(02-18-2015 02:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 01:23 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

Now she is saying we are too dumb to understand her statement about fighting ISIS with a job's program. A typical lib elitist who thinks she is smarter than the common person. Obama has loaded up with these dumb bimbo's. I would say blonde jokes are appropriate here...

Quote:State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf, after coming under fire for suggesting a way to fight the Islamic State and all terrorism is by creating jobs, has an answer for her critics: Her argument is just "too nuanced" for them to understand.

Harf, in TV interviews Tuesday night, stood by her original remarks and said she was speaking about a comprehensive approach to combating "extremism."

Harf said that means airstrikes in the short-term, and going after "root causes" like poor economic conditions in the long-term.

"Longer term, we cannot kill every terrorist around the world, nor should we try," Harf said on CNN. "How do you get at the root causes of this? Look, it might be too nuanced an argument for some, like I've seen over the past 24 hours some of the commentary out there, but it's really the smart way that Democrats, Republicans, military commanders, our partners in the Arab world think we need to combat this."

Harf went on to say the approach doesn't fit "into a sound bite," when asked to respond to the intense criticism, on social media and elsewhere, of her original remarks.

On Tuesday, Rob O'Neill, former Navy SEAL Team 6 member, told Fox News a "military strategy" is what's needed to fight ISIS.

"They get paid to cut off heads -- to crucify children, to sell slaves and to cut off heads and I don't think that a change in career path is what's going to stop them," he said.

O'Neill, who claims to have fired the shot that killed Usama bin Laden, warned that the problem is spreading.

"We can't let it happen," he said. "It'll go to Saudi Arabia, it'll hit Jordan."

Harf first pointed to jobs as a counter-ISIS strategy during an interview Monday night on MSNBC -- after ISIS-aligned militants slaughtered 21 Coptic Christians in Libya.

"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," 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 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?"

Harf stood by the remarks Tuesday night on CNN, and on MSNBC. CNN host Wolf Blitzer challenged her statements, asking if she thinks these young men might not turn to terror if they just had a job.

Harf called that a "gross oversimplification."

Blitzer pointed out that some of the world's most notorious terrorists, including bin Laden, came from wealth and privilege.

Harf acknowledged that point. On Twitter, she also defended herself by quoting other leaders, including former President George W. Bush, who has pointed to the need to fight poverty as a way to fight terrorism.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/...o-nuanced/

Well, jobs would be a way to minimize the number of people interested in becoming one of these evil religious zealots going forward. Obviously it's too late for the idiots already involved in these groups. And, you'd have to change the religious education too, that some of these people get.

Well that might be a decent theory but you do realize that ISIS fighters get paid right? They get paid over $1000 a month, which in that region is the equivalent to middle to high class income. So it's not like these are all unemployed guys and simply getting them jobs pacifies them, but I digress you can continue to blindly defend your hero and put politics over common sense.

(02-18-2015 02:15 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 02:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 01:23 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

Now she is saying we are too dumb to understand her statement about fighting ISIS with a job's program. A typical lib elitist who thinks she is smarter than the common person. Obama has loaded up with these dumb bimbo's. I would say blonde jokes are appropriate here...

Quote:State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf, after coming under fire for suggesting a way to fight the Islamic State and all terrorism is by creating jobs, has an answer for her critics: Her argument is just "too nuanced" for them to understand.

Harf, in TV interviews Tuesday night, stood by her original remarks and said she was speaking about a comprehensive approach to combating "extremism."

Harf said that means airstrikes in the short-term, and going after "root causes" like poor economic conditions in the long-term.

"Longer term, we cannot kill every terrorist around the world, nor should we try," Harf said on CNN. "How do you get at the root causes of this? Look, it might be too nuanced an argument for some, like I've seen over the past 24 hours some of the commentary out there, but it's really the smart way that Democrats, Republicans, military commanders, our partners in the Arab world think we need to combat this."

