U.S. State Dept: Killing ISIS won't defeat them. We must give them jobs.

[Little-Acorn]

Where on Earth do they get people like this?

Did we get the Japanese and Germans jobs, to get them to end WWII?

No. We killed them. Lots of them.

And we kept on killing them. And we developed bigger and better tanks, warships, planes, and bombs (some of them nuclear), to kill them even better and faster. And we demonstrated we were willing and able to use those things to kill unprecedented numbers of them. And we persuaded them that we would go on doing so until none of them were left alive to crawl out of the rubble. And that there was nothing they could do, to stop us.

And at that point, they agreed to end the war against us. And they were defeated.

(BTW, the Germans and Japanese weren't nearly as vicious as ISIS is today.)

And we didn't offer them a single job. (Until much later.)

Because back then, we knew that getting them jobs WOULD NOT MAKE THEM STOP ATTACKING US AND THEIR NEIGHBORS.

Did this State Department "spokesman" come up with this new "plan" by herself, that she announced yesterday?

Or did some higher State Dept official tell it to her, and tell her to go out and announce it?

Are the people who came up with this plan and announced it as U.S. policy yesterday, collecting unemployment benefits today?

If not, WHY NOT???

Why are we still paying these people money, to work at the State Dept.?

-------------------------------------------------

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/17/state-department-spokeswoman-floats-jobs-as-answer-to-isis/

State Department spokeswoman floats jobs as answer to ISIS

Published February 17, 2015

What the West really needs to take on the Islamic State is ... a jobs program.

That's what a top State Department spokeswoman suggested when asked in a TV interview Monday night about what the U.S.-led coalition is doing to stop the slaughter of civilians by Islamic State militants across the region.

"We're killing a lot of them, and we're going to keep killing more of them. ... But we cannot win this war by killing them," department spokeswoman Marie Harf said on MSNBC's "Hardball." "We need ... to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it's lack of opportunity for jobs, whether --"

At that point, Harf was interrupted by host Chris Matthews, who pointed out, "There's always going to be poor people. There's always going to be poor Muslims."

Harf continued to argue that the U.S. should work with other countries to "help improve their governance" and "help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people."

She acknowledged there's "no easy solution" and said the U.S. would still take out ISIS leaders. But Harf said: "If we can help countries work at the root causes of this -- what makes these 17-year-old kids pick up an AK-47 instead of trying to start a business?"

[Perianne]

The difference is during WWII, our President was not a German or Jap, though he was a liberal.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Where on Earth do they get people like this?


Did we get the Japanese and Germans jobs, to get them to end WWII?

No. We killed them. Lots of them.

And we kept on killing them. And we developed bigger and better tanks, warships, planes, and bombs (some of them nuclear), to kill them even better and faster. And we demonstrated we were willing and able to use those things to kill unprecedented numbers of them. And we persuaded them that we would go on doing so until none of them were left alive to crawl out of the rubble. And that there was nothing they could do, to stop us.

And at that point, they agreed to end the war against us. And they were defeated.

(BTW, the Germans and Japanese weren't nearly as vicious as ISIS is today.)

And we didn't offer them a single job. (Until much later.)

Because back then, we knew that getting them jobs WOULD NOT MAKE THEM STOP ATTACKING US AND THEIR NEIGHBORS.

Did this State Department "spokesman" come up with this new "plan" by herself, that she announced yesterday?

Or did some higher State Dept official tell it to her, and tell her to go out and announce it?

Are the people who came up with this plan and announced it as U.S. policy yesterday, collecting unemployment benefits today?

If not, WHY NOT???

Why are we still paying these people money, to work at the State Dept.?

-------------------------------------------------

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/17/state-department-spokeswoman-floats-jobs-as-answer-to-isis/

State Department spokeswoman floats jobs as answer to ISIS

Published February 17, 2015

What the West really needs to take on the Islamic State is ... a jobs program.

That's what a top State Department spokeswoman suggested when asked in a TV interview Monday night about what the U.S.-led coalition is doing to stop the slaughter of civilians by Islamic State militants across the region.

"We're killing a lot of them, and we're going to keep killing more of them. ... But we cannot win this war by killing them," department spokeswoman Marie Harf said on MSNBC's "Hardball." "We need ... to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it's lack of opportunity for jobs, whether --"

At that point, Harf was interrupted by host Chris Matthews, who pointed out, "There's always going to be poor people. There's always going to be poor Muslims."

Harf continued to argue that the U.S. should work with other countries to "help improve their governance" and "help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people."

She acknowledged there's "no easy solution" and said the U.S. would still take out ISIS leaders. But Harf said: "If we can help countries work at the root causes of this -- what makes these 17-year-old kids pick up an AK-47 instead of trying to start a business?"

Sure. Everybody knows a good job will suppress those muslim urges to murder, rape and torture innocent people..
Perhaps we should hire them al to be security for the State Department and the Obama!
After all, is their brilliant theory , lets just let them enjoy being the benefactors and take all
the glory eh?
OPPS, sorry--forgot they tried that at Benghazi..
Seems that nasty ole Koran holds too much swat. Strange how these geniuses never suggest that The Koran needs an update. I wonder why?
Could it be because they cut your damn head off for that?

Sarcasm aside, these ffing vermin are by far worse than even the damn Nazi's, we need to go full bore --all out in killing them all. Do we try to make deals with roaches or do we kill them??

That State Department appeasement bullshit gonna get a damn lot of innocent people murdered and reap exactly nothing--ffing maroons!

SO NOW WE FINALLY GET THE OBAMA JOBS POLICY!!!!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The difference is during WWII, our President was not a German or Jap, though he was a liberal.

His wife was a damn socialist as was he ........his previous terms in office help set up the conditions and motivations for WW2..
Just like now, the Obama and his weakness/cowardice helps set up aggression around the world.
Is that by happenstance or by design????--Tyr

[Little-Acorn]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/harf-truths-and-whole-lies-1424207249

Harf Truths and Whole Lies

Can political correctness defeat terrorism?

by James Taranto
Feb. 17, 2015 4:07 p.m. ET

Poor Marie Harf. The State Department’s deputy spokesman is being mercilessly mocked for an interview she gave to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews in which she said, of the conflict with the Islamic State: “we cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s a lack of opportunity for jobs, whether—”

At which point, as the Washington Times notes, Matthews cut her off and challenged her—unsuccessfully. “Ms. Harf dug in and insisted improving the economic opportunities for the terrorist group is the key to turning back their terror.”

“Can’t win,” tweeted Rachel Palmer. “When they are employed its [sic] called work place violence.” The Washington Free Beacon’s Sonny Bunch imagines Harf’s advice to past military leaders from Themopylae to World War II. Here’s her advice to Patton: “No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by curing poverty in the other poor dumb bastard’s country!”

As funny as it is, it also feels a bit unsporting to pick on Harf like this. After all, she’s just doing her job, which is to act as a mouthpiece for an administration whose guiding principle seems to be that political correctness—which is to say, a thoroughgoing dishonesty—is the best weapon for dealing with Islamic terrorism.

Sometimes they even admit it. “We all agree that the individuals who perpetuated . . . the terrorist attacks in Paris and elsewhere are calling themselves Muslims and their warped interpretation of Islam is what motivated them to commit these acts,” a “senior administration official” said in a White House conference call yesterday. “They’re not making any secret of that, and neither are we.”

The unnamed official’s next words: “But we are very, very clear that we do not believe that they are representing Islam. There is absolutely no justification for these attacks in any religion.”

We suppose he’s right that the administration isn’t “making any secret of that.” They’re aggressively denying it.

