(02-09-2015 05:30 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 05:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 05:18 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  I'll never understand why the retards in the obama administration think the way they do. Who the hell would think that closing Gitmo is even a half ass decent idea?

Please don't use that word in that context. It's sickening.

And why don't you regale us as to why we need to keep the detention facility at GITMO open?

Instead of the usual grade school analysis like ERC, why don't you prove you can act like an adult for once?

If you don't like it, don't click it. Gitmo is there to keep terrorists from running amok. No wonder you don't like what I said, you fall right into their thinking.

I was referring the the r word. And I clicked on nothing. I don't have you on ignore so I see it when merely scrolling this thread.

And I asked you why we should keep GITMO open and you provided nothing as I expected. So again, why should we keep it open?

And no, having it open does not 'keep terrorists from running amok'. As evidenced by all the terrorists running amok. And if you're referring to the roughly 120 who still remain there, they can easily be held in one of our Supermax prisons.

What troubles me most about the subject statement is that its relevance depends upon the assumption that there is some meaningful differentiation between existential and non-existential threats. More specifically, that differentiation almost has to be that existential threats are worth worrying about, but non-existential threats are somehow okay. I reject that notion.

If that's not the underlying assumption, then the statement makes no sense. Don't worry, they can't kill us, they can only break our legs. There are many threats that would not destroy our existence but could still be incredibly debilitating and difficult to recover from. 9/11 did plenty of damage. A massive cyber attack could do far more.

Both line, I don't agree that the statement is true, but that's another matter. Whether it's true or not is immaterial, because true or false it's irrelevant.

As for Gitmo, it should never have been established in the first place. We should have gone to Afghanistan (and later, if at all, Iraq) in a properly declared war instead of an authorized action (which made it clear that what we did was not "illegal" but sure muddied the waters about what acts were permitted or not). We should never have extended Geneva Conventions protections unilaterally to people not entitled to them. And we should have killed them once we extracted any information that we could, as we would have been able to do in full accordance with international law. I suppose we could have used Gitmo as the location for a cemetery to bury them..

(02-09-2015 07:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What troubles me most about the subject statement is that its relevance depends upon the assumption that there is some meaningful differentiation between existential and non-existential threats. More specifically, that differentiation almost has to be that existential threats are worth worrying about, but non-existential threats are somehow okay. I reject that notion.

If that's not the underlying assumption, then the statement makes no sense. Don't worry, they can't kill us, they can only break our legs. There are many threats that would not destroy our existence but could still be incredibly debilitating and difficult to recover from. 9/11 did plenty of damage. A massive cyber attack could do far more.

Both line, I don't agree that the statement is true, but that's another matter. Whether it's true or not is immaterial, because true or false it's irrelevant.

As for Gitmo, it should never have been established in the first place. We should have gone to Afghanistan (and later, if at all, Iraq) in a properly declared war instead of an authorized action (which made it clear that what we did was not "illegal" but sure muddied the waters about what acts were permitted or not). We should never have extended Geneva Conventions protections unilaterally to people not entitled to them. And we should have killed them once we extracted any information that we could, as we would have been able to do in full accordance with international law. I suppose we could have used Gitmo as the location for a cemetery to bury them..

within all this rhetoric....there is truth...

(02-09-2015 04:47 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 12:05 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

Not an existential threat. Not like they want to destroy us or take over the world or anything…

In a week where ISIS burns people alive, and an American woman hostage has likely been killed, where is Susan Rice’s focus? On letting more terrorists out, by closing Guantanamo.

Quote:Susan Rice pushed back on critics of President Obama’s foreign policy Friday as she unveiled the White House’s new national security strategy.

Rice, the White House’s national security adviser, said in a speech at the Brookings Institution that the nation is “stronger than we have been in a very long time” despite the bitter debates raging in Washington.

“Too often, what’s missing here in Washington is a sense of perspective. Yes, there is a lot going on. Still, while the dangers we face may be more numerous and varied, they are not of the existential nature we confronted during World War II or during the Cold War,” Rice said.

Rice mounted a defense of the administration’s foreign policy, arguing officials have made progress on closing the Guantánamo Bay detention facility. “We reduced the population at Gitmo by half and we mean to keep going.”

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/232023...al-threats

Do you have a problem understanding history?

