The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Prestor Jon**

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
Point being, there are parallels...

The really aren't. Do you understand the difference between Japan, a nation that was defeated in a conventional war over territory, and a religious ideology that exists independently from any state or territory and does not fight a conventional war?

This. You can bomb key targets and break a nation forcing a surrender. You can't destroy an idea. Well, you can if you're willing to kill everyone who believes it and destroy any record of the idea. It's not practical or possible for us to selectively decimate the global Muslim population or destroy all the Korans and any record of their existence.

All we can do is try to marginalize the violent zealots and stay vigilant about breaking up any of their attempts to coordinate and carry out attacks.

**LordofHats**

Prestor Jon wrote:
If the government stopped issuing loans to everyone in order to pay the ever increasing tuition costs colleges would be subject to market forces.

They're already subject to many market forces. However, much like the health care industry however, education is something that people need (if you want reliable access to a good job) so education facilities can basically charge however much they think they can get away with without crashing the economy i.e, the rapidly rising cost of tuition driven by private schools. A lot of market forces that theoretically drive down costs go out the window when your business can be structured into exploitation (which is very few businesses) and education is one of the businesses that can be twisted that way.

You're also seemingly under the mistaken believe the government aid is this all powerful force. While it is the single largest force of financial aid;

But it's not that simple. Federal Aid just barely accounts for half of all aid (for undergrads).

That's a lot of money, but it is insufficient to explain the changes we're seeing. The free market is not god. It is not the solution to every problem and it can be just as destructive as it can be beneficial (and the funny part is that I learned that reading The Wealth of Nations in College! Adam Smith said it!). If the government doesn't provide the money, people are just going to keep getting it from banks and credit unions and then we're just looking at something even more disastrous. The increasing number of students/families taking bank loans is the primary driver of the student debt bubble right now, not government aid. I'm not sure how cutting government aid entirely is going to resolve that. People will seek education not matter how much it costs, because the alternative is a population that can't work (and an economy with a crippling lack of skilled labor) and/or has overwhelming debt from the burden of education.

Driving down student debt is a good thing, but seriously. Given the past few years of the US economy, I'd think people would have learned that banks and free market principals do not solve all problems.

Oh and this because I really like harping about it

Seriously University of Phoenix and all your friends. feth you. (In this sense, yes federal aid is working out poorly but not because it's a bad idea, but rather because we've allowed the rise of institutions that are structured scams to soak up aid money).

There are private schools suffering from lower enrollments because people are realizing that the higher costs and debt burden aren't worth choosing a private school over a lower cost state university.

Good. The vast majority of private (for profit) schools aren't worth their tuition. Many of the best colleges in the country are state run and they're massively cheaper (but don't worry, you local Governors have been happy to start slashing state education system budgets to try and drive those costs up!). As someone who has attended both, private schools by and large cut off your arms and legs and don't really make up for it in quality. Unless you're going somewhere with serious prestige (Ivy League, Notre Dame, Georgetown and the like< Catholic Church actually runs a lot of nice colleges fyi

) you are likely wasting money.

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
Horse gak.

ISIS has a "captial" in Monsul.

They have "infrastructure".

They have sympathizers.

All of which can and will be replaced. You know, because we're talking about an ideology and not a state.

At least you'd be fighting over there... instead of the street's of Paris or New York.

Why are you assuming this?

**whembly**

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
Horse gak.

ISIS has a "captial" in Monsul.

They have "infrastructure".

They have sympathizers.

All of which can and will be replaced. You know, because we're talking about an ideology and not a state.

I'm not discounting ideology... and we should be open and engaging the moderates. We should continue to facilitate an Islamic renaissance, ala Christanity's New Testament.

But, again, ISIS is a distinct group doing inexplicable horrible things. The western world armies is more than capable of eradicating anything related to ISIS.

At least you'd be fighting over there... instead of the street's of Paris or New York.

Why are you assuming this?

Are you unaware what's happening in Paris?

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
The western world armies is more than capable of eradicating anything related to ISIS.

At which point ISIS is just replaced by the next terrorist group, like ISIS replaced previous ones.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Are you unaware what's happening in Paris?

Of course not. I'm asking you why you think that fighting in the middle east is going to magically stop someone from buying a gun and murdering people in other places. You are aware that terrorist groups can kill people in more than one place, right?

