IS

[Agent327]

You're not even making an argument, just being obtuse.

The bad guys do win a lot, without nice, big country support. Look at Africa and the Middle East.
That's why the idea of tribunals came around, after all.

I don't support the drone strikes, but I guarantee all your Euro governments are more than happy to let us do the dirty work for them. Hypocrites.

I won't deny European governments are 'hypocrits'- after all they supported this kidnap-for-torture business of your dear late president. But I'm kind of surprised a president who studied law at Harvard sees no legal or moral objections to randomly executing unknown people on suspicion of being terrorists. That hardly seems a practice to follow in international politics.

Because this is how 'the bad guys' are winning: they are making the biggest power on Earth turn to counter-terrorism. Which is a polite way of saying that 'terrorism is OK, 'cause it's the good guys doing it'. This, of course will never defeat terrorism.

 

[kochman]

I agree Jeelen, these are my very objections.

One change I would make.
The US doesn't have to, and isn't made to, resort to state terrorism. It is choosing to, and that final decision is made not only by a Harvard Law School guy, but one whose focus was... Constitutional law.
He's violated the Constitution several times already, but America has come to accept that as long as they keep being able to buy gas for their SUVs and go to Vegas for hookers and blow.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There seems to be a misconception here that terrorism can be defeated. Terrorism is a tactic. It is usually a tactic of last resort. Tactics can't be defeated, they can only be abandoned. They are only abandoned when something more likely to be effective is identified.

 

[kochman]

Who's suggesting terrorism can be defeated, other than GWB?

 

[calad]

There seems to be a misconception here that terrorism can be defeated. Terrorism is a tactic. It is usually a tactic of last resort. Tactics can't be defeated, they can only be abandoned. They are only abandoned when something more likely to be effective is identified.

This.

Im absolutely very cynical of future of Middle-east. I would not be surprised at all if Jordan, Palestine, Iraq, Syria and Saudi-Arabia will fall under ISIS. I will be surprised if they wont fall.

Middle-East is really ****ed up place. There is no better word to describe it. All rulers have been puppets of yankees and commies or bloody or even bloodier dictators. There has been little positive development after decolonization. Because of great power politics and worthless local dictators the only possible outcome really was even tougher dictatorships but this time under Islam. If you prevent all political moments by violence this is the outcome. Same happened to Imperial Russia when radical Bolsheviks took over, in Middle-East radical Muslims took over.

I believe ISIS is here to stay now. Nobody wants to have another war in Middle-East so they will gain power. Ironically western nations can only blame themselves for this. But the first real victim will be Israel... Another holocaust on horizon if new Saladin does not appear.

 

[Tigranes]

This.
But the first real victim will be Israel... Another holocaust on horizon if new Saladin does not appear.

You mean ... Ben Gurion?

 

[calad]

You mean ... Ben Gurion?

It is the historical fact that State of Israel is doomed if they dont make a permanent peace with Palestine and Arabs. I draw my parallels from Crusader states.

Israel like Crusader states are surrounded by hostile lands. Historically Crusader States were successful as long they had support of European states and Byzantium, after Constantinople was sacked Crusader States lost their main financer. Times of crusades were times when Moslems were divided into many rivaling states, Caliphate was weak and finaly Mongols came from Persia. Similarly Muslim states today are weak and US, France and UK have done whatever they wished in Middle-East.

Today anti-Israelism is rising because of continuous wars that has no ending and brutality of Israelis troops. If Israel receives less financial support from US and EU sets sanctions Israel is in trouble. Also ISIS seems to have potential to unify Muslims and Israel will naturally be first target. Population scales are also heavily against Israel, there are miljons of Jews, but hundreds millions of Arabs. In serious military conflict Israel very likely will have less men. And the worst fact is that this is no matter of time. Crusade time period was well over hundred year, Moslems have time. They have all time. It is only matter them of time when western world grows tired of endless troubless of Middle-East. Then Israel is doomed.

 

[Agent327]

I agree Jeelen, these are my very objections.

One change I would make.
The US doesn't have to, and isn't made to, resort to state terrorism. It is choosing to, and that final decision is made not only by a Harvard Law School guy, but one whose focus was... Constitutional law.
He's violated the Constitution several times already, but America has come to accept that as long as they keep being able to buy gas for their SUVs and go to Vegas for hookers and blow.

I would completely agree - except: I didn't mention state terrorism. I did mention counter-terrorism. Which is trying to defeat terror by employing terror. So you are trying to defeat a group using unacceptable methods by suing unacceptable methods yourself. The result: terrorism wins.

As per the president violating the US Constitution: I believe there is an impeachment procedure for that.

