ADVERTISEMENT

Multiple terrorist attacks in France

Status
Not open for further replies.
All I know is that certain countries seem crazy enough to want to play with their nuclear toy. I remember in the 90s people laughing at the notion that North Korea could go nuclear. All I'm saying is lets keep the really big sticks outa the hands of the kids who like to torture kittens. Giving them 150 billion dollars doesn't seem prudent to me. I say we take that 150B and build a safespace dome over the Univ. of Missouri.

Sit back and ask yourself the question. What can the US do to prevent a determined foe from *eventually* getting a weapon we don't want them to have? Short of invading and installing a pro-US government, there are bunch of roadblocks you can throw up, but nothing you can do to actually stop them for all eternity.

Last time I checked, alot more folks died fighting North Korea in the 50's than Americans have died in North Korean nuclear fire since the 90's.
 
Maybe I'm misreading you or vice versa. I'm not saying I'm scared we are going to nuke them. I'm saying I'm scared they're gonna get their hands on a bomb and nuke us. Do you think that's crazy talk?

I mean I'm trying to be polite and not link videos of Muslims in cities around the world celebrating in the streets on 9-11-2001.

Yes.
 
we arent getting nuked....ever....our overseas interests might get attacked but its not happening on our soil
 
Maybe I'm misreading you or vice versa. I'm not saying I'm scared we are going to nuke them. I'm saying I'm scared they're gonna get their hands on a bomb and nuke us. Do you think that's crazy talk?

I mean I'm trying to be polite and not link videos of Muslims in cities around the world celebrating in the streets on 9-11-2001.


You are also changing the goal posts. It was asked why Muslim leaders aren't getting up on stage and denouncing extremism. They are.

Linking videos of run of the mill Muslims in 2nd and third world countries dancing at the thought of American pain are not "Muslim leaders". It would be like asking Billy Graham to speak out on racism and then he does, and people still saying Christian's are a sack of crap because some of your run of the mill Christian bubbas in the South can't let the Klan go.
 
Sit back and ask yourself the question. What can the US do to prevent a determined foe from *eventually* getting a weapon we don't want them to have? Short of invading and installing a pro-US government, there are bunch of roadblocks you can throw up, but nothing you can do to actually stop them for all eternity.

Last time I checked, alot more folks died fighting North Korea in the 50's than Americans have died in North Korean nuclear fire since the 90's.

Yeah, you're right. But I'd kinda like to keep it that way. I don't want to win this debate by being able to say to you: See, I was right, they (Iran/NorthKorea/whoever) killed more people than the war in the 1950s. Iran's GDP is around 370 billion and we're gonna write them a check for almost half that. That would be like China writing us a check for 8 trillion dollars. You don't think we're making the world safer by strengthening them do you?
 
I am naive but I am still trying to figure out why our President has been brought up at all in regards to todays attacks in Paris
POTUS is still the most powerful position in the world. POTUS carries a great deal of influence, if you show strength and resolve. Leadership and addressing the issue, in reality, would be a great help in the fight against the evil that is Islamic terrorism. The leader of the most powerful nation in the world going out and saying "don't be so harsh on radical islam, Christians did really bad stuff too a long time ago" puts the leadership of the country on par with a ten year old who is pissed off because their seven-year-old brother got a bigger piece of cake.
 
I get that but TODAY he said this..

"This is an attack not just on Paris. It's an attack not just on the people of France. But this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values we share,"

"This is a heart-breaking situation, and obviously those of us here in the United States know what it's like. We've gone through these kinds of episodes ourselves, and whenever these kinds of attacks happen, we've always been able to count on the French people to stand with us," Obama said. "They have been an extraordinary counter-terrorism partner, and we intend to bear with them in that same fashion."
 
  • Like
Reactions: huskerj12
That would be really really really really really bad. Would you agree?
Absolutely...I just dont see how it would be possible with all the technology we have in place. Only one country has been nuked ever ...like in the history of the planet ...I just dont see it happening again in our lifetime....the next 40 years
 
I get that but TODAY he said this..