Harf went on to say the approach doesn't fit "into a sound bite," when asked to respond to the intense criticism, on social media and elsewhere, of her original remarks.

On Tuesday, Rob O'Neill, former Navy SEAL Team 6 member, told Fox News a "military strategy" is what's needed to fight ISIS.

"They get paid to cut off heads -- to crucify children, to sell slaves and to cut off heads and I don't think that a change in career path is what's going to stop them," he said.

O'Neill, who claims to have fired the shot that killed Usama bin Laden, warned that the problem is spreading.

"We can't let it happen," he said. "It'll go to Saudi Arabia, it'll hit Jordan."

Harf first pointed to jobs as a counter-ISIS strategy during an interview Monday night on MSNBC -- after ISIS-aligned militants slaughtered 21 Coptic Christians in Libya.

"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," 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 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?"

Harf stood by the remarks Tuesday night on CNN, and on MSNBC. CNN host Wolf Blitzer challenged her statements, asking if she thinks these young men might not turn to terror if they just had a job.

Harf called that a "gross oversimplification."

Blitzer pointed out that some of the world's most notorious terrorists, including bin Laden, came from wealth and privilege.

Harf acknowledged that point. On Twitter, she also defended herself by quoting other leaders, including former President George W. Bush, who has pointed to the need to fight poverty as a way to fight terrorism.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/...o-nuanced/

Well, jobs would be a way to minimize the number of people interested in becoming one of these evil religious zealots going forward. Obviously it's too late for the idiots already involved in these groups. And, you'd have to change the religious education too, that some of these people get.

Well that might be a decent theory but you do realize that ISIS fighters get paid right? They get paid over $1000 a month, which in that region is the equivalent to middle to high class income. So it's not like these are all unemployed guys and simply getting them jobs pacifies them, but I digress you can continue to blindly defend your hero and put politics over common sense.

Common sense meaning invading Iraq again, and Syria? And Libya?

(02-18-2015 02:42 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 02:15 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 02:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 01:23 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

Now she is saying we are too dumb to understand her statement about fighting ISIS with a job's program. A typical lib elitist who thinks she is smarter than the common person. Obama has loaded up with these dumb bimbo's. I would say blonde jokes are appropriate here...

Quote:State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf, after coming under fire for suggesting a way to fight the Islamic State and all terrorism is by creating jobs, has an answer for her critics: Her argument is just "too nuanced" for them to understand.

Harf, in TV interviews Tuesday night, stood by her original remarks and said she was speaking about a comprehensive approach to combating "extremism."

Harf said that means airstrikes in the short-term, and going after "root causes" like poor economic conditions in the long-term.

"Longer term, we cannot kill every terrorist around the world, nor should we try," Harf said on CNN. "How do you get at the root causes of this? Look, it might be too nuanced an argument for some, like I've seen over the past 24 hours some of the commentary out there, but it's really the smart way that Democrats, Republicans, military commanders, our partners in the Arab world think we need to combat this."

Harf went on to say the approach doesn't fit "into a sound bite," when asked to respond to the intense criticism, on social media and elsewhere, of her original remarks.

On Tuesday, Rob O'Neill, former Navy SEAL Team 6 member, told Fox News a "military strategy" is what's needed to fight ISIS.

"They get paid to cut off heads -- to crucify children, to sell slaves and to cut off heads and I don't think that a change in career path is what's going to stop them," he said.

O'Neill, who claims to have fired the shot that killed Usama bin Laden, warned that the problem is spreading.

"We can't let it happen," he said. "It'll go to Saudi Arabia, it'll hit Jordan."

Harf first pointed to jobs as a counter-ISIS strategy during an interview Monday night on MSNBC -- after ISIS-aligned militants slaughtered 21 Coptic Christians in Libya.

"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," 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 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?"

Harf stood by the remarks Tuesday night on CNN, and on MSNBC. CNN host Wolf Blitzer challenged her statements, asking if she thinks these young men might not turn to terror if they just had a job.

Harf called that a "gross oversimplification."

