Politico: The Man Who Broke The Middle East

I am inclined to seal our borders immediately... so that we have options to preserve.

What the hell is wrong with congress and the president right now.
Take in the kids then seal the border completely -- compromise. I would bet 90% of america would be on board.
What is so difficult about national security? Who opposes it... other than those companies our politicians turn tricks for?
 
Tsing Tao said:
You can call it naive if you like. I call your method arrogant. I guess we'll agree to disagree.

I didn't dodge anything. "Interests" is by definition, ambiguous. Some interests could require covert action - ie, supporting an ally politically and even financially. Other attacks on "interests" might require more of a direct effort because of importance. Of course "interests" would have to be decided on by someone. Who will that someone be? You? Politicians?

When it comes to citizens or a direct attack on our territory, that is a much more black and white area.

Am I still "dodging" or is that sufficient for you to understand my viewpoint?

Fortunately, your opinion (because that is what it is) about it being nonsense isn't shared by everyone.
More...
Your position is absolutely naive. It's also one of submission and cowardice, despite your disingenuous denials.

So my "method" is "arrogant"? You know even less about what I'd do than you do about this topic, which is next to nothing. Please tell me specifically what you imagine my "arrogant method" would be?

The fact that you don't know how national interests are determined, again shows how uninformed you are. Other examples include: equating a show of force with massive retaliation, ignorance of when and why covert operations are appropriate, your gaffes in the nuke attack thread, and the preposterous notion that we shouldn't spend what we need to for national defense.
 
Trader666 said:
Your position is absolutely naive. It's also one of submission and cowardice, despite your disingenuous denials.

So my "method" is "arrogant"? You know even less about what I'd do than you do about this topic, which is next to nothing. Please tell me specifically what you imagine my "arrogant method" would be?
More...

I've accepted that you believe my position to be naive. I don't agree, but you can call it such as much as you'd like. You also are under no obligation to accept that I believe it is arrogant for the United States to involve itself all over the world in trying to asset it's will and desires on people and nations.

Trader666 said:
The fact that you don't know how national interests are determined again shows how uninformed you are. Other examples include, equating a "show of force" with "massive retaliation," ignorance of when and why covert operations are appropriate, your gaffes in the nuke attack thread, and the preposterous notion that we shouldn't spend what we need to for national defense.
More...

So we each find the other uninformed. That sure is troubling. You find me naive, with numerous "gaffes" and I find you arrogant, absurd, out of touch and rarely agree with anything you say on national defense. *shrug* I can tell that makes you livid from your responses, but given that we agree on just about everything else in conservative policy, I just don't feel like getting in a fight with you over it. Especially when you're so emotional about it. I'd much rather spend the time in disagreements with people that share almost no values in common with my beliefs.

Not every thread/topic is the barbarians at the gates, you know.
 
Tsing Tao said:
I've accepted that you believe my position to be naive. I don't agree, but you can call it such as much as you'd like. You also are under no obligation to accept that I believe it is arrogant for the United States to involve itself all over the world in trying to asset it's will and desires on people and nations.
More...
Speaking of arrogant... you continue to "judge" my position without even knowing what it is, even after I called you on it.
Tsing Tao said:
So we each find the other uninformed. That sure is troubling. You find me naive, with numerous "gaffes" and I find you arrogant, absurd, out of touch and rarely agree with anything you say on national defense. *shrug* I can tell that makes you livid from your responses, but given that we agree on just about everything else in conservative policy, I just don't feel like getting in a fight with you over it. Especially when you're so emotional about it. I'd much rather spend the time in disagreements with people that share almost no values in common with my beliefs.
More...
You confuse bluntness with emotion. You're actually the one who's emoting -- you're emoting an uninformed, irrational position. What I find troubling is that you don't know what you don't know.
Tsing Tao said:
Not every thread/topic is the barbarians at the gates, you know.
More...
I can agree with that :)
 
AAAintheBeltway said:
Let's assume that ISIS and allied groups manage to seize and keep most of sunni Iraq. The next assumption seems to be that they will immediately mount a terrorist attack on our homeland.
More...
How about taking ISIS' leader at his word that he'll see us in New York?
 
Trader666 said:
Speaking of arrogant... you continue to "judge" my position without even knowing what it is, even after I called you on it.

You confuse bluntness with emotion. You're actually the one who's emoting -- you're emoting an uninformed, irrational position. What I find troubling is that you don't know what you don't know.
I can agree with that :)
More...

Ok, if it pleases you. :)
 
Trader666 said:
How about taking ISIS' leader at his word that he'll see us in New York?
More...

Why turn him loose then?

I am not totally opposed to your positions, but the other side of it is neo-cons have a record of failure and a tendency to cry "wolf."

If you were saying, "Iraq war was a terrible mistake", etc you would have more credibility. Instead, like Cheney and other neo's, you seem to think it was a rousing success, only undone by Obama's treachery.

I am certainly not in favor of ISIS getting a foothold in Iraq, but they have the Syrians on one side and the Iranians on the other, ecah gunning for them and each being far more prepared than we are to do what is necessary to prevail. Awkwardly, we are supporting the insurgents trying to overthrow Syria. Your neo-con crowd has long wanted us to bomb Iran or maybe even invade them. So whose side are we on, exactly?
 
AAAintheBeltway said:
Why turn him loose then?

I am not totally opposed to your positions, but the other side of it is neo-cons have a record of failure and a tendency to cry "wolf."

If you were saying, "Iraq war was a terrible mistake", etc you would have more credibility. Instead, like Cheney and other neo's, you seem to think it was a rousing success, only undone by Obama's treachery.

I am certainly not in favor of ISIS getting a foothold in Iraq, but they have the Syrians on one side and the Iranians on the other, ecah gunning for them and each being far more prepared than we are to do what is necessary to prevail. Awkwardly, we are supporting the insurgents trying to overthrow Syria. Your neo-con crowd has long wanted us to bomb Iran or maybe even invade them. So whose side are we on, exactly?
More...

Really? :p Speaking of credibility, how about getting a clue about what my position on this actually is, instead of ASSuming I'm a neocon because I called bullshit on the left's revisionist history and I'm opposed to isolationism. You and Tsing both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top