"This is an attack not just on Paris. It's an attack not just on the people of France. But this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values we share,"

"This is a heart-breaking situation, and obviously those of us here in the United States know what it's like. We've gone through these kinds of episodes ourselves, and whenever these kinds of attacks happen, we've always been able to count on the French people to stand with us," Obama said. "They have been an extraordinary counter-terrorism partner, and we intend to bear with them in that same fashion."
He sure can talk the talk.
 
You are also changing the goal posts. It was asked why Muslim leaders aren't getting up on stage and denouncing extremism. They are.

Linking videos of run of the mill Muslims in 2nd and third world countries dancing at the thought of American pain are not "Muslim leaders". It would be like asking Billy Graham to speak out on racism and then he does, and people still saying Christian's are a sack of crap because some of your run of the mill Christian bubbas in the South can't let the Klan go.

Fair enough. But the Klan seems under control when you compare them to ISIS - ISIL - Al Queada - whatever frickin name they've come up with this month. All I'm sayin is whatever they're doin it ain't workin the peace magic of a Billy Graham.
 
He sure can talk the talk.
Guy cannot win it seems.....doesnt specifically denounce radical Islam ...he is a pussy....says we as a nation will stand with France against terrorism and he is full of it...This is literally the day after a US led drone strike took out Jihadi John...this is a war that cannot be won by conventional means and will not be over in our lifetime
 
Absolutely...I just dont see how it would be possible with all the technology we have in place. Only one country has been nuked ever ...like in the history of the planet ...I just dont see it happening again in our lifetime....the next 40 years
You are living in a fantasy world. You really are naïve. Technology is advancing every day, and the enemy has smart people, and technology too. With all of our technology and people on the ground, how long did it take us to find OBL? There are plenty of people in this world that would gladly work to destroy this Country and any Western influence. What about our kids, should we worry about them? We could make it very very hard for someone to hit the US, but that takes making hard, and media-unfriendly decisions.
 
Not a nuke

Good point. I'm just sayin have you been to an airport lately and checked out those TSA double-0 super agents? I've seen stuff growin in my soap dish that is smarter than some of them. You give some nut a brief-case nuke and I don't want to roll the dice and find out who is more determined between Jihadi Jake and the TSA fatburger.
 
Yeah, you're right. But I'd kinda like to keep it that way. I don't want to win this debate by being able to say to you: See, I was right, they (Iran/NorthKorea/whoever) killed more people than the war in the 1950s. Iran's GDP is around 370 billion and we're gonna write them a check for almost half that. That would be like China writing us a check for 8 trillion dollars. You don't think we're making the world safer by strengthening them do you?

Without opening up the can of worms that is the Iran deal, you need to educate yourself a little on the logistics of how this is going down as pertains to the money issue.

We aren't writing them a check for 150 billion dollars out of the US budget. Sanctions will be lifted, and money they already have that's been frozen will released. As Cavuto from Fox Business corrects his guest here.

Also the numbers are in serious question.

"“There is no ‘signing bonus,’ ” said Adam J. Szubin, the acting under secretary of the Treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence, in testimony about the accord on Wednesday to the Senate Banking Committee.

Mr. Szubin estimated that Iran has $100 billion to $125 billion in foreign exchange assets worldwide, but that “our assessment is that Iran’s usable liquid assets after sanctions relief will be much lower, at little more than $50 billion.”"

That snippet is from a NYT article that actually is a pretty good run down of the varying options on the table.

The general impetus around the Iran deal wasn't between what we had before, and what we negotiated now. It was facing sanctions that may well fall apart as partners like Germany and China and Russia not really on board with continuing them, and whatever we could negotiate.

I'd have been ok either way, with the deal or without. But there are advantages and disadvantages to each of those routes. The situation as portrayed in the media is somewhat skewed, Congressmen routinely go up on Fox and indicate that Iran is making a bee line towards a nuke and will use it as fast as they can get it. The Intelligence Community debunked that myth with the 2007 NIE that was released saying Iran had stopped nuclear weapons programs in 2003. Israel has also been complaining that Iran is playing this smartly, instead of bee lining for a bomb, they are just sitting at a point where they can break out if they so chose, it allows them to be close enough without crossing over any lines. As noted, for the last 10 years or so, saying Iran was only a year away if their government decides to actually build a nuke at one point.

