Armageddon In Paris

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10442
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Contact:

Re: Armageddon In Paris

Post by dualstow » Sat Nov 14, 2015 2:25 pm

The Iraq War made little sense to me. I accept Bob Woodward's point of view in his book, 'Plan of Attack.' The invasion of Afghanistan, on the other hand, was more justified in my opinion.  I suppose it doesn't matter now. The implementtion didn't work out.
VENEZUELA: U.K. Judge Rejects Maduro’s Bid for Gold
tennpaga
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 3126
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:44 pm

Re: Armageddon In Paris

Post by tennpaga » Sat Nov 14, 2015 3:25 pm

Pointedstick wrote:
technovelist wrote: The reason that ISIS is a threat at all is due to the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, which was warned against by many people.
That is true. It's also in the past, which can't be changed. So now that we have, in large part due to our own blunders, unleashed this monster on the world, I think we can't just ignore it. If we made the mess, we share in the responsibility to clean it up.
I agree with the bolded statements.  But it seems like American leaders are a long way from agreeing with the underlined premises.  And so I fear that the response will once again be something idiotic that destabilizes the Middle East and makes both Western Europe and the U.S. less safe.  I mean, jeezus, if you listen to the neocons (this includes most of the R candidates as well as Hillary Clinton), the U.S., already having screwed up Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya, and in the process of doing so in Yemen and Syria, seems to be itching for war with Russia and Iran as well.
* Gresham's Law: Bad behavior drives out good.
* Gresham's corollary: Avoid participating in systems where good behavior cannot win.

https://fs.blog/2009/12/mental-model-greshams-law/
User avatar
technovelist
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5962
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: Armageddon In Paris

Post by technovelist » Sat Nov 14, 2015 3:26 pm

Pointedstick wrote:
technovelist wrote:
Pointedstick wrote: That is true. It's also in the past, which can't be changed. So now that we have, in large part due to our own blunders, unleashed this monster on the world, I think we can't just ignore it. If we made the mess, we share in the responsibility to clean it up.
The burden is on those who want to continue intervening, because those who were against the prior interventions have proven to be right about the effects of those interventions.
Can you clarify what this means? I'm not sure what you're saying.
What I'm saying is:

1. All the previous interventions were done to "make things better in the Middle East".
2. The people who warned that they would make things worse were pooh-poohed as being "isolationists" or "weak" or some such.
3. The result was that they did in fact make things much worse.
4. We are now hearing the same claims that we need to intervene to "make things better in the Middle East".
5. Some of the same people who objected to the previous interventions are objecting to any new intervention.
6. They are being pooh-poohed again for being "isolationist" or "weak".

Since insanity could be defined as doing the same thing and expecting different results, anyone who claims that further interventions will improve anything has the burden of proof that any further interventions will work. I don't see how such a burden of proof could be met, so I'm against any further interventions.
Another nod to the most beautiful equation: e + 1 = 0
tennpaga
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 3126
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:44 pm

Re: Armageddon In Paris

Post by tennpaga » Sat Nov 14, 2015 3:32 pm

Pointedstick wrote:
AdamA wrote: What do you think we should do?
If there's any personally-applicable lesson to learn here, it's this: if they try it here, shoot back. Carry your guns. I'm wearing one right now and you should be too. Don't go down without a fight. Do your part to protect your society and your civilization.
Along these lines:

Logic of a Modern Militia
--- William S. Lind in The American Conservative
To fit 21st-century realities, it would have to begin by acknowledging the greatest change in war since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. That treaty, which ended the Thirty Years’ War, gave the state a monopoly on armed conflict. As laid out in Martin van Creveld’s brilliant book The Transformation of War, published in 1991, the state is now losing that monopoly. All over the world, state armed forces designed, trained, and equipped to fight each other are instead fighting non-state opponents in what I call Fourth Generation war. All over the world, state armed forces are losing.

An American national-security policy designed for an era of this new style of war would have two aspects: security overseas and security at home. Both would look very different from current policy.

Security overseas means avoiding entanglement in Fourth Generation wars.
    ...
We need a militia that ideally includes all male American citizens. In a world where the state no longer has a monopoly on war, we must return to a pre-state world where every able male is a warrior. The Latin word “populus” originally meant “army.”