All you do is go find the latest "mole hill" story to try and make a mountain out of.

You bring nothing to this forum but petty divisive pablum.

And you're ignorant of reality to boot.

Here is her quote...which you completely glossed over by throwing out red herrings like one pilots death, one hostages death, and closing GITMO for some reason that makes absolutely no sense here...:

Quote:“Too often, what's missing here in Washington is a sense of perspective. Yes, there is a lot going on. Still, while the dangers we face may be more numerous and varied, they are not of the existential nature we confronted during World War II or during the Cold War”

She's specifically comparing the current threats in the world to WW2 and the Cold War. None of the recent events in the ME or the closing of GITMO even remotely belong in the same discussion with WW2 or the Cold War.

Does ISIS have the capability to destroy the United States like the players in WW2 did? No.

Does ISIS have the capability to destroy the United States like Russia during the cold war? No.

You completely failed to address the assertions you are making.

And many folks have already pointed this out to you...but you totally ignore them.

In addition, Rice is one person in the administration. One adviser. She doesn't even hold a confirmed cabinet position. Yet you act like one comment by her somehow proves that we're letting ISIS take over the world.

It's people like you who these scum are playing directly to and you're falling for it hook, line and sinker.

We still have a Secretary of Defense, a Secretary of State, and a vast intelligence network. We've been conducting drone strikes on ISIS for months. You provided nothing to back up your insinuations that our government is not actively concerned with ISIS or plotting strategies against them.

For once, why don't you try to provide something more than a grade school analysis of something?

Nice rant. Nonsensical, as usual, but I applaud the conviction and energy you put into being as wrong as you are.

A. This lying bootlicker was specifically outlining the leader from behinders "National Security Strategy". She isn't speaking for herself, she speaks for all those incompetent buffoons you mentioned in your screed.

b. Neville Chamberlain didn't see an "existential threat" in 1938 either. So why not wait and see how all this turns out? That, and this band of barbarous animals is most certainly an existential threat to all these "moderate" Muslims we keep hearing about, though they are an elusive bunch. Should we just cut them loose and watch them die, one massacre after another?

Great plan, this should work out well.

1. Whoever the current ISIS leader is, he ain't Hitler.
2. ISIS is not the country of Germany in the 30's.

Next.

(02-10-2015 10:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  1. Whoever the current ISIS leader is, he ain't Hitler.
2. ISIS is not the country of Germany in the 30's.

Next.

1. Whoever it is may be worse.
2. That makes ISIS dangerous, since there's no clear state to target.

(02-10-2015 11:39 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 10:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  1. Whoever the current ISIS leader is, he ain't Hitler.
2. ISIS is not the country of Germany in the 30's.

Next.

1. Whoever it is may be worse.
2. That makes ISIS dangerous, since there's no clear state to target.

And nobody has said that they're not dangerous. Also, nobody has shown that they are a direct threat to our existence either. The weak folks who are suggesting such insanity are only aiding their cause.

(02-10-2015 11:46 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And nobody has said that they're not dangerous.

I would say that Susan Rice's comments on the issue have been very cleverly crafted to convey precisely that impression without saying so in so many words.

This administration is quite adept at implying things without saying them sufficiently directly to be pinned down later. Classic case was Obama's characterization of Benghazi as an "act of terror." When people say that Obama never called it terrorism, defenders can say, "Yes he did, right there, he said it was an act of terror." No, he didn't, his words might be taken as suggesting that, but they didn't say that. And "act of terror" is not a "terrorist act." The latter specifically identifies the perpetrators as terrorists, whereas the former does not, and that is precisely the point. If you went into a mall and started shooting people, that would certainly be an act of terror, but unless you were a terrorist it would not be a terrorist act. And that is not a semantic issue. The identities of the perpetrators of these acts is exactly the issue that the administration is trying to tap dance around.

Quote:Also, nobody has shown that they are a direct threat to our existence either. The weak folks who are suggesting such insanity are only aiding their cause.

I'm not aware of any "weak followers" who are suggesting that. About whom are you referring? I don't have to show that they are a "direct threat to our existence" to show that they are a major problem, certainly a far greater threat than this administration is trying to convince us that they are. Our economy, our liberty, our property, our well-being, among other things, are all potentially threatened by them. And those threats could in fact ultimately constitute at least an indirect threat to our continued existence.