[revelarts]

People in the U.S. need freakin' jobs.
the Gov't needs to deal with that.

How the heck is Isis feeding and clothing themselves if they don't "have jobs"? where are they getting arms, ammo? Fuel? communications? transportation?

they need to have their funding CUT OFF, not jobs.
Bombs work at one level but cutting supply lines leave an army to die and disperse. kill kill kill is not the only military strategy. and they are "at home". we're not going to commit enough troops for kill kill kill to work.

But if the CiC and generals had disabled all the military equipment in the M.E. before our military left, Isis would be a joke looking for a punchline. If we hadn't supported Al Nusra and AQ in Syria and Libya, and hadn't armed and trained Isis members in Jordan trying to oust Assad, Isis would be nothing.

the whole thing is at best a comedy of errors.

these isis clowns have no air force, or navy of any kind or proper army but where acting as if they are an unholy unstoppable terror that will launch a war on U.S. Soil any day now.

"get them jobs" the whole thing is ridiculous.

[Olivia]

It's just plain Scarey knowing nimrods like this are in power!

[fj1200]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/17/state-department-spokeswoman-floats-jobs-as-answer-to-isis/
...

At that point, Harf was interrupted by host Chris Matthews, who pointed out, "There's always going to be poor people. There's always going to be poor Muslims."

Harf continued to argue that the U.S. should work with other countries to "help improve their governance" and "help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people."

...

:cough: Marshall Plan :cough:

[NightTrain]

This guy summed it up perfectly :


Marie Harf is a blithering idiot, but jobs are indeed a root cause of the fix we are in. In 1980, Ronald Reagan put it this way:

“A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.”

By the same token, we won’t win the war the jihadists are fighting against us until Barack Obama and his crowd lose their jobs.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/02/marie-harf-explains-3.php

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:cough: Marshall Plan :cough:

Really? So we are to rebuild them before the great defeat?
Amazing plan you propose.
What, we just declare victory now, spend a trillion dollars building them up so they can win?
Putting the cart ahead of the horse never works .
I've got an idea, how about we kill most of them , force a reformation and have it end similar to our defeat of the Axis powers?
Or is that victory to be shunned because we won!?????

Seems libs/socialists and dems are all for an ending where we lose..
I wonder why?--Tyr

[Kathianne]

His wife was a damn socialist as was he ........his previous terms in office help set up the conditions and motivations for WW2..
Just like now, the Obama and his weakness/cowardice helps set up aggression around the world.
Is that by happenstance or by design????--Tyr

I don't like what FDR accomplished, therein lies the problems we have with big government today. However, he did nothing to set up aggression around the world, other than impose sanctions on a militarizing Japan.

If FDR had had his way, we would have taken on Germany much earlier than we did, but neither Congress nor the people would back that.

As for FDR knowing that Japan was going to bomb Pearl Harbor, he didn't. Did they know that Japan was going to try something, yes and were watching for it.

[tailfins]

I also support giving them jobs ... burying their own dead. It's time to create full employment for them.

[BoogyMan]

This kind of PC garbage infuriates me. We need to be doing EVERYTHING we can to squash every ISIS cockroach that has the temerity to show itself in the light of day. I came across a salon.com article today that calls a conservative lawmaker bloodthirsty (http://www.salon.com/2015/02/17/wipe_out_these_barbarians_bloodthirsty_gop_lawmake r_calls_for_nuking_isis/) for wanting to wipe out ISIS after they cut the heads off of 21 Christian prisoners. What kind of simpering melon-brained milliwit can even come up with such an assessment much less publish an article about it?

If this is indicative of our strategy to deal with ISIS, we are hosed.

[LongTermGuy]

http://www.100percentfedup.com/images/churchill.jpg#OBAMA%20AND%20ISIS%20500x400



https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.607991104120095540&pid=15.1&P=0

[Kathianne]

This kind of PC garbage infuriates me. We need to be doing EVERYTHING we can to squash every ISIS cockroach that has the temerity to show itself in the light of day. I came across a salon.com article today that calls a conservative lawmaker bloodthirsty (http://www.salon.com/2015/02/17/wipe_out_these_barbarians_bloodthirsty_gop_lawmake r_calls_for_nuking_isis/) for wanting to wipe out ISIS after they cut the heads off of 21 Christian prisoners. What kind of simpering melon-brained milliwit can even come up with such an assessment much less publish an article about it?

If this is indicative of our strategy to deal with ISIS, we are hosed.

You don't think nuclear weapons is a bit-over-the top, considering there's been no serious attempt at dealing with the terrorists? I'm not a liberal by any means, but nuclear weapons are not the first step in a war, IMO.

[LongTermGuy]

You don't think nuclear weapons is a bit-over-the top, considering there's been no serious attempt at dealing with the terrorists? I'm not a liberal by any means, but nuclear weapons are not the first step in a war, IMO.


I just want the "Real Animals" to be safe...Goats...sheep...dogs...cats..etc...The rest of the koran reading / believing / worshipping `insects` can go to HELL....very small Nukes for `special occasions`....*in the second or third step would be acceptable for dug in fortifications or mass gatherings .....
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2009/10/15/1255630478657/Hajj---muslims-praying-at-001.jpg


`Muslims have proven themselves as the cacaroaches of the world....There is only one "book of peace"...shari-law is in it......they `all` read it.....believe it...and stink up the civilized world with it...


*Never Forget.....Never....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-p1LEBAujE

[Kathianne]

I've never doubted that there were Muslims, especially Palestinians dancing in the streets on 9/11. Indeed I believe that the majority of non-terrorist Muslims, support the terrorists in some measure, because of what they've learned in the mosques. No doubt.

What is a problem with those wishing for nuclear response, they are giving a pass to Obama's and other Western leaders not addressing the problem, laying pressure to bear on those that may have an effect. What does that mean? They will not get a nuclear first response, won't happen. In the meantime the nightmare of inaction will continue until all out war breaks out. Then who will lob the first nukes? US? Pakistan? India? Iran? Israel?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I don't like what FDR accomplished, therein lies the problems we have with big government today. However, he did nothing to set up aggression around the world, other than impose sanctions on a militarizing Japan.

If FDR had had his way, we would have taken on Germany much earlier than we did, but neither Congress nor the people would back that.

As for FDR knowing that Japan was going to bomb Pearl Harbor, he didn't. Did they know that Japan was going to try something, yes and were watching for it.

FDR knew. --Tyr



http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408

Do Freedom of Information Act Files Prove FDR Had Foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor?

By Robert B. Stinnett, Douglas Cirignano | Posted: Mon. March 11, 2002

An Interview with Robert B. Stinnett by Douglas Cirignano

On November 25, 1941 Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto sent a radio message to the group of Japanese warships that would attack Pearl Harbor on December 7. Newly released naval records prove that from November 17 to 25 the United States Navy intercepted eighty-three messages that Yamamoto sent to his carriers. Part of the November 25 message read: “...the task force, keeping its movements strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet in Hawaii and deal it a mortal blow...”

One might wonder if the theory that President Franklin Roosevelt had a foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack would have been alluded to in this summer’s movie, Pearl Harbor. Since World War II many people have suspected that Washington knew the attack was coming. When Thomas Dewey was running for president against Roosevelt in 1944 he found out about America’s ability to intercept Japan’s radio messages, and thought this knowledge would enable him to defeat the popular FDR. In the fall of that year, Dewey planned a series of speeches charging FDR with foreknowledge of the attack. Ultimately, General George Marshall, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, persuaded Dewey not to make the speeches. Japan’s naval leaders did not realize America had cracked their codes, and Dewey’s speeches could have sacrificed America’s code-breaking advantage. So, Dewey said nothing, and in November FDR was elected president for the fourth time.