We haven't been arm twisting anyone to be honest. America has been rolling along thinking its a bad ass and arm twisting people, and for 10 years or more, we've basically been subject to the good will of the Ayatollah in not forcing the issue.
 
the nuclear talk is on the extreme end...the "smaller" scale stuff does scare me and honestly when we are dealing with a group that does not even value their own life its really tough to stop. I am a little surprised there havent been even more incidents
 
Without opening up the can of worms that is the Iran deal, you need to educate yourself a little on the logistics of how this is going down as pertains to the money issue.

We aren't writing them a check for 150 billion dollars out of the US budget. Sanctions will be lifted, and money they already have that's been frozen will released. As Cavuto from Fox Business corrects his guest here.

Also the numbers are in serious question.

"“There is no ‘signing bonus,’ ” said Adam J. Szubin, the acting under secretary of the Treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence, in testimony about the accord on Wednesday to the Senate Banking Committee.

Mr. Szubin estimated that Iran has $100 billion to $125 billion in foreign exchange assets worldwide, but that “our assessment is that Iran’s usable liquid assets after sanctions relief will be much lower, at little more than $50 billion.”"

That snippet is from a NYT article that actually is a pretty good run down of the varying options on the table.

The general impetus around the Iran deal wasn't between what we had before, and what we negotiated now. It was facing sanctions that may well fall apart as partners like Germany and China and Russia not really on board with continuing them, and whatever we could negotiate.

I'd have been ok either way, with the deal or without. But there are advantages and disadvantages to each of those routes. The situation as portrayed in the media is somewhat skewed, Congressmen routinely go up on Fox and indicate that Iran is making a bee line towards a nuke and will use it as fast as they can get it. The Intelligence Community debunked that myth with the 2007 NIE that was released saying Iran had stopped nuclear weapons programs in 2003. Israel has also been complaining that Iran is playing this smartly, instead of bee lining for a bomb, they are just sitting at a point where they can break out if they so chose, it allows them to be close enough without crossing over any lines. As noted, for the last 10 years or so, saying Iran was only a year away if their government decides to actually build a nuke at one point.

We haven't been arm twisting anyone to be honest. America has been rolling along thinking its a bad ass and arm twisting people, and for 10 years or more, we've basically been subject to the good will of the Ayatollah.

You do agree we started those negotiations with some serious tough demands and by the end Iran got almost everything it wanted. I mean 24 day notice for inspections? Really? And after the deal was signed Iranian leaders made fun of Obama for thinking they were gonna follow it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: huskerfan1414
You do agree we started those negotiations with some serious tough demands and by the end Iran got almost everything it wanted. I mean 24 day notice for inspections? Really? And after the deal was signed Iranian leaders made fun of Obama for thinking they were gonna follow it.
Not knowing much about the deal initially I was for it..this semester I have a student teacher that was born in Iran and he is very much against it...Says you absolutely cannot trust that government....good enough for me ...someone born and raised in the country being "sanctioned" is against it trumps my white midwestern behind having an opinion on it.
 
Without opening up the can of worms that is the Iran deal, you need to educate yourself a little on the logistics of how this is going down as pertains to the money issue.

We aren't writing them a check for 150 billion dollars out of the US budget. Sanctions will be lifted, and money they already have that's been frozen will released. As Cavuto from Fox Business corrects his guest here.

Also the numbers are in serious question.

"“There is no ‘signing bonus,’ ” said Adam J. Szubin, the acting under secretary of the Treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence, in testimony about the accord on Wednesday to the Senate Banking Committee.

Mr. Szubin estimated that Iran has $100 billion to $125 billion in foreign exchange assets worldwide, but that “our assessment is that Iran’s usable liquid assets after sanctions relief will be much lower, at little more than $50 billion.”"

That snippet is from a NYT article that actually is a pretty good run down of the varying options on the table.

The general impetus around the Iran deal wasn't between what we had before, and what we negotiated now. It was facing sanctions that may well fall apart as partners like Germany and China and Russia not really on board with continuing them, and whatever we could negotiate.