Can I prove that they are a "direct threat to our existence"? No.
Do I have to go that far to prove that they are a serious danger? No.
Is this administration actively engaged in dishonest attempts to mislead us about the seriousness of the threat? I believe so.

(02-10-2015 02:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 11:46 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And nobody has said that they're not dangerous.

I would say that Susan Rice's comments on the issue have been very cleverly crafted to convey precisely that impression without saying so in so many words.

This administration is quite adept at implying things without saying them sufficiently directly to be pinned down later. Classic case was Obama's characterization of Benghazi as an "act of terror." When people say that Obama never called it terrorism, defenders can say, "Yes he did, right there, he said it was an act of terror." No, he didn't, his words might be taken as suggesting that, but they didn't say that. And "act of terror" is not a "terrorist act." The latter specifically identifies the perpetrators as terrorists, whereas the former does not, and that is precisely the point. If you went into a mall and started shooting people, that would certainly be an act of terror, but unless you were a terrorist it would not be a terrorist act. And that is not a semantic issue. The identities of the perpetrators of these acts is exactly the issue that the administration is trying to tap dance around.

Quote:Also, nobody has shown that they are a direct threat to our existence either. The weak folks who are suggesting such insanity are only aiding their cause.

I'm not aware of any "weak followers" who are suggesting that. About whom are you referring? I don't have to show that they are a "direct threat to our existence" to show that they are a major problem, certainly a far greater threat than this administration is trying to convince us that they are. Our economy, our liberty, our property, our well-being, among other things, are all potentially threatened by them. And those threats could in fact ultimately constitute at least an indirect threat to our continued existence.

Can I prove that they are a "direct threat to our existence"? No.
Do I have to go that far to prove that they are a serious danger? No.
Is this administration actively engaged in dishonest attempts to mislead us about the seriousness of the threat? I believe so.

What did they say that implied ISIS was not a threat? Because that isn't how I read that statement. North Korea is also a potential threat but we haven't done anything about them, period, other than periodically buy them off with food, for the past 10 years plus.

The key word is existential...meaning existence. And she's right. ISIS is not a threat to our existence.

/end thread.

I think the thing that frustrates me the most about all this is the semantics and tap dancing around the issue that this administration does. Can we not just call a spade a spade and acknowledge that these terrorists are a threat? Who cares if they are an "existential" threat or not they are extremely dangerous. I agree with Owl's post above that the purpose of her making this comment was to "cleverly" say that ISIS is not dangerous while politically covering their bases by using the term "existential".

I just don't understand why we should even be debating what "existential threats" mean, our administration should just outline the real threat they pose and come up with an actual strategy to defeat them.

(02-09-2015 05:46 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I was referring the the r word. And I clicked on nothing. I don't have you on ignore so I see it when merely scrolling this thread.

And I asked you why we should keep GITMO open and you provided nothing as I expected. So again, why should we keep it open?

And no, having it open does not 'keep terrorists from running amok'. As evidenced by all the terrorists running amok. And if you're referring to the roughly 120 who still remain there, they can easily be held in one of our Supermax prisons.

Come on man, you know I didn't say it to offend you or any mentally ill person out there. Retard is used in an entirely different manner, I would never disrespect a slow or mental person with that term.

For terrorists, I'd rather they weren't in our prison system infecting and recruiting in our home country, we've got enough of that as it is.

(02-10-2015 03:06 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  I think the thing that frustrates me the most about all this is the semantics and tap dancing around the issue that this administration does. Can we not just call a spade a spade and acknowledge that these terrorists are a threat? Who cares if they are an "existential" threat or not they are extremely dangerous. I agree with Owl's post above that the purpose of her making this comment was to "cleverly" say that ISIS is not dangerous while politically covering their bases by using the term "existential".

I just don't understand why we should even be debating what "existential threats" mean, our administration should just outline the real threat they pose and come up with an actual strategy to defeat them.

Then stop letting semantics distract you from what we're actually doing. Working with other countries and conducting bombing missions.

If that doesn't tell you that we see them as a threat, you're either blind or delusional.

The majority of Americans and our politicians don't want boots on the ground...yet...so we're basically doing all that we can, or can stomach as a nation, as of now.

(02-10-2015 03:08 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 05:46 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I was referring the the r word. And I clicked on nothing. I don't have you on ignore so I see it when merely scrolling this thread.

And I asked you why we should keep GITMO open and you provided nothing as I expected. So again, why should we keep it open?

And no, having it open does not 'keep terrorists from running amok'. As evidenced by all the terrorists running amok. And if you're referring to the roughly 120 who still remain there, they can easily be held in one of our Supermax prisons.

Come on man, you know I didn't say it to offend you or any mentally ill person out there. Retard is used in an entirely different manner, I would never disrespect a slow or mental person with that term.

For terrorists, I'd rather they weren't in our prison system infecting and recruiting in our home country, we've got enough of that as it is.

Really...you honestly think we'd have them in a general population having interactions with other prisoners?

And your gal Sarah begs to differ. So just act like an adult and use a different word please. Thanks.

(02-10-2015 03:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:06 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  I think the thing that frustrates me the most about all this is the semantics and tap dancing around the issue that this administration does. Can we not just call a spade a spade and acknowledge that these terrorists are a threat? Who cares if they are an "existential" threat or not they are extremely dangerous. I agree with Owl's post above that the purpose of her making this comment was to "cleverly" say that ISIS is not dangerous while politically covering their bases by using the term "existential".

I just don't understand why we should even be debating what "existential threats" mean, our administration should just outline the real threat they pose and come up with an actual strategy to defeat them.

Then stop letting semantics distract you from what we're actually doing. Working with other countries and conducting bombing missions.

If that doesn't tell you that we see them as a threat, you're either blind or delusional.

The majority of Americans and our politicians don't want boots on the ground...yet...so we're basically doing all that we can, or can stomach as a nation, as of now.

Semantics wouldn't distract me or others like me if the administration stopped hiding behind them. And just because we are doing limited bombing doesn't mean we are taking the threat seriously. The President even referred to ISIS as "JV" not my words his. So I think you can see why the average American doesn't think the President is taking this threat seriously.

Also if you know anything about military actions then you would know that bombing alone will not defeat or destroy ISIS so my argument is valid when I say that they need to come up with an affective strategy.

(02-10-2015 03:06 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  I think the thing that frustrates me the most about all this is the semantics and tap dancing around the issue that this administration does. Can we not just call a spade a spade and acknowledge that these terrorists are a threat? Who cares if they are an "existential" threat or not they are extremely dangerous. I agree with Owl's post above that the purpose of her making this comment was to "cleverly" say that ISIS is not dangerous while politically covering their bases by using the term "existential".

I just don't understand why we should even be debating what "existential threats" mean, our administration should just outline the real threat they pose and come up with an actual strategy to defeat them.

The strategy would either be what they're doing now, bombing in conjunction with other groups' land forces, or we invade Iraq and Syria ourselves.

(02-10-2015 03:14 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:06 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  I think the thing that frustrates me the most about all this is the semantics and tap dancing around the issue that this administration does. Can we not just call a spade a spade and acknowledge that these terrorists are a threat? Who cares if they are an "existential" threat or not they are extremely dangerous. I agree with Owl's post above that the purpose of her making this comment was to "cleverly" say that ISIS is not dangerous while politically covering their bases by using the term "existential".

I just don't understand why we should even be debating what "existential threats" mean, our administration should just outline the real threat they pose and come up with an actual strategy to defeat them.

Then stop letting semantics distract you from what we're actually doing. Working with other countries and conducting bombing missions.

If that doesn't tell you that we see them as a threat, you're either blind or delusional.

The majority of Americans and our politicians don't want boots on the ground...yet...so we're basically doing all that we can, or can stomach as a nation, as of now.

Semantics wouldn't distract me or others like me if the administration stopped hiding behind them. And just because we are doing limited bombing doesn't mean we are taking the threat seriously. The President even referred to ISIS as "JV" not my words his. So I think you can see why the average American doesn't think the President is taking this threat seriously.

Also if you know anything about military actions then you would know that bombing alone will not defeat or destroy ISIS so my argument is valid when I say that they need to come up with an affective strategy.

Yet you are distracted by still being stuck on the semantics of that meaningless JV comment from a year ago?

