I read of GOP candidate solutions to the ISIS crisis.
McCain and Lindsey talk about an American led ground force that includes regional armies to destroy ISIS on the ground.
He we go, full circle, involving ourselves in more foreign entanglements. These guys talk a good game on "Meet the Press', but where is the follow through?
Everybody wants to look tough, it is the President's responsibility to be prudent and measured in response and solutions.
President Kennedy once said that advisers come and go, but it is the President that takes the responsibility while advisers simply move on to more advice. That sort of responsible attitude is how he was successful in navigating America through the Cuban Missile Crisis back in 1962.
ISIS is almost as much an 'idea' as it is a physical force. Who is going to commit troops and resources to make sure that once ISIS is stamped out it stays 'stamped out'? Ideas are extremely difficult to defeat.
Trump want to create a 'beautiful safe zone' in Syria to deal with the refugee crisis. Thats brilliant, so I suppose Assad, Al Queda and ISIS are just going to concur with Trump's vision of a more peaceful world.
More rightwing stupidity: Religious litmus tests for those Syrians refugees permitted to find asylum here.
Making money the old fashioned way is what McCain and Graham want to do. How many donations can you get if you start another little war? Halliburton and the like made out like bandits. The coffers are drying up under Obama so let's get it going again.
LET ME BE CLEAR! YOU CANNOT WIN A TERRORIST WAR WITH CONVENTIONAL METHODS!!!!
If we do anything it should be to terrorize them.
I have already posted a rant in another thread, (re; the Paris attacks), that shouted for sending in the Marines. But, a rant was what it was. An emotional response that is not too different from what many others feel.
After pouring a Martini and deciding to be realistic instead of emotional, I am looking for a different approach. I know that militarily crushing ISIS in Syria, or Iraq, or where ever is not a realistic option, it just makes folks feel good to shout for it.
So what to do? Go after the money! In everyone's world, western or otherwise, it is money that makes the world go round. Go after ISIS money sources first. Either here, or in the news, I recall a statement that ISIS pulls in about 3 million a day. Let's go after the money first. We will never defeat their ideology with force, so let's go after its force multiplier, (the money), and then ponder further moves.
ps. pandering is an equal opportunity tool, the Right is just more blatant in its use. So while you rightly castrate the Right's advocates, don't be blind to your guys moves either.
GA, let me clarify your 'PS".
The view from my perch is that of life and our viewpoints are relative. These are not 'my guys' more than they are the lesser of two evils. If I were running things and I could be free and clear to navigate, it would be a different world.
As I told you before the military industrial complex is a fixture in American life that has not and cannot be dislodged by either party, neither 'my guys' or the other guys.
It is just that my guys are not so quick to hop into bed and embrace the concepts of this 'complex' as readily as the other guys. And I will take that, as that may well be all that I can get, but it is better than the approach of the other side.
P.S. But I do like your idea of attacking the funding sources, depriving the beast of its oxygen supply will have it surely die and dry up in the desert. It has more potential as a weapon than all the standing armies
"Your thoughts ? ......... as usual you won't really want our thoughts but here they are .
One day, just one city in America will become the European city scene played out again and again on the news . This is simply inevitable , a ticking clock , much like 9//II and yet we will all stand in shock ,watching once again as the bodies , the names , the families and the questions are replayed on camera . The political "leaders " will join arm and arm and then return to the bunkers .
WHEN that happens , some part of my imagination just can't wait to see the about face with liberal puppets and parrots in America . Somehow everything will change when tragedy hits YOUR town , your city , your family . I admit , I have never lived in a war torn environment , I suspect however , that most people become a bit more conservative in their political outlooks . I KNOW THAT WILL BE THE CASE IN AMERICA . at least then the parroting of liberal world order will disappear into a world of silence for their own protection .
Imagine the obvious , you turn on the faucet , no water , you take the garbage bag out to the streets and stack it onto a thousand others , No super-bowl on Sunday , that alone will destroy half of Americans . Run to the super market to empty shelves and that means empty stomachs , And all of this occurs in just ONE city in America , Katrina will seam like a daydream . Some part of me just cant wait to watch the panic on the much parroted left in this country .