Blitzer pointed out that some of the world's most notorious terrorists, including bin Laden, came from wealth and privilege.

Harf acknowledged that point. On Twitter, she also defended herself by quoting other leaders, including former President George W. Bush, who has pointed to the need to fight poverty as a way to fight terrorism.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/...o-nuanced/

Well, jobs would be a way to minimize the number of people interested in becoming one of these evil religious zealots going forward. Obviously it's too late for the idiots already involved in these groups. And, you'd have to change the religious education too, that some of these people get.

Well that might be a decent theory but you do realize that ISIS fighters get paid right? They get paid over $1000 a month, which in that region is the equivalent to middle to high class income. So it's not like these are all unemployed guys and simply getting them jobs pacifies them, but I digress you can continue to blindly defend your hero and put politics over common sense.

Common sense meaning invading Iraq again, and Syria? And Libya?

No your common sense is much better, leave them alone and let them fade away after about 10 years. And again, my plan was not one that I pulled out of thin air, it is been stated by many former Generals and Defense Department individuals as the only way to defeat ISIS. So apparently you're saying that these guys have no common sense.

(02-18-2015 02:53 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 02:42 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 02:15 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 02:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 01:23 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

Now she is saying we are too dumb to understand her statement about fighting ISIS with a job's program. A typical lib elitist who thinks she is smarter than the common person. Obama has loaded up with these dumb bimbo's. I would say blonde jokes are appropriate here...


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/...o-nuanced/

Well, jobs would be a way to minimize the number of people interested in becoming one of these evil religious zealots going forward. Obviously it's too late for the idiots already involved in these groups. And, you'd have to change the religious education too, that some of these people get.

Well that might be a decent theory but you do realize that ISIS fighters get paid right? They get paid over $1000 a month, which in that region is the equivalent to middle to high class income. So it's not like these are all unemployed guys and simply getting them jobs pacifies them, but I digress you can continue to blindly defend your hero and put politics over common sense.

Common sense meaning invading Iraq again, and Syria? And Libya?

No your common sense is much better, leave them alone and let them fade away after about 10 years. And again, my plan was not one that I pulled out of thin air, it is been stated by many former Generals and Defense Department individuals as the only way to defeat ISIS. So apparently you're saying that these guys have no common sense.

Naturally the defense department guys want to utilize the tools at their disposal. It's their job. Wars keep them in business. Their job is to defeat the enemies they're ordered to fight. The civilian government tells them which enemies to fight. Otherwise we'd be doing a lot more fighting than we've already done, and we'd be that much poorer.

A jobs program would lead to more work place violence.

The best possible outcome for us is

1. Strongman dictators running every country,
2. Westernization stopped and Muslim traditions practiced without our interference
3. Development by us of sufficient energy sources--domestic production, Alberta/Keystone, green energy, nuclear, sugar cane ethanol from Latin America and West Africa, a solution to the CO2 problem resulting from coal liquefaction/gasification, better electric storage capability, so that we no longer have to rely on the region

The Middle East was a relatively stable backwater for about 500 years between the time that Dias and da Gama found sea routes around Africa that virtually eliminated the overland camel trains, until the importance of oil took effect in the 20th century. Economic irrelevance, and the ability of the West to ignore them that was enabled as a result, made the region stable once before. That just might be able to happen again.

(02-18-2015 05:37 PM)Paul M Wrote:  A jobs program would lead to more work place violence.

All the better for the Obama administration. Then they wouldn't have to dance around calling it terrorism.

(02-18-2015 05:39 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 05:37 PM)Paul M Wrote:  A jobs program would lead to more work place violence.

All the better for the Obama administration. Then they wouldn't have to dance around calling it terrorism.

ISIS has created more jobs than President Obama. Sadly they are all shovel ready.

Yet another example of Obama being a lightweight and clueless leader.

At first I was willing to say this was just her stupidity in regards to ISIS...

But now after hearing that Kerry made a similar statement... and Obama making a statement about the lack of education, this can't be just a one-person idiocy bit.