**Tactical_Spam**

Still waiting for Peregrine to actually say something productive and stop undermining everyone elses argument

**whembly**

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
The western world armies is more than capable of eradicating anything related to ISIS.

At which point ISIS is just replaced by the next terrorist group, like ISIS replaced previous ones.

You're not making sense.

You can't reason against an AK-47.

You can't reason against an ideology that brutually murders their captives.

You can't reason against an ideology that kidnaps, rapes, sells women for revenue.

You can't reason against an ideology that'll kill you for being gay or a chrisitan.

Sometimes... the only thing you can do... is to fight fire with fire.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Are you unaware what's happening in Paris?

Of course not. I'm asking you why you think that fighting in the middle east is going to magically stop someone from buying a gun and murdering people in other places. You are aware that terrorist groups can kill people in more than one place, right?

Sure, but you are aware that if you keep killing the bad guys... until there's no one left. Then what? You really think that The Ghost of Muhammad's Past™ would rise again?

**Peregrine**

Tactical_Spam wrote:
Still waiting for Peregrine to actually say something productive and stop undermining everyone elses argument

Telling you that your argument is bad is productive. Sorry if you don't like it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
You're not making sense.

You can't reason against an AK-47.

You can't reason against an ideology that brutually murders their captives.

You can't reason against an ideology that kidnaps, rapes, sells women for revenue.

You can't reason against an ideology that'll kill you for being gay or a chrisitan.

Sometimes... the only thing you can do... is to fight fire with fire.

And how exactly do you identify your targets to fight fire with fire?

Sure, but you are aware that if you keep killing the bad guys... until there's no one left. Then what? You really think that The Ghost of Muhammad's Past™ would rise again?

And "kill the bad guys until none are left" is a hopelessly unrealistic goal, unless you're willing to commit genocide against an entire religion and culture just to be sure you killed everything. I keep telling you this, you're dealing with an ideology, not a state that has fixed borders, a capital and government, open military actions, etc.

**Tactical_Spam**

Peregrine wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
Still waiting for Peregrine to actually say something productive and stop undermining everyone elses argument

Telling you that your argument is bad is productive. Sorry if you don't like it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
You're not making sense.

You can't reason against an AK-47.

You can't reason against an ideology that brutually murders their captives.

You can't reason against an ideology that kidnaps, rapes, sells women for revenue.

You can't reason against an ideology that'll kill you for being gay or a chrisitan.

Sometimes... the only thing you can do... is to fight fire with fire.

And how exactly do you identify your targets to fight fire with fire?

Sure, but you are aware that if you keep killing the bad guys... until there's no one left. Then what? You really think that The Ghost of Muhammad's Past™ would rise again?

And "kill the bad guys until none are left" is a hopelessly unrealistic goal, unless you're willing to commit genocide against an entire religion and culture just to be sure you killed everything. I keep telling you this, you're dealing with an ideology, not a state that has fixed borders, a capital and government, open military actions, etc.

Here, lets use Peregrine's argument right here.

You can't kill a idea.

How do you kill an idea, Peregrine?

**Peregrine**

Tactical_Spam wrote:
How do you kill an idea, Peregrine?

Depends on the idea. But "kill everyone who holds that idea" is almost certainly not going to be a viable solution.

**Prestor Jon**

LordofHats wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
If the government stopped issuing loans to everyone in order to pay the ever increasing tuition costs colleges would be subject to market forces.

They're already subject to many market forces. However, much like the health care industry however, education is something that people need (if you want reliable access to a good job) so education facilities can basically charge however much they think they can get away with without crashing the economy i.e, the rapidly rising cost of tuition driven by private schools. A lot of market forces that theoretically drive down costs go out the window when your business can be structured into exploitation (which is very few businesses) and education is one of the businesses that can be twisted that way.

You're also seemingly under the mistaken believe the government aid is this all powerful force. While it is the single largest force of financial aid;

But it's not that simple. Federal Aid just barely accounts for half of all aid (for undergrads).

That's a lot of money, but it is insufficient to explain the changes we're seeing. The free market is not god. It is not the solution to every problem and it can be just as destructive as it can be beneficial (and the funny part is that I learned that reading The Wealth of Nations in College! Adam Smith said it!). If the government doesn't provide the money, people are just going to keep getting it from banks and credit unions and then we're just looking at something even more disastrous. The increasing number of students/families taking bank loans is the primary driver of the student debt bubble right now, not government aid. I'm not sure how cutting government aid entirely is going to resolve that. People will seek education not matter how much it costs, because the alternative is a population that can't work (and an economy with a crippling lack of skilled labor) and/or has overwhelming debt from the burden of education.