Now, though, according to Robert Stinnett, author of Simon & Schuster’s Day Of Deceit, we have the proof. Stinnett’s book is dedicated to Congressman John Moss, the author of America’s Freedom of Information Act. According to Stinnett, the answers to the mysteries of Pearl Harbor can be found in the extraordinary number of documents he was able to attain through Freedom of Information Act requests. Cable after cable of decryptions, scores of military messages that America was intercepting, clearly showed that Japanese ships were preparing for war and heading straight for Hawaii. Stinnett, an author, journalist, and World War II veteran, spent sixteen years delving into the National Archives. He poured over more than 200,000 documents, and conducted dozens of interviews. This meticulous research led Stinnet to a firmly held conclusion: FDR knew.

“Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars,” was Roosevelt’s famous campaign statement of 1940. He wasn’t being ingenuous. FDR’s military and State Department leaders were agreeing that a victorious Nazi Germany would threaten the national security of the United States. In White House meetings the strong feeling was that America needed a call to action. This is not what the public wanted, though. Eighty to ninety percent of the American people wanted nothing to do with Europe’s war. So, according to Stinnett, Roosevelt provoked Japan to attack us, let it happen at Pearl Harbor, and thus galvanized the country to war. Many who came into contact with Roosevelt during that time hinted that FDR wasn’t being forthright about his intentions in Europe. After the attack, on the Sunday evening of December 7, 1941, Roosevelt had a brief meeting in the White House with Edward R. Murrow, the famed journalist, and William Donovan, the founder of the Office of Strategic Services. Later Donovan told an assistant that he believed FDR welcomed the attack and didn’t seem surprised. The only thing Roosevelt seemed to care about, Donovan felt, was if the public would now support a declaration of war. According to Day Of Deceit, in October 1940 FDR adopted a specific strategy to incite Japan to commit an overt act of war. Part of the strategy was to move America’s Pacific fleet out of California and anchor it in Pearl Harbor. Admiral James Richardson, the commander of the Pacific fleet, strongly opposed keeping the ships in harm’s way in Hawaii. He expressed this to Roosevelt, and so the President relieved him of his command. Later Richardson quoted Roosevelt as saying: “Sooner or later the Japanese will commit an overt act against the United States and the nation will be willing to enter the war.”

To those who believe that government conspiracies can’t possibly happen, Day Of Deceit could prove to them otherwise. Stinnett’s well-documented book makes a convincing case that the highest officials of the government—including the highest official—fooled and deceived millions of Americans about one of the most important days in the history of the country. It now has to be considered one of the most definitive—if not the definitive—book on the subject. Gore Vidal has said, “...Robert Stinnet has come up with most of the smoking guns. Day Of Deceit shows that the famous ‘surprise’ attack was no surprise to our war-minded rulers...” And John Toland, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of the Pearl Harbor book, Infamy, said, “Step by step, Stinnett goes through the prelude to war, using new documents to reveal the terrible secrets that have never been disclosed to the public. It is disturbing that eleven presidents, including those I admired, kept the truth from the public until Stinnett’s Freedom of Information Act requests finally persuaded the Navy to release the evidence.”

What led you to write a book about Pearl Harbor?

Stinnett: Well, I was in the navy in World War II. I was on an aircraft carrier. With George Bush, believe it or not.

You wrote a book about that.

Stinnett: Yes, that’s right. So, we were always told that Japanese targets, the warships, were sighted by United States submarines. We were never told about breaking the Japanese codes. Okay. So, in 1982 I read a book by a Professor Prange called At Dawn We Slept. And in that book it said that there was a secret US Navy monitoring station at Pearl Harbor intercepting Japanese naval codes prior to December 7. Well, that was a bombshell to me. That was the first time I had heard about that. I worked at The Oakland Tribune at that time....So I went over to Hawaii to see the station to confirm it. And, then, to make a long story short, I met the cryptographers involved, and they steered me to other sources, documents that would support all of their information. And so that started me going. My primary purpose was to learn about the intercept procedures. And so I filed Freedom of Information Act requests with the Navy because communications intelligence is very difficult. It’s a no-no. They don’t want to discuss it. But the Navy did let me, gave me permission to go to Hawaii and they showed me the station....So that started me on it. And then I would ask for certain information, this is now, we’re talking about in the 1980’s, the late 1980’s. And they’re very reluctant to give me more information. I’m getting a little bit.

Historians and government officials who claim that Washington didn’t have a foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack have always contended that America wasn’t intercepting and hadn’t cracked Japan’s important military codes in the months and days preceding the attack. The crux of your book is that your research proves that is absolutely untrue. We were reading most all of Japan’s radio messages. Correct?

Stinnett: That is correct. And I believed that, too. You know, because, Life magazine in September 1945, right after Japan surrendered, suggested that this was the case, that Roosevelt engineered Pearl Harbor. But that was discarded as an anti-Roosevelt tract, and I believed it, also.

Another claim at the heart of the Pearl Harbor surprise-attack lore is that Japan’s ships kept radio silence as they approached Hawaii. That’s absolutely untrue, also?

Stinnett: That is correct. And this was all withheld from Congress, so nobody knew about all this.

Until the Freedom of Information Act.

Stinnett: Yes.

Is this statement true?—If America was intercepting and decoding Japan’s military messages then Washington and FDR knew that Japan was going to attack Pearl Harbor.

Stinnett: Oh, absolutely.

You feel it’s as simple as that?

Stinnett: That is right. And that was their plan. It was their “overt act of war” plan that I talk about in my book that President Roosevelt adopted on October 7, 1940.

You write that in late November 1941 an order was sent out to all US military commanders that stated: “The United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act.” According to Secretary of War Stimson, the order came directly from President Roosevelt. Was FDR’s cabinet on record for supporting this policy of provoking Japan to commit the first overt act of war?

Stinnett: I don’t know that he revealed it to the cabinet. He may have revealed it to Harry Hopkins, his close confidant, but there’s no evidence that anybody in the cabinet knew about this.

I thought you wrote in your book that they did...That some of them were on record for...

Stinnett: Well, some did. Secretary of War Stimson knew, based on his diary, and also probably Frank Knox, the Secretary of Navy knew. But Frank Knox died before the investigation started. So all we have really is Stimson, his diary. And he reveals a lot in there, and I do cite it in my book...You must mean his war cabinet. Yes. Stimson’s diary reveals that nine people in the war cabinet—the military people—knew about the provocation policy.

Even though Roosevelt made contrary statements to the public, didn’t he and his advisors feel that America was eventually going to have to get into the war?

Stinnett: That is right. Well, his statement was, “I won’t send your boys to war unless we are attacked.” So then he engineered this attack—to get us into war really against Germany. But I think that was his only option. I express that in the book.

Who was Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum and what was his connection to the Pearl Harbor attack?

Stinnett: He worked for Naval intelligence in Washington. He also was the communications routing officer for President Roosevelt. So all these intercepts would go to Commander McCollum and then he would route them to the President. There’s no question about that. He also was the author of this plan to provoke Japan into attacking us at Pearl Harbor. And he was born and raised in Japan.

McCollum wrote this plan, this memorandum, in October 1940. It was addressed to two of Roosevelt’s closest advisors. In the memo McCollum is expressing that it’s inevitable that Japan and America are going to go to war, and that Nazi Germany’s going to become a threat to America’s security. McCollum is saying that America’s going to have to get into the war. But he also says that public opinion is against that. So, McCollum then suggests eight specific things that America should do to provoke Japan to become more hostile, to attack us, so that the public would be behind a war effort. And because he was born and raised in Japan, he understood the Japanese mentality and how the Japanese would react.

