'Overseas Contingency Operation'

[auditor0007]

I see. They are terrorists only due to us, not their twisted interpretation of their religion. It's all our fault. Bad, bad United States.

If they would just withdraw all armed forces from everywhere they are in the world, and use them instead to control their own borders only, the rest of the world will like them again and leave them alone.

It becomes easier to recruit potential terrorists to your cause if you have substantial complaints against the United States, rather than simply wanting to wage a holy war against us.

So what exactly would you do to stave off another 9-11? doyathink?

Terrorist attacks are only the symptom of the real problem. Those attacks are only a side show to the long term agenda of Islam. The reason we never hear any outright condemnation of Muslim terrorist attacks from so-called moderate Muslims is that while they may not support the actions themselves, their long term objective is the same.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Blame shifting.

The IslamoNazis are on a jihad against the entire non-Muslim world. And have been for well over 50 years. That's their reason for what they do. The "substantial complaints" are simply poor excuses, designed to appeal to folks such as yourself. "Neighbors with a beef" is what you think they really are?

You believe we should simply appease them? Give them whatever they want and hope they'll be satisfied?

Please, lay out your plan to fix things so they won't want to kill us or convert us. I would love to read it.

My suggestion is to adopt a foreign policy of non-interventionism, and to bring all our troops from around the world home.

In a perfect peaceful world that would work,, so once home,, what would you do to stave off another attack? Cause I don't think coming home and practicing noninterventionism or aka isolationism is gonna stave off attacks.. so what would you do then to save your fellow countrymen?

Non-interventionism isn't isolationism.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Regardless of what it's called, it's about time we stop wasting money and lives on it.

Then we better whole heartedly isolate ourselves from the rest of the world, because I can assure you that Islamic Radicalism and Terrorism is here to stay. They have declared war on the rest of the world, not just the US, and it will not stop just because we stop calling it a War. And as the rest of the world falls to the Islamists, we will be left with no one to deal with but them.

Look at it this way; our closest allies, the Europeans, will be Islamist by the end of the century. Who will our allies be then?

Terrorism is here to stay because it's a tactic, and you can't wage a war against a tactic. There are American terrorists (Timothy McVeigh for instance), Canadian terrorists, Islamic terrorists, Russian terrorists, and any other kind of terrorist you can think of. The fact is they're willing to attack us because we're on their holy land (Saudi Arabia and Iraq), because of our bombs, and our sanctions. It's not naive to believe this, it's realizing that our belligerent foreign policy clearly has consequences. Cause and effect. I don't believe we should isolate ourselves. Diplomacy and free trade is the way to go.

 

[DiveCon]

My suggestion is to adopt a foreign policy of non-interventionism, and to bring all our troops from around the world home.

In a perfect peaceful world that would work,, so once home,, what would you do to stave off another attack? Cause I don't think coming home and practicing noninterventionism or aka isolationism is gonna stave off attacks.. so what would you do then to save your fellow countrymen?

Non-interventionism isn't isolationism.

a rose, by any other name, is still a rose

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

[/B]




In a perfect peaceful world that would work,, so once home,, what would you do to stave off another attack? Cause I don't think coming home and practicing noninterventionism or aka isolationism is gonna stave off attacks.. so what would you do then to save your fellow countrymen?

Non-interventionism isn't isolationism.

a rose, by any other name, is still a rose

Well isolationism would be retreating within our borders and having nothing to do with the rest of the world, which I am not proposing whatsoever. Diplomacy and free trade are in our best interests.

 

[DiveCon]

Non-interventionism isn't isolationism.

a rose, by any other name, is still a rose

Well isolationism would be retreating within our borders and having nothing to do with the rest of the world, which I am not proposing whatsoever. Diplomacy and free trade are in our best interests.

and when those you trade with are being attacked and taken over, what then?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

a rose, by any other name, is still a rose

Well isolationism would be retreating within our borders and having nothing to do with the rest of the world, which I am not proposing whatsoever. Diplomacy and free trade are in our best interests.

and when those you trade with are being attacked and taken over, what then?

I think Bastiat said it best.

"When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will."

 

[DiveCon]

Well isolationism would be retreating within our borders and having nothing to do with the rest of the world, which I am not proposing whatsoever. Diplomacy and free trade are in our best interests.

and when those you trade with are being attacked and taken over, what then?

I think Bastiat said it best.

"When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will."

ah, so THEN you support intervention
when its too late

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

and when those you trade with are being attacked and taken over, what then?

I think Bastiat said it best.

"When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will."

ah, so THEN you support intervention
when its too late

That's not what I said, and certainly not what Bastiat meant.

 

[DiveCon]

I think Bastiat said it best.

"When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will."

ah, so THEN you support intervention
when its too late

That's not what I said, and certainly not what Bastiat meant.

words mean things, Kevin
if you have to wait till the goods arent crossing the borders to act, then it is already too late

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

ah, so THEN you support intervention
when its too late

That's not what I said, and certainly not what Bastiat meant.

words mean things, Kevin
if you have to wait till the goods arent crossing the borders to act, then it is already too late

What Bastiat meant was that it makes no sense to attack those who you trade with, and that if you refuse to trade with some people then you're more likely to be attacked by them. I am not proposing that we intervene in the affairs of other nations at all.