Driving down student debt is a good thing, but seriously. Given the past few years of the US economy, I'd think people would have learned that banks and free market principals do not solve all problems.

Oh and this because I really like harping about it

Seriously University of Phoenix and all your friends. feth you. (In this sense, yes federal aid is working out poorly but not because it's a bad idea, but rather because we've allowed the rise of institutions that are structured scams to soak up aid money).

There are private schools suffering from lower enrollments because people are realizing that the higher costs and debt burden aren't worth choosing a private school over a lower cost state university.

Good. The vast majority of private (for profit) schools aren't worth their tuition. Many of the best colleges in the country are state run and they're massively cheaper (but don't worry, you local Governors have been happy to start slashing state education system budgets to try and drive those costs up!). As someone who has attended both, private schools by and large cut off your arms and legs and don't really make up for it in quality. Unless you're going somewhere with serious prestige (Ivy League, Notre Dame, Georgetown and the like< Catholic Church actually runs a lot of nice colleges fyi ) you are likely wasting money.[/quoteà

Federal loans account for more aid than private bank loans so private bank loans can't exert more influence on the market than federal loans currently. Half the cost of tuition is being covered by the federal govt. If the government didn't cover that half students would either not be able to pay or have to show banks that they qualify as a good investment for a student loan. The federal government doesn't care what you study or what you earn after you graduate or even if you're likely to graduate (not everyone does). All of those mitigating factors have to be considered by private lenders who are only going to issue student loans if there is a good chance of the borrower paying them back with interest. The government doesn't issue loans to make a profit on the interest they issue loans to enable students to attend schools that would others be unaffordable. Federal loans exist specifically to offset the rising costs of tuition which is why costs will continue to rise as long as the government continues to issue loans to cover the increase. Without pressure and incentives to lower costs such as enabling enough students to attend in order to keep the school functioning costs won't decrease.

If tomorrow colleges were told that the feds would no longer cover half the tuition costs then schools would have to lower the cost of attendance in order to maintain enrollments. If students had to be evaluated on a case by case basis regarding their ability to graduate and earn enough to pay back student loans fewer loans would be issued and further pressure would be exerted on schools to lower costs in order to keep students.

Just because education is important doesn't mean credit will magically appear and be offered to anyone who wants to go to college. As long as schools can get paid at whatever rates they charge they will continue to charge more.

**Breotan**

Tactical_Spam wrote:
Still waiting for Peregrine to actually say something productive and stop undermining everyone elses argument

Undermining is the wrong word. But, yeah, don't hold your breath.

Posting this next bit here because I don't want to derail the Paris Attack thread. I think juxtaposing President Obama's statement earlier today with the news of tonight speaks volumes about his foreign policy.

Stephanopoulos asked Obama if ISIS was gaining in strength, to which Obama denied they were.

“I don’t think they’re gaining strength,” Obama responded. “What is true is that from the start, our goal has been first to contain and we have contained them. They have not gained ground in Iraq, and in Syria they’ll come in, they’ll leave, but you don’t see this systemic march by ISIL across the terrain.”

**Tactical_Spam**

Peregrine wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
How do you kill an idea, Peregrine?

Depends on the idea. But "kill everyone who holds that idea" is almost certainly not going to be a viable solution.

Its almost funny, Muslims from places like Saudi Arabia don't even believe in killing. They are just really moralistic. So, now begs the question, how do we root out the radicals? They technically are following their holy book so we really can't attempt at rewriting that.

Now back to the other side:

Are you saying we can't fight at all or that fighting won't end the conflict? I can't disagree with the latter.

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
You're not making sense.

You can't reason against an AK-47.

You can't reason against an ideology that brutually murders their captives.

You can't reason against an ideology that kidnaps, rapes, sells women for revenue.

You can't reason against an ideology that'll kill you for being gay or a chrisitan.

Sometimes... the only thing you can do... is to fight fire with fire.

I think he's making perfectly good sense, and also, no one suggested "reasoning" with them, so that's a bit of a strawman. It's simply being pointed out that some of you guys appear to think that a major show of military might can fix this, which I think we've got a pretty well established track record showing that is not the case.