Stinnett: Yes. Exactly.

Has the existence of this memo from Commander McCollum ever been revealed to the public before your book came out?

Stinnett: No, no. I received that as pursuant to my FOIA request on January 1995 from the National Archives. I had no idea it existed.

FDR and his military advisors knew that if McCollum’s eight actions were implemented—things like keeping the Pacific fleet in Pearl Harbor, and crippling Japan’s economy with an embargo—there was no question in their minds that this would cause Japan—whose government was very militant—to attack the United States. Correct?

Stinnett: That is correct, and that is what Commander McCollum said. He said, “If you adopt these policies then Japan will commit an overt act of war.”

Is there any proof that FDR saw McCollum’s memorandum?

Stinnett: There’s no proof that he actually saw the memorandum, but he adopted all eight of the provocations—including where he signed executive orders...And other information in Navy files offers conclusive evidence that he did see it.

The memo is addressed to two of Roosevelt’s top advisors, and you include the document where one of them is agreeing with McCollum’s suggested course of action.

Stinnett: Yes, Dudley Knox, who was his very close associate.

The “splendid arrangement” was a phrase that FDR’s military leaders used to describe America’s situation in the Pacific. Can you explain what the “splendid arrangement” was?

Stinnett: The “splendid arrangement” was the system of twenty-two monitoring stations in the Pacific that were operated by the United States, Britain, and the Dutch. These extended along the west coast of the United States, up to Alaska, then down to Southeast Asia, and into the Central Pacific.

These radio monitoring stations allowed us to intercept and read all of Japan’s messages, right?

Stinnett: Absolutely. We had Japan wired for sound.

You claim that the “splendid arrangement” was so adept that ever since the 1920’s Washington always knew what Japan’s government was doing. So to assert that we didn’t know the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbor would be illogical?

Stinnett: That is correct.

Your book claims that in 1941 Japan had a spy residing in the Japanese consulate in Honolulu.

Stinnett: Japan secreted this spy—he was a Japanese naval officer—in Honolulu. He arrived there in March 1941 under an assumed name, and he was attached to the Japanese consulate there. But when the FBI checked on him they found out he was not listed in the Japanese foreign registry, so they were suspicious immediately. They put a tail on him. And then the spy started filing messages to Japan that we were intercepting. This was in a diplomatic code now. And so the FBI continued to tail him, and so did Naval intelligence.

Naval intelligence, the FBI, and Roosevelt knew this man was spying on the fleet in Pearl Harbor, and they let the espionage go on. The policy of FDR’s government then was to look the other way and let Japan prepare itself for attacking us?

Stinnett: That’s right. That is correct. He was providing a timetable for the attack.

And FDR's previous 3 terms he allowed our military to be greatly weakened as he installed and concentrated on socialist agenda here ahead of our National security interests.
During our negotiations with the Russians during WW2 the highly praised FDR sided with Stalin(he fondly called UNCLE JOE) while he blind sided Churchill our ally.
You should read Churchill's words about FDR and how FDR gave over tens of millions to be enslaved to Russian communism.
FDR , like most lib/socialists favored a one /two scenario with USA and Russia at the top, with Britain in a very distant third place.
Do not think that FDR'S wife, a true socialist didn't have major influence with policy he pursued.
I have studied quite heavily both FDR and Winston Churchill. Between the two Churchill was the one that was honorable, courageous and forthright in dealings that were to affect the Western world. FDR was not. Nor was FDR the hero that lib/dem /socialist history rewrite has made to be the commonly known story. -Tyr

[LongTermGuy]

`Massive inbreeding within the Muslim culture during the last 1.400 years may have done catastrophic damage to their gene pool. The consequences of intermarriage between first cousins often have serious impact on the offspring’s intelligence, sanity, health and on their surroundings`

`....A large part of inbred Muslims are born from parents who are themselves inbred - which increase the risks of negative mental and physical consequences greatly.`



`The Muslim culture still practices inbreeding and has been doing so for longer than any Egyptian dynasty. This practice also predates the world’s oldest monarchy (the Danish) by 300 years.
A rough estimate shows that close to half of all Muslims in the world are inbred: In Pakistan, 70 percent of all marriages are between first cousins (so-called "consanguinity") and in Turkey the amount is between 25-30 percent (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009More stillbirths among immigrants" (http://fpn.dk/liv/krop_valvare/article1616165.ece)


http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2623338/thumbs/n-STABBING-large570.jpg

`.....Muslim man stabbed two others over religious beliefs in MI` bus stop`

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?48714-Muslim-man-stabbed-two-others-over-religious-beliefs-in-MI-bus-stop






http://europenews.dk/en/node/34368 (http://europenews.dk/en/node/34368)

[revelarts]

the above makes me think of things like this.


http://theworldsbestever.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/ww2-propaganda-posters-425x551.jpg

I mean wow. I'd agree that inbreeding is problem where every it is -coughAppalachiacough- but
some of the talk here just sounds like goofy barroom bluster, and jingoistic propaganda.

stuff like --- well you know they're inbred--- we need to nuke um all little by little --- they're all want sharia--- they're worse than animals. i mean WTH?

But out of the other side of our mouths some will praise the king of Jordan... a Muslim i believe... for fighting Isis.
Assad of Syria , --A Muslim-- had freedom of religion with a large peaceful and prosperous christian population.
Even Gaddafi didn't walk Christians or Jews out on the beach and kill them. the Jews had it reeeal bad in Libya but the Christians were OK, but now there are NO Jews and Christians are being killed and churches burned. ROMNEY supported attacking Libya BTW.

the point is SOME Muslims ARE IN FACT BETTER than others.
Were idiots if we don't make a distinction of who our real enemies are.

but for the past 15 years our leaders on the right and left have BACKED the worst Muslim extremist.
the muhjadeen, Bin laden, AQ/isis in Libya, AQ/isis in Syria, crazy Muslim terrorist factions in Iran,
not to mention backing the Saudis who are known to have financed terrorist groups, and is the seed bed of the worse form of Islam.

We discover the enemy by checking what they say they believe and by what they DO.
we can't just define folks as war enemies because they are "Muslims".

You guys are smart enough to make distinctions. But it seems many prefer to take the easy route and use broad brush stereotypes and gin up emotions over substance. I thought the left were suppose to be "emotional" ones. running around with their hair on fire with half baked "solutions" to save the world.
And the Right were the ones with common sense and used our heads to deal with problems. But it seems like more an more the right thinks every foreign problem can be solved by pointing a gun/nuke and killing wily nilly anything that's called Muslim .

[Kathianne]

FDR knew. --Tyr



And FDR's previous 3 terms he allowed our military to be greatly weakened as he installed and concentrated on socialist agenda here ahead of our National security interests.
During our negotiations with the Russians during WW2 the highly praised FDR sided with Stalin(he fondly called UNCLE JOE) while he blind sided Churchill our ally.
You should read Churchill's words about FDR and how FDR gave over tens of millions to be enslaved to Russian communism.
FDR , like most lib/socialists favored a one /two scenario with USA and Russia at the top, with Britain in a very distant third place.
Do not think that FDR'S wife, a true socialist didn't have major influence with policy he pursued.
I have studied quite heavily both FDR and Winston Churchill. Between the two Churchill was the one that was honorable, courageous and forthright in dealings that were to affect the Western world. FDR was not. Nor was FDR the hero that lib/dem /socialist history rewrite has made to be the commonly known story. -Tyr

I've read extensively on FDR, Churchill, Hitler, and Stalin. While all were complex, interesting, philosophically I always come down with Churchill. We sure could use one now.

