Dangerous countries
- Thread starter Jon
- Start date
Countries that allow extremist religious sects to stay there without cracking down on them in some way to curtail their activities if not their physical freedom. I expressly DO include Christian extremists as a threat.
This threat is based in the ultimate paradox of freedom: The only intolerable condition is intolerance.
This threat is based in the ultimate paradox of freedom: The only intolerable condition is intolerance.
The U.S.A is the most dangerous country in the world. We have the most influence with little consistency. We can change policy at any time. Looking back at the few years I've been on this planet, I see us screwing up a lot in the world for temporary power. For as unpopular as this will be, 9-11 was our chickens coming home to roost. You can't dabble with war in an area that has been in a state of war since the Biblical times without some of it spilling out on your own front door. Now add the internal division of our nation and the equation looks worse.
Sadly, AI, you are right, though you didn't carry it to its conclusion.
This statement is known to be true in so many ways. We should remember the Vietnam war. (Excuse me, "police action.") We should remember Operation Desert Shield. As you gave a disclaimer, AI, so I have to give one: Take in the WHOLE paragraph before jumping up and down on my stuff.
You do NOT dabble in war. If you have an enemy then you don't dabble around. You eliminate the enemy completely. It is the macrocosm of the first rule of owning a gun. If you take out your gun, you had already better have decided to use it. It has no business being out as a threat. If we didn't want to eliminate an enemy then we should never have gotten involved. War isn't about slapping down miscreants. War is the systematic elimination of a threatening force that, if left intact, has great potential to do harm. I say again, if you are not willing to ELIMINATE the threat then you have no business in the threat area. If we had gone in and blasted the terrorist camps into smithereens and laid it at the feet of the host countries that NOWHERE in their pipsqueak sheikdom was safe unless they started to control their unruly population, I think the idea might have gotten across. Does that sound barbaric? You're DAMNED RIGHT it sounds barbaric. But then, when dealing with barbarians, you have to speak their language.
I'm not disagreeing with what I quoted from you, AI. I am merely pointing out that it was incomplete. And from what I said, you might infer that I am a bit hawkish. Having watched what happens when you try to play like a dove and get neither respect nor results, I recognize when escalation is needed. You don't have to agree with me, and probably won't.
As a side effect, if we had taken a more suppressive action earlier, a lot of the refugees wouldn't be running from an area controlled by thugs and hoodlums and warmongers. The outflow might have been at least partly reduced.
This statement is known to be true in so many ways. We should remember the Vietnam war. (Excuse me, "police action.") We should remember Operation Desert Shield. As you gave a disclaimer, AI, so I have to give one: Take in the WHOLE paragraph before jumping up and down on my stuff.
You do NOT dabble in war. If you have an enemy then you don't dabble around. You eliminate the enemy completely. It is the macrocosm of the first rule of owning a gun. If you take out your gun, you had already better have decided to use it. It has no business being out as a threat. If we didn't want to eliminate an enemy then we should never have gotten involved. War isn't about slapping down miscreants. War is the systematic elimination of a threatening force that, if left intact, has great potential to do harm. I say again, if you are not willing to ELIMINATE the threat then you have no business in the threat area. If we had gone in and blasted the terrorist camps into smithereens and laid it at the feet of the host countries that NOWHERE in their pipsqueak sheikdom was safe unless they started to control their unruly population, I think the idea might have gotten across. Does that sound barbaric? You're DAMNED RIGHT it sounds barbaric. But then, when dealing with barbarians, you have to speak their language.
I'm not disagreeing with what I quoted from you, AI. I am merely pointing out that it was incomplete. And from what I said, you might infer that I am a bit hawkish. Having watched what happens when you try to play like a dove and get neither respect nor results, I recognize when escalation is needed. You don't have to agree with me, and probably won't.
As a side effect, if we had taken a more suppressive action earlier, a lot of the refugees wouldn't be running from an area controlled by thugs and hoodlums and warmongers. The outflow might have been at least partly reduced.
- I agree.
You are incorrect about the position I would take. I'd love to tell you how much I agree with you but Ctrl+C / Ctrl+V is only worth so much.
I tend to tread carefully when conversing with those I respect; this community has no exceptions. I've asked you very hard questions in the past and still recognize that I owe you an answer to one in particular; our experiences are very similar in some cases but drastically different in others on that one.
I appreciate the respect you have shown me.
You are incorrect about the position I would take. I'd love to tell you how much I agree with you but Ctrl+C / Ctrl+V is only worth so much.
I tend to tread carefully when conversing with those I respect; this community has no exceptions. I've asked you very hard questions in the past and still recognize that I owe you an answer to one in particular; our experiences are very similar in some cases but drastically different in others on that one.
I appreciate the respect you have shown me.