We can't have a shock and awe campaign to defeat terrorism. We can't fund less-worse extremists because they always turn on us. We can't "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" because there really isn't any real reason they can't fight in both places at once. Terrorism is really, really inexpensive.

There may be other solutions but the way I see it, we have 3 options, neither is great:

1.) A sustained military campaign. We're talking multi country, the UN, and decades upon decades of time. The United States doesn't have the political will to do this, and it's a little questionable whether it's the best use of our finite blood and treasure in the first place.

2.) Hurt them as well as we can in a very limited manner, such as airstrikes. This costs very little politically, and also is minimally effectual.

3.) Avoid the conflicts as much as possible and try to prevent plots like this from happening domestically. This won't be 100% effective over a long time, and it takes very little domestic terrorism (of the brown muslim kind) for Americans to lose their gak, so it's a risky game.

whembly wrote:
Sure, but you are aware that if you keep killing the bad guys... until there's no one left. Then what? You really think that The Ghost of Muhammad's Past™ would rise again?

Yes. Yes yes yes. They always do. It's been happening there for a long, long time, from the Mujahideen to the Taliban to Al Qaeda to the Sons of Iraq to ISIL to whoever comes next. They simply can't be destroyed in a 10 year military campaign.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breotan wrote:
Posting this next bit here because I don't want to derail the Paris Attack thread. I think juxtaposing President Obama's statement earlier today with the news of tonight speaks volumes about his foreign policy.

I was wondering how long it would take before there would be a "Thanks, Obama". Looks like the answer was "before the bodies were cold".

**ScootyPuffJunior**

whembly wrote:
Yup. Because you keep killing until they say "no mas".

Worked against Japan...

What is it with you and history that you have a difficult time with?

**whembly**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
whembly wrote:
Yup. Because you keep killing until they say "no mas".

Worked against Japan...

What is it with you and history that you have a difficult time with?

What is it with you that "we" can't doing anything right?

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Ouze wrote:
Breotan wrote:
Posting this next bit here because I don't want to derail the Paris Attack thread. I think juxtaposing President Obama's statement earlier today with the news of tonight speaks volumes about his foreign policy.

I was wondering how long it would take before there would be a "Thanks, Obama". Looks like the answer was "before the bodies were cold".

You know what the best part about the hypocritical reaction the President's remarks is? The fact that idiots are angry because he didn't immediately place blame on anyone.

However, when they feel that the administration allegedly placed immediate blame on a video instead of being honest about not really knowing, we get Benghazigate.

**Ouze**

I look forward to the Alex Jones False Flag Theory in 3,2,1....

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:
You're not making sense.

You can't reason against an AK-47.

You can't reason against an ideology that brutually murders their captives.

You can't reason against an ideology that kidnaps, rapes, sells women for revenue.

You can't reason against an ideology that'll kill you for being gay or a chrisitan.

Sometimes... the only thing you can do... is to fight fire with fire.

I think he's making perfectly good sense, and also, no one suggested "reasoning" with them, so that's a bit of a strawman. It's simply being pointed out that some of you guys appear to think that a major show of military might can fix this, which I think we've got a pretty well established track record showing that is not the case.

We can't have a shock and awe campaign to defeat terrorism. We can't fund less-worse extremists because they always turn on us. We can't "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" because there really isn't any real reason they can't fight in both places at once. Terrorism is really, really inexpensive.

There may be other solutions but the way I see it, we have 3 options, neither is great:

1.) A sustained military campaign. We're talking multi country, the UN, and decades upon decades of time. The United States doesn't have the political will to do this, and it's a little questionable whether it's the best use of our finite blood and treasure in the first place.

I'm talking of epic proportion. Not the "low energy" engagement we're currently seeing now. Keep in mind, this is more than military... you'd have to neuter their means in the financial world... blockcade around ISIS' territory... starve them.

2.) Hurt them as well as we can in a very limited manner, such as airstrikes. This costs very little politically, and also is minimally effectual.

Basically current status quo.

3.) Avoid the conflicts as much as possible and try to prevent plots like this from happening domestically. This won't be 100% effective over a long time, and it takes very little domestic terrorism (of the brown muslim kind) for Americans to lose their gak, so it's a risky game.

Isolationist route essentially. But, impossible with our "open borders" policies. I get the appeal for this... and you've advocated as such in the past.