I however have questions for liberals , WHY do liberals ALL parrot the chosen leader of the day ? Verbatim ? When at least those on the right know instinctively how to think for themselves ? How to prepare , how to overcome the obstacles and prepare for the inevitable . And yet , every single time the left creates the joke of day as actually being conservatism ?
"I however have questions for liberals , WHY do liberals ALL parrot the chosen leader of the day ? Verbatim ? When at least those on the right know instinctively how to think for themselves ? How to prepare , how to overcome the obstacles and prepare for the inevitable . And yet , every single time the left creates the joke of day as actually being conservatism ?"
These generalizations I know are a part of your rant and venting because this is not and never will be about the liberal or conservative theories that they espouse to be. This is about the movement towards globalization. Reduce the rich countries ability to sustain and uplift the competing countries abilities to compete. ISIS is a movement that will be a good vehicle to bankrupt rich countries to fight the conventional expensive wars the banks want. The banks will of course finance it and collect from the citizenry accordingly. Both the "liberals" and the "conservatives" are behind globalization. We will now find out how much with the intricacies as we meander through the latest crisis. If this all sounds too crazy ask yourself why Saudi Arabia has been silent in all of this and when Yemen attacked them it was squashed toot sweet? Why is Saudi Arabia so insulated from all of the problems to their north? And than ask yourself the importance of the petro dollar?
Yes, I did ask for your thoughts, your point of view is welcome even though I won't agree with it.
When does the rightwing guys ever stop crying "Wolf"
You can check me on this but since 9/11, we have had more home grown domestic terrorism from anti-government, white supremists than any threat from the outside. Maybe, we need to be looking more earnestly there?
It has been 14 years since 9/11 and it has been relatively quiet, I think that I can safely step outside without fear of being killed by a falling meteor.
It is the rightwingers , not the left that always show a deficit in good judgement. The rightwing community plays the same script like a TV miniseries, this scare tactic stuff, because they know their techniques has a profound effect on the feeble minded, it is that power of suggestion, you know.... And the Right knows that there are plenty of these people around, ever ready to be 'spooked' by the next parlor trick.
"It has been 14 years since 9/11 and it has been relatively quiet,"
Yes, it has been relatively quiet although there have been instances (the Boston Marathon comes to mind). How much of that is due to efforts on the part of government?
But does the right wing advocate terrorism and anarchy as a solution? Are these crackpot domestic terrorists even lucid in the arguments from both sides?
This right/left argument gets in the way of any progress and frankly leaves a void where there should be discussion. It is a convenient way for politicians to push our buttons and propagandize every issue they want confusion to reign. Then the politicians go on the merry way doing what their handlers want them to do. Where does it leave us? If all this liberal/conservative wrangling had any effect on our politics why do we still have a 93% dissatisfaction rating of Congress while they do what they want against our wishes and get richer for it?
There is discussion, Bernie Sanders is a liberal and he is that breath of fresh air that challenges the trend, putting the lease back on Wall Street and taking the steam from the perpetual war machine. I have no problem with labels so long as the label actually reflect what is in the jar.
But we both know, that the solutions that we seek are definitely not coming from the Right. Reality is relative and I have to take the best that I can get toward the goals that you and I share in regards to the direction toward which we should be moving.
Which ideological pole and political perspective is challenging the hegemony of big money and militarism? There is the side whose only solution is military adventurism, that confuse the desire for peace with naivety.
We can see over the politicians, they and their pandering are quite transparent. I already know what I am looking for and what it is I want to avoid, and if can't do that perfectly......
The discussion between the liberal/conservative camps is more a vile argument between bitter rivals complete with finger pointing and name calling. Liberals and conservatives have made grave mistakes alike.
I lean more liberal than conservative but I see points on the right that sometimes make more sense. I am not sure what the solution is for the Syrian refugees but I want to make sure in our bighearted philanthropy we do not end up with even one crazed bomber here that may kill my grand daughter. As far as rushing in to kill as many Muslims as we can in Syria I abhor the idea of boots on the ground as does about 75% of the rest of America. These are ideas right down the middle and all I get from either side of the opposing opinions is grief because I won't agree all one way. As an independent we decide the elections and the liberal/conservative factions should come back to the middle and compromise.