(02-19-2015 10:42 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  At first I was willing to say this was just her stupidity in regards to ISIS...

But now after hearing that Kerry made a similar statement... and Obama making a statement about the lack of education, this can't be just a one-person idiocy bit.

Everything that is said by spokespersons of this administration like this blonde bimbo, comes straight from the Emperor. Book it.

(02-19-2015 10:58 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 10:42 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  At first I was willing to say this was just her stupidity in regards to ISIS...

But now after hearing that Kerry made a similar statement... and Obama making a statement about the lack of education, this can't be just a one-person idiocy bit.

Everything that is said by spokespersons of this administration like this blonde bimbo, comes straight from the Emperor. Book it.

Problems with women I see? Not surprising.

(02-19-2015 11:01 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 10:58 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 10:42 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  At first I was willing to say this was just her stupidity in regards to ISIS...

But now after hearing that Kerry made a similar statement... and Obama making a statement about the lack of education, this can't be just a one-person idiocy bit.

Everything that is said by spokespersons of this administration like this blonde bimbo, comes straight from the Emperor. Book it.

Problems with women I see? Not surprising.

Problems with reality I see. Not surprising.

(02-19-2015 11:07 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 11:01 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 10:58 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 10:42 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  At first I was willing to say this was just her stupidity in regards to ISIS...

But now after hearing that Kerry made a similar statement... and Obama making a statement about the lack of education, this can't be just a one-person idiocy bit.

Everything that is said by spokespersons of this administration like this blonde bimbo, comes straight from the Emperor. Book it.

Problems with women I see? Not surprising.

Problems with reality I see. Not surprising.

I'll take that weak deflection as a yes.

(02-17-2015 01:54 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 01:41 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

They are cutting people's heads off and burning people alive and our illustrious leader wants to give them job training. What job training? How to properly cut a head off or how to better burn a person? We have a compete idiot running this country and it gets more obvious by the day.

Quote: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?"

The comments come as the Obama administration takes heat from lawmakers for its approach to the Islamic State, whose self-proclaimed fighters in Libya recently executed 21 Coptic Christians from Egypt.

The White House on Tuesday is kicking off a three-day summit on "countering violent extremism." It begins with Vice President Biden moderating a discussion on countering extremism with representatives from cities.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/...r-to-isis/

No where in that article did I see a quote from Obama.

Con hyperbole.
They lurch from one crisis to another.

(02-18-2015 05:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The best possible outcome for us is

1. Strongman dictators running every country,
2. Westernization stopped and Muslim traditions practiced without our interference
3. Development by us of sufficient energy sources--domestic production, Alberta/Keystone, green energy, nuclear, sugar cane ethanol from Latin America and West Africa, a solution to the CO2 problem resulting from coal liquefaction/gasification, better electric storage capability, so that we no longer have to rely on the region

The Middle East was a relatively stable backwater for about 500 years between the time that Dias and da Gama found sea routes around Africa that virtually eliminated the overland camel trains, until the importance of oil took effect in the 20th century. Economic irrelevance, and the ability of the West to ignore them that was enabled as a result, made the region stable once before. That just might be able to happen again.

But the world is a different place since then. If a Caliphate comes into existence they are not going to stop in the ME. This is about Idealology and ours is different than theirs. The difference is Americans could be convinced to leave well enough alone but the Caliphate could not
Afghanistan was reduced to backwater irrelevance after the Soviet Invasion yet there is where the Taliban begat Al Quada which begat what we have today.
I would be interested in your take on Harf's statement. IMO, the only way to win a war is to kill your way out of it. Even in the Cold War the threat of casualties kept each side at bay and proved MAD. That is not the case here. It would seem more so that we can ONLY kill our way out of this conflict

(02-19-2015 03:54 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 05:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The best possible outcome for us is

1. Strongman dictators running every country,
2. Westernization stopped and Muslim traditions practiced without our interference
3. Development by us of sufficient energy sources--domestic production, Alberta/Keystone, green energy, nuclear, sugar cane ethanol from Latin America and West Africa, a solution to the CO2 problem resulting from coal liquefaction/gasification, better electric storage capability, so that we no longer have to rely on the region

The Middle East was a relatively stable backwater for about 500 years between the time that Dias and da Gama found sea routes around Africa that virtually eliminated the overland camel trains, until the importance of oil took effect in the 20th century. Economic irrelevance, and the ability of the West to ignore them that was enabled as a result, made the region stable once before. That just might be able to happen again.