Quote:"The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant."

So we're not taking them serious, but are performing targeted bombing of them? In what context does that make sense at all?

(02-10-2015 03:14 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:06 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  I think the thing that frustrates me the most about all this is the semantics and tap dancing around the issue that this administration does. Can we not just call a spade a spade and acknowledge that these terrorists are a threat? Who cares if they are an "existential" threat or not they are extremely dangerous. I agree with Owl's post above that the purpose of her making this comment was to "cleverly" say that ISIS is not dangerous while politically covering their bases by using the term "existential".

I just don't understand why we should even be debating what "existential threats" mean, our administration should just outline the real threat they pose and come up with an actual strategy to defeat them.

Then stop letting semantics distract you from what we're actually doing. Working with other countries and conducting bombing missions.

If that doesn't tell you that we see them as a threat, you're either blind or delusional.

The majority of Americans and our politicians don't want boots on the ground...yet...so we're basically doing all that we can, or can stomach as a nation, as of now.

Semantics wouldn't distract me or others like me if the administration stopped hiding behind them. And just because we are doing limited bombing doesn't mean we are taking the threat seriously. The President even referred to ISIS as "JV" not my words his. So I think you can see why the average American doesn't think the President is taking this threat seriously.

Also if you know anything about military actions then you would know that bombing alone will not defeat or destroy ISIS so my argument is valid when I say that they need to come up with an affective strategy.

Not alone, but possibly in conjunction with land forces. Our bombing needs to take out their heavy equipment so the Kurds, et.al. won't be so outgunned.

(02-10-2015 03:16 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:06 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  I think the thing that frustrates me the most about all this is the semantics and tap dancing around the issue that this administration does. Can we not just call a spade a spade and acknowledge that these terrorists are a threat? Who cares if they are an "existential" threat or not they are extremely dangerous. I agree with Owl's post above that the purpose of her making this comment was to "cleverly" say that ISIS is not dangerous while politically covering their bases by using the term "existential".

I just don't understand why we should even be debating what "existential threats" mean, our administration should just outline the real threat they pose and come up with an actual strategy to defeat them.

The strategy would either be what they're doing now, bombing in conjunction with other groups' land forces, or we invade Iraq and Syria ourselves.

There are several strategies we can use, but yes ultimately if you want to destroy ISIS you will need some boots on the ground. The President has done a good job of convincing people that it would require a ton of troops to actually get this done, when in reality it won't.

All he needs is to actually unleash our Air Forces and Navy forces (not small surgical bombing) and do heavy bombing and missile strikes followed up by a multinational ground force to clear out the area and gather intelligence. Desert Storm's ground action took a month in order to defeat one of the better armed Armies in the world at that time. We can take ISIS in weeks and leave.

(02-10-2015 03:30 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:16 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 03:06 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  I think the thing that frustrates me the most about all this is the semantics and tap dancing around the issue that this administration does. Can we not just call a spade a spade and acknowledge that these terrorists are a threat? Who cares if they are an "existential" threat or not they are extremely dangerous. I agree with Owl's post above that the purpose of her making this comment was to "cleverly" say that ISIS is not dangerous while politically covering their bases by using the term "existential".

I just don't understand why we should even be debating what "existential threats" mean, our administration should just outline the real threat they pose and come up with an actual strategy to defeat them.

The strategy would either be what they're doing now, bombing in conjunction with other groups' land forces, or we invade Iraq and Syria ourselves.

There are several strategies we can use, but yes ultimately if you want to destroy ISIS you will need some boots on the ground. The President has done a good job of convincing people that it would require a ton of troops to actually get this done, when in reality it won't.

All he needs is to actually unleash our Air Forces and Navy forces (not small surgical bombing) and do heavy bombing and missile strikes followed up by a multinational ground force to clear out the area and gather intelligence. Desert Storm's ground action took a month in order to defeat one of the better armed Armies in the world at that time. We can take ISIS in weeks and leave.

No we can't. First, we'd have to invade Syria too. That's problematic at best since they still have a government (and army) to speak of unlike the area ISIS is in across the border in Iraq. And heavy bombing is not all that effective against a dispersed enemy that looks like civilians. Then you still have the problem of the endgame. If we then left, we'd have the same power vacuum we had when ISIS moved in.