However, I've also read many of the FDR Machiavellian conspiracy theories and analysis of them from others. Yes, from historian academics. While all are biased, there tends to be rigor in place for defending, aka documentation.

There is no doubt that FDR believed that the US needed to enter the war, first in Germany, then Japan-that's how he saw it and wanted it to play out. Thus the first quiet aid to those who would become our allies, later not so secret. While most people gradually came to morally backing England/France, there was substantial, (especially German/Italian descendants) opposition to entering the war. Then again, there were the American elections that also came into play. Then came 12/7.

If the US had entered the war in 1939, rather than 1941, especially with an intact Navy, there are reasonable scenarios that the war would have ended much sooner. If Germany had capitulated, Japan may have been able to have been dealt with in diplomatic fashions. We'll never know if millions of lives could have been saved, but that FDR wanted earlier entry really isn't in doubt.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I've read extensively on FDR, Churchill, Hitler, and Stalin. While all were complex, interesting, philosophically I always come down with Churchill. We sure could use one now.

However, I've also read many of the FDR Machiavellian conspiracy theories and analysis of them from others. Yes, from historian academics. While all are biased, there tends to be rigor in place for defending, aka documentation.

There is no doubt that FDR believed that the US needed to enter the war, first in Germany, then Japan-that's how he saw it and wanted it to play out. Thus the first quiet aid to those who would become our allies, later not so secret. While most people gradually came to morally backing England/France, there was substantial, (especially German/Italian descendants) opposition to entering the war. Then again, there were the American elections that also came into play. Then came 12/7.

If the US had entered the war in 1939, rather than 1941, especially with an intact Navy, there are reasonable scenarios that the war would have ended much sooner. If Germany had capitulated, Japan may have been able to have been dealt with in diplomatic fashions. We'll never know if millions of lives could have been saved, but that FDR wanted earlier entry really isn't in doubt.

Sure FDR without any doubt wanted an earlier entry, I do not fault him for that but he did not push that because of the coming election. That's where political considerations took over rather than he doing what was best for the nation as its sitting President. Yet even that is not my main beef with him. My main beef is his betraying our staunch ally Britain/Churchill in favor of a communist dictator Stalin! He caused the enslavement(and deaths) of tens of millions by doing that. He, he alone decided to cast our lot with Stalin rather than go with Churchill 's postwar plans and suggestions.
Were I to face both men today (both alive and well) I shake Churchill's hand and I'd stomp the living hell out of FDR. Just being honest..-Tyr

[jimnyc]

Yes, killing them will work, but it takes time and resources. A coalition from the entire region and super powers simply get together and relentlessly hit them until it's just a part of history. This needs to be solid, from all parties. Anyone supporting them only embolden them. They need to know that what they are doing is condemned by the world and that there are consequences for their actions. A couple dozen beheadings and 45 burned within just a few days. Nothing short of eliminating them will work.

[fj1200]

Really? So we are to rebuild them before the great defeat?
Amazing plan you propose.
What, we just declare victory now, spend a trillion dollars building them up so they can win?
Putting the cart ahead of the horse never works .
I've got an idea, how about we kill most of them , force a reformation and have it end similar to our defeat of the Axis powers?
Or is that victory to be shunned because we won!?????

Seems libs/socialists and dems are all for an ending where we lose..
I wonder why?--Tyr

It's so hard to have a logical discussion with you when you toss out rants based on what your imagination says.

[fj1200]

If the US had entered the war in 1939, rather than 1941, especially with an intact Navy, there are reasonable scenarios that the war would have ended much sooner. If Germany had capitulated, Japan may have been able to have been dealt with in diplomatic fashions. We'll never know if millions of lives could have been saved, but that FDR wanted earlier entry really isn't in doubt.

This is all very interesting of course. Would you think that a war that ended sooner that left an Imperial Japan and a Hitler-led Germany intact would have been better than utter defeat? For all the horrors utter defeat may have been better.

However, back on topic, I think the corollary here if we're going to discuss World Wars was the aftermath of WWI vs. WWII. After the Great War Germany was left with burdens of reparations to pay and IIRC their governmental structure intact. The outcome of course was not positive, especially with the Great Depression, which led to the rise of extremist parties. After WWII we rewrote their constitution and helped them rebuild. Which was a better outcome?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It's so hard to have a logical discussion with you when you toss out rants based on what your imagination says.

Or with you when you word your replies so as to give cover when called on intent and obvious loyalties. A lack of integrity is not a virtue , Hoss. Nor is it a favorable character trait that leads to easy and/or logical discussions based on facts...
You see, you've dismissed a long and massive thread here authored by me based upon verified evidence against Islam with a mere silly reply that it proves nothing!
All those murdered and their friends and family surely feel/felt it proved a damn lot but you in dismissing it as irrelevant revealed your own massive biases.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37131-Most-recent-muslim-terrorist-attacks




Most recent muslim terrorist attacks..


Started by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, 09-30-2012 10:44 AM


1... 55


22 Attachment(s)
Replies: 814
Views: 20,556

^^^^^^^ THIS YOU CALL RANTING!!!!--TYR

[fj1200]

Yes, killing them will work, but it takes time and resources. A coalition from the entire region and super powers simply get together and relentlessly hit them until it's just a part of history. This needs to be solid, from all parties. Anyone supporting them only embolden them. They need to know that what they are doing is condemned by the world and that there are consequences for their actions. A couple dozen beheadings and 45 burned within just a few days. Nothing short of eliminating them will work.

Of course. But the question of the OP IMO was not what to do with current ISIS members but their flow of future fighters. Does some kid with a job and a smartphone want to join more or less than an unemployed kid sitting on the street corner?

[fj1200]

Or with you when you word your replies so as to give cover when called on intent and obvious loyalties. A lack of integrity is not a virtue , Hoss. Nor is it a favorable character trait that leads to easy and/or logical discussions based on facts...
You see, you've dismissed a long and massive thread here authored by me based upon verified evidence against Islam with a mere silly reply that it proves nothing!
All those murdered and their friends and family surely feel/felt it proved a damn lot but you in dismissing it as irrelevant revealed your own massive biases.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37131-Most-recent-muslim-terrorist-attacks


^^^^^^^ THIS YOU CALL RANTING!!!!--TYR

Yes I do. And I also point out another example of your imagination. :)

Integrity. :laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

This is all very interesting of course. Would you think that a war that ended sooner that left an Imperial Japan and a Hitler-led Germany intact would have been better than utter defeat? For all the horrors utter defeat may have been better.

However, back on topic, I think the corollary here if we're going to discuss World Wars was the aftermath of WWI vs. WWII. After the Great War Germany was left with burdens of reparations to pay and IIRC their governmental structure intact. The outcome of course was not positive, especially with the Great Depression, which led to the rise of extremist parties. After WWII we rewrote their constitution and helped them rebuild. Which was a better outcome?

BRILLIANT. Why the hell did all those fools not understand that we could rebuild them even before we destroyed them.
Would have saved all that treasure, lives and time! :rolleyes:

You pin this general theory on the coming war with Islam as if Islam has no ability to reject it or even accept the aid and still continue onward with their world dominance goal.
They've been after that goal for 1400+ years and haven't stopped(except when utterly defeating battle, see - Charles Martel ) , so why would they now?
Tossing that cart ahead of the horse serves nothing but to delay and allow Islam to grow bigger and stronger..
O' yes, could that be your goal??? It is certainly the liberal and leftist goal to counter this nation as it was founded.--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Yes I do. And I also point out another example of your imagination. :)

Integrity. :laugh:

Then carry your little happy ass over to that thread and start disproving those documented and well cited sources that most have multiple verification links by respected news organizations etc. .
Otherwise you are just blowing wind and singing a stupid ass tune.
As you dismiss factual evidence in favor of your own biased idiocy..

