Wait, are you now giving me my opinion then arguing it? Quote me where I stated it was the only problem and that all we need to do is throw troops and money at the problem?
How can I? You've offered
nothing but this kind of response to the problem. Show me where you have offered anything else. When you say we need to put more troops into Iraq, which is what you said, by default that involves more money, more munitions. Does it not?
And your assumption indicates you did not read my previous posts, search this thread for sovereignty then try again.
Reverend Hellhound, not only did I read your posts, I pulled them ALL together and put them in one big post. I know exactly what you said. Your post containing the word sovereignty involved stripping it from nations that harbor terrorists and invading them as a solution. That is
your opinion, I didn't give it to you,
you stated it. I simply responded.
Please give me an example of "discretion and caution", as you keep throwing out buzzwords and talking points, but lack substance as to thier meaning.
I'm sorry that you can't understand what those words amount to in a military context. Seeing as we are both veterans I would assume you would get the context I was going for. Not sure what you did in the military, but from now on I'll assume you weren't combat arms.
So let me break this down for you in terms that I think you'll get. When I say "discretion and caution" I am referring to overt and covert operation that do not involve the invasion and occupation of nations, operations that do not involve the destruction of large amounts civilian utilized infrastructure (power grids, communications centers, water treatment plants), and operations that are launched in response to reasonably good HUMINT. SIGINT, IMINT, and MASINT. Operations that by design contain the damage pattern to the target area and don't end up flattening whole sections of a neighborhood. Those kinds of operations.
Wow, so not only did you apply an opinion to me that I did not have, but now you want to redirect the conversation into this pidgeon hole?
What are you talking about?
You said...
There are many things we could have done better, the solution to islamic terrorist organizations though should work like this.
Countries that harbor terrorists organizations should not be considered soverign, meaning that we should, could, and would land forces and support anywhere we deem it neccesary for the security of our people.
THAT is your position,
YOU stated it. You called it a "solution." What you described is nothing more than saying "if they harbor terrorists we invade whenever and wherever we feel it necessary." That's it. You described
nothing more. Unilateral cowboy foreign policy that relies on a big stick. I asked you to clarify your position by explaining the rest of your "solution" because you don't have the best track record of actually spelling things out here. I see you didn't even try. How come that is?
You need to firm up some of your opinions before you deflect onto a tangent.
My opinions are firmed up just fine. The problem here for you is that you have yet to actually get around one of them. Once again, all you have done is accused me of complaining and not coming up with a "solution." I gave several examples of things we could do differently. For some reason they just aren't jumping off the page at you. That is not my problem. I don't have to ask you to go and search other threads to get to what I'm saying...I've posted it all out here in front of you. What exactly are you having a problem with? Spell it out and if I've addressed it in this thread, I'll walk you back through it. If you didn't understand what I posted, I'll break it down for you.
It would be. Though I think your method of expanding the discussion, dilutes this talk, lets stay focused, and even narrow it down in future posts to at least a single post response.
Well I suppose you shouldn't bring it up in the discussion if you're not prepared to at explain it. You used your "solution" to counter my argument. Excuse me for asking you to not be so simplistic since what you have proposed has already been tried and failed. Is it wrong for me to ask you what your plan consists of and how it's going to be somehow different?
I have offered exactly 100% more of a solution than you brother. I am happy to get into the diplomatic side of the conversation. Let me know which of these tangents you want to stay on.
Yeah, okay. :roll: So when I start asking you to provide at least as much detail as I have all of sudden I'm going off on a tangent. This discussion has evolved in a very relevant and on topic fashion. Just because I'm forcing you to step outside your one dimensional mind set on this issue does not mean I'm on a tangent or diluting the debate. It just means you don't want to go there, or you can't. Either one.
You will hear about this elsewhere.
Another tangent... Oh ok.... you are right, and I never denied that poor and destitute can be attracted to this islamic extremism. My point was that so could the rich and well to do..... which you seemed to gloss over.
How did I gloss over it exactly? You, in your typical fashion, were simplifying and limiting your remarks in order to counter me in some way. I say poor, you say rich. You took one example over the history of this problem, narrowed it to less than two dozen people and said...
RHH said said:
Regarding the poor plight of the enemy. IIRC many of the 911 terrorists were highly educated. this is in stark contrast to your seemingly claim of poor uneducated people indoctrinated into islamic terrorism..
How is that in anyway a "stark contrast" to my assertion that the poor and undereducated are prime targets for indoctrination to the radical Islamic movement? What was the point of your comment? Just so you would have
something to say back to me? Were you simply trying to be argumentative? I am fully aware that many of the 9/11 hijackers were well educated. So? What does that have to do with the fact that thousands of Muslims living in middle eastern ghettos are being recruited by militant clerics? That some well educated Muslims are also being recruited? Okay, I knew that already. My commentary on the poor of the middle east being at risk is relative to the over all problem and how past and current U.S. foreign policy plays a role. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to track for you.
We are talking about "the problem" of radical Islam and "solutions" to it, are we not? In an intelligent discussion of this problem is it not very relevant to talk about the underlying causes? Or are you not comfortable with that discussion? Tangent? I think not. Deep water for you? It sure looks that way. Would you prefer we just talk about the January 1 missile strike instead?
Baiting, fun..... :lol:
Nah man, I simply respond to posts in kind. You get what you give.
Well do me the courtesy of at least trying to carry on an intelligent discussion with me then. Just because you say I haven't offered up "solutions" doesn't mean I haven't provided what I believe to be the best answer to your challenges.
I have taken a great deal of time to put serious effort into reading and responding to your posts, point by point. I've glossed over nothing and addressed nearly every line of text you have posted in response to our argument. You haven't even tried to delve into a third of what I've discussed. It's fairly insulting to see you conduct yourself in this manner after I've taken your posts seriously enough to dedicate the kind of time I have in responding.
If this is the effort you can muster, don't even bother responding.