Is the United States Under Attack?

[kcshocker11]

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.

Well said! :good: 8)

[ABC]

Do folks really think we wouldn't have any jihaad problems if the US had never set foot in the Middle East?

I certainlly don't.

This is a big problem without any easy solutions. But the US isn't going to not be in the Middle East, so let's dispense with that.

There's a great piece in yesterday's Wall Street Journal that I encourage everyone to read: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read

"What can we make of a young man like Shahzad working for Elizabeth Arden, receiving that all-American degree, the MBA, jogging in the evening in Bridgeport, then plotting mass mayhem in Times Square?"

"This is a long twilight war, the struggle against radical Islamism. We can't wish it away. No strategy of winning "hearts and minds," no great outreach, will bring this struggle to an end. America can't conciliate these furies. These men of nowhere—Faisal Shahzad, Nidal Malik Hasan, the American-born renegade cleric Anwar Awlaki now holed up in Yemen and their likes—are a deadly breed of combatants in this new kind of war. Modernity both attracts and unsettles them. America is at once the object of their dreams and the scapegoat onto which they project their deepest malignancies."

[Maggie]

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.

This is a bit off topic. Notwithstanding, I don’t blame you for coming to this conclusion. And it is conventional wisdom that politicians will not act, party affiliation aside, unless they are compelled to do so by the stark reality of a situation.

What I just simply cannot explain is how some very smart people in this country want to continue to stumble toward a future in which an unsustainable welfare state is propped up on debt and taxes, while the political class basically bribes its populace straight into a disastrous sense of entitlement. We can see this happening all over Europe, Greece being the current flashpoint; however, countries like Britain, France, Italy, Spain, etc. are headed in the same direction. In part, the only reason they have lasted as long as they have is because they were able to “finance” various entitlement programs because they didn’t have to spend a significant amount of money on defense – they relied on the United States. Well now the United States is on an accelerated path in their direction. If we are all going to be Europe who is going to be the United States?

The future is Greece. Greece’s overall debt is higher, no doubt, and its deficit larger, than those of other countries, but the difference is one of degree, not of kind. Like most of the rest of us, the Greeks have been living beyond their means. When the crowd tried to storm the Greek parliament its anger was misdirected. It was a classic case of what Freudians call projection: the attribution to others of one’s own faults. It is true that the Greek politicians are much to blame for the current situation, but their crime was offering a substantial proportion of the Greek population a standard of living that was economically unjustified, maintained for a time by borrowing, and in the long run unsustainable, in return for votes. The crime of that substantial proportion of the Greek population was to accept the bribe that the politicians offered; they were only too prepared to live well at someone else’s expense. Principally the problem is not the politicians, but the demonstrators.

Such popular dishonesty is by no means confined to Greece. In varying degrees, most countries in the West have displayed it. It is perhaps an inherent problem wherever the universal franchise is unaccompanied by widespread virtues such as honesty, self-control, providence, prudence, and self-respect. Greece is therefore a cradle not only of democracy, but of democratic corruption.

The Greek demonstrators did not understand, or did not want to understand, that if there were justice in the world, many people, including themselves, would be worse rather than better off, and that a reduction in their salaries and perquisites was not only economically necessary but just. They had never really earned their wages in the first place; politicians borrowed the money and then dispensed largesse, like monarchs throwing coins to the multitudes.

It is an obvious but often forgotten lesson of economics: what cannot continue will not continue. So maybe you will ultimately be right Capitol Shock – but I certainly hope not.

[Maggie]

There's a great piece in yesterday's Wall Street Journal that I encourage everyone to read: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read

The article is disturbing.

[ABC]

There's a great piece in yesterday's Wall Street Journal that I encourage everyone to read: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read

The article is disturbing.

I agree.

I also encourgage folks to read "America Alone" by Mark Steyn who posits that the birth rates of Muslims in Europe will create a "Eurabia" with possible plurality or even majority Muslim populations in many European countries.

Though some say his demographic math is incorrect, he seems to have done his math correct, based on today's trends.

Basically the native populations in Europe (and Canada) have negative population growth and the Muslims do not.

[RoyalShock]

From the WSJ article:

"The maxim that Pakistan is governed by a trinity—Allah, army, America—gives away this confusion: The young man who would do his best to secure an American education before succumbing to the call of the jihad is a man in the grip of a deep schizophrenia."

He calls it "schizophrenia", but perhaps instead it goes back to the "America" reference. Our meddling, power and influence there has taken its toll.

