Is the United States Under Attack?

[WuDrWu]

Seriously.


What is the ONLY way we can be defeated? It is not as if the Taliban can attack us with an army.

The only, ONLY, way they can win is EXACTLY what they are doing, and it is a brilliant tactic.

They send this Shahzad waste of space on a mission. If he succeeds, what a great victory. If not, what have they lost? A few dollars? It's a no risk, huge reward....anyone think its going to stop anytime soon?


So, what do we do? I see the following options.

1)Just take it. We can handle it. We're the big bully, and occassionally that bully gets his nose bloodied. It's the price we pay for being the best.

2)Treat them as criminals and read them their rights.

3)Treat the countries that house them as enemies or tell those countries exactly what is going to happen, which should be carpet bombing these pricks back to the stone ages.


If you believe 1, you're an idiot. F you. If you believe 2, you're an idiot and the President.

The answer, my fellow Americans is 3. Take the gloves off the great fighting men and women of our Armed Forces and allow them to end this war.

You have until Jan 1, rest of the world, to get your houses in order and prosecute these wastes, or we are going to do it for you.

And if you are stupid enough to think we aren't under attack, just google it.

[RoyalShock]

I understand what you're saying, Doc. But has it occurred to you that we are fighting against an enemy that can simply continue to hide and move, hide and move, while we bankrupt our country and sacrifice our freedoms?

And wiping out countries they hide in means thousands upon thousands of innocent people dying? Many of which are our own young fighting men?

I firmly believe that the only way this war ever ends (that is, no more terrorist attacks on US soil) is a plan to get out of the middle east. And that will also mean reducing our foreign aid not just to Israel, but Israel's enemies, as well.

People don't volunteer to kill themselves because someone half a planet away has freedom and prosperity. I think that's a lie that's been pitched and sold to us. Yeah, the Islamic fundamentalists may not be the most rational, but when we've pulled out of other countries in that region (like Lebanon), the terrorist attacks there stopped.

So I guess I'm an idiot, F me. A freedom-loving people like Americans should understand the concept of respecting the lands of others and what it means to them and not be surprised when the people of those lands get pissed off and come after us.

I take exception with America being a bully. Bullies aren't examples of anything except over-compensating for a lack of something. That's not America. America needs to be an example of freedom and respect, not one of aggression and imperialism.

Look, I agree with what we did by going after them in Afghanistan after 9/11. But it's over now. The person we're after isn't there. It's time to leave and stop trying to spread freedom to people who don't understand it and can't handle the responsibility. Let them figure it out on their own, in their own time.

And the way I see it, spreading freedom away from America, means losing freedom in America. That's a price I'm NOT willing to pay.

[WuDrWu]

Excellent points Royal. That's the kind of response my post should get.

You make a strong statement, but let me ask; Do we get out of the middle east and stay active in other areas of the world? Or do we just go when we are asked....and who should do the asking? What if the people disagree with the government? Or do we withdraw from everywhere....and just protect our borders? That seems like a sure sign of disaster.

I know its a sticky situation. There are no easy black and white answers....I realize that.

[Maggie]

Royal,

Ask yourself a few questions:

(1) What are the real “goals” of Islamic fundamentalists?;

(2) How can they achieve those “goals”; and

(3) What, if anything, represents the greatest threat, on a number of levels, to an Islamic fundamentalists’ success in achieving those “goals”?

[RoyalShock]

Doc, I believe we should be non-interventionists, which doesn't mean leaving when asked, but leaving because it's the right thing to do. Unless we (that's the US, not our allies) are under an imminent threat, our troops should be home and those defense dollars spent elsewhere (or kept by the people).

There were international problems in the 18th century and even then the founding fathers said to avoid entangling alliances. That's the opposite of what we are doing today. I do believe that if we focus on our own borders, then we will be better equipped to deal with the idiots who attempt to breach those borders. Right now, we're spread so thin we would have great difficulty staging any other war fronts.