I'd have been ok either way, with the deal or without. But there are advantages and disadvantages to each of those routes. The situation as portrayed in the media is somewhat skewed, Congressmen routinely go up on Fox and indicate that Iran is making a bee line towards a nuke and will use it as fast as they can get it. The Intelligence Community debunked that myth with the 2007 NIE that was released saying Iran had stopped nuclear weapons programs in 2003. Israel has also been complaining that Iran is playing this smartly, instead of bee lining for a bomb, they are just sitting at a point where they can break out if they so chose, it allows them to be close enough without crossing over any lines. As noted, for the last 10 years or so, saying Iran was only a year away if their government decides to actually build a nuke at one point.

We haven't been arm twisting anyone to be honest. America has been rolling along thinking its a bad ass and arm twisting people, and for 10 years or more, we've basically been subject to the good will of the Ayatollah in not forcing the issue.
I know this stuff is in your wheelhouse and enjoy you providing your perspect
 
You do agree we started those negotiations with some serious tough demands and by the end Iran got almost everything it wanted. I mean 24 day notice for inspections? Really? And after the deal was signed Iranian leaders made fun of Obama for thinking they were gonna follow it.

Remember the propaganda angle. The Iranian govt knows most Americans are self absorbed and don't give a crap about the rest of the world. So anything they say will be taken pretty much at face without a fact check. What they tell the international news media and what's going in their own country are very often two different things. They also know that the President has a hostile Congress, and pretty much any snark they throw this way will get play on Fox for at least a good 72 hours as they take turns grandstanding. If you read Iranian press and other world coverage, Iran is in a seriously divided fight itself, as its own hard liners and moderates fight out whether the US or the Iranians got the better deal. Iranian hardliners (ie the guys we don't like) are the ones arguing Iran is getting shafted, in their own domestic discussion of the issue.

Americans are very forthright people. There's no inspection regime in the world where you get unlimited, right here, right now access like we would expect. Decades of Soviet negotations and collapse of the regime, and we still don't have that. These are things the intelligence community works around.

Here's kind of my bottom line on Iran, you can't tell me what US policy is towards an Iranian nuke is, because I can't tell you that either.

Nominally, its "Iran won't be allowed to have nukes under any conditions". Looking at the end of the Bush administration is instructive. Bush was widely seen as the most cowboy President we have, and he even labeled Iran part of an Axis of Evil. Bush did not agree to go into Iran with the Israelis in a military action, not once, but twice. Even though US policy is supposedly "no nukes under any conditions" in the second term of his, his principals and key advisors were talking about "containment" and "MAD" and "deterrence" and a "new Cold War". Two entirely different policy directions.
 
Guy cannot win it seems.....doesnt specifically denounce radical Islam ...he is a pussy....says we as a nation will stand with France against terrorism and he is full of it...This is literally the day after a US led drone strike took out Jihadi John...this is a war that cannot be won by conventional means and will not be over in our lifetime
Drones are great, but aren't a drop in the bucket. I have no idea what is going on behind the scenes, but he absolutely gives the perception of being a pussy. Maybe the guy is stone cold, but nobody on the planet would believe it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: huskerfan1414
Drones are great, but aren't a drop in the bucket. I have no idea what is going on behind the scenes, but he absolutely gives the perception of being a pussy. Maybe the guy is stone cold, but nobody on the planet would believe it.

Just my opinion, but Presidents suffer from extreme bias in the public eye. Once Bush got the "doesn't care about anyone, shoot em up cowboy label", no one really saw any of the less rootin tootin good will stuff like the Medicaid Prescription deal or whatever. Or even the fact that he implemented a lot of the restrictive ROE. Obama's been labeled a pussy for forever, and it doesn't really matter how many people he kills or tough decisions he makes, he's not going to shed the image.