RH, the fact that you lean more liberal than conservative is an acknowledgment that there is a difference.
Seems to me that most of the trouble makers are not so much refugees, but homegrown adherents, 5th column types. While I don't have the info with me but I thought that those involved in the Paris attacks were not refugees.
The problem is that no one can agree as to what is the middle and there is a difference. I really have not seen a strident radical left in 50 years, but for the Right it is here and what we contend with now. They pose the greatest threat to harmonious government
Just because I lean one way or the other is not an admission that I am one way of the other. It just means I identify with the topic and not the implication. I worked with a guy who liked to argue politics and identified with the right almost exclusively. We got into many discussions where he was always left wondering where I stood. He said he spoke with his wife one night about a conversation we had that day and she said what was I? A liberal or a conservative. He said he scratched his head and replied with frustration, reasonable.
As far as the Paris attacks I think it would be prudent to examine the situation further before committing to something that could become catastrophic. Just because it hasn't happened yet does not mean the conditions for it to happen have been fully eliminated. I would rather be more careful than magnanimous with my security.
I just want to comment that I notice you are constantly talking about the right/left polarization as a big problem, and I agree that it is. However, I think you are wrong to lay equal blame on both sides. Equal blame was accurate 30 years ago, but then the polarization was not so drastic that at least some progress was made through compromise. But now, blame is pretty much on the radical conservative Tea Party types and the more mainstream politicians who catered to them to win elections. Now, they are out of control and causing real harm to our nation. I think the tide is turning and they will soon be marginalized enough that we can finally start to move forward. I don't know if that will happen in this next major election, but I believe at least by the next one we will see a shift back to some semblance of sanity in the Republican party. It must happen for them to be relevant again.
The problem is not with Congress. It is with us. Do you think the Tea Party is a representative majority of our population? What about the progressives? Are they a fair representation of our electorate? The problem is not who is in there but us that keep sending the same people back to Congress expecting a different result. It just gets worse and they get more power with each year they are there. Big money has bought them out and we just sit back and argue theories and postures while they do whatever they want. Congress feeds us whatever we need to drabble about and get re-elected every time.
Hillary was for the TPP and now she is against it. Her bold promise to expand President Obama's controversial executive actions on immigration reverse the ambivalence she showed during the 2008 campaign when asked in a primary debate of undocumented immigrants should be allowed to have driver's licenses. And her embrace of same-sex marriage came even though she once supported the Defense of Marriage Act, one of the most high-profile anti-gay pieces of legislation ever enacted.
We swallow all this horse manure and more and vote for the lies about the lies that the politicians are going to do for us, are against for us and doing as a choice of leadership. Jeb Bush got on Fox Snooze this morning and advocated a US lead war against ISIS in Syria. Boots on the ground even though 75% of Americans are dead set against it. Did we not learn from the first imbecile Bush "W". His Dad knew the consequences of toppling Saddam Hussein and stopped at the city gates.
Can we talk about the topics without bringing theories into the mix?
RH, how much time have most of us spent trying to get so much of the electorate to stop voting against their own best interests? I am open to suggestion as to how we fix that....
Information is so readily available these days so that there is no excuse for people uninformed.
What do they say, you can lead a horse to water.....
Bush is the most prominent among the chicken hawk class. War is good for the economy allowing the creation of a bogey-man and is an excellent distraction for the people diverting their attention from who it is that actually has their hands in their pockets.
Ms. Clinton has too many stakes in the status quo for my comfort, but the candidates from other side is even more egregious than she.
"Information is so readily available these days so that there is no excuse for people uninformed. "
Readily available, yes...and 90% wrong. Either an honest mistake, an outright lie or, more commonly, half the story with the other half deliberately hidden. As such it isn't easy to educate ones self at all - coupled with an much improved snake oil salesman from the old west it is impossible for most folk.
You have to take the time to vet sources properly, just like you did to support your claims as to firearm deaths related to general homicides. The information is there and if you look carefully somewhere inbetween opposing points of view is the truth.
Yes. And few people are either able or have the time to do that. Instead they take the word of whoever they agree with anyway - whatever view matches their prejudices or beliefs. Like that millions that think vaccines produce autism or that think we can tax the deficit away by confiscating the incomes of the 1%. Or that think WalMart can double salaries, without increasing prices, and stay in business.