But how long do you think we can ignore Edmund Burke's "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
"??

**Hordini**

Jihadin wrote:
Though we had this discussion awhile back on classes taken in college (Liberal Arts useless)

General Mattis has a liberal arts degree.

/thread

**ScootyPuffJunior**

whembly wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
whembly wrote:
Yup. Because you keep killing until they say "no mas".

Worked against Japan...

What is it with you and history that you have a difficult time with?

What is it with you that "we" can't doing anything right?

Where did I say we can't do anything right? Strawman much?

Your "solution" is to declare total war on ISIS and the rest of those donkey-caves, steamroll through the Middle East destroying everything in our path, then getting back in our aircraft carriers and sailing back home and leaving the countries we destroyed a bombed out remnant of their former selves.

When it's pointed out insanely fething stupid that is, your "proof" is that it worked in Japan. Which is obviously more proof that you have no fething clue what you're every talking about because we occupied Japan for seven fething years.

You want to know why I continually harp on you Whembly? Because you say idiotic things, over and over and over again and it's fething exhausting.

Turn off Fox News and read a fething book.

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
But how long do you think we can ignore Edmund Burke's "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
"??

The truth is that exact thought bothers me enormously. I've opined over and over that it's not in our interest to get involved in these foreign entanglements, and I still believe that mostly because I don't really think we can win. But believe me, it's in the back of my mind, that when Djones and people like that are advocating that we should stop some of the horrible gak that is going on over there that... well... he's not wrong, either. I mean, ISIL needs to get got. I don't think there's any real dispute there. These guys are fething terrible. And I grew up reading Spider-Men and the X-Men! I totally understand the pull of with great power comes great responsibility, and that sometimes you have to fight for people even when they fear and hate you. The answer is for me at least, I don't have an answer. Not at all. I think it's a bad idea for us to get involved, and I also think it's terrible that we could mitigate at least some of the atrocities and we aren't. And that's sort of where I am. I agree that America should not seek out monsters to destroy, while also thinking, man, we need to do something about the monsters.

**whembly**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
whembly wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
whembly wrote:
Yup. Because you keep killing until they say "no mas".

Worked against Japan...

What is it with you and history that you have a difficult time with?

What is it with you that "we" can't doing anything right?

Where did I say we can't do anything right? Strawman much?

Your "solution" is to declare total war on ISIS and the rest of those donkey-caves, steamroll through the Middle East destroying everything in our path, then getting back in our aircraft carriers and sailing back home and leaving the countries we destroyed a bombed out remnant of their former selves.

No... my solution is for ISIS only. Not the steamroll through the Middle East.

Step away from fething Media Matters and Vox. They're poisoning your preconception of people having different opinions.

When it's pointed out insanely fething stupid that is, your "proof" is that it worked in Japan. Which is obviously more proof that you have no fething clue what you're every talking about because we occupied Japan for seven fething years.

Jesus...

What we did in Japan worked right? Are you denying this?

You want to know why I continually harp on you Whembly? Because you say idiotic things, over and over and over again and it's fething exhausting.

Turn off Fox News and read a fething book.

You need to take your own suggestion and turn off your lefty media sites and read a book too.

And have a bottle of your favorite brewski and chillax man.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:
But how long do you think we can ignore Edmund Burke's "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
"??

The truth is that exact thought bothers me enormously. I've opined over and over that it's not in our interest to get involved in these foreign entanglements, and I still believe that mostly because I don't really think we can win. But believe me, it's in the back of my mind, that when Djones and people like that are advocating that we should stop some of the horrible gak that is going on over there that... well... he's not wrong, either. I mean, ISIL needs to get got. I don't think there's any real dispute there. These guys are fething terrible. And I grew up reading Spider-Men and the X-Men! I totally understand the pull of with great power comes great responsibility, and that sometimes you have to fight for people even when they fear and hate you. The answer is for me at least, I don't have an answer. Not at all. I think it's a bad idea for us to get involved, and I also think it's terrible that we could mitigate at least some of the atrocities and we aren't. And that's sort of where I am. I agree that America should not seek out monsters to destroy, while also thinking, man, we need to do something about the monsters.

I don't necessarily disagree with you buddy... and I meant no ill will towards you implying otherwise.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

whembly wrote:
No... my solution is for ISIS only. Not the steamroll through the Middle East.

So I guess ISIS isn't in the Middle East? You better get on the phone and let the Pentagon know, they've been bombing the wrong part of the world!