 

[kochman]

I would completely agree - except: I didn't mention state terrorism. I did mention counter-terrorism. Which is trying to defeat terror by employing terror. So you are trying to defeat a group using unacceptable methods by suing unacceptable methods yourself. The result: terrorism wins.

As per the president violating the US Constitution: I believe there is an impeachment procedure for that.

Counter-terrorism/state terrorism, largely the same.
Look at the French Rev for the first sample in a Republic.

Regarding impeachment, as soon as some one mentions it, it is automatically dismissed as partisan and widely assailed/ineffective.
Plus, 4/5 or more of the repubs support drone missile strikes too.

This is what happens in a system where you have two potential choices... the two "parties" ensure that in certain areas, which is the real agenda, there is no choice.
For example, both candidates support drone missiles to varying degrees. So you choose more or less...
You can't choose - no drone missiles. Option isn't available.

So what happens when institutions such as the presidency are set up like this? They are either accepted widely (USA), or they start to lose credibility.

It is the historical fact that State of Israel is doomed if they dont make a permanent peace with Palestine and Arabs. I draw my parallels from Crusader states.

And in doing so the rest of your argument is rendered mute. It's 2014. Things have changed.
To quickly undo your idea - nukes.

 

[Flying Pig]

You can't choose - no drone missiles. Option isn't available.

If a large number of people support that platform, though, then there's huge political opportunity for any candidate to gain election by taking it on. This is especially true in places like the US where there is no 'party line' to the extent that there is in the UK.

 

[calad]

And in doing so the rest of your argument is rendered mute. It's 2014. Things have changed.
To quickly undo your idea - nukes.

I guess you did not read what I wrote. History has a bad habit of repeating itself despite new technology, ideoligies, morals and nations.

 

[kochman]

If a large number of people support that platform, though, then there's huge political opportunity for any candidate to gain election by taking it on. This is especially true in places like the US where there is no 'party line' to the extent that there is in the UK.

The problem is, to reach that platform, you ahve to convince one of two parties... so numbers alone don't do it, especially when dealing with closed primaries.

I guess you did not read what I wrote. History has a bad habit of repeating itself despite new technology, ideoligies, morals and nations.

I did read what you wrote, and instantly diffused it.
Having nukes has made the fate of the Crusader states extremely unlikely for Israel.
Review each situation for its own merits, it's intellectually lazy to use examples from 800 years ago as your conclusions for today.

Here's another one, since "history repeats itself".

Russia was pushing around some nations in Europe before WW1, they basically backed down when presented with a unified alliance in the form of Austria and Germany.
FFWD about a decade, the Austrians/Germans were sure Russia wouldn't get involved with the problems in Yugoslavia, because history repeats itself... Russia does not back down, as expected, and WW1 erupts. Millions die.

 

[calad]

I did read what you wrote, and instantly diffused it.
Having nukes has made the fate of the Crusader states extremely unlikely for Israel.
Review each situation for its own merits, it's intellectually lazy to use examples from 800 years ago as your conclusions for today.

Here's another one, since "history repeats itself".

Russia was pushing around some nations in Europe before WW1, they basically backed down when presented with a unified alliance in the form of Austria and Germany.
FFWD about a decade, the Austrians/Germans were sure Russia wouldn't get involved with the problems in Yugoslavia, because history repeats itself... Russia does not back down, as expected, and WW1 erupts. Millions die.

There we go again. "They dont want peace? Genocide them all!". You are not so different from Romans who killed everybody and called it peace.

It seems that you dont understand your own example. Policy based on military might will always lead to another war. There has been peace periods because of X is stronger until X is weaker, then war. Same is happening now in Middle-East. If they dont make a permanent goodwill peace their nation is doomed. Weakness will come eventually and Arabs have time.

Anyway Im not so sure what you mean by nukes. Most likely ISIS dont care or even welcome it if Israel nukes them. No deterrent works against fanatics. Also it is extreamly unlikely Israel would nuke anything in Middle-East, specially regions close to their home lands. If you want to be specific I would like to know what would Israel nuke and how it would benefit them to survive. Nukes after all are just "raze everything" weapon. They are not magical weapon of surviving.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There are different kinds of nukes.

The key thing to recognize about them is that they are useless for anything but revenge. Firing them is basically acknowledgement of defeat.

So the only nukes that matter are nukes that you can successfully fire after you are so thoroughly defeated that you want to fire them. Israel doesn't have that kind. By the time they say 'we are dead, so fry the world' they will lack the capability to fire them.

 

[Flying Pig]

The problem is, to reach that platform, you ahve to convince one of two parties... so numbers alone don't do it, especially when dealing with closed primaries.

