Question About Foreign Policy

[Ramone45]

Specifically with respect to military intervention. Is there a comparison between ISIS and the Nazis? We are a war weary nation. Setting that aside, many people feel that our military should not intervene in issue that do not directly affect our national security. Considering that position, would going to war against the Nazis pass muster by today's standards?

 

[badbabysitter]

Specifically with respect to military intervention. Is there a comparison between ISIS and the Nazis? We are a war weary nation. Setting that aside, many people feel that our military should not intervene in issue that do not directly affect our national security. Considering that position, would going to war against the Nazis pass muster by today's standards?

it didnt pass by WW2's standards,, the Americans didnt get involved till half way through the war.. and then only because American interests were attacked.. in fact, conservatives were opposed to entry to the war,, look up Taft

 

[KingOrfeo]

Is there a comparison between ISIS and the Nazis?

In character, perhaps, but not in threat-level.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Specifically with respect to military intervention. Is there a comparison between ISIS and the Nazis? We are a war weary nation. Setting that aside, many people feel that our military should not intervene in issue that do not directly affect our national security. Considering that position, would going to war against the Nazis pass muster by today's standards?

The Nazis had a war-making capacity that presented a danger to our allies in Europe.

These ISIS buffoons are a group of religious fanatics, approximately 10,000 in number, with the aggregate military strength of a single light infantry division. They have no navy, no air force, very little artillery. They are a chimera, an illusion of power.

There is no comparison. Outside of Fox News, anyway.

 

[Ramone45]

it didnt pass by WW2's standards,, the Americans didnt get involved till half way through the war.. and then only because American interests were attacked.. in fact, conservatives were opposed to entry to the war,, look up Taft

But despite public sentiment at that time, U.S. involvement was a good thing.

 

[badbabysitter]

But despite public sentiment at that time, U.S. involvement was a good thing.

eventually... but only after thier interests had been attacked

ISIS is a growing threat, but it is nowhere near centralized as a power.. that makes them quite directly the opposite of the Germans in WW2...they are more concerned with expansion then consolidation..which makes them dangerous but also weakens thier hold.. whenever ISIS has expanded, it gorws weaker in other areas.. Germany kept a strong united front even through thier invasions

 

[oggbashan]

Nazi Germany declared war on the USA, not the other way around.

ISIS, or whatever it is called this week, has declared war on the USA, and the US's allies.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

As long as the Democrat Party is strong and leaning liberal left, going to war is a waste of time. If they declare it, they only pretend to be at war until the end of the current election cycle, if the Republicans declare it, they will do everything they can do to defeat the Republicans and if the enemy declares war, they pooh-pooh them as defeated, decentralized, incapable, the JV and not any sort of serious or imminent threat.

 

[RobDownSouth]

As long as the Democrat Party is strong and leaning liberal left, going to war is a waste of time. If they declare it, they only pretend to be at war until the end of the current election cycle, if the Republicans declare it, they will do everything they can do to defeat the Republicans and if the enemy declares war, they pooh-pooh them as defeated, decentralized, incapable, the JV and not any sort of serious or imminent threat.

Such victimhood. Much sad.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Que]

As long as the Democrat Party is strong and leaning liberal left, going to war is a waste of time.

If they declare it, they only pretend to be at war until the end of the current election cycle.

If the Republicans declare it, they will do everything they can do to defeat the Republicans.

If the enemy declares war, they pooh-pooh them as defeated, decentralized, incapable, the JV and not any sort of serious or imminent threat

I thought this worth a slower read. Well said.

It really doesn't matter who is nominally in charge when there is no way to work together.

There are plenty (possibly too many) Republican hawks that would be more than delighted to support the administration (and the military industrial complex) if he actually intended to do something with resolve and a purpose for a change.