I'll check that thread every day this week, make a reply whether you have refuted anything there presented by me. Starting tonight. -Tyr

[fj1200]

BRILLIANT. Why the hell did all those fools not understand that we could rebuild them even before we destroyed them.
Would have saved all that treasure, lives and time! :rolleyes:

You pin this general theory on the coming war with Islam as if Islam has no ability to reject it or even accept the aid and still continue onward with their world dominance goal.
They've been after that goal for 1400+ years and haven't stopped(except when utterly defeating battle, see - Charles Martel ) , so why would they now?
Tossing that cart ahead of the horse serves nothing but to delay and allow Islam to grow bigger and stronger..
O' yes, could that be your goal??? It is certainly the liberal and leftist goal to counter this nation as it was founded.--Tyr

:facepalm99:


It's so hard to have a logical discussion with you when you toss out rants based on what your imagination says.

[fj1200]

As you dismiss factual evidence in favor of your own biased idiocy..

Nice strawman. Please point out where I stated anything was not factual.

[BoogyMan]

You don't think nuclear weapons is a bit-over-the top, considering there's been no serious attempt at dealing with the terrorists? I'm not a liberal by any means, but nuclear weapons are not the first step in a war, IMO.

Nukes are not the point. The point is that a congressman who wants to stop the murdering filth is being called bloodthirsty while no comment is even made about the ISIS scourge that is the root of the problem.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Nice strawman. Please point out where I stated anything was not factual.
No, you just dismiss it as nil...(like dismissing a charging bull elephant as if it is a mouse)!
So you admit it is true but then still dismiss it as irrelevant or of little consequence!
I'd say that is one amazing damn deduction on your part!
Can you "splain it Lucy"?
Or will you ignore/spin or give a gibberish reply?--Tyr

[fj1200]

No, you just dismiss it as nil...(like dismissing a charging bull elephant as if it is a mouse)!
So you admit it is true but then still dismiss it as irrelevant or of little consequence!
I'd say that is one amazing damn deduction on your part!
Can you "splain it Lucy"?
Or will you ignore/spin or give a gibberish reply?--Tyr

Again, you see what isn't there. I admit exactly what facts your stories report, I reject the conclusion that you make; that every Muslim is trying to kill you.

[fj1200]

Let's try and bring this into perspective.


"We're killing a lot of them, and we're going to keep killing more of them. ... But we cannot win this war by killing them," department spokeswoman Marie Harf said on MSNBC's "Hardball." "We need ... to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it's lack of opportunity for jobs, whether --"

At that point, Harf was interrupted by host Chris Matthews, who pointed out, "There's always going to be poor people. There's always going to be poor Muslims."

Harf continued to argue that the U.S. should work with other countries to "help improve their governance" and "help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people."

She acknowledged there's "no easy solution" and said the U.S. would still take out ISIS leaders. But Harf said: "If we can help countries work at the root causes of this -- what makes these 17-year-old kids pick up an AK-47 instead of trying to start a business?"


Is Jordan Facilitating ISIS' Grand Strategy? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-jordan-strategy_b_6674252.html)
...

WHY TARGET JORDAN?

So, not only has ISIS prompted President Obama into putting American boots on the ground, but the killing of the pilot has also provoked Jordan into attacking ISIS and -- in the latter's view -- thereby given evidence that Jordan is little more than the frontline of the Crusader's sphere, and in fact a crusader state, too. More than this,prominent commentators in the Saudi press (http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2015/02/04/ISIS-dares-Jordan-to-avenge-pilot-s-murder.html) are urging for "what has [likely] been discussed privately: A Jordanian military [ground] operation against ISIS in Syrian territory." Should this occur, it would lend credence to the Dabiq prophecy in the eyes of many Muslims. But the second reason (http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/after-isis%E2%80%99-execution-what-are-jordan%E2%80%99s-options) for the Jordanian provocation lies with the latter's potential vulnerability to domestic polarization and civil turmoil (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-ritter/jordan-isis-tipping-point-toward-chaos_b_6616602.html?utm_hp_ref=world). ISIS makes plain by its very name (Islamic State In As-Sham, or "Greater Syria") that it lays claim to Jordan as a part of the caliphate (Jordan originally formed a part of As-Sham (http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.586466)).

Jordanians constitute the third biggest component within ISIS -- estimated now at over 3,000 (http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21614226-why-and-how-westerners-go-fight-syria-and-iraq-it-aint-half-hot-here-mum). And the taproot to ISIS lies squarely in Amman's distressed industrial suburbs, from which Abu-Musab al Zarqawi, whose very name derives from the misery belt of Amman (Zarqa (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/13/world/middleeast/in-jordan-town-syria-war-inspires-jihadist-dreams.html), to which the dispossessed rural poor were drawn) well before the Iraq war. Notably, Jordanians also dominate the Nusra Front (http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/23238). In the first edition of Dabiq, ISIS' magazine, the authors assert that it was al-Zarqawi who paved the way for the Islamic State. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (the present "Caliph") derived his ideas for building the "Islamic State" from those of al-Zarqawi and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi (Abu Bakr's predecessor).

The gruesome manner of al-Kaseasbeh's death, of course, is classic revolutionary polarization strategy: outrage "authority" and provoke it into a heavy-handed overreaction that is directed against ISIS sympathizers -- and there are many in Jordan (http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/04/islamic-state-jordan-zarqa/) -- and what were just sympathizers will metamorphose from passivity into committed insurgents. Thus ISIS has just ignited the internal sphere in Jordan.

...

[Elessar]

It's just plain Scarey knowing nimrods like this are in power!

↑And that sums it all up completely!..↑

[Kathianne]

This is all very interesting of course. Would you think that a war that ended sooner that left an Imperial Japan and a Hitler-led Germany intact would have been better than utter defeat? For all the horrors utter defeat may have been better.

However, back on topic, I think the corollary here if we're going to discuss World Wars was the aftermath of WWI vs. WWII. After the Great War Germany was left with burdens of reparations to pay and IIRC their governmental structure intact. The outcome of course was not positive, especially with the Great Depression, which led to the rise of extremist parties. After WWII we rewrote their constitution and helped them rebuild. Which was a better outcome?

I don't think at the time given and Imperial Japan and Hitler led Germany would have survived. I agree with you on the differences between the aftermath of WWI and II. I led to the second, no doubt. That was Wilson, of the 'War to end all wars.' FDR wasn't nearly as naive, even though I've found him worse than what could have been. Depressions and wars tend to go together to a degree, but that doesn't seem to be what is causing this one, other than in the minds of some of those at our State Department.

[jimnyc]

Of course. But the question of the OP IMO was not what to do with current ISIS members but their flow of future fighters. Does some kid with a job and a smartphone want to join more or less than an unemployed kid sitting on the street corner?

I think more and more are joining as a result of their successes, and as a result of their online technological success as well. They are appealing to some nimrods right now. They won't be quite as appealing when they are dying in massive amounts and the fight is being brought to them. I'll guarantee that if 90 countries are participating in bombing them and shooting them, and took a worldwide stance that they must be eliminated at all costs, those running to join a band of mass murderers will dwindle like water going down a toilet.

And perhaps there are questions that remain, how can we make that number dwindle quicker, or less going forward - but none of those questions change that the current crop need to die, and anyone that joins in the future should meet the same fate. These aren't "defenders" or freedom fighters as some have argued in the past. These are an enemy that simply decided they want power, they want to kill anyone not like them. This isn't even a "war". This is really a murder/hostage situation - but the murderers are in huge numbers and the hostages are entire swaths of countries.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Again, you see what isn't there. I admit exactly what facts your stories report, I reject the conclusion that you make; that every Muslim is trying to kill you.