Unlike our colonial militias, however, these new militiamen would have neither weapons nor organization. Rather, they would take a pledge that whenever they encounter a “lone shooter,” they will stop him using whatever they have at hand: throwing rocks or chairs, tackling him, beating him unconscious, running over him with their car. If they happen to be armed, fine; if not, they attack anyway.

This summer saw an example of such a militia in action on a train in France, where three young Americans, an airman, a National Guardsman, and a civilian, along with two European men, assaulted and stopped an Islamist “lone shooter.” They acted as American men would pledge themselves to act in the new national militia.

Would some of those swarming a shooter get killed? Probably. As the men on the train said, “We figured we were going to die anyway.”

Liberty requires courage. The national-security state, in which the government tells civilians to hide under the bed while professionals take care of them, demands citizens trade their liberties for false promises of security. The state cannot fulfill that promise against “lone shooters.”
* Gresham's Law: Bad behavior drives out good.
* Gresham's corollary: Avoid participating in systems where good behavior cannot win.

https://fs.blog/2009/12/mental-model-greshams-law/
User avatar
technovelist
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5962
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: Armageddon In Paris

Post by technovelist » Sat Nov 14, 2015 3:46 pm

TennPaGa wrote:
Pointedstick wrote:
AdamA wrote: What do you think we should do?
If there's any personally-applicable lesson to learn here, it's this: if they try it here, shoot back. Carry your guns. I'm wearing one right now and you should be too. Don't go down without a fight. Do your part to protect your society and your civilization.
Along these lines:

Logic of a Modern Militia
--- William S. Lind in The American Conservative
To fit 21st-century realities, it would have to begin by acknowledging the greatest change in war since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. That treaty, which ended the Thirty Years’ War, gave the state a monopoly on armed conflict. As laid out in Martin van Creveld’s brilliant book The Transformation of War, published in 1991, the state is now losing that monopoly. All over the world, state armed forces designed, trained, and equipped to fight each other are instead fighting non-state opponents in what I call Fourth Generation war. All over the world, state armed forces are losing.

An American national-security policy designed for an era of this new style of war would have two aspects: security overseas and security at home. Both would look very different from current policy.

Security overseas means avoiding entanglement in Fourth Generation wars.
    ...
We need a militia that ideally includes all male American citizens. In a world where the state no longer has a monopoly on war, we must return to a pre-state world where every able male is a warrior. The Latin word “populus” originally meant “army.”

Unlike our colonial militias, however, these new militiamen would have neither weapons nor organization. Rather, they would take a pledge that whenever they encounter a “lone shooter,” they will stop him using whatever they have at hand: throwing rocks or chairs, tackling him, beating him unconscious, running over him with their car. If they happen to be armed, fine; if not, they attack anyway.

This summer saw an example of such a militia in action on a train in France, where three young Americans, an airman, a National Guardsman, and a civilian, along with two European men, assaulted and stopped an Islamist “lone shooter.” They acted as American men would pledge themselves to act in the new national militia.

Would some of those swarming a shooter get killed? Probably. As the men on the train said, “We figured we were going to die anyway.”

Liberty requires courage. The national-security state, in which the government tells civilians to hide under the bed while professionals take care of them, demands citizens trade their liberties for false promises of security. The state cannot fulfill that promise against “lone shooters.”
I can't disagree with any of that.
Another nod to the most beautiful equation: e + 1 = 0
clacy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1128
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:16 pm

Re: Armageddon In Paris

Post by clacy » Sat Nov 14, 2015 4:09 pm

Intervention, non-intervention, it makes no difference.

There is a problem out there and it will have to be dealt with one way or another. There are no good options that wouldn't ultimately involve lots of bloodshed and destruction.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3788
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Armageddon In Paris

Post by Mountaineer » Sat Nov 14, 2015 4:19 pm

The world is not a fair place, never has been, never will be no matter how much we would like it to be so.  Each individual needs to decide "would I rather live under western commonly held values (mainly Judeo-Christian based) or Islamic commonly held values, or no commonly held values (anarchy), or something else?"  Which is more just and which is more evil, recognizing nothing is perfect?  Once you answer that question, then support those in the elected or appointed positions in the country you choose to live in.  The elected/appointed officials may not always be right, but we should be spending our energies on fighting (however you wish to define that) the external enemy rather than picking at each other for past mistakes that we can do nothing about.  In my opinion, once we decide we are "at war" with another entity that wishes to do us harm, do whatever it takes to defeat them - totally - then forgive those "collateral damages" who are left and rebuild.  I believe if one examines history, the "partial" attempts at winning a war were rarely, if ever, successful.