I find in a lot of cases, people don't care about results, they care about tone. There's alot of folks out there right now that are basically like "well, Iraq/Afghanistan didn't go so hot for 10 years , and aren't going to end well, but at least we were aggressive". Its the same deal with Syria, is it a shit storm over there? It sure is, and I can give Obama credit for largely keeping us out of it (no one in the Pentagon wanted to occupy Syria and probably still doesn't), but I can also lament that I would prefer some more aggressive options. Alot of folks now, have no idea what they actually want us to do or accomplish, they just want to see some foaming at the mouth towards ISIS, and will call the President a pussy until he does it.

Bottom line for me, the guy has more nuts than his critics give him credit for, but he's not Patton either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: canaham
Just my opinion, but Presidents suffer from extreme bias in the public eye. Once Bush got the "doesn't care about anyone, shoot em up cowboy label", no one really saw any of the less rootin tootin good will stuff like the Medicaid Prescription deal or whatever. Or even the fact that he implemented a lot of the restrictive ROE. Obama's been labeled a pussy for forever, and it doesn't really matter how many people he kills or tough decisions he makes, he's not going to shed the image.

I find in a lot of cases, people don't care about results, they care about tone. There's alot of folks out there right now that are basically like "well, Iraq/Afghanistan didn't go so hot for 10 years , and aren't going to end well, but at least we were aggressive". Its the same deal with Syria, is it a shit storm over there? It sure is, and I can give Obama credit for largely keeping us out of it (no one in the Pentagon wanted to occupy Syria and probably still doesn't), but I can also lament that I would prefer some more aggressive options. Alot of folks now, have no idea what they actually want us to do or accomplish, they just want to see some foaming at the mouth towards ISIS, and will call the President a pussy until he does it.

Bottom line for me, the guy has more nuts than his critics give him credit for, but he's not Patton either.
Sure, but for many perception is reality. His apparent softer stance emboldens those who hate. I absolutely believe that.
 
Sure, but for many perception is reality. His apparent softer stance emboldens those who hate. I absolutely believe that.

It depends. You can't totally roll over on folks, but look at the history. Conservative commentators have long been touting the "if we take a strong stance, no one will f with us" angle.

On the scale of MAD with Russia it largely worked, but the Cold War Reagan years is largely a story of economics and negotiation that really put the meat behind alot of the unattainable SDI rhetoric.

Outside of that, its been almost a complete flop. Where was our "peace dividend" for winning Desert Storm? Where was it When we annihilated them in Iraq II or rode the Taliban out of town in Afghanistan? We've been increasingly militant since 1990, and all we hear about is the ever increasing threat. The theory of "show strength and prosper" is not playing out, we're putting up alot of costs upfront, but not getting any of the "milk and honey" on the other side.

I can certainly agree that the USA has done a lot of good by schwacking people that deserved to be schwacked. But the whole "people will leave us the F alone if we show enough face" is falling flat on its face for the US taxpayer. Russia is pretty much the model and they aren't seeing it either.
 
There are people that want to kill people for religion...
What the **** is wrong with this world?
 
Last edited:
It depends. You can't totally roll over on folks, but look at the history. Conservative commentators have long been touting the "if we take a strong stance, no one will f with us" angle.

On the scale of MAD with Russia it largely worked, but the Cold War Reagan years is largely a story of economics and negotiation that really put the meat behind alot of the unattainable SDI rhetoric.

Outside of that, its been almost a complete flop. Where was our "peace dividend" for winning Desert Storm? Where was it When we annihilated them in Iraq II or rode the Taliban out of town in Afghanistan? We've been increasingly militant since 1990, and all we hear about is the ever increasing threat. The theory of "show strength and prosper" is not playing out, we're putting up alot of costs upfront, but not getting any of the "milk and honey" on the other side.

I can certainly agree that the USA has done a lot of good by schwacking people that deserved to be schwacked. But the whole "people will leave us the F alone if we show enough face" is falling flat on its face for the US taxpayer. Russia is pretty much the model and they aren't seeing it either.
I have never noticed anyone saying what you are stating, that if we do "X" all will be well. Nobody believes the threat and danger will be eradicated, no matter what position one takes. The question is how to best deal with it. The PC, don't hurt anyone's feelings, use a selfie-stick, apology tour is not doing any good, at all.
 
It depends. You can't totally roll over on folks, but look at the history. Conservative commentators have long been touting the "if we take a strong stance, no one will f with us" angle.

