Wow so much delusion amongst the D.C. liberals posting here!

The U.S. has the largest military force in the world for a reason--to use it if and when it may be necessary to protect our interests around the world. It's nice if we can just threaten and bluff with it as much as possible, so as not to have to actually use it.

However, when you have a commander in chief like Obama, who appears completely incompetent as a military leader, and abdicates leadership of the free world, no one is frightened by your bluffing.

When you say idiotic things like "Don't cross the red line," they cross it, and you do nothing to back up your big words, you lose all credibility. When you make a series of strategic and tactical blunders and miscalculations, you lose all credibility. When you pointlessly fight and undercut strategic allies such as Israel due to petty political squabbles, you just show the world that you're unreliable and not to be trusted. When you tell the world you're withdrawing all troops from an area regardless of whether or not that might be a brilliant idea, the bad guys can just hunker down and wait for your forces to leave--and that's EXACTLY what happened.

Obama's main problem is that he is so arrogant, and so incompetent, as a commander in chief--and this is common knowledge amongst all world leaders as well as the terrorists outfits--that nothing he SAYS has any influence any longer--if it ever did. The world will listen to Putin because he puts force behind his words; but the world laughs at Obama. He thinks he's the smartest man at the table, but really, he's the sucker at the poker table.

Because of Obama's incompetence we are now FORCED to take some kind of significant military action, on a prolonged basis, to deal with the global threat of Islamic terror.

It will have to be the next man or woman in the oval office since the current numnutz is clearly not up to the job. Hopefully shit doesn't get too much worse until this empty suit is replaced.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how Jeb! Bush is now claiming that Obama created a quagmire in the Middle East. Dude, your brother owns that honor!

It's like a five-year old denying that he was responsible for the broken vase laying in pieces in the living room floor.

It's like denying that the current president has been in office for 8 years and referenced a jv team.

I deny that the current president has been in office for 8 years.

OK, noted. But I'll stand by the jv reference.

They are the jv. He's not wrong about that. They are not very good fighters.

No, I'd say he was wrong about that. And it was a cavalier statement as well.

Assuming that you are interested in facts and not simply interested in bashing the president, let's take a look at the "jv reference". It came from an interview in January 2014 and went like this:

Remnick: "You know where this is going, though. Even in the period that you’ve been on vacation in the last couple of weeks, in Iraq, in Syria, of course, in Africa, al-Qaeda is resurgent."

Obama: "Yes, but, David, I think the analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant. I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian."

Remnick: "But that JV team just took over Fallujah."

Obama: "I understand. But when you say took over Fallujah –"

Note that "ISIS", "ISIL", "IS" or any other name for the group is even mentioned. To the contrary, Redneck seems to refer to the group as "al-Qaida". If you did not know that ISIS had just taken over Fallujah, you would even connect this conversation to ISIS. In sports, "JV" stands for "junior varsity". As JV players group up and improve, many of them join the varsity team. In January 2014, ISIS was a JV team. It was not even well enough know to be distinguished from al-Qaida. The only thing it had done was capture Fallujah. Time has past and ISIS is not a varsity team in terms of international terrorism and in the minds of many Americans.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how Jeb! Bush is now claiming that Obama created a quagmire in the Middle East. Dude, your brother owns that honor!

It's like a five-year old denying that he was responsible for the broken vase laying in pieces in the living room floor.

It's like denying that the current president has been in office for 8 years and referenced a jv team.

I deny that the current president has been in office for 8 years.

OK, noted. But I'll stand by the jv reference.

They are the jv. He's not wrong about that. They are not very good fighters.

No, I'd say he was wrong about that. And it was a cavalier statement as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clusterfuck of the century

We occupied Germany and Japan for fifty years. Gee, we still have bases there that serve our geo-political interests. They seem to be doing OK. We had enough troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to keep them quiescent and developing, while having a presence for anything happening nearby. We chose to leave. Now we will have to go back.

We do not want to occupy any other countries. Plus, we already have bases in the middle east that serve our interests. The best thing for us would be to completely energy independent so we wouldn't have to concern ourselves with that region of the world. Because that's the only reason we care at all.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how Jeb! Bush is now claiming that Obama created a quagmire in the Middle East. Dude, your brother owns that honor!

It's like a five-year old denying that he was responsible for the broken vase laying in pieces in the living room floor.

It's like denying that the current president has been in office for 8 years and referenced a jv team.

I deny that the current president has been in office for 8 years.

OK, noted. But I'll stand by the jv reference.

They are the jv. He's not wrong about that. They are not very good fighters.

Anonymous wrote:Clusterfuck of the century

We occupied Germany and Japan for fifty years. Gee, we still have bases there that serve our geo-political interests. They seem to be doing OK. We had enough troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to keep them quiescent and developing, while having a presence for anything happening nearby. We chose to leave. Now we will have to go back.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how Jeb! Bush is now claiming that Obama created a quagmire in the Middle East. Dude, your brother owns that honor!

It's like a five-year old denying that he was responsible for the broken vase laying in pieces in the living room floor.

It's like denying that the current president has been in office for 8 years and referenced a jv team.

I deny that the current president has been in office for 8 years.

OK, noted. But I'll stand by the jv reference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how Jeb! Bush is now claiming that Obama created a quagmire in the Middle East. Dude, your brother owns that honor!

It's like a five-year old denying that he was responsible for the broken vase laying in pieces in the living room floor.

It's like denying that the current president has been in office for 8 years and referenced a jv team.

I deny that the current president has been in office for 8 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how Jeb! Bush is now claiming that Obama created a quagmire in the Middle East. Dude, your brother owns that honor!

It's like a five-year old denying that he was responsible for the broken vase laying in pieces in the living room floor.

It's like denying that the current president has been in office for 8 years and referenced a jv team.

WWIII = Vietnam part II

The Onion suggested these solutions against ISIS:

Following last week’s deadly Paris attacks and numerous other violent incidents perpetrated by the terror group ISIS, many governments and populations worldwide are wondering how we can eliminate this threat. Here are some strategies to defeat the Islamic State:

Publish a long-form article detailing the challenges involved in fighting an enemy that does not value human life
Refuse to appear terrorized by this constant, worldwide threat of violence and death
Organize a coup, leaving the U.S. free to prop up the ISIS leader of their choice
Spend $1.7 trillion
Attempt to compromise with our adversary by meeting them halfway on their demand to spill the blood of all apostates
Stop flow of new ISIS recruits from West by encouraging disaffected youth to join violent extremist groups back home
Maybe draw them out to sea?
Simply coordinate with our allies on a comprehensive strategy that targets ISIS militants while limiting civilian casualties, while simultaneously addressing the longstanding socioeconomic struggles that drive young Arab men to embrace radicalism, reaching out to liberal and moderate factions within Syria, and addressing our own prejudices that galvanize support for terror around the Islamic world
Train and arm somebody else’s kids to go over there and shoot them

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:You can't bomb and kill enough jihadists to stop terror. You can kill as many al Qaeda and ISIS members, and that will just birth new ones and new groups. Unless the root causes are analyzed and solutions provided for them, there will always be another insurgency. You can't bomb them into submission

I disagree that we need to analyze and solve the root problems, if by that you mean things like poverty and discontent with autocracy. Terrorism still thrives in places like the UK and France where there is no poverty, and human rights are as well respected as anywhere.

The fact is that the jihadists were controlled very effectively for many decades by the likes of Assad. What you need to control jihadists is a strong state with a strong intelligence service and army. That may mean supporting someone whose approach to human rights is very different from our own. But we manage to do that in Saudi, Egypt etc. without complaint. The fact is we should never have brought down Saddam, and we should never have brought down Gaddafi, and we should never have supported the opponents of Assad.

I must assume that you've never seen suburbs of French cities like Paris, Lyon and Marseilles. Please go Google the French word banlieues. Hint: it is where the French resettled the Maghrebis who emigrated from Northern Africa. Read about the rampant unemployment, the refusal of the Gendarmerie to intervene and stop drug dealing and other crime, rioting and civil unrest, etc. Then go inform yourself about the number of young Muslims sentenced to French prisons, where they are susceptible to becoming radicalized for no other reason than their own survival. And try to grasp a nuanced issue like how young Muslims try to find a sense of identity in a prosperous Western nation such as France where they are not accepted as genuinely French and yet they have no roots in North Africa like their parents. Your ignorance is shameful.

This. I studied French and lived in France for a few years. What the PP speaks of has been a problem in France for at least 15 years and it was a powder keg ready to go off.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:You can't bomb and kill enough jihadists to stop terror. You can kill as many al Qaeda and ISIS members, and that will just birth new ones and new groups. Unless the root causes are analyzed and solutions provided for them, there will always be another insurgency. You can't bomb them into submission

I disagree that we need to analyze and solve the root problems, if by that you mean things like poverty and discontent with autocracy. Terrorism still thrives in places like the UK and France where there is no poverty, and human rights are as well respected as anywhere.

The fact is that the jihadists were controlled very effectively for many decades by the likes of Assad. What you need to control jihadists is a strong state with a strong intelligence service and army. That may mean supporting someone whose approach to human rights is very different from our own. But we manage to do that in Saudi, Egypt etc. without complaint. The fact is we should never have brought down Saddam, and we should never have brought down Gaddafi, and we should never have supported the opponents of Assad.