... M
Vocation - doing what God has given me to do for the sake of the other.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10442
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Contact:

Re: Armageddon In Paris

Post by dualstow » Sat Nov 14, 2015 4:30 pm

technovelist wrote: 4. We are now hearing the same claims that we need to intervene to "make things better in the Middle East"
From the point of view of France, with its citizens being shot and blown up, would taking action still be called "intervening?" And, would it necessarily be about imporoving things in the Middle East or just at home?
VENEZUELA: U.K. Judge Rejects Maduro’s Bid for Gold
User avatar
Desert
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3233
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:39 pm

Re: Armageddon In Paris

Post by Desert » Sat Nov 14, 2015 6:16 pm

This is a long article from back in March of this year.  It's worth a read.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... =SFTwitter

I agree with those pointing out that the rise of ISIS is a direct consequence of the Bush admin's terrible choice to invade Iraq.  I also agree that ISIS is not a force that will live and let live.  It will now have to be defeated.  Fortunately, ISIS is making some formidable enemies, so I would hope that France or Russia will take on the task of destroying every last one of them. 

And as PS has pointed out, if they come over here, they'll face some return fire. 
Our greatest fear should not be of failure, but of succeeding at something that doesn't really matter. 
- D.L. Moody

Diversification means always having to say you're sorry.
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8697
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Armageddon In Paris

Post by Pointedstick » Sat Nov 14, 2015 6:28 pm

Yeah. I am totally on board with the thesis that we largely created ISIS. But so what? Now that we've created it, it's here, and it's not just gonna go away. I did not support the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, but they happened, and now their consequences need to be dealt with.

And just to play devil's advocate, if ISIS wanted to neutralize our advantage of armed civilians, all they would have to do is set off suicide bombs instead of shoot people. CCW-holders can't exactly stop that threat. Little can, really. If we find ourselves on that road, we're gonna be learning a lot of lessons from Israel and we're probably going to be happy that Trump is the president and he built a bunch of big beautiful walls.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
technovelist
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5962
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: Armageddon In Paris

Post by technovelist » Sat Nov 14, 2015 6:31 pm

Desert wrote: This is a long article from back in March of this year.  It's worth a read.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... =SFTwitter

I agree with those pointing out that the rise of ISIS is a direct consequence of the Bush admin's terrible choice to invade Iraq.  I also agree that ISIS is not a force that will live and let live.  It will now have to be defeated.  Fortunately, ISIS is making some formidable enemies, so I would hope that France or Russia will take on the task of destroying every last one of them. 

And as PS has pointed out, if they come over here, they'll face some return fire.
Maybe this is why the liberal media doesn't seem to be too upset by the caliphate?

"The Islamic State may have medieval-style punishments for moral crimes (lashes for boozing or fornication, stoning for adultery), but its social-welfare program is, at least in some aspects, progressive to a degree that would please an MSNBC pundit. "

(from the Atlantic article linked above)
Another nod to the most beautiful equation: e + 1 = 0
User avatar
Desert
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3233
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:39 pm

Re: Armageddon In Paris

Post by Desert » Sat Nov 14, 2015 6:33 pm

Other than the Trump reference, I agree, and think I stated as much in my last post.  Yes, ISIS exists and they aren't going to go away and leave the West alone.  As the article I linked describes, they want a war with the West.  Fortunately, unlike Al Qaeda, they also desire to permanently occupy territory.  That will be their undoing.  They can be attacked like a state/nation, as opposed to the Al Qaeda operatives who aren't linked with any single state. 

So some country will have to attack and annihilate ISIS.  I don't think it must be the U.S.  It seems like a great opportunity for France or Russia to go do some killing. 

<this post was in reply to PS, not Technovelist>
Our greatest fear should not be of failure, but of succeeding at something that doesn't really matter. 
- D.L. Moody

Diversification means always having to say you're sorry.
Post Reply