Step away from fething Media Matters and Vox. They're poisoning your preconception of people having different opinions.

I don't read Media Matter or Vox because both of those websites are terrible, but thanks for trying.

What we did in Japan worked right? Are you denying this?

No, I'm telling you that your idiotic plan and how we treated Japan after WWII aren't even close to being the same thing.

You need to take your own suggestion and turn off your lefty media sites and read a book too.

I don't read "lefty" media sites. In fact, I read Fox News more than anything else. In fact, it's the only news website I have pinned on my browser. Also, my personal library fills two bookshelves in my house: one in the basement (my 'cave') and one in my bedroom.

And have a bottle of your favorite brewski and chillax man.

I already drank a tall Sapporo at dinner and I'm quite relaxed, but thank you for the concern.

I don't know what the answer to this problem is and unlike you, I won't pretend too. I do know that it is nothing that has spilled out of your brain.

EDIT: Apparently my grammar is suffering because of the delicious beer I had with dinner.

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
blockcade around ISIS' territory... starve them.

I see. So, aside from the moral issues with starving Bad People to death, I guess you're content to ignore the harm this blockade will inevitably cause to people who aren't evil terrorists?

**d-usa**

We should bomb ISIS like we bombed AQ, that always works...

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
What we did in Japan worked right? Are you denying this?

Again, JAPAN WAS A STATE. It had clearly-defined borders, a clearly-defined government that could be replaced, a clearly-defined military with clearly-defined military objectives that could be opposed, etc. This is not in any way the same thing as a non-state ideology!

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
blockcade around ISIS' territory... starve them.

I see. So, aside from the moral issues with starving Bad People to death, I guess you're content to ignore the harm this blockade will inevitably cause to people who aren't evil terrorists?

Right. Also, starving people to death is a great to make sure no one else decides to become a radical.

It all makes perfect sense.

**whembly**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
whembly wrote:
No... my solution is for ISIS only. Not the steamroll through the Middle East.
So I guess ISIS isn't in the Middle East? You better get on the phone and let the Pentagon know, they've been bombing the wrong part of the world!

dogma? Is that you?

Step away from fething Media Matters and Vox. They're poisoning your preconception of people having different opinions.
I don't read Media Matter or Vox because both of those websites are terrible, but thanks for trying.

You fooled me then... and yes their website are horribad... almost as bad as Fox's website.

What we did in Japan worked right? Are you denying this?
No, I'm telling you that your idiotic plan and how we treated Japan after WWII aren't even close to being the same thing.

My "plan" *is* the McArther plan.

It's just that we don't have the *will* for a contemporary occupation. Are you sure you're not channeling dogma here?

You need to take your own suggestion and turn off your lefty media sites and read a book too.
I don't read "lefty" media sites. In fact, I read Fox News more than anything else. In fact, it's the only news website I have pinned my browser. Also, my personal library fills two bookshelves in my house: one in the basement (my 'cave') and one in my bedroom.

You should see mine... and my kindle lineup.

My wife couldn't believe that there were *that many* Star Wars books.

And have a bottle of your favorite brewski and chillax man.
I already drank a tall Sapporo at dinner I'm quite relaxed, but thank you for concern.

Cool man.

I'm partial to Macallan.

I don't know what the answer to this problem is and unlike you, I won't pretend too. I do know that it is nothing that has spilled out of your brain.

K.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
What we did in Japan worked right? Are you denying this?

Again, JAPAN WAS A STATE. It had clearly-defined borders, a clearly-defined government that could be replaced, a clearly-defined military with clearly-defined military objectives that could be opposed, etc. This is not in any way the same thing as a non-state ideology!

What's your solution?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
blockcade around ISIS' territory... starve them.

I see. So, aside from the moral issues with starving Bad People to death, I guess you're content to ignore the harm this blockade will inevitably cause to people who aren't evil terrorists?
Right. Also, starving people to death is a great to make sure no one else decides to become a radical.

It all makes perfect sense.

What's your solution?

Ouze justified his tango with me. Both of you are just playing "whack-a-whembly" here.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
We should bomb ISIS like we bombed AQ, that always works...

Um... isn't this the status quo? How's that working??

**Gordon Shumway**

It's really scary how it only takes 150 deaths to make people who would otherwise disparage the man sound like a Donald Trump stump speech these days.