thehill.com
Yer prez bungled. His MO.The US has bungled itself into in the Middle East.
The end of the Anglosphere age in the Middle East
The U.S. and the U.K. are unable to see that bombing Yemen will backfire rather than achieve its objectives.
If you read the article you will learn this goes back decades and multiple presidents from each party. What has been a gradual decline is rapidly turning into a free-fall. Sitting back and pointing accusing fingers at “the other guy” not only doesn’t help but instead hastens the collapse. The US lust for empire is going the same way as every other empire, only it will last much shorter than most.
You are in error, terrorists hate us all, and as hard as it is to say the hatred is not without reason.
Incorrect. Remove the American military presence and it would go away eventually.
Agree. It certainly is with reason. The reason is our refusal to become moslems.
LMAO you are both naïve and clueless on Iran. Iran has been causing problems in the Middle East since Carter stupidly put this regime in Power.
I don’t think you know how ridiculous you sound sometimes. Let’s see: the US is meddling in Iran’s affairs doing everything it can to keep a brutal dictator in power because he’s one of ours, which creates extreme bitterness and hatred toward the US, fomenting a burning desire to send us back to where we came from. The same reaction we would have toward Iran if the situation were reversed. And so in your twisted logic Iran is the one causing problems while the USA is as pure as a vestal virgin, a poor victim because all we want is to be able to control every aspect of life in the ME because as Americans we know what’s best, and obviously what’s best is we be the sole global empire.
Never said the US was innocent, said the Iran regime has been causing trouble all over the Middle East since Carter. Do yo have any idea what the goal of the Iranian regime is? Listen to them, they've told the world what they want. US involvement in the Middle East is the only thing standing in their way. Iran get's what it wants and you haven't begun to see the loss of life you are so adamantly against.
You missed my point Dan. Dimms allow this behavior. Heck, it's happening in yer backyard. Joe and Alejandro are gonna see to this with their open border policy.
No, I got your point. I’m saying this is an *American* fiasco, not a Democrat one. You know how to tell presidents from both parties toe the foreign policy line they're told to toe? Because they don’t get assassinated.
You’re a hoot! The US goes bursting into the ME telling everybody what to do and when to do it, kills or replaces those leaders that disobey, stir the pot to the boiling point, and you’re shocked that places like Iran rebel and you insist it’s Iran that’s causing all the trouble. I’ve got a friend in Tulsa who’s fond of saying “This world would be a better place if everybody would just do what I tell them to do.” That’s American foreign policy in a nutshell, only we use our military to force the world to do what we tell them. And then we’re surprised to see they hate us.
I find it strange that you want the UN and others to protect Palestinians and disarm the Israeli's who are slaughtering them, yet in this thread, you seem to think that if the US were to leave the Middle East, that Iranians wouldn't brutally slaughter tens of thousands of civilians who would stand in their way of conquest of the region. So are we supposed to protect the innocents of the region, and thus be there as a brake, deterrent, and unpopular force against the other tyrants in the region, or are we supposed to get out and leave each of the peoples to their own devices? You seem to be arguing for both and they are mutually exclusive.
Nothing strange about it, he's doesn't like Israel. He's convinced all the problems in the Middle East are Israel's fault.
That *would* be strange if I had ever said any of it. I’m afraid you’re hearing what you want to hear. For example I’ve never said a word about having the UN or anybody else disarm Israel. What I have said is Israel holds an overwhelming advantage over the Palestinians in military technology and weaponry, and they hold that advantage because we have supplied them with it. And since they hold that advantage and know we have their back no matter what they do with it they have historically been very satisfied to establish an apartheid state and create a virtual concentration camp to put them in. And then they and the US are surprised to find some of the Palestinians do not appreciate “all we’ve done for the ungrateful little bastards” and resist with violence.
Off the cuff I would say they are people who hate Americans for being Americans without thought about whether they are aghast at what their government is doing in their name, and are therefore willing to bring violence against them whether innocent or guilty.
So terrorists are people who don't like Americans. Very simple definition.
I will say Dan's definition is a bit lacking and doesn't describe terrorism very well. Personally, I think he overthought this one.
Oof, that hurt! My quick response was not well thought out, and you are right, what is a terrorist to one group is a resistance/freeom fighter to others.
I don't think that's a particularly good explanation, either. Fear and intimidation to obtain an objective is the hallmark of governmental action. So I suppose if you look at it that way you're right as long as you include governments as terrorists.
The lack of government is the most important component. The government doing this would be called the military and would open them up to retaliation from other governments.
That doesn't alter the fact that governments use fear and intimidation (and violence and the threat of violence against even their own people, see the tax man) as their means to operate. That puts governments squarely in your definition of terrorist.
Traditionally, Governments are allowed to do that. But yes governments do this all the time. We call that government.
Indeed they are. Understanding that is what led me to becoming an anarcho-capitalist.
Dan you never cease to amaze me from the leaps you are able make. I think you are crazy but I respect that you are able to make the leap.
Easy there, Pardner, I disavowed my definition as incorrect, and have accepted yours. I am open to hearing the error of my "leap."
Governments by nature use fear and intimidation. They don't take your taxes with a please. Governments are there however by the consent of the governed.