Sure Hoss.
I see 1400+ years of violence--- that isn't there. I see a so-called Holy book-Koran- that commands the murder of all that oppose its gaining total control----that isn't there.

As you and your ilk peddle the propaganda that -the guy cutting off fingers is not the culprit, but perhaps the culprit is the knife, or some offense the helpless victims committed.

Now you cleverly admit the facts but boldly dispute the conclusion those facts bring.
How damn convenient! I can only conclude that you are far more like JAFAR than you ever
dare to expose to the rest of us here.. For he too outright dismissed any and all damning facts --with the idiocy of--"they are not real muslim", just as does the Obama ..

Which leads me to says, wow-- "not real muslims" you say. Well, lets get that news to the family of those murdered and let them know that those loved ones are not--"really dead"..
You see the stark Reality has to be addressed , so in comes --they are not muslim.
When they read the Koran, kill in Allah's name(as Koran commands) and fight to advance Islam control over the entire world!

You should stop spinning so damn much. Its even making me dizzy!!--:laugh:-Tyr

[fj1200]

I don't think at the time given and Imperial Japan and Hitler led Germany would have survived. I agree with you on the differences between the aftermath of WWI and II. I led to the second, no doubt. That was Wilson, of the 'War to end all wars.' FDR wasn't nearly as naive, even though I've found him worse than what could have been. Depressions and wars tend to go together to a degree, but that doesn't seem to be what is causing this one, other than in the minds of some of those at our State Department.

No, it's not a "great" depression that's causing this one but most of those countries are suffering abject poverty that a depression might be an accurate description. There are plenty of Muslim majority countries that are not hotbeds of terrorism or poverty. The question is how do we get the crapholes that so many live in to be not crapholes. If we could do anything which is highly doubtful.

And regarding Imperial Japan and a Hitler-led Germany I was suggesting that might have been an outcome based on your early end to the war scenario.

[fj1200]

I think more and more are joining as a result of their successes, and as a result of their online technological success as well. They are appealing to some nimrods right now. They won't be quite as appealing when they are dying in massive amounts and the fight is being brought to them. I'll guarantee that if 90 countries are participating in bombing them and shooting them, and took a worldwide stance that they must be eliminated at all costs, those running to join a band of mass murderers will dwindle like water going down a toilet.

And perhaps there are questions that remain, how can we make that number dwindle quicker, or less going forward - but none of those questions change that the current crop need to die, and anyone that joins in the future should meet the same fate. These aren't "defenders" or freedom fighters as some have argued in the past. These are an enemy that simply decided they want power, they want to kill anyone not like them. This isn't even a "war". This is really a murder/hostage situation - but the murderers are in huge numbers and the hostages are entire swaths of countries.

I don't disagree with any of that.

[jimnyc]

I don't disagree with any of that.

Well now what? I don't think I've ever reached this point before. Are we supposed to just agree? This is weird. :unsure:

Stop agreeing with me you bastard!! :poke:

:beer:

[Kathianne]

No, it's not a "great" depression that's causing this one but most of those countries are suffering abject poverty that a depression might be an accurate description. There are plenty of Muslim majority countries that are not hotbeds of terrorism or poverty. The question is how do we get the crapholes that so many live in to be not crapholes. If we could do anything which is highly doubtful.

And regarding Imperial Japan and a Hitler-led Germany I was suggesting that might have been an outcome based on your early end to the war scenario.

The bolded is one of the interesting things about playing 'what if.'

Just like ISIS or rather Islamicism will not be defeated by military alone, one cannot kill an ideology; likewise these countries in abject poverty will not be cured of such by the outside.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/02/16/african-country-worlds-third-poorest-heres-turned-things-around/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_content=02172014&utm_campaign=influencer&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRoiu6rIZKXonjHpfsX67%2BgoWKS1 h4kz2EFye%2BLIHETpodcMScVgMq%2BTFAwTG5toziV8R7jHKM 1t0sEQWBHm


This African Country Was Once the World’s Third Poorest. Here’s How It Turned Things Around.

Ed Frank (http://dailysignal.com/author/ed-frank/)/@frankstrategies (http://twitter.com/frankstrategies)/<time datetime="2015-02-16" class="date" style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153); font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">February 16, 2015</time>

...

When Botswana gained independence from the British in 1966, the new country’s insightful leaders did what so many others in the post-colonial world didn’t: they embraced democracy, free markets and the rule of law. In other words, economic freedom.
The results speak for themselves.

While so much of the continent has remained mired in poverty and corruption, Botswana became the world’s fastest growing economy for three decades. Foreign direct investment and new construction can be seen everywhere in the capital city of Gaborone. Tourism to world-class destinations like the Okavango Delta has taken root and is expanding. And after starting off as the world’s third-poorest nation, with a per-capita GDP of $70 in 1966, today is has expanded dramatically to $16,377.

...

[fj1200]

Sure Hoss.
I see 1400+ years of violence--- that isn't there. I see a so-called Holy book-Koran- that commands the murder of all that oppose its gaining total control----that isn't there.

As you and your ilk peddle the propaganda that -the guy cutting off fingers is not the culprit, but perhaps the culprit is the knife, or some offense the helpless victims committed.

Now you cleverly admit the facts but boldly dispute the conclusion those facts bring.
How damn convenient! I can only conclude that you are far more like JAFAR than you ever
dare to expose to the rest of us here.. For he too outright dismissed any and all damning facts --with the idiocy of--"they are not real muslim", just as does the Obama ..

Which leads me to says, wow-- "not real muslims" you say. Well, lets get that news to the family of those murdered and let them know that those loved ones are not--"really dead"..
You see the stark Reality has to be addressed , so in comes --they are not muslim.
When they read the Koran, kill in Allah's name(as Koran commands) and fight to advance Islam control over the entire world!

You should stop spinning so damn much. Its even making me dizzy!!--:laugh:-Tyr

WTF are you talking about? I'll suggest that you're getting dizzy because you don't know where people are coming from and when you are presented with something that doesn't compute you start firing wildly. That explains all those ridiculous rhetorical questions/strawmen that you throw out and think it's a discussion. Case in point: Where have I said that they weren't real Muslims? I have no doubt that they're real Muslims.

I dispute your conclusions because I've see countless threads here where you proclaim a conclusion which is not supported by the facts. Case in point: Another thread I stumbled across yesterday where you ranted against the Militarization of America and how we're all going to be under the jackboots before we know it.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?43631-Column-The-militarization-of-U-S-police-forces

And don't get me started about all of the Ebola hair-on-fire posts. :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

Well now what? I don't think I've ever reached this point before. Are we supposed to just agree? This is weird. :unsure:

Stop agreeing with me you bastard!! :poke:

:beer:

Sure we have. It's easy to agree when you're not led around by your imagination. :) Bad people should be dead.

:beer:

[fj1200]

The bolded is one of the interesting things about playing 'what if.'

Just like ISIS or rather Islamicism will not be defeated by military alone, one cannot kill and ideology; likewise these countries in abject poverty will not be cured of such by the outside.

I agree with that. The two great hopes of the past 15 years IMO was Bush hoping that a free Iraq would be a beacon to the Middle East and Arab Spring. Sadly neither may have worked. But that's a whole 'nother pile of 'what-if.'

[Kathianne]

I agree with that. The two great hopes of the past 15 years IMO was Bush hoping that a free Iraq would be a beacon to the Middle East and Arab Spring. Sadly neither may have worked. But that's a whole 'nother pile of 'what-if.'