I must assume that you've never seen suburbs of French cities like Paris, Lyon and Marseilles. Please go Google the French word banlieues. Hint: it is where the French resettled the Maghrebis who emigrated from Northern Africa. Read about the rampant unemployment, the refusal of the Gendarmerie to intervene and stop drug dealing and other crime, rioting and civil unrest, etc. Then go inform yourself about the number of young Muslims sentenced to French prisons, where they are susceptible to becoming radicalized for no other reason than their own survival. And try to grasp a nuanced issue like how young Muslims try to find a sense of identity in a prosperous Western nation such as France where they are not accepted as genuinely French and yet they have no roots in North Africa like their parents. Your ignorance is shameful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:You can't bomb and kill enough jihadists to stop terror. You can kill as many al Qaeda and ISIS members, and that will just birth new ones and new groups. Unless the root causes are analyzed and solutions provided for them, there will always be another insurgency. You can't bomb them into submission

I disagree that we need to analyze and solve the root problems, if by that you mean things like poverty and discontent with autocracy. Terrorism still thrives in places like the UK and France where there is no poverty, and human rights are as well respected as anywhere.

The fact is that the jihadists were controlled very effectively for many decades by the likes of Assad. What you need to control jihadists is a strong state with a strong intelligence service and army. That may mean supporting someone whose approach to human rights is very different from our own. But we manage to do that in Saudi, Egypt etc. without complaint. The fact is we should never have brought down Saddam, and we should never have brought down Gaddafi, and we should never have supported the opponents of Assad.

Unfortuately, Muslims in France and the UK would not share that view. Discrimantion against Muslims in places like France and Belgium is well known! And lets be honest, at least 2 of the Paris attackers were born IN FRANCE and at least 2 were born IN BELGIUM. These were folks who were turned radical by the conditions and the treatment of Muslims in the countries that they were born in.

Nonsense. The large majority of Muslims in these countries would not support such actions. There are some terrorists from the States who have been similarly radicalized. Would you say that it is the result of the conditions and treatment of Muslims in the states that led to their radicalization? The fact is that the freedom and wealth and work opportunities afforded in Europe and the States are infinitely greater than anything you will find in most parts of the Middle East. This argument that they became radicalized because they are discriminated against makes superficial sense, but it is not accurate. Many groups face higher hurdles entering the job market and are in a worse socio-economic situation but do not set out to kill as many people as they can. The fact that people like Timothy McVeigh emerge is not proof that he suffered some kind of systematic persecution, but rather that there will always be weak-minded and amoral people drawn to extremist ideologies. It is the ideology of extremist Islam that is the root cause here, not discrimination in Europe.

Although I cannot disagree with anything you have said, you have talked around my point. It is not about how YOU or I think the conditions are. We are talking about the potential factors that make a mind ripe for the extremism to take root! Writing all extremists off as "weak-minded" is a mistake that the uninformed make (that's not a dig at you personally). I do know, however, that the increasing number of young Musilims flocking to extremism is a concern to many moderate Islamic theologians and many of them are trying to grapple with it. And I agree with others - "bombing the region back to the stone age" is only going fertilize MORE extremists.

Well, there are two possibilities: 1. That the conditions that Muslims endure in Europe and America are so appalling that many of them are forced into extremism as a result, or 2. That the insidious ideology of extremist islam will appeal to some lost souls whatever the social circumstances surrounding them. The children of immigrants, whatever their origin, will often face a particular crisis of identity. They may react against the license of western culture, with its problems with alcohol and drugs. They may seek a purity and perfection that every day life, with its compromises and tedium, cannot offer.

Extremism will always appeal to some people. Its appeal may be greater to people that are outside the mainstream of society, and to children of immigrants that feel that they don't really "fit in" in any group. But this doesn't mean that the extremism is the result of poor conditions or discrimination.

In many ways this is an empirical question. Are the poorer immigrants more likely to be radicalized than the rich? Are the more educated less likely to be radicalized than the better educated? Are those who are unemployed more likely to join ISIS than those with jobs?

We don't have enough evidence, but my strong suspicion is that it is not the poorest and the most down-trodden members of the community that are signing up, because they are not signing up as a result of anger with their poverty and ill-treatment. They are signing up because they are reacting against western culture and a seeking an alternative identity, a search which fundamentalists can capitalize on and exploit.

The problem is the author's opinion is about as educated as that of Lara Logan, based on being a war correspondent. Would we care what her opinion or Richard Engel's was on military strategy? I'd think not.

Perhaps we listen to someone who's earned 4 stars as a counterpoint?

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4614278157001/impact-of-paris-attacks-on-war-on-terror/?intcmp=hpnav&playlist_id=930909788001#sp=show-clips/weekend

I'll await the attacks on sources. And bear in mind that contrary to popular opinion, those that have served are most often the one's least interested in sending troops to the fight, b/c they've BTDT and know these men and women.