing politicians that have that kind of will and character. Unfortunately.

We've forgotten what tolerance is supposed to be. It's letting barbarians go to hell in their own way. It's not letting those barbarians define the terms of engagement when the barbarians move out of their sandbox.

Originally Posted by: Wade 

1. Ok, it's a point. But, to me, its one of geography. Americans hang out on other people's soil, they assume risks. If you attack Americans on their soil (i.e., 9/11, a embassy, a military base), then you've "shot first".

Sure, that gives the bad guys a free shot. One. But, see, none of the bad guys is big enough to stand up to unmeasured response.

2. Because that's my main point. You go to the knife, you go all in. You don't measure yourself against civilized standards. Attacking first is a waiver of the right to be treated as anything other than a barbarian.

You don't worry about what happens when the bombing stops. Because you get to decide when the bombing stops.

The Germans have never attacked again. THey're no longer barbarians. The Japanese have never attacked again. They're no longer barbarians.

Choose to be a barbarian if you want. Choose to be a barbarian and attack us? You're on death sentence until *we* decide you've become civilized enough.

Do Americans have that kind of will any more? Probably not. I can't imagine us electing politicians that have that kind of will and character. Unfortunately.

Originally Posted by: Wade 

Yeah, Wade, we make you the president - nope, make that the benevolent dictator, and then maybe it would work. However, your last line says it all. A politician making that kind of a threat would get absolutely crucified by the damn leftist mainstream media and the p.c. crowd who eat their shit up. And for the "unmeasured response" to survive that wrath of that p.c. crowd, the first hit by the enemy would have to be pretty damn horrendous. Maybe that's what it will come down to - we lose a city or two, but even then, do you really think we would ever basically take out the whole Muslim world?

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

Yeah, Wade, we make you the president - nope, make that the benevolent dictator, and then maybe it would work. However, your last line says it all. A politician making that kind of a threat would get absolutely crucified by the damn leftist mainstream media and the p.c. crowd who eat their sh*t up. And for the "unmeasured response" to survive that wrath of that p.c. crowd, the first hit by the enemy would have to be pretty damn horrendous. Maybe that's what it will come down to - we lose a city or two, but even then, do you really think we would ever basically take out the whole Muslim world?

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

VERY boring post, as it requires one to read, contrasted with spouting off. Since we are going to war again, and since none of us will have an actual investment in it, I don't think it would kill anyone to invest a whole 10 minutes of their life to read about the etymology of ISIS, ISIL, IS, Al-Qaeda of Iraq. the various names/guises, operations, etc.

Whoever wrote this wiki had their sh*t together, imo


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant 

Originally Posted by: dfosterf 

The Islamic State (IS; Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية‎ ad-Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah), previously calling itself the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL; /ˈaɪsəl/) or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS; /ˈaɪsɪs/; Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام‎), and also known by the Arabic acronym Daʿesh (داعش),🅰 is an unrecognized state and a Sunni jihadist group active in Iraq and Syria in the Middle East. In its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims across the world[67] and aspires to bring most of the Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its political control[68] beginning with territory in the Levant region which includes Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus and part of southern Turkey.[