But the world is a different place since then. If a Caliphate comes into existence they are not going to stop in the ME. This is about Idealology and ours is different than theirs. The difference is Americans could be convinced to leave well enough alone but the Caliphate could not
Afghanistan was reduced to backwater irrelevance after the Soviet Invasion yet there is where the Taliban begat Al Quada which begat what we have today.
I would be interested in your take on Harf's statement. IMO, the only way to win a war is to kill your way out of it. Even in the Cold War the threat of casualties kept each side at bay and proved MAD. That is not the case here. It would seem more so that we can ONLY kill our way out of this conflict

Without the oil hammer, they are in a very different situation. That's why energy independence is critical to establishing a rational policy toward the middle east.

If we leave them alone, they don't really give a damn. What we don't realize is that how much picking at the scab we have done over the last 3-4 decades.

Yes, there are moderate Muslims. But there are a lot of "moderate" Muslims whose ideas about, say, women would drive us up the wall. Every time we talk about women's rights, we turn a certain number of moderate Muslims into radicals. We are driving them away, and we don't even realize it.

As for Harf's statement, there are outhouses that aren't as full of sh*t as she is. That is 180 degrees out from the way to approach this. It's an extremely ethnocentric viewpoint that assumes that Muslims respond to the same stimuli that we do in the same way that we do. They don't. Period. And that's cultural, not psychological.

(02-19-2015 11:01 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 10:58 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 10:42 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  At first I was willing to say this was just her stupidity in regards to ISIS...

But now after hearing that Kerry made a similar statement... and Obama making a statement about the lack of education, this can't be just a one-person idiocy bit.

Everything that is said by spokespersons of this administration like this blonde bimbo, comes straight from the Emperor. Book it.

Problems with women I see? Not surprising.

Calling a BIMBO a BIMBO is not akin to problems with women.

(02-19-2015 04:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Without the oil hammer, they are in a very different situation. That's why energy independence is critical to establishing a rational policy toward the middle east.

If we leave them alone, they don't really give a damn. What we don't realize is that how much picking at the scab we have done over the last 3-4 decades.

Yes, there are moderate Muslims. But there are a lot of "moderate" Muslims whose ideas about, say, women would drive us up the wall. Every time we talk about women's rights, we turn a certain number of moderate Muslims into radicals. We are driving them away, and we don't even realize it.

As for Harf's statement, there are outhouses that aren't as full of sh*t as she is. That is 180 degrees out from the way to approach this. It's an extremely ethnocentric viewpoint that assumes that Muslims respond to the same stimuli that we do in the same way that we do. They don't. Period. And that's cultural, not psychological.

I am all about energy independence. It gives the U.S. lots of better options. (Bringing back manufacturing would too but that's another story). But the US is not the only customer for ME crude. They would still get their money, maybe not as much but still plenty.
I think you kind of contradict yourself. On the one hand you say that if we leave them alone they will leave us alone. Then you, accurately, state that the ME mind set is not like the Western mind set. And specifically, not the Islamic, radical or otherwise, mind set. While the 'typical' Muslim may want Islam to be the motivating religion of the World, they aren't going to kill for it. However, the AQ's and Isis's of the World don't feel that way. And now they have the means to strike blows at their mortal Religous enemy, Christianity and Secularism, whether we leave them alone or not. They will take the opportunities and even though their percentages are small their numbers are large. Larger then people want to realize

Harf Rhymes with Barf !