Gyroscopic Investing

Good read though I think he has still drunk a bit too much of the interventionist Kool Aid.

Weren't Reagan & Carter also doing a lot of tinkering in the Middle East?  Was Clinton really that much of a step forward in that regard?

Under what circumstances/in what manner would you folks think any intervention in the middle east is justified? 

moda0306 wrote: Weren't Reagan & Carter also doing a lot of tinkering in the Middle East?  Was Clinton really that much of a step forward in that regard?

Forward?  That reveals your mindset. 

... Mountaineer

Haha... well I do love me some slick Willy.  I'll defend his honor.

(phrasing)

Benko wrote: Under what circumstances/in what manner would you folks think any intervention in the middle east is justified?

If one or more of them invaded the United States or possibly if a hostile foreign power attempted to seize all of the oil fields over there.

moda0306 wrote: Haha... well I do love me some slick Willy.  I'll defend his honor.

(phrasing)

Defend the "Black Hawk" downs with a Tomahawk? 

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Haha... well I do love me some slick Willy.  I'll defend his honor.

(phrasing)

Defend the "Black Hawk" downs with a Tomahawk? 

... Mountaineer

I do believe anything short of total war is inherently nebulous in terms of the moral and functional implications of action or inaction.  I really struggle (not that it makes me feel at disease... but just with the logic) with the strategic and moral validity of any military action short of a purely defensive stance. 

moda0306 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Haha... well I do love me some slick Willy.  I'll defend his honor.

(phrasing)

Defend the "Black Hawk" downs with a Tomahawk? 

... Mountaineer

I do believe anything short of total war is inherently nebulous in terms of the moral and functional implications of action or inaction.  I really struggle (not that it makes me feel at disease... but just with the logic) with the strategic and moral validity of any military action short of a purely defensive stance.

I know what you mean.  I can remember when the US took the high road and said we would never preemptively strike.  That went down the drain with the bathwater ... and maybe the baby.

... Mountaineer

From a purely strategic standpoint (forgetting about morality for a sec), I'm not necessarily against pre-emptive strikes.  I think you need to be quite the foreign policy chess expert to really know whether some of these actions are going to result in MORE safety for Americans rather than less, though.  I get annoyed when I see people from both sides that think they know how an action will affect our safety, when there are so many variables affecting the outcomes of our actions overseas.

The only thing I can pretty confidently agree with is that we shouldn't have let muslims into this country in the first place.  That sounds extremely harsh, and I respect the few of them that I've had to interact with on a regular basis, but in a nuclear world, we have to be extra careful about letting crazies in.  I'm all for treating the current residence of the U.S. with respect (including "illegals" that have lived here for years).  I just don't like the fact that we've been so flippant about letting them in.  I don't think Al Qaeda is getting themselves an aircraft carrier or nuclear submarine anytime soon.  I'm actually surprised a small backpack nuclear device hasn't been set off in an American or European city, yet.

To be fair, and it's kind of funny that I'm saying this to you, this would be one of the questions I would ask potential immigrants if I knew I was getting an honest answer... and their allowance into the country would be dependent on them answering the question "No."

"Do you believe that humans who do not share your religious beliefs are necessarily going to spend the afterlife in eternal punishment, suffering, or discomfort?"

If they answer that question "Yes."  No thank you.  You don't get to come here.

Not that I don't want you here, Mountaineer .  I just think, if we COULD get an honest answer to that, we'd weed out a ton of the potential for crazies.

moda0306 wrote:
"Do you believe that humans who do not share your religious beliefs are necessarily going to spend the afterlife in eternal punishment, suffering, or discomfort?"

If they answer that question "Yes."  No thank you.  You don't get to come here.

Not that I don't want you here, Mountaineer .  I just think, if we COULD get an honest answer to that, we'd weed out a ton of the potential for crazies.

Your definition of "necessarily"?

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote:

moda0306 wrote:
"Do you believe that humans who do not share your religious beliefs are necessarily going to spend the afterlife in eternal punishment, suffering, or discomfort?"

If they answer that question "Yes."  No thank you.  You don't get to come here.

Not that I don't want you here, Mountaineer .  I just think, if we COULD get an honest answer to that, we'd weed out a ton of the potential for crazies.

Your definition of "necessarily"?