Maggie, I liken what we've done in the middle east to stirring up a hornet's nest. If we hadn't meddled there since the 50s, we'd be sitting at a safe distance. I'm sure the goals of the fundamentalists are ones of power in their region and dealing with Israel. Israel is one of those "entangling alliances" we were warned about. Now that, along with making sure our supply of oil isn't harmed has us losing billions of taxpayer dollars, thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of innocent civilian lives. That is not a cost I'm willing to live with for "security" for us, Israel, or the price of oil. Besides, Israel can pretty much wipe any of those countries off the map. And because we won't let them defend themselves, their enemies take advantage of that.

What it boils down to for me is that the counties in that region should deal with their troubles. If one of our allies is attacked outright, we can look at getting involved then, not pre-emptively. I don't believe the Islamists hate us because we are free, but because we stuck our nose in their business, prop up their enemy and have become infidels by staging troops in their holy lands.

[BOBB]

Royal making all kind of sense. The only problem is what do we define as their land? Saudi, Yemen, Jordan are easy calls. Sudan, India, Bosnia, Netherlands, Michigan?

[Maggie]

Royal,

I understand where you are coming from but you are going a bridge too far for me – if you know what I mean. I am not going to get into the historical weeds regarding our country’s dealings in the Middle East over the last century but I will say this in response:

Consider that Islamic fundamentalists (we know this because they tell us) want every country, starting in the Middle East, to be governed in accordance with their interpretation of Islam…period. Accordingly, not only is Israel on their hit list but ultimately countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan as well.

The most serious impediment to Islamic fundamentalists achieving these goals is the West and, in particular, the United States. Why? Well to begin with the United States is the only country that could challenge them militarily and economically. Additionally, that the United States is associated with, with good reason, a powerful message of political freedom is similarly a threat to Islamic fundamentalists. Our way of life, i.e. American popular culture, with its informality and egalitarianism (women’s rights especially), is genuinely despised by these fundamentalists. They are also envious of the West’s prosperity and long for days gone by when the Muslim world was at its zenith.

When people assert that Islamic fundamentalists hate our “freedom and prosperity” that not a lie it is part of a larger picture. It is a simplified position, probably for public consumption, but it is true.

In short, in my judgment, a complete pull out militarily and economically, as you suggest, from the Middle East would not move the crosshairs off the United States or the West. It is more complicated than that.

A couple other comments: There were reasons why our Founding Father’s were wary of foreign alliances – the world is different now – the United States, and its position in the world is different now – like it or not. And sometimes it annoys me too.

There is a little disconnect in your argument about avoiding "entangling alliances". On the one hand it is something to avoid or possibly divorce ourselves from (you brought up Israel) and on the other hand you state “If one of our allies is attacked outright, we can look at getting involved then, not pre-emptively” Should it be America alone or not?

I have to think about it – but foreign alliances have produced both good and bad results over the past 100 years or so. Bad in that they arguably contributed to the First World War; Good because certain alliances helped keep the peace after the Second World War in many areas around the globe; Bad because some of the alliances involving the United States, at least, created an international dependency culture – wherein certain countries rely too much on the United States militarily – which has helped create some of the global economic problems we are seeing now.

You and I have covered some of this ground already in other threads. And I fear that the point of diminishing returns may be firmly ensconced in our rear-view mirror. That said, I'm glad to have the discussion – I enjoy it.

[SubGod22]

I admit that I'm torn between Royal and Maggies points. I do wish we were less involved in many areas but I feel that we should have the back of allies like Israel. Isolationism is going too far I think, but scaling back what we do wouldn't be a bad thing.

I do agree with Maggie that pulling out wouldn't stop the radicals. His points are quite accurate and their goal is to spread their beliefs thru every country. Pulling out of the area won't stop that. They really do believe everyone must convert or die. It's that simple. It's the order of the 12th Imam or what's needed for his appearance or something like that. I'd have to go back and read up on that again.

[RoyalShock]

Sub, be very careful about using the term "isolationism". That is not the same as non-interventionism. Isolationism extends well beyond military matters. It's basically saying "we don't care about anything outside our borders, politically, militarily, socially and economically." I believe we should try to be friends and trade with as many nations as it makes sense to do so. But until acts of war are committed against our "friends" or the United States is threatened directly, we shouldn't get involved beyond diplomacy.