Unable AND unwilling to collect data and then analyze it, they believe whatever they wish to. Much more sophisticated in PR, the snake oil salesmen still win the contest for too many minds.
I also have to ask you what would make you presume that all of the 'story' is not being told and which aspects do you think is bein 'held back' for instance?
Look at the vaccine controversy. Over and over we hear about the study that "proved" vaccines cause autism...without ever mentioning that the study has been discredited again and again. Without ever mentioning that NO other study has ever found any connection. Only part of the story.
Over and over we see that WalMart and McDonalds can double their salaries. Without ever hearing that the profits are not enough to cover that, even without leaving any profit to stockholders. Only part of the story.
So very few people any more try to give a balanced, well researched conclusion; they are only interested in convincing others (truthfully or not) of a specific view.
Just out of curiosity, I did a google inquiry asking the question can Walmart realistical raise wages without tanking their stock price, dangerously cut into money needed for aspects of business costs or the destroy their profit.
I get a trashy rightwing site called 'youngcons', a fitting title, Yes? They of course advocated no minimum wage change and that even a modest upward change would bring the American economy to a crashing halt. Right...
There were other sites that I knew were guilty of leftwing bias and were ready to feed the bad capitalists to the wolves like they used to consign the hapless ones fed to the lions in the Roman Arenas.
Then I find a article from Fortune magazine, a respected mainstream publication, is it not? It says that Walmart could make modest increases in wages without bringing the house down.
I am not going to believe the wingnut sites, so why should I sympathise will Walmart, when mainstream media says that they can afford the adjustment?Why am I going to give any serious credibility to rightwing sources who have an agenda whether the facts support their position or not.
Why does Walmart not make a public statement about the issue presenting its case, pro or con?
But the same can be said about left wing media sources. But when respected sources of journalism say so, I am going to pay attention, otherwise what is the basis of 'your fair and balanced' statements, taking the conservative tack on anything? You don't want to be guilty of citing the Colorfulone's impeccable journalistic sources to make your points, do you?
So you chose a far right publication that said they couldn't. But didn't bother to look at far left ones that say they can, knowing that they will lie. Why was that? (I do see that somehow my statement about doubling wages turned into a "modest increase" - a change of subject?)
We all know WalMart could give a modest wage increase - all profitable businesses could. But that has nothing to do with claims they could double their wages.
Why should WalMart make any such statement? Remember Obama and his birth certificate? The hour it was given out the wing nuts promptly said it was forged and/or faked - they'll do the same for anything WalMart says. Truth is not necessary, just rhetoric to inflame emotions and that's very nearly all we get.
No, I don't to be guilty of the same thing some here do. Which is why I prefer to do the research myself rather than depend on someone else to produce a conclusion. I don't trust either right OR left to do anything but push their own agenda.
(Speaking of which, have you seen where major medical insurance companies are losing money on their policies now? Seems that they are overloaded with sick people instead of the normal ration of sick to healthy, meaning their claims are more than the price of their policies. What a shocker, but we were told that would never happen - that ObamaCare would save money for everyone. That health care expenditures would go up was inevitable, but the left didn't want to say so, so it was never mentioned. Half the story.)
As for the far left sites, I did look at them and they were saying that Walmart could pay an exorbitant amount more, but I did not accept this because I suspected bias.
If you say that the left or right pushes their own agendas, how do you know what is true and what isn't?
You do your own research. Collect data from sources that have nothing to do with the question you're looking at, analyze it and come to your own conclusion.
WalMart: look up how much the company earned (commonly available). Look up the number of employees. Divide one by the other and divide by 2080 hours per year. This is the maximum raise that could be given per full time employee. It is far, far less than the leftists would have you believe.
Vaccines: much more difficult, and why no one does it. Find the original data and analyze it. As few people are competent to do that, the common result is to accept whatever you would want to believe anyway. Alternatively, thoroughly review several dozen claims. Analyze the authors for veracity, and for where their data is coming from. If one side (autism) comes from a single study, treat it with suspect and actively search for opposing views to study yourself. If this is your only method of finding truth, search, honestly and hard, for those opposing views for without them you will never be honest with yourself, either.