... Mountaineer

By logical necessity due to the fact that "their God" will send ANYONE to hell who doesn't follow their religion. 

Perhaps this is too complex.  Let's just compromise and only allow agnostics in .

TennPaGa wrote:

moda0306 wrote: From a purely strategic standpoint (forgetting about morality for a sec), I'm not necessarily against pre-emptive strikes.  I think you need to be quite the foreign policy chess expert to really know whether some of these actions are going to result in MORE safety for Americans rather than less, though.  I get annoyed when I see people from both sides that think they know how an action will affect our safety, when there are so many variables affecting the outcomes of our actions overseas.

I don't think such a chess expert exists, or will ever exist.

Yet it's amazing how many people seem to be experts, isn't it?  Some bimbo who was just a biiiit too reserved for porn gets a job at Faux News and all of a suddenly she finds Jesus and becomes a foreign policy expert worthy of making conclusions about what our actions will bring about in the Middle East and at home.

And to be fair, listening to Chris Matthews blow invalid assertions out his hole and ask "hardball" (aka, loaded with bullshit) questions is equally nausiating.  And with no positive aesthetic distractions, to boot.

Sorry that was a bit much... 

topic split to figuring out religion thread...

[quote=Benko]Under what circumstances/in what manner would you folks think any intervention in the middle east is justified? [/quote]

Barbary Pirates et al.

WildAboutHarry wrote:

Benko wrote:Under what circumstances/in what manner would you folks think any intervention in the middle east is justified?

Barbary Pirates et al.

+1

I would add that to my rather short list. Given the nature of the ISIS savages that may be a reason I am not all that distressed by the air force being given a green light to bomb the snot out of them. But no grounds troops!

Ad Orientem wrote:

WildAboutHarry wrote:

Benko wrote:Under what circumstances/in what manner would you folks think any intervention in the middle east is justified?

Barbary Pirates et al.

+1

I would add that to my rather short list. Given the nature of the ISIS savages that may be a reason I am not all that distressed by the air force being given a green light to bomb the snot out of them. But no grounds troops!

I favor ground troops but no bombing from the air so as to limit civilian casualties.

Reub wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote:

WildAboutHarry wrote: Barbary Pirates et al.

+1

I would add that to my rather short list. Given the nature of the ISIS savages that may be a reason I am not all that distressed by the air force being given a green light to bomb the snot out of them. But no grounds troops!

I favor ground troops but no bombing from the air so as to limit civilian casualties.

So when are you joining up?

So if ISIS kidnaps US reporters and beheads one every week or two, we should do what?  Nothing?

I don't know exactly what we should do. But we can't start a war every time a reporter gets caught up in something over his head overseas.

I truly do feel their role is valuable and feel horrible about the situations they find themselves in, but we have to realize that they aren't exactly getting kidnapped out of their suburban homes in the middle of the night.

Benko wrote: So if ISIS kidnaps US reporters and beheads one every week or two, we should do what?  Nothing?

If you're asking me what the government should do, the answer is "Provide a public warning telling people of the risk", assuming there is anyone left not living in a cave who doesn't already know that it is dangerous to go there.

Not that I have any illusions that they care what I think, of course.

I have not a clue what is the right answer on intervention vs non.  I would obvoiusly prefer none if there are no consequnces from that (getting people killed being a bad thing). 

The only thing I know on a person interacting with other people level is that if you let people (excluding bosses) treat you badly you will lcontinue to get  treated badly, and it may escalate.  I had thought this translated to behavior of countries, but that is more complicated.

Thank goodness most of you weren't around when the Nazis were rampaging through Europe.  To think that radical Islamic Jihadism  after 9/11 isn't our concern is just astonishing.

Osama Bin Laden literally explained the motives for the 9/11 attacks.  All these motives had to do with US intervention overseas.

There is no way you don't know that, so I am just highlighting it for anyone else, who may not himself be trying to reenact his personal traumas on others.

Lowe wrote: Osama Bin Laden literally explained the motives for the 9/11 attacks.  All these motives had to do with US intervention overseas.

There is no way you don't know that, so I am just highlighting it for anyone else, who may not himself be trying to reenact his personal traumas on others.

Yes, and that's why we have to keep intervening overseas! Otherwise the terists will win!