There was a brief window where the country was united and Democrats quit the partisan bullshit. But that gave Bush an 80% approval rating. Can't have that, so it was Vietnam peace-nics all over again. Every time a Democrat gets in they have to 'project strength' with zero causalities, so we get into clusterfucks like Somalia.

What you said was apt. And falls on deaf ears.

Maybe it's for the best. Obstructionism and gridlock as a way to save money on ammo.

 

[cowslinger64]

I thought this worth a slower read. Well said.

It really doesn't matter who is nominally in charge when there is no way to work together.

There are plenty (possibly too many) Republican hawks that would be more than delighted to support the administration (and the military industrial complex) if he actually intended to do something with resolve and a purpose for a change.

There was a brief window where the country was united and Democrats quit the partisan bullshit. But that gave Bush an 80% approval rating. Can't have that, so it was Vietnam peace-nics all over again. Every time a Democrat gets in they have to 'project strength' with zero causalities, so we get into clusterfucks like Somalia.

What you said was apt. And falls on deaf ears.

Maybe it's for the best. Obstructionism and gridlock as a way to save money on ammo.

http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/23/the-party-of-no-new-details-on-the-gop-plot-to-obstruct-obama/


snip


he Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama
By Michael Grunwald @MikeGrunwaldAug. 23, 201212 Comments
debt_ceiling
Win McNamee / Getty Images
House Majority Leader and House Budget Committee Chair Rep. Eric Cantor answers questions from reporters after speaking at a U.S. Chamber of Commerce event entitled Controlling Costs: The Price of Good Health July 12, 2011 in Washington, DC.

Follow @TIMEPolitics
TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whip Eric Cantor (in December 2008) and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (in early January 2009) in which they laid out their daring (though cynical and political) no-honeymoon strategy of all-out resistance to a popular President-elect during an economic emergency. “If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.” The excerpt includes a special bonus nugget of Mitt Romney dissing the Tea Party.

But as we say in the sales world: There’s more! I’m going to be blogging some of the news and larger themes from the book here at TIME.com, and I’ll kick it off with more scenes from the early days of the Republican strategy of No. Read on to hear what Joe Biden’s sources in the Senate GOP were telling him, some candid pillow talk between a Republican staffer and an Obama aide, and a top Republican admitting his party didn’t want to “play.” I’ll start with a scene I consider a turning point in the Obama era, when the new President went to the Hill to extend his hand and the GOP spurned it.

On Jan. 27, 2009, House Republican leader John Boehner opened his weekly conference meeting with an announcement: Obama would make his first visit to the Capitol around noon, to meet exclusively with Republicans about his economic-recovery plan. “We’re looking forward to the President’s visit,” Boehner said.

The niceties ended there, as Boehner turned to the $815 billion stimulus bill that House Democrats had just unveiled. Boehner complained that it would spend too much, too late, on too many Democratic goodies. He urged his members to trash it on cable, on YouTube, on the House floor: “It’s another run-of-the-mill, undisciplined, cumbersome, wasteful Washington spending bill … I hope everyone here will join me in voting no!”

Cantor’s whip staff had been planning a “walk-back” strategy in which they would start leaking that 50 Republicans might vote yes, then that they were down to 30 problem children, then that they might lose 20 or so. The idea was to convey momentum. “You want the members to feel like, Oh, the herd is moving. I’ve got to move with the herd,” explains Rob Collins, Cantor’s chief of staff at the time. That way, even if a dozen Republicans ultimately defected, it would look as if Obama failed to meet expectations.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I thought this worth a slower read. Well said.

It really doesn't matter who is nominally in charge when there is no way to work together.

There are plenty (possibly too many) Republican hawks that would be more than delighted to support the administration (and the military industrial complex) if he actually intended to do something with resolve and a purpose for a change.

There was a brief window where the country was united and Democrats quit the partisan bullshit. But that gave Bush an 80% approval rating. Can't have that, so it was Vietnam peace-nics all over again. Every time a Democrat gets in they have to 'project strength' with zero causalities, so we get into clusterfucks like Somalia.