There may well be situations where it makes sense to deviate from that. But if we deviate frequently, well, it gets us where we are right now - world policeman and security forces.

The current foreign policy is bankrupting this country and may bring hardships that will affect us deeper than terrorist conflicts ever will.

[SubGod22]

My bad on using isolationism. Wrong "I" word. But like I said, I'm not sure exactly where I stand on this issue as I'm bouncing between both yours and Maggies points. I've always had a general idea of what I felt but never dug deeper.

I must say I do enjoy these discussions as it gives me more things to think about and I like hearing different view points.

[ShockTalk]

This is the kind of political discussion I enjoy reading. Well thought out points, well presented, and thought provoking. I only wish that others from another part of the table would weigh in. I really do!

No name calling, no smugness. Just well backed points of view that we all can learn from. If they do participate, let's all stay civil in our responses.

So much for my soapbox. I'll make a couple of opinions. Isolationism is a thing of the past. Once there were long miles, high mountains, and vast oceans. Once it took large militaries, ships, planes, and rockets. No more. The human race has technically advanced beyond many of its peoples and there understanding, or want of understanding, of being equally advanced in humanitarianism.

"Allies" will also need to take on new meaning. The success of Desert Storm and the quagmire of the current conflict has a direct correlation with the support, and contiued support, of other nations. Leading nations, dispite the differences in government of some, need to realize that what is good for one can be good for all and that what is bad for one, may very well be bad for them. These nations will need to learn to agree to disagree and "you give a little here and I'll give there" type of cooperation. Different peoples progress at different rates. What one nation's people may be able to handle, another is not yet ready for. What they should all be able to agree on is extremists/terrorists. There is a reason for their name. These are not freedom fighters, but freedom haters. They are haters of anything not of their own interest. Diplomasy is not an option in dealing with them. They are a plague on the growth of all mankind and should be dealt with by a united front. Is the world ready for this united front? Probably not. But that should not be a deterrent to continuing to reach that goal.

On the other hand, non-intervention is a tricky term. Are we telling Pakistan and Afganistan how to run their country or is there cooperation to a common goal? Should we have gone into Iraq? What should have been the response to the throwing down of the gauntlet of 9/11? Were we not directly affected by these attacks? For sure, pulling out of all military presence will not solve the problem. These extremists want no interference from anyone, in any fashion, that would hinder their goals. Any perceived interference, real or not, will meet their vengence. That's just who and what they are, no matter what they may say.

[Maggie]

The current foreign policy is bankrupting this country and may bring hardships that will affect us deeper than terrorist conflicts ever will.

I think you are overstating the financial impact of our national security budget and foreign aid programs. Without question there are parts of both that could be cut: Foreign aid could be reviewed and defense spending revamped. However, the latter would require a change in the “culture” of Washington when it comes to budgets for the various branches of the military.

But these concerns pale in comparison to various entitlement social programs.

[SubGod22]

The current foreign policy is bankrupting this country and may bring hardships that will affect us deeper than terrorist conflicts ever will.

I think you are overstating the financial impact of our national security budget and foreign aid programs. Without question there are parts of both that could be cut: Foreign aid could be reviewed and defense spending revamped. However, the latter would require a change in the “culture” of Washington when it comes to budgets for the various branches of the military.

But these concerns pale in comparison to various entitlement social programs.

:good: The entitlement programs are going to kill this country.

[ISASO]

Defense spending has added the bonus of scientific advancement and inventions that have benefited everyone. The space program is much the same.

But what have long-term entitlement programs contributed? Dependence on government? Has a bureaucrat invented something as simple and beneficial as teflon or aluminum foil?

[Capitol Shock]

I am coming to the conclusion that a financial collapse is needed in order to bring about real change....not the change that Obama is interested in.

Entitlements are killing us, the politicians won't stop spending and don't have the courage to make the necessary spending cuts needed to bring our financial house in order.

A financial collapse is all but certain at this rate but would also force the political class to adjust or be lynched. I'm not an anarchist but I don't have any confidence in our elected officials to make the hard decisions necessary to turn things around.