View Single Post
      08-15-2015, 06:58 PM   #68
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
761
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BEMR View Post
No not at all, fear mongering if that what your suggesting i mean is not what I'm saying. Unknown is fear to most, our present administration tells the enemy up front our every move, then apologizes for our past. We need more of the unknown factors that our opponents have to deal with. We need some sort unpredictability to instill in the opposition, our Country not only tells you how were going do it, but when. Trump I believe will bring that to the table, along with consequences for disrespect, instead of a couple sanctions that are deemed worthless.

3 ways to deal with the enemies in life, negotiate, agree, or confront. Radical Muslim Terrorists refuse the first two, which only leaves you one, confront! We've lost respect in the world today because our current admin of politicians believe the first 2 ARE our only options, and look at the spread of ISIS today. Trump has enough sense to act from a level of confrontation, and he's not afraid nor are any dollars telling him what to say or do, that's why he's blowing away the field with supporters.

Confrontation is the consequence that fear most, that's the fear I'm talking about.
TY for the clarification. Although I still do not see fear, even the sort you describe, as a tool that should be wielded for political purposes, I do at least realize you don't verge on insanity, which is essentially what I thought might be the case when I read your initial post, and thus why I asked the question I did.

There is a fourth course of action: consider objectively whether one's enemy might at least to some extent be correct and/ or alter one's behavior. That may seem like "agreeing," but it's not. I don't think everything the terrorists say is "on point," but I am saying that any objective examination of their statements and their actions show clearly that they do have a point. And I'm saying that U.S. policy fails to recognize that; moreover, it treats their actions as though they were the first terrorists when history shows they absolutely were not, but even if they were, what U.S. did to Middle Eastern citizens must surely have looked not one bit different from terrorism -- apart from there being a nation state behind the bombings and assassinations -- to the people and families who suffered our mililtant actions in the 20th century.

I offer that idea because it's not at all clear to me that U.S.' policy towards the citizens and nations of Middle Eastern countries has been fair to or good for anyone there except Israel's citizens. Even the U.S. DoD recognized as much in 1997 when it wrote that its own "historical data show a strong correlation between US involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States." A former U.S. President also stated "you only have to go to Lebanon, to Syria or to Jordan to witness first-hand the intense hatred among many people for the United States because we bombed and shelled and unmercifully killed totally innocent villagers -- women and children and farmers and housewives -- in those villages around Beirut. ... As a result of that ... we became kind of a Satan in the minds of those who are deeply resentful."

It's nice to think that U.S. foreign policy re: Middle Eastern nations is righteous and right, but I don't think it is. U.S., as a government, has never attempted to consider foreign policy in that region, the region from which most anti-U.S. terrorists hail, from any perspective except the one that most favors Israel. And why? Quite frankly, I don't know of any reason other than the American political process has huge sums of Jewish money fueling it and specific, power politician's desire to get reelected more than anything else. That and the prevailing prejudice during most of the 20th century view of Arabs and Muslims as "sand n*ggers."

The Cato Institute's director of defense policy studies wrote in his1998 essay "Protecting the Homeland: The Best Defense Is to Give No Offense:"
U.S. global intervention has increased the threat of terrorism to levels that are unacceptable according to any reasonable calculus of American interests....To avoid catastrophic terrorist attacks on the American homeland in this new and dangerous strategic environment, the United States must abandon its policy of being a military nanny in every area of the world....If the United States adopted a less interventionist foreign policy, it would be much less of a target for acts of both minor and mass terror. Using similar logic, the nation's Founders, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, fashioned a foreign policy that kept us out of Europe's conflicts so that the European powers would have little cause to intervene in America.
Source: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-306.html
And really, one has to ask, what exactly is it that we have to gain by meddling in Middle Eastern politics? It's not as though Middle Eastern nations don't want to sell us the two things they have lots of -- oil and sand -- and it's not as though we can get by without their oil. I have often wondered why my country is stuck in the middle of their mess when all we really need to be with those nations is trading partners? It's certainly not about maintaining stable nations. Middle Eastern oil nations want stability in the region, stable nations and governments, as much as anybody. They just don't believe that "stability" means that what's best for Israel is what's best for everyone else there.

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed

Last edited by tony20009; 08-15-2015 at 11:34 PM.. Reason: typo: third course --> fourth course