 

[WillowTree]

My suggestion is to adopt a foreign policy of non-interventionism, and to bring all our troops from around the world home.

In a perfect peaceful world that would work,, so once home,, what would you do to stave off another attack? Cause I don't think coming home and practicing noninterventionism or aka isolationism is gonna stave off attacks.. so what would you do then to save your fellow countrymen?

Non-interventionism isn't isolationism.

sure it is.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

[/B]




In a perfect peaceful world that would work,, so once home,, what would you do to stave off another attack? Cause I don't think coming home and practicing noninterventionism or aka isolationism is gonna stave off attacks.. so what would you do then to save your fellow countrymen?

Non-interventionism isn't isolationism.

sure it is.

I've already explained this, but I'll do it again. Isolationism would be retreating within your borders and having no dealings with the outside world. Non-interventionism means you have diplomacy and free trade with all nations that are willing.

 

[DiveCon]

That's not what I said, and certainly not what Bastiat meant.

words mean things, Kevin
if you have to wait till the goods arent crossing the borders to act, then it is already too late

What Bastiat meant was that it makes no sense to attack those who you trade with, and that if you refuse to trade with some people then you're more likely to be attacked by them. I am not proposing that we intervene in the affairs of other nations at all.

lol just exactly what i said
if your trading partner is being attacked you wont have those goods to trade
if you dont help them and they get defeated, you have lost not onl;y a trading partner, but an ally
so, eventually, you have NO trading partners because you are not a reliable ally
thus you want isolationism

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

words mean things, Kevin
if you have to wait till the goods arent crossing the borders to act, then it is already too late

What Bastiat meant was that it makes no sense to attack those who you trade with, and that if you refuse to trade with some people then you're more likely to be attacked by them. I am not proposing that we intervene in the affairs of other nations at all.

lol just exactly what i said
if your trading partner is being attacked you wont have those goods to trade
if you dont help them and they get defeated, you have lost not onl;y a trading partner, but an ally
so, eventually, you have NO trading partners because you are not a reliable ally
thus you want isolationism

Who has the resources to attack all of our trading partners and beat them all in a war? al-Qaeda? I don't think so. Your scenario is a bit far fetched.

 

[WillowTree]

Non-interventionism isn't isolationism.

sure it is.

I've already explained this, but I'll do it again. Isolationism would be retreating within your borders and having no dealings with the outside world. Non-interventionism means you have diplomacy and free trade with all nations that are willing.

so you would trade with them but not interfere whatsoever if they were threatened?? there would be no WW 2 or WW ! or Kuwait?? none of that?? Well then I submit you would have serious troubles with free trade.

 

[WillowTree]

What Bastiat meant was that it makes no sense to attack those who you trade with, and that if you refuse to trade with some people then you're more likely to be attacked by them. I am not proposing that we intervene in the affairs of other nations at all.

lol just exactly what i said
if your trading partner is being attacked you wont have those goods to trade
if you dont help them and they get defeated, you have lost not onl;y a trading partner, but an ally
so, eventually, you have NO trading partners because you are not a reliable ally
thus you want isolationism

Who has the resources to attack all of our trading partners and beat them all in a war? al-Qaeda? I don't think so. Your scenario is a bit far fetched.

well over in Europe,, you got Russia, you got Germany,, in the mideast,, you got lots of folks who could interupt free trade..

 

[DiveCon]

What Bastiat meant was that it makes no sense to attack those who you trade with, and that if you refuse to trade with some people then you're more likely to be attacked by them. I am not proposing that we intervene in the affairs of other nations at all.

lol just exactly what i said
if your trading partner is being attacked you wont have those goods to trade
if you dont help them and they get defeated, you have lost not onl;y a trading partner, but an ally
so, eventually, you have NO trading partners because you are not a reliable ally
thus you want isolationism

Who has the resources to attack all of our trading partners and beat them all in a war? al-Qaeda? I don't think so. Your scenario is a bit far fetched.

uh, you really are narrow minded
who said they would attack ALL of them at the same time?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

lol just exactly what i said
if your trading partner is being attacked you wont have those goods to trade
if you dont help them and they get defeated, you have lost not onl;y a trading partner, but an ally
so, eventually, you have NO trading partners because you are not a reliable ally
thus you want isolationism

Who has the resources to attack all of our trading partners and beat them all in a war? al-Qaeda? I don't think so. Your scenario is a bit far fetched.

well over in Europe,, you got Russia, you got Germany,, in the mideast,, you got lots of folks who could interupt free trade..

And when has Germany expressed any interest in world domination since WW2? Russia may be more belligerent these days, but I've not seen anything that makes me think they're interested in world domination.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

lol just exactly what i said
if your trading partner is being attacked you wont have those goods to trade
if you dont help them and they get defeated, you have lost not onl;y a trading partner, but an ally
so, eventually, you have NO trading partners because you are not a reliable ally
thus you want isolationism

Who has the resources to attack all of our trading partners and beat them all in a war? al-Qaeda? I don't think so. Your scenario is a bit far fetched.

uh, you really are narrow minded
who said they would attack ALL of them at the same time?

I'm not of the opinion that al-Qaeda or any terrorist organization could attack and defeat nations such as France, Germany, Canada, or Great Britain in any kind of war, let alone all of them.