What you said was apt. And falls on deaf ears.

Maybe it's for the best. Obstructionism and gridlock as a way to save money on ammo.

And I still remember, that approval rating led to a Friday afternoon rush to the microphones where the Democrat leadership went bat-shit crazy on Bush for doing NOTHING about 9-11, the Taliban and bin Laden with the intention of dominating the Sunday morning talking head shows and setting the tone for the week to come.

Of course, on Saturday Morning we awoke to our special forces serving a warrant on Afghanistan...

 

[KingOrfeo]

There was a brief window where the country was united and Democrats quit the partisan bullshit. But that gave Bush an 80% approval rating.

Which turned out to be a very bad thing for America, if you will recall. It meant W could get anything he wanted, and what he wanted turned out to be the USA PATRIOT Act, the Iraq War, etc.

 

[unregistered]

 

[cowslinger64]

He had rating s above 80% in 2002 way after the Patriot Act was passed. They short up to over 70% on the invasion of Iraq, and up again to over 60% on the capture of Sadaam.

Congress renews Patriot Act after months of fighting
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House renewed the USA Patriot Act in a cliffhanger vote Tuesday night, extending a centerpiece of the war on terrorism at President Bush's urging after months of political combat over the balance between privacy rights and the pursuit of potential terrorists.
Bush, forced by filibuster to accept new curbs on law enforcement investigations, is expected to sign the legislation before 16 provisions of the 2001 law expire on Friday.

The vote was 280-138, just two more than needed under special rules that required a two-thirds majority. It marked a political victory for Bush and will allow congressional Republicans facing midterm elections this year to continue touting a tough-on-terror stance. Bush's approval ratings have suffered in recent months after revelations that he had authorized secret, warrantless wiretapping of Americans.

That issue helped fuel a two-month Senate filibuster that forced the White House to accept some new restrictions on information gathered in terrorism probes.

Republicans on Tuesday declared the legislative war won, saying the renewal of the act's 16 provisions along with new curbs on government investigatory power will help law enforcement prevent terrorists from striking.

"Intense congressional and public scrutiny has not produced a single substantiated claim that the Patriot Act has been misused to violate Americans' civil liberties," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. "Opponents of the legislation have relied upon exaggeration and hyperbole to distort a demonstrated record of accomplishment and success."

"The president looks forward to signing the bill into law," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.

But the debate over the balance between a strong war against terrorists and civil liberties protections is far from over.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is holding hearings on the domestic wiretapping program. Additionally, Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the chief author of the Patriot Act renewal, has introduced a new measure "to provide extra protections that better comport with my sensitivity of civil rights."

Despite its passage the Patriot Act still has staunch congressional opponents who protested it by voting 'no' even on the part of the bill that would add new civil rights protections. During the Senate's final debate last week, Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., said he was voting 'no' because the new protections for Americans were so modest they were almost meaningless.

Such objections echoed during the House debate Tuesday, where the measure was supported by 21 4 Republicans and 66 Democrats and opposed by 13 Republicans, 124 Democrats and one Independent.

"I rise in strong opposition to this legislation because it offers only a superficial reform that will have little if any impact on safeguarding our civil liberties," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio.

For now, Bush will be signing a package on which members of both chambers of Congress and the president can agree.

The package renews 16 expiring provisions of the original Patriot Act, including one that allows federal officials to obtain "tangible items" like business records, including those from libraries and bookstores, for foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations.

Other provisions would clarify that foreign intelligence or counterintelligence officers should share information obtained as part of a criminal investigation with counterparts in domestic law enforcement agencies.

Forced by Feingold's filibuster, Congress and the White House have agreed to new curbs on the Patriot Act's powers.

These restrictions would:

• Give recipients of court-approved subpoenas for information in terrorist investigations the right to challenge a requirement that they refrain from telling anyone.