I think one must look at the mistakes made in Iraq up to the surge and what happened afterwards to allow Obama to claim that the 'Iraqis would be able to handle things from that point.' The the quick pull out. I'm pretty sure that future war planners will find that what had occurred during the Bush years, especially prior to the surge, then the application of the surge are events to learn from. The pull out is something not to be repeated.

With American troops in Iraq, Iran was contained in Syria, not so anymore.

[revelarts]

Saddam felt with terrorist the way most on this board would like it done.

and ... i'll say it again... saddam was never a serious threat to the U.S.. never.

[fj1200]

I think one must look at the mistakes made in Iraq up to the surge and what happened afterwards to allow Obama to claim that the 'Iraqis would be able to handle things from that point.' The the quick pull out. I'm pretty sure that future war planners will find that what had occurred during the Bush years, especially prior to the surge, then the application of the surge are events to learn from. The pull out is something not to be repeated.

With American troops in Iraq, Iran was contained in Syria, not so anymore.

Could be. I think Iraq would have been unstable no matter when we left... unless we never left.

[Kathianne]

Could be. I think Iraq would have been unstable no matter when we left... unless we never left.
We 'occupied' Japan well into the 1950's.

[aboutime]

Saddam felt with terrorist the way most on this board would like it done.

and ... i'll say it again... saddam was never a serious threat to the U.S.. never.


Because you say it, no matter how many times you say it. Doesn't make it TRUE.
Guess you intentionally forgot Saddam's two terrorist son's, who followed in his footsteps.?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The bolded is one of the interesting things about playing 'what if.'

Just like ISIS or rather Islamicism will not be defeated by military alone, one cannot kill an ideology; likewise these countries in abject poverty will not be cured of such by the outside.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/02/16/african-country-worlds-third-poorest-heres-turned-things-around/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_content=02172014&utm_campaign=influencer&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRoiu6rIZKXonjHpfsX67%2BgoWKS1 h4kz2EFye%2BLIHETpodcMScVgMq%2BTFAwTG5toziV8R7jHKM 1t0sEQWBHm

Be it noted that Islam rejects all of that. Sharia law denounces all of that. The sole purpose of Islam is to install a political control called Sharia Law. Islam is a militant political movement hiding as a religion, always has been just as it has always used murder to advance!
History as can be readily and very, very easily researched proves the truth of all the charges just made. -Tyr

[Kathianne]

Be it noted that Islam rejects all of that. Sharia law denounces all of that. The sole purpose of Islam is to install a political control called Sharia Law. Islam is a militant political movement hiding as a religion, always has been just as it has always used murder to advance!
History as can be readily and very, very easily researched proves the truth of all the charges just made. -Tyr

Botswana is majority Christian. I used it as an example of leaders determining self-determination, not anything else. An example of change from within, if you will.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Botswana is majority Christian. I used it as an example of leaders determining self-determination, not anything else. An example of change from within, if you will.

Yes, I understood perfectly your message. I wanted it noted that that very message, the message of hope(you presented), the message of how to solve a great amount of the misery in the world is under attack by those that want the exact opposite --Sharia law.
Sharia law that would bound the entire world in slavish obedience to a cult and its leaders that would then live the opulent lives (complete with harems) of the Sultans of old. Islam, the Koran has had no reformation--slavery, molesting children , rape, murder, massive degradation of females all are a core part of the Koran, Hadiths etc. --Tyr

[Kathianne]

Yes, I understood perfectly your message. I wanted it noted that that very message, the message of hope(you presented), the message of how to solve a great amount of the misery in the world is under attack by those that want the exact opposite --Sharia law.
Sharia law that would bound the entire world in slavish obedience to a cult and its leaders that would then live the opulent lives (complete with harems) of the Sultans of old. Islam, the Koran has had no reformation--slavery, molesting children , rape, murder, massive degradation of females all are a core part of the Koran, Hadiths etc. --Tyr

Tyr, what I'm having difficulty with some here is the insistence they are determined, like Obama, to use their 'truths' in their world view to over-generalize and not considering, (as Obama is NOT) that their maybe approaches to addressing the threats of our times.

Obama & Co come to the conclusion that the world problems can be 'addressed' by community activist ideas-regardless of the facts that those ideas have failed at the local level, time and again.

Those who are for 'turning areas to glass' ignore the facts that nukes will not be employed by stable, Western countries, more likely by extremists in Iran, Pakistan, etc.

There seems to be a determined effort by the extremes in the West to play into prolonging the problems until catastrophe becomes inevitable on a global level.

[NightTrain]

Bin Laden was a multimillionaire. He was as fanatical as the worst of them, and he certainly didn't need a job, career or money.


The root problem of islamic terrorism is the blind obedience to the muslim clerics and imams who are fleecing the peasants. The "scholars" who issue these edicts and whip the masses into anti-western or anti-Jew frenzies are living damned comfortably while the peasants are living in abject poverty and misery.

In order to continue this lifestyle, someone has to be responsible for the peasants' appalling living conditions. It certainly wouldn't do to be honest about who controls all the wealth, so Western Imperialists and Jews are blamed.

Think I'm wrong? Take a look at the BILLIONS that Yasser Arafat had hidden in Swiss Bank Accounts. That's Billions with a B. Literally millions of his "palestinians" were living in squalor and cheering him on while he funneled all the money to himself, all the while making fiery anti-Jew and anti-American speeches and sending in the suicide bombers.

The problem is really one of corruption, and the confusing behavior of the muslim masses who refuse to take an honest, hard look at their leaders who perpetuate their poverty.

That doesn't explain the recruitment of American / Canadian / British / French / German youth who leave their countries to participate in ISIS barbarism, other than my theory that within the muslim culture obedience to your superiors (read : religious leaders) is mandatory to be a good muslim. Western youths should know better and think for themselves, of course, and yet they do willfully ignore facts and easily discovered truths in the name of islam.

[NightTrain]

Saddam felt with terrorist the way most on this board would like it done.

and ... i'll say it again... saddam was never a serious threat to the U.S.. never.


Yes he was, Rev.

He openly supported terrorism and was handing out $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers.

He attempted to have a former U.S. President assassinated.

He had, and used, WMDs.

There were many proven ties between terrorist organizations and Saddam's Iraq.

There were AQ linked terrorist camps operating in Saddam's Iraq, one was even complete with an airliner fuselage to train aspiring terrorists for hijacking aircraft with the use of utensils.

We've been over this before, Rev, and you know I'm right.

[aboutime]

I know many will disagree with me..as usual here. But, I am honestly convinced REV could have been invited, and attended the OBAMA three day meetings in the White House because. Rev is actually one of Obama's biggest fans and supporters who...like fifty-plus million, other Americans; voted for Obama for ONE REASON.

Anyone care to guess what that ONE reason was? And yes. I know. Being labeled as a racist isn't new for me.

[Kathianne]

I know many will disagree with me..as usual here. But, I am honestly convinced REV could have been invited, and attended the OBAMA three day meetings in the White House because. Rev is actually one of Obama's biggest fans and supporters who...like fifty-plus million, other Americans; voted for Obama for ONE REASON.

Anyone care to guess what that ONE reason was? And yes. I know. Being labeled as a racist isn't new for me.

I certainly don't agree with Rev on much regarding war and whether or not to do so. One thing that's 'just a fact' is that he gives a lot of thought to his answers and is quite consistent. Over the years I've know him, he's shown an ability to consider the other side, rarely does he just give a direct question a boiler plate answer.

The only times I've seen him somewhat lose his cool, is when someone purposefully, repeatedly tries to bait him.