Unless a coalition of forces goes in and wipes out the Islamic lands and rounds up those living abroad (do we really want to go there?), the long-term solution will have to be one of withdrawal.

Do you think we're going to reign in the spread of Muslims to free countries with going the route of internment?

The current situation is part of the cost of freedom. The question is, how does freedom deal with the problem and still retain its integrity?

[ABC]

And do you think that the problem is solved if we remove ourselves from the Middle East?

That just seems naive to me.

Removing ourselves spells weakness to Al Queda, which led to 9/11.

Removal of the troops from Lebanon, weak responses to the 1991 World Trade Center and the Cole disaster encouraged more violence, not less..

And what do you do about a nuclear Iran? Remove all of our troops from Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas of the Middle East? That does exactly what?

[RoyalShock]

No I don't think the problem is solved just by leaving. It's going to take a generation or more for that action to have the desired effect, just as it's taken a couple of generations for our involvement to produce the current situation.

In the meantime, we deal with individual situations strongly and swiftly, but reactively. We work with other countries diplomatically (ie. Europe) on dealing with their Muslim immigration issues. But I admit, I don't have the answer for that. It's the billion dollar question.

Regarding Iran, why don't we let the countries in that region deal with them? I don't believe they want Iran having nukes any more than we do.

[Maggie]

Royal I still think you are lending too much weight to our presence in the Middle East when it comes to the actions of Islamic fundamentalists.

I’ll concede that for some it is an aggravating factor. To be sure one link, one unifying commonality, among, for example, all these recent U.S.-based terrorists is radical Islamic ideology, and its hate-filled doctrine that seeks to blame the self-inflicted miseries of the Middle East on the supposed sins of the West and Israel. A link that is strangely ignored or downplayed by this Administration and much of the media at large. But it is far from a dispositive factor in the grand scheme of things. The expressed grievance(s) related our presence/influence in the Middle East changes over time – like shifting sand.

In my judgment, even if the United States never sent a single soldier to the Middle East, ignored Israel, etc. our society would still be targeted.

Indeed our President has reached out to the Muslim world, i.e. the Cairo speech, apologies galore (warranted or not – they only feed the narrative you are writing about), reached out to Syria and Iran, closing or at least trying to close Guantanamo, and has treated Israel, publicly, very poorly. We now have euphemisms like “overseas contingency operations” and “man-caused disasters,” and loudly disowned terms like “radical Islam,” “Islamic extremism,” and “jihad”.

And for all that effort it appears these Islamists seem more, not less, prone to kill us here at home - there have been more terrorist plots against the U.S. in the last 15 months than at any comparable period since 2001.

The more I read and the more I witness – these shifting complaints appear only to be stand-ins – useful vehicles in furtherance of an ultimate goal unrelated to those complaints. They are a means to an end. Nothing more.

[RoyalShock]

It seems the discussion is widening, so here is a summary of my position on Islamic terrorism, a debate of which we are probably at an impasse:

- Going into Afghanistan after 9/11 was the right action, but well past time to leave. (We aren't going to wipe out Al-Qaeda.)
- Never should have gone into Iraq.
- Troops need to be pulled from the region.
- Aid to middle east stopped. (I support Israel personally, but our gov't doesn't need to militarily or financially unless they are directly attacked.).
- Deal with current and future terrorist attacks against US targets harshly and swiftly.

Now on to the question of Islam spreading to non-Islamic lands . . .

The first question that needs to be asked is, how does a free society deal with those who want to spread their religion to the point of making it national law?

[Maggie]

Regarding reaching an impasse, if you are referring to me, as I wrote before: “I fear that the point of diminishing returns may be firmly ensconced in our rear-view mirror.” Also, it was not my intention to inappropriately expand the discussion – but this is a complicated topic (it is a complicated world) and it is very easy, intentionally or otherwise, to muddy the waters so to speak. The topic became, basically, what to do about the threat of Islamic fundamentalism and are there steps we can take as a nation to deal with that threat.

Notwithstanding, I’ll comment on your summary of your positions:

You write military action in Afghanistan after 9/11 was appropriate (which is perfectly consistent); however, you assert it is time to leave. I suppose the latter assertion is contingent upon what you believe was/is the mission in Afghanistan. What should have been the mission? What were/are our soldiers there to do? Is it appropriate to change that mission midstream? And what are the long and short term implications of your vision?