• Eliminate a requirement that an individual provide the FBI with the name of a lawyer consulted about a National Security Letter, which is a demand for records issued by investigators.

• Clarify that most libraries are not subject to demands in those letters for information about suspected terrorists.

The legislation also takes aim at the distribution and use of methamphetamine by limiting the supply of a key ingredient found in everyday cold and allergy medicines.

Yet another provision is designed to strengthen port security by imposing strict punishments on crewmembers who impede or mislead law enforcement officers trying to board their ships.

 

[cowslinger64]

He had rating s above 80% in 2002 way after the Patriot Act was passed. They short up to over 70% on the invasion of Iraq, and up again to over 60% on the capture of Sadaam.

When reality set in, look what happened


http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/cvfspjk4hesmzts2bc0brg.gif

 

[RobDownSouth]

There is no comparison between what Isis represents and what the Nazi's represented militarily and politically.

this is the second time you've agreed with my position today. I think that's a record. You turnin' Democrat on us?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

So, what are we doing in Syria and Iraq?



Ferris?

 

[Ishmael]

So, what are we doing in Syria and Iraq?



Ferris?

Nothing of any particular long term consequence, at least none that will enure to our benefit.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

As long as the Democrat Party is strong and leaning liberal left, going to war is a waste of time. If they declare it, they only pretend to be at war until the end of the current election cycle, if the Republicans declare it, they will do everything they can do to defeat the Republicans and if the enemy declares war, they pooh-pooh them as defeated, decentralized, incapable, the JV and not any sort of serious or imminent threat.

Nothing of any particular long term consequence, at least none that will enure to our benefit.

Ishmael

Yep. Like the vote to go to war in Iraq. Doing the political thing is more important than doing the right thing.

 

[Boxlicker101]

ISIS and the Nazis have or had some things in common, but not much. They are both virulent haters but the Nazi hatred was race related and that of ISIS is based on religion.

Hitler was the head of a small political party that grew in size until he won a plurality of the national vote and became head of the state. ISIS has never had any kind of election and would probably not win if they ever did. Germany in the 1930's built their strength through diplomacy and the belief by some European heads of state that he could be reasoned with and was less of a threat than the USSR. ISIS has built their conquests on fear and death and has never practiced any kind of diplomacy, but does have a propaganda arm.

The US had to go to war against Germany. Following the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan, the other Axis nations declared war on the US. At that time, it was no longer a matter of choice. Until then, the US was shirking their obligations as a great power but that probably won't happen again.

I don't know how many members ISIS has, but I'm sure it's more than 10,000. The figure I hear most often is about 31,000. This may not seem like very many, but they are well armed, well financed and highly motivated.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Haj Mohammed Effendi Amin el-Husseini

 

[Ishmael]

Yep. Like the vote to go to war in Iraq. Doing the political thing is more important than doing the right thing.

Europe fought 'political' wars for centuries. Small exchanges of lands based on 'peace treaties.' And like the Armistice of WWI, one war merely served to beget the next. An endless procession of wars.

The US Civil War was the first instance of the practice of 'Total War' since the third Punic War. This laid the groundwork for the type of war we fought during WWII, a war that even most liberals refer to as the 'last great war.' Not only were Japan and Germany thoroughly reduced, they were also thoroughly occupied for 30 years.

And now we've fallen back into the pattern of 'political wars' fought halfway with half measures against a determined and theocratic-ally motivated enemy. (And they are Muslim regardless of the denials of our president. While the flavor they practice is not mainstream, Islam is their foundational belief system, so they ARE Muslim.)

They are not going to go away until we resolve ourselves to fight 'total war' against them. War and occupation executed with fervor and a realization that 'total war' is going to bring with it a large number of collateral casualties. Once that is accomplished we can then begin to show a 'softer' side with the implementation of a new type Marshall Plan.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

That will not happen until beloved Paris falls and our liberals finally get alarmed...