You only have to convince the local party, which is made up of voters. So if Kansas voters want to stop drone strikes, they can select a candidate who wants to stop them, and prospective candidates there will be under pressure to adopt that view. Your argument holds true if a) primaries are voted in by a very small and unrepresentative section of the voters and b) despite this, people will not vote for anyone not nominated by a major party. I don't think those two are true. There are actually two independents currently in Congress, for example. In a country like the UK with a high degree of party pluralism, that's definitely not the case. Even within parties there is usually a great deal of ideological disagreement: it's rare for any candidate to toe the party line in all respects. Witness the 'southern democrats' of days not long gone by.

 

[kochman]

There we go again. "They dont want peace? Genocide them all!". You are not so different from Romans who killed everybody and called it peace.

It seems that you dont understand your own example. Policy based on military might will always lead to another war.

Oh man, you're still going?
You really want to push this?

Ok, policy based on military might will lead to war is a silly thing to say.
War will eventually happen for any nation, because you left it open ended, as time goes on odds eventually will equal 100%.

However, if they were weak, they would be eaten alive...

Now, they toss in nukes. Tim asserts that Israel would only use nukes as a revenge ploy when the state was lost. I disagree with that.
If Iran lobbed a nuke at Israel, it would damage but not destroy Israel. Israel would certainly retaliate.

Anyway, if it makes you feel ok to use the Crusade States as an example, despite it being over 800 years ago with a completely different set of circumstances (the only two being location and religious differences), have fun.
Just don't expect anyone to take that seriously, because it's nonsense.

You only have to convince the local party, which is made up of voters. So if Kansas voters want to stop drone strikes, they can select a candidate who wants to stop them, and prospective candidates there will be under pressure to adopt that view. Your argument holds true if a) primaries are voted in by a very small and unrepresentative section of the voters and b) despite this, people will not vote for anyone not nominated by a major party. I don't think those two are true. There are actually two independents currently in Congress, for example. In a country like the UK with a high degree of party pluralism, that's definitely not the case. Even within parties there is usually a great deal of ideological disagreement: it's rare for any candidate to toe the party line in all respects. Witness the 'southern democrats' of days not long gone by.

Yes, I will break this down because it might not be clear from outside the US how our system is set up to prevent choice when desirable.

To win a presidential primary, you have to get the majority of votes from each state in your intra-party election. Now, many states have "closed" primaries, which means only party members can vote. Enough states have these that it is quite difficult to win without them.

The official party members are typically dweebs, in the USA, because if you honestly think one party here is worthy of getting behind, I feel for you. Some people do it because they want to at least be able to have some say in primaries (the alternative being my situation, I have been disenfranchised of my primary vote regarding partisan matters), so maybe they go Dem so they can at least pick between the better of the dems.

Anyway, the two parties are nearly lock step on certain issues, while using smoke and mirrors make these major "battles" out of relatively minor issues to present the illusion of a true dichotomy.

The chances of upending this system, on a national level (whose elections decide nation policy leader), when it takes $1B to win a party nomination and presidency... slim to none.

I shouldn't have to get 50% of 50% to actively support the ending of drone strikes to make it a ballot issue, should I? When that 50% of 50% is worried about 30 other topics and therefore willing to overlook the droning of people so far away it's just a video game...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The problem is, to reach that platform, you ahve to convince one of two parties... so numbers alone don't do it, especially when dealing with closed primaries.

If you actually have the numbers the two parties will race to see which of them can claim the position first, and if you actually have the numbers it becomes another of those issues the parties are 'lockstep' on.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Now, they toss in nukes. Tim asserts that Israel would only use nukes as a revenge ploy when the state was lost. I disagree with that.
If Iran lobbed a nuke at Israel, it would damage but not destroy Israel. Israel would certainly retaliate.

Actually, Tim asserted that nukes are only useful for revenge. Yes, if Iran 'lobbed a nuke' they should expect a full spread retaliation. But that 'lobbing' itself would go against the basic premise.

The only way anyone 'lobs a nuke' without being totally defeated first is if there is some way to use first strike capability to eliminate all possible vengeance...and that cannot be done. There are currently approximately twenty submarines at sea operating on deadman switches, each capable of pressing the reset button for life on this planet all by itself. The only way to make nukes fly is to activate one of those deadman switches by conventional means and turn one or more of those boats loose.

 

[kochman]

If you actually have the numbers the two parties will race to see which of them can claim the position first, and if you actually have the numbers it becomes another of those issues the parties are 'lockstep' on.

Ah, but remember, the smoke and mirrors to blur the real issues...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Ah, but remember, the smoke and mirrors to blur the real issues...

I'm not saying that people can't be mislead...as a way to temporarily keep you from having the numbers. But once the BS has all been tossed and enough of it tossed back, you get the numbers and both parties come running. The art of party politics is in recognizing when the worms turn and being first to jump on board with them.