Good, I will give you credit for that, do you have that sort of background research and database on all the topics that come up here? You did make your point well with the gun proliferation issue.
But, would you acknowledge that Walmart to increase its wages without the Capitalism system coming to ruin?
How many stories are available to show how Obamacare has been successful at insuring the uninsurable and reducing costs for many, is there a balance?
And to be honest, you have been shown to have bias, i remember the exchange between you and Quill regarding Cinco de Mayo.
I already said WalMart could increase it's wages: every profitable business could. The question is how much, and how much profit should go to shareholders.
ObamaCare has indeed insured the uninsurable. No question about that, but of course I did not say it didn't. I said that it is costing far more than we were led to believe and that one of the major reasons is that no one "saw" the inevitable; that more sick people would now be getting care. Not insurance, care.
All I recall about Cinco de Mayo was saying it is a fake Mexican celebration designed and used primarily to irritate Americans. I stand behind that - should you disagree, research just where it is celebrated in Mexico and how big the celebration is.
"RH, how much time have most of us spent trying to get so much of the electorate to stop voting against their own best interests? I am open to suggestion as to how we fix that...."
Better candidates that are not bought by special interests would be a good start. We can implement term limits to keep out the lobbyists and reform how lobbying can take place.
The people still have to produce the 'better candidates' at the grass roots. Then the electorate has to select these candidates to hold the offices.
Better candidates still mean smarter voters, ultimately, right? Only then can we get the changes we are all looking for
Cry wolf ?, I honestly cannot wait until the 'left' in America shows its true colors . As always AFTER a catastrophic failure of policy . You people need to look at your "domestic terror " for what it really is ! The Boston bombers came here as refugees . Is that to be considered domestic terror ? Islamic immigrants that do not assimilate their beliefs to the western cultures are a problem .
Europe and America would be far better off to set up the camps IN THE HOME countries of the refugees ! That would be far serve all the humanity of Islam . Thereby allowing them the comfort of their OWN cultural happiness . Hell, we [ the west ]already pay them enough in foreign aid . And yet , they cannot make it there ! What is the attraction here then , if not a more peaceful , successful economy for one ?
Ahorseback, I don't require to islamic immigrants to compromise their faiths, but I do require them to accept the idea of western pluralism and freedom of choice in regard to religious preference or lack of same. If they can't do that then they need to stay where they are.
To carve out areas for refugees in among the territories of combatants means we are going to war with those forces in Syria that are not going to just sit by and allow for the comfort of refugees because Trump says so.
With the cast of characters involved in the region, I say that if you want to go to war take your old rusty rifle and go help yourself.
As for 'true colors', I don't have to wait, as the Right has already shown its true colors and its not advantageous to the America people, I can tell you that.
Every politician knows that committing ground troops leads to fatalities which leads to a precipitous drop in their popularity.
93 per cent of incumbents are re-elected. It doesn't seem to make much of a difference.
President Obama takes great pride in shaking up the dialog of the day , does that make him a good president ? I believe that in the end President Carter will have to relinquish his trophies for the least effective leader of the free world ......ever .
by Kathryn L Hill5 days ago
Liberals do not like the concept of "survival of the fittest."Or do they?Wondering.
by Evan G Rogers5 years ago
Hey all,I came across this article today. http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block169.htmlI highly recommend reading the whole thing, but I'll summarize a few key points for those uninterested in the "hurdle"...
by Mike Russo4 years ago
I have been in many controversial political discussions on hub pages. I consider myself a centerist. I believe we need both some components of socialism to provide the things that we can't do as individuals and...
by Susan Reid2 years ago
excerpted from Liberals pride themselves on being tolerant. Are they really just suckers?"Does fear and intolerance actually work better? I find it interesting (not surprising) that research actually shows...
by Will Apse3 months ago
When I visit the UK I have a choice of two newspapers that I can live with. One is the impeccably liberal Guardian, the other is the solidly conservative Telegraph.I must admit, if I am feeling tired or at a low ebb for...
by Holle Abee5 years ago
How do you guys feel about American involvement in Libya? I'm honestly curious and not trying to start a fight. How is this different than Iraq - other than not having troops on the ground? Have we "invaded" a...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.