You write we should have not gone into Iraq. I am not going to take issue with this position because I believe a cogent good faith argument can be made that the Iraq War was a mistake – it is just not done very often. But mistake or not everyone should recognize that – if Iraq, in the heart of the Middle East, ends up becoming (BIG IF) a democratic nation friendly to the United States that would be an unprecedented positive development.

You write our troops need to be pulled from the region. What troops are you referring to and where are they located – besides the obvious ground forces engaged in live action. Should we pull our Navy out too?

You believe foreign aid to Middle East countries should be cut off. I might agree with this in certain situations – but that is a whole different kettle of fish.

You believe any attack on the U.S. targets should be responded to harshly and swiftly. I agree. Furthermore, no option should be off the table – including nuclear (are you listening Mr. President?)– and our enemies need to be told this in no uncertain terms.

And finally, “How does a free society deal with those who want to spread their religion to the point of making it national law?” You put your finger on hot issue here. As you are aware, living in a free society has its risks – including the fact that our enemies will take advantage of that freedom to do us harm. So you have to seek a balance between freedom and security – where would you draw that line?

If we do all the things you suggest do you believe Islamic fundamentalists would be less likely to attack us? I for one am not convinced that would be the case.

[RoyalShock]

I summarized my positions only because they have been spread among several posts in several topics, not for continued debate. So Maggie, you get the last word in your previous reply.

Back to the shifted topic . . .

I don't know what latitudes the free European societies have to deal with the influx of Muslims, so I won't comment on them.

But in the US, you rightly state that there is a balance between freedom and security. It is defined by the Constitution and the laws passed within its confines.

However, I don't like the path the federal government has started down, including Congress giving the president authority to go to war without a declaration, and the Patriot Act. It trampled all over the 4th Amendment via the "enemy combatant" wording that allows unreasonable search and seizure.

I'm not willing to set the Constitution aside for any measure of security. It is a "living document" only in that it has within it measures for it's modification via amendment. If added security measures that run counter to the Constitution are needed, it should be amended. Circumvention by a few power elites, as well as its acceptance by the masses, should be terrifying to anyone who values liberty.

In my mind, my original question has now split into two:

1. How does the US pro-actively deal with the spread of radical Islam (not terrorism) within our own borders?

One thing I can think of is to crack down or eliminate student visas for people of Muslim descent or Muslim nations.

2. Assuming for the moment that it is prudent, how should the Constitution be amended to give government the latitude to identify and neutralize opponents of the Constitution and our system of government?

[Maggie]

You already know that it is my opinion that most of the opposition to the Patriot Act was mostly addlepated paranoia/ignorance with a side of Bush hatred. But for a few, like you, opposition was solely about principle. Maybe I need to take a second look but I did not view it as that egregious. In part, maybe that is because of where I live – I am physically in the cross-hairs. In any event, trampled is not word I would use – those that drafted the Patriot Act or gave advice and made recommendations regarding permissible interrogations techniques for example were not, in my judgment, explicitly seeking to subvert the Constitution. They were trying to find the line between freedom and security – in accordance with the Constitution. It is certainly possible that they over reached in some cases and those provisions should be challenged where appropriate. I am not interested in Big Brother anymore than you are. Besides my conservative thought is primarily based upon the notion that the individual is supreme – you don’t mess with the individual.

I am sure you realize – that you are delving into the realm of Constitutional jurisprudence – a far too complex topic for this thread. Where we fundamentally may differ is that I personally subscribe to the constitutional “orthodoxy” of the "original meaning" species of originalism – this is the approach that Justices Scalia and Thomas advocate. Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties. They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings. The people make them; the people adopt them; the people must be supposed to read them, with the help of common sense. Advocates of the make-it-up-as-you-go-along approach that hides behind the misnomer of the "living Constitution" have willy-nilly discretion to usurp the democratic processes to deliver undeserved victories – looking to invent rights that aren't in the Constitution - and to ignore rights that are in it. But this type of discussion is probably better left for another thread.

I think your suggestion, in answering the first question you raise, is good place to start. However, I don’t believe student visas should be eliminated but the boarders made more secure. This would include better screening of the student visa program. I am sort of a wide door high fence kind of guy – immigration, etc. I think is a good thing by and large.

I’m not sure how to address your second question.

[Maggie]

A bit off topic in parts -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGvYqaxSPp4&feature=related

[kcshocker11]

Royal, you make a lot of sense! :good: 8) 8)