Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Monday, February 23, 2015

The Pacifist Solution To The Islamic State

WC, Infidel Bloggers Alliance's Midnight Rider, and I discussed this on The Gathering Storm Radio Show on February 20, 2015. Must-watch video!  Even if you don't particularly care for Bill O'Reilly.

SPEW ALERT!

17 comments:

  1. CLUELESS RHETORIC! I wonder why O' Reilly even bothered with these two?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gould makes a good point. Cut off the money and interdict the weapons, and you starve the state, which in turn would make the stream of recruits dry up.

    Can anyone tell me that with our ISR assets, etc, we cannot stop their oil shipment, sabotage their operations and cut off their supply of weaponry? This is the part that fuels the conspiracy theorist in otherwise reasonable people.

    The Leprechaun's point at the end is a good one: Had the free world been led by Wallace's during WW II, we'd all be speaking German.

    However, I understand where Wallace is coming from. Our foreign policy is clumsy and not very smart, and that precedes Obama. If you're the biggest bully with all the weapons, you don't have to think very hard to survive.

    Our first mistake was going after Assad. Who gassed who? Who knows? Were they 'rebels' or 'terrorists?' People in that region have been playing us for decades. We are way too far down a very bad road.

    We should support anti ISIL governments in the region, but we cannot do their fighting for them. Muslims must take care of it this, not us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: Syria.

      Obama is incoherent. He wants Assad gone, but he also wants the regime's terrorists enemies gone. So, besides nuking the entire country, how do we achieve these two opposing goals set forth by our brilliant president?

      Delete
    2. SF,
      Yes, the Obama administrations goals in Syria appear to be two opposing goals.

      And that is the conundrum, isn't it?

      If Assad were unseated, what replaces him? The Islamic State, I think.

      Here's a question of my own....Did taking out Saddam Hussein really accomplish what it was purported to be accomplishing?

      Delete
    3. SF,
      I don't disagree with your comment @ 10:32:00 AM EST.

      But is the United States making those moves?

      Delete
    4. AOW: Apparently we are not trying to interdict arms, and we have been unable to far to keep them from selling the oil they are pumping. I don't know why.

      The invasion of Iraq and taking out Saddam Hussein was a colossal mistake of biblical proportion. This action too causes rational people to wax darkly suspicious and engage in conspiracy theories.

      Bush may have been naively idealistic, but Cheney and Rumsfeld were supposed to be sober realists. How in the hell could such responsible and conservative men do something so ill-considered? Why did they do it?

      I do not understand why Cheney gets an enthusiastic reception in conservative circles.

      Delete
    5. We have destroyed their ability to sell refined product although they still sell less costly unrefined petroleum.

      Delete
  3. Where are the Vikings when we need them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Baysider,
      The warrior mindset has fallen out of fashion. Hasn't it?

      Delete
  4. Alternately, peacemakers ARE blessed. There comes a time when Colonel's Colt's solution is essential: http://gunsmagazine.com/colt-45-peacemaker/

    And when the Marine Corps' solution is essential. As our friend Mustang posted in a piece on Banana Wars, the opposing forces said "do not fire on the Marines; it will only piss them off." A respondent posted how Japanese soldiers in WW2 said they were scared to fire one mortar at the Marines because they'd get 10 back. The sure knowledge that THIS is the result of 'bad behavior' is essential in our 'tool box' no matter how peace is achieved. Just the knowledge of same often achieves the peace.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. a time of war, and a time of peace -- Ecclesiastes 3:8B

      The problem is discernment between those two times.

      Delete
  5. "Did taking out Saddam Hussein really accomplish what it was purported to be accomplishing?"

    If despotic dictators are the only way to manage a population of barbarians then the answer is a resounding NO!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Every racist and “fundamentalist” violence always and by definition has the character of a violent passage a l’acte, of escaping into a violent act in order to mask/displace a symbolic deadlock. - Slavoj Zizek

    So what "symbolic deadlock" is driving half the Islamic World (Boko Haram, ISIS, al Qaeda, Iran) into a violent attack on the West? Technological inferiority (Iranian nuclear aspirations)?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think it is time to talk to Iran. We are so arrogant not to rely on them for help. I'm sure they will do a great job.

    They can finish their nuke program and bomb ISIS out of existence. Geez Quaker activist, Kate Gould, is brilliant... (sarcasm off)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FN,
      One would think that the West would have learned a permanent lesson from the Iranian Revolution of 1979. I guess not! **sigh**

      Delete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective