See, I’m willing to accept the argument that our Middle East policies, and indeed the whole history of Western involvement in the internal affairs of the ME, are all in a broad sense “worth it” even if there is some measure of blowback. What I cannot accept is the refusal of politicians and pundits to grapple honestly with the fact that such a tradeoff exists.
The latest example of such dishonesty was in the last GOP debate, when Marco Rubio recycled W.'s old canard about the terrorists attacking us because they hate our values. Sure, they hate some of our values. But mostly they hate us because they perceive us to be standing in the way of a return to true Islam in Muslim lands; because they perceive us to be enabling repressive policies (in their eyes) on the part of Israel; and because they are incensed by the sight of Westerners killing Muslims.
To be a true world power, you’d need an ability to project conventional forces along with a sizable nuclear arsenal. ITR is such a thorough researcher that he is undoubtedly aware of their complete failure in these categories. I mean, during the Cold War, France relied on America to both fight its colonial battles for them, and also shield them with American forces in west Germany. If France had been serious about their defense, they would not have totally relied on America and Germany to shield them from the Russians, but would have created a “strike force” of several hundred nuclear warheads to be used if they were in danger of being invaded.
UGH. Yeah, this asshole wins. Who the fuck is that much of an insensitive bag of dirt? Some xenophobic psycho from FreeRepublic, no doubt, huh? How on earth did the OP miss this atrocious shitheel?
The human induced climate change deniers like Anthony Watts and Roy Spenser did not waste time to remind all about how much idiots, cowards and hate mongers they are.
I, also, am won’t to be loathe to agree with her, but I think she makes a valid, if not quite accurate, point. This sort of shit does help someone like Trump, but I’m not so sure it help him enough to get elected.
No. Just to give one example of Norton’s twisted reasoning:
The disastrous U.S.-led NATO intervention in Libya destroyed the government, turning the country into a hotbed for extremism and allowing militant groups like ISIS to spread west into North Africa. Thousands of Libyans have been killed, and hundreds of thousands made refugees.
The truth is that the civil war in Libya broke out during the “Arab Spring”, one of several uprisings inspired by the successful revolution in Tunisia. War began when Qaddafi’s forces tried to crush rebel forces. After that, NATO began limited aerial support of the anti-Qaddafi movements. The cause of the war was entirely an uprising by the Libyans, not NATO intervention, and no sane person thinks that Libya would be a much better place if the USA had just left poor little Qaddafi alone.
Actually, you know what? Not one word you posted contradicted anything you quoted.
Are you denying that there was a U.S.-led NATO intervention in the Libyan civil war? Are you denying that ISIS has spread west into Africa? Are you denying that thousands of Libyans have been killed, and hundreds of thousands made refugees?
But I don’t think it’s fair to say the US-NATO intervention caused the current situation. It’s likely it would have turned out this way with or without intervention by the US and NATO. Iraq and Afghanistan, and by extension Syria, yes. But not Libya.
My point exactly, while diplomacy is more like Mad Libs:
After looking at how the original works with balancing darkness and light in the short format used for such documents, it was a pretty deft bit of Diplo-Speak. Kudos to Hillary and her staff.
I’d say the OP should have simply stopped at item #1. Item #2 was clearly thrown in there to create sense of being “fair and balanced”. Item #3 was a gratuitous dig at HRC, and item #4 is some bizarre way for the OP fold one of his pet topics into the discussion, even though it had nothing to do with the main issue.
I hope when they catch him, he is charged with terrorism, and it is made very plain to him as he spends the next 40 years in prison, that he is guilty of aiding and abetting ISIS, and he actually did their work for them.
Uh oh, not linking to it but looking for videos of the incident I noticed some links in Liveleak and other sites are pointing to several conspiracy theorists going gaga for idiotic “false flag operations” videos as an explanation for the attacks.
Shit, as if the 9/11 loose nuts and school shooting deniers were not evil enough… :mad::mad:
Will have to prepare for the yahoos that will come eventually into the message board.