I should add here that while I have a lot of words about not letting terrorist bullies "take over the playground" while mocking when making everyone tremble, that does not mean that I have any suggestions about how to deal with it. Big difference there, I think. I'm not a military strategist... and will never pretend to be one. I think and speak in bottom lines. So "there is no way we can let them get away with it and still hold our heads up proudly" does not equate to "we need to go in and blow them away." I don't *know* how to deal with something like ISIS but complacency seems like a pathetic and cowardly option.
Kate -- thank you for your honesty. It helps me to understand you a litle better. And I am amused that you would classify me as a "la-la land zombie", for that reveils how little you really know me. As I have revealed before, I served. I spent my time in uniform 'defending' the nation. Does that give me the bonifides to speakmy mind? I was willing to go to war, if need be. But I also am aware there is a difference between a national defence and commiting troops to a war of aggression. Can you see a difference? On December 8th, 1945, FDR asked Congress to authorize a state of war be recognized with Japan -- only Japan. It was not until after Hitler called his nation to declare war on the US that the US went to war (officially) with Germany. In both cases the US rose to National Defence. But when the US invaded Iraq in 2003 that was a War of Aggression. When Junior Bush made demands on the Ba'ath Party government of Saddam Hussein such demands were met, time and again, until Junior finally demanded Saddam vacate his nation. But the America nation was told there were WMDs in Iraq, which is why we INVADED. There were no WMDs. But the US military invaded, essentially breaking down a functioning nation-state. Junior broke it and it has stayed broken ever since. So some of the Iraqi have gotten angry, formed an army, and someone in the US does not like this and want to once again scare America to war. Does it make me a zombie to try to speak the truth as I see it?
You're quite welcome. I'm not following about why there would be a need for strangers in an Internet forum to "know" each other. You state your views, those of opposing views state them, everyone moves on. "Really knowing" someone on a forum doesn't seem necessary. Or wise. So anyhow, thank you for your views. No, I didn't recall your saying that you served with the military... or that you're an American for that matter. If I knew, I forgot, but I don't have the time or interest to read every post. Thank you for your patriotic service to our country, Interrogator. In which conflict did you serve? I'm sure you understand what I meant by "la-la land zombie" because I explained it, but it refers to the kind of pacifists who think if a problem is ignored it will go away. Just doesn't work that way as you probably know. The only data that was available when answering your question was statements you made in your posts, so of course that's what it was based on. Oh, and that thing you said about helping you to "understand me a little better"... let's not go there. There is no need for it in a discussion forum and it makes most people nervous.
I don't want to be cynical, but the want to bring peace argument to start a war is ridiculous, financial interests are involved, being via oil or the selling of weaponry...
Have any of your countrymen or women been beheaded by ISIS, @Peninha ? Just curious. To hear someone say THIS particular fight is about oil is kind of... well, unbelievable. Or did I misunderstand what you were implying?
To the Western sensativity beheading is a brutal way to kill a person. But is it less brutal, after all, than killing people using a remote-controlled drone to launch a missle to kill multiple persons gathered to celebrate a wedding? Both sides are not blameless.
Some people seem to think just burying our heads in the sand is going to make all the problems in the world go away. Contrary to the odd belief that America is the cause of most of the problems and violence in the rest of the world, any rational thinker knows that is not the case. Reagan showed you the way, and it's peace through strength. Not withdrawal from the world.
I agree with the theoretical notion of peace through strength yet I am also bothered that the US spends roughly the same on 'defence' as the rest of the world combined. Just how much defence is needed? And when does 'defence' become an invitation to aggression and repression? What ever happened to the doctrine of collective defence?
A lot of defense is needed. Especially since so many European countries aren't holding up their end of the bargain. Many European countries have neglected defense spending in favor of welfare state spending. Hopefully we don't follow that example here in the United States.
OK, but you talk about it like if it was an isolated case. Sure, they committed that atrocity and more, we cannot deny it. They did it in the 9/11, but why, what are the causes for these actions?