On the scale of MAD with Russia it largely worked, but the Cold War Reagan years is largely a story of economics and negotiation that really put the meat behind alot of the unattainable SDI rhetoric.

Outside of that, its been almost a complete flop. Where was our "peace dividend" for winning Desert Storm? Where was it When we annihilated them in Iraq II or rode the Taliban out of town in Afghanistan? We've been increasingly militant since 1990, and all we hear about is the ever increasing threat. The theory of "show strength and prosper" is not playing out, we're putting up alot of costs upfront, but not getting any of the "milk and honey" on the other side.

I can certainly agree that the USA has done a lot of good by schwacking people that deserved to be schwacked. But the whole "people will leave us the F alone if we show enough face" is falling flat on its face for the US taxpayer. Russia is pretty much the model and they aren't seeing it either.

All I'm saying, it would be better to say something like "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance" instead of selling a tough-guy reputation that rarely delivers.
 
I have never noticed anyone saying what you are stating, that if we do "X" all will be well. Nobody believes the threat and danger will be eradicated, no matter what position one takes. The question is how to best deal with it. The PC, don't hurt anyone's feelings, use a selfie-stick, apology tour is not doing any good, at all.

No, but there's alot of knobs on the dial between an apology tour, and aggression for deterrence. See my above for my general thought.
 
Last edited:
I have never noticed anyone saying what you are stating, that if we do "X" all will be well. Nobody believes the threat and danger will be eradicated, no matter what position one takes. The question is how to best deal with it. The PC, don't hurt anyone's feelings, use a selfie-stick, apology tour is not doing any good, at all.

This would be the latest example, but Google is our friend for many more.
 
No, but there's alot of knobs on the dial between an apology tour, and aggression. See my above for my general thought.
I agree, but it seems he did go on an apology tour early in his tenure, seemingly with the naïve thought that it would make a difference. Maybe it has, but I can't see it. I'm not promoting he fly some B52's over the middle east to just start dropping bombs, but the feeling is certainly that when he touches his knob, he keeps it on low.
 
  • Like
Reactions: huskerfan1414
I agree, but it seems he did go on an apology tour early in his tenure, seemingly with the naïve thought that it would make a difference. Maybe it has, but I can't see it. I'm not promoting he fly some B52's over the middle east to just start dropping bombs, but the feeling is certainly that when he touches his knob, he keeps it on low.

We've been pretty aggressive at times. With the Chinese in particular. They plant a flag in the ocean, and we send bombers and destroyers right through it.

I'm all for an aggressive Syria option, but the main reason we don't have one is because of Iraq. Polls indicate people don't like ISIS (big surprise right?), but polls also seem to indicate people don't want to repeat Iraq. We burnt up a lot of political capital in that country.

So now we have to figure out how do we get involved in Syria, without all the quagmire. I think if anyone had a reasonable answer for that, we'd already be shooting.
 
What stuns me is that it hasn't yet happened in the US. Even with all the resources the US has at its disposal we are woefully unable to prevent this. Our cities are simply to large, our pool of potential terrorist to broad, and our police spread to thin.
After arguing with my daughter for an hour about how unfair it is for me to discriminate against all Muslims because only 10 or 15 percent are radicalized its plain to me that we are doomed. We simply don't have the will as a country to face this threat.

Ask her how much she knows about the sociopath responsible for Islam.
 
We've been pretty aggressive at times. With the Chinese in particular. They plant a flag in the ocean, and we send bombers and destroyers right through it.

I'm all for an aggressive Syria option, but the main reason we don't have one is because of Iraq. Polls indicate people don't like ISIS (big surprise right?), but polls also seem to indicate people don't want to repeat Iraq. We burnt up a lot of political capital in that country.

So now we have to figure out how do we get involved in Syria, without all the quagmire. I think if anyone had a reasonable answer for that, we'd already be shooting.

That's just it, polls shouldn't be dictating what a lame-duck president should be doing. Nobody wants another Iraq, so get all your super smart people together to figure it out. Is he more concerned about his legacy or doing the right, and prudent, thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT