Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Looks bad.
Obama got permission from the Yemenese govt to use drones and cruise missles on terrorist locations.
Their oil is running our so they are going broke.
3 major factions outside of the govt fighting for control and or independence.
the latest aircraft bombing attempt appears to be the direct result of the US attacing a terrorist base in Yemen.
We have special forces in Yemen.
We need much more than drones and cruise missiles.
We need boots on the ground.
I assume you'll be among the first to volunteer for service in Yemen...or are you just another who likes to talk war from the comfort of your armchair!
With the countrys main resource, oil, expected to zero out within seven years, according to an energy index compiled by BP, the concern is that the growing number of young men will become disaffected and radicalized, according to a report by Richard Fontaine, an analyst at the Center for a New American Security, a think tank in Washington.
This is the setting that Al Qaeda seeks to turn to its advantage. Al Qaeda in Yemen came to prominence in 2000 with the bombing of the USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden that killed 17 American sailors. Largely ignored since, Al Qaeda in Yemen now has about 1,000 operatives, say Yemeni officials.
Recent years have seen the emergence of a group calling itself Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, thought to be headed by Nassir al-Wahishi, a former secretary to Osama bin Laden.
US behind the scenes of Yemen terrorism fight / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com
Here is the point once you have committed to any engagement you enter into, if you plan to win this engagement, you enter it to win it. You do so in a manner as to leave no doubt as to the outcome, you do so in a brutal and overwhelming fashion, if you have defined your enemy you do this where that enemy is and once done, let the "nation builders" go about the task of rebuilding the nations and leave the military to the task it is sutied to do, if this is not what Govt. plans on doing then they put these young peoples lives in danger for no other purpose, other than political reasons. As some of these groups are hiding in Yemen then process those groups there, the bottom line is it takes commitment in order to win and if people are not willing to commit to it, then don't and don't put these brave young peoples lives on the line needlessly.
What if Yemen doesn't want to do the ground thing?
Its their country.
They did want us to help them by bombing though.
The problem is the that the terrorists hiding in their country, are trying to kill civilians in our country.
So we can either wait for them to attempt the next terrorist attack, and hope that they fail, or we can seek them out where they are currently and destroy them, before they launch their next attack.
They already have had three successful terrorist attacks within the US in the past year. Unless we go out and kill them where they are hiding there will be many more.
We need to stop bombing other countries, so people like the Christmas-would-be-bomber aren't given the incentive to bomb us.
We need to stop bombing other countries, so people like the Christmas-would-be-bomber aren't given the incentive to bomb us.
You really think that would stop them?
We need to stop bombing other countries, so people like the Christmas-would-be-bomber aren't given the incentive to bomb us.
We need to stop bombing other countries, so people like the Christmas-would-be-bomber aren't given the incentive to bomb us.
They don't need an excuse. The attacks on the WTC both occurred BEFORE we bombed anyone...
That's not to say we shouldn't respond appropriately. But APPROPRIATELY is the key word.
Thinking they'll be nice if we just ignore them is naive though.
We need to stop bombing other countries, so people like the Christmas-would-be-bomber aren't given the incentive to bomb us.
We need to stop bombing other countries, so people like the Christmas-would-be-bomber aren't given the incentive to bomb us.
They don't need an excuse. The attacks on the WTC both occurred BEFORE we bombed anyone...
That's not to say we shouldn't respond appropriately. But APPROPRIATELY is the key word.
Thinking they'll be nice if we just ignore them is naive though.
That's not true. For one we were occupying Saudi Arabia, which is muslim holy land. We supported the Saudi Arabian government, which many see as oppressive. We bombed Iraq during Clinton's administration, and not to mention the sanctions we imposed on Iraq that led to the deaths of innocent civilians.
They don't need an excuse. The attacks on the WTC both occurred BEFORE we bombed anyone...
That's not to say we shouldn't respond appropriately. But APPROPRIATELY is the key word.
Thinking they'll be nice if we just ignore them is naive though.
That's not true. For one we were occupying Saudi Arabia, which is muslim holy land. We supported the Saudi Arabian government, which many see as oppressive. We bombed Iraq during Clinton's administration, and not to mention the sanctions we imposed on Iraq that led to the deaths of innocent civilians.
Wait a minute. You first claim we've angered terrorists by occupying their Holy Land of Saudi Arabia and by supporting Saudi Arabia's oppressive government then go on to claim the Saudi government has also angered terrorists by being to oppressive. Your argument defeats itself. Radical Muslims seek to apply the strictest form of Islamic Law (Sharia) on all people of the world. The closest thing to this on Earth right now is Saudi Arabia. In NO way would the oppressive laws of Saudi Arabia anger most/all radical muslims. If anything our support of this country would only HELP us against Islamo-Fascists, not hurt us.
The "lets leave them alone and they will leave us alone" strategy is essentially the same as sticking our head in the sand and hoping the bad guys just stop being bad. Your argument wreaks of multiculturalist feux-intellectualism where you equate American cultural success with equally unjust treatment of other cultures.
To you, America's standing in the world as the lone super power is simply massive evidence of our unjust treatment of other cultures, not any type of superiority in our founding documents, principles, and even current and future foreign policy action.
Why on earth would you be willing to allow a subculture of islamo-fascists within the greater Muslim culture to run rampant around the world, free to rebuild and formulate massive attacks against western "infidels" or as we call them AMERICANS!
They hate western culture because it perpetuates liberal values that can't survive within the oppressive Sharia Law these terrorists seek to impose. They DO NOT simply hate us because we took out their 3rd cousin twice removed with a bomb 2 years prior.
Yes, in our efforts to increase our national security we have angered many people across the world. This is inevitable! Your stumping for appeasement and American blame is simply misguided and wrong.
Ye gods what flaming idocy. We weren't occupying Saudi we were keeping the Saddam out of Mecca with the full permission of the Saudi government. In fact we were abiding by even the most nonsensical rules they Saudi government laid down. We were allied with the Saudi government against Sadam Hussein.
The only incentive the likes of Al Qeada needs to go after the US is that we will not submit to them and aren't in the habit of bowing five times a day in the general direction of Mecca.
These peple aren't nationalist they are religionists. There is a difference and the willingness of far too many on the left and the right to confuse the two is dangerous to our survival.
We need to stop bombing other countries, so people like the Christmas-would-be-bomber aren't given the incentive to bomb us.
They don't need an excuse. The attacks on the WTC both occurred BEFORE we bombed anyone...
That's not to say we shouldn't respond appropriately. But APPROPRIATELY is the key word.
Thinking they'll be nice if we just ignore them is naive though.
That's not true. For one we were occupying Saudi Arabia, which is muslim holy land. We supported the Saudi Arabian government, which many see as oppressive. We bombed Iraq during Clinton's administration, and not to mention the sanctions we imposed on Iraq that led to the deaths of innocent civilians.
How many of you are keeping up with the Yemen situation?
That's not true. For one we were occupying Saudi Arabia, which is muslim holy land. We supported the Saudi Arabian government, which many see as oppressive. We bombed Iraq during Clinton's administration, and not to mention the sanctions we imposed on Iraq that led to the deaths of innocent civilians.
Wait a minute. You first claim we've angered terrorists by occupying their Holy Land of Saudi Arabia and by supporting Saudi Arabia's oppressive government then go on to claim the Saudi government has also angered terrorists by being to oppressive. Your argument defeats itself. Radical Muslims seek to apply the strictest form of Islamic Law (Sharia) on all people of the world. The closest thing to this on Earth right now is Saudi Arabia. In NO way would the oppressive laws of Saudi Arabia anger most/all radical muslims. If anything our support of this country would only HELP us against Islamo-Fascists, not hurt us.
The "lets leave them alone and they will leave us alone" strategy is essentially the same as sticking our head in the sand and hoping the bad guys just stop being bad. Your argument wreaks of multiculturalist feux-intellectualism where you equate American cultural success with equally unjust treatment of other cultures.
To you, America's standing in the world as the lone super power is simply massive evidence of our unjust treatment of other cultures, not any type of superiority in our founding documents, principles, and even current and future foreign policy action.
Why on earth would you be willing to allow a subculture of islamo-fascists within the greater Muslim culture to run rampant around the world, free to rebuild and formulate massive attacks against western "infidels" or as we call them AMERICANS!
They hate western culture because it perpetuates liberal values that can't survive within the oppressive Sharia Law these terrorists seek to impose. They DO NOT simply hate us because we took out their 3rd cousin twice removed with a bomb 2 years prior.
Yes, in our efforts to increase our national security we have angered many people across the world. This is inevitable! Your stumping for appeasement and American blame is simply misguided and wrong.
It's not appeasement to realize that leaving people alone is better than bombing them into democracy, and it's not blaming America, the typical argument of those with no argument, to realize that our foreign policy has blowback.
They don't need an excuse. The attacks on the WTC both occurred BEFORE we bombed anyone...
That's not to say we shouldn't respond appropriately. But APPROPRIATELY is the key word.
Thinking they'll be nice if we just ignore them is naive though.
That's not true. For one we were occupying Saudi Arabia, which is muslim holy land. We supported the Saudi Arabian government, which many see as oppressive. We bombed Iraq during Clinton's administration, and not to mention the sanctions we imposed on Iraq that led to the deaths of innocent civilians.
Add to that the ongoing policies we support that makes the prospects of a happy, productive life for a child born to Palestinian parents almost nil and I, for one understand their gripe.
Wait a minute. You first claim we've angered terrorists by occupying their Holy Land of Saudi Arabia and by supporting Saudi Arabia's oppressive government then go on to claim the Saudi government has also angered terrorists by being to oppressive. Your argument defeats itself. Radical Muslims seek to apply the strictest form of Islamic Law (Sharia) on all people of the world. The closest thing to this on Earth right now is Saudi Arabia. In NO way would the oppressive laws of Saudi Arabia anger most/all radical muslims. If anything our support of this country would only HELP us against Islamo-Fascists, not hurt us.
The "lets leave them alone and they will leave us alone" strategy is essentially the same as sticking our head in the sand and hoping the bad guys just stop being bad. Your argument wreaks of multiculturalist feux-intellectualism where you equate American cultural success with equally unjust treatment of other cultures.
To you, America's standing in the world as the lone super power is simply massive evidence of our unjust treatment of other cultures, not any type of superiority in our founding documents, principles, and even current and future foreign policy action.
Why on earth would you be willing to allow a subculture of islamo-fascists within the greater Muslim culture to run rampant around the world, free to rebuild and formulate massive attacks against western "infidels" or as we call them AMERICANS!
They hate western culture because it perpetuates liberal values that can't survive within the oppressive Sharia Law these terrorists seek to impose. They DO NOT simply hate us because we took out their 3rd cousin twice removed with a bomb 2 years prior.
Yes, in our efforts to increase our national security we have angered many people across the world. This is inevitable! Your stumping for appeasement and American blame is simply misguided and wrong.
It's not appeasement to realize that leaving people alone is better than bombing them into democracy, and it's not blaming America, the typical argument of those with no argument, to realize that our foreign policy has blowback.
ap⋅pease
  /əˈpiz/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-peez] Show IPA
Use appeasement in a Sentence
See web results for appeasement
See images of appeasement
verb (used with object), -peased, -peas⋅ing.
1. to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe: to appease an angry king.
2. to satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage: The fruit appeased his hunger.
3. to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.
See bolded portion please.
Your argument is essentially to yield or concede enforcing our national security interests overseas in an effort to soothe their fiery terrorists hearts is it not? Are these terrorists demands NOT belligerent? Would our yielding to their demands not be conciliatory in its efforts?
Justice would SURELY be an expense of your policy. Our principles, as Obama himself has stated, even in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, would SURELY be compromised. And finally our security would be worse off for it. Your foreign policy leanings are childish and naive at best and if implemented would lead to a surge in terrorism and strikes against this country and our allies.
The simple fact remains that if their were no threat, we would not be over there. Ignoring the threat does not make it go away. We tried that during the Clinton years by treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue and it cost us thousands of American lives. I was in 9th grade and barely knew what a Muslim was when I saw the horror they inflicted on my country as I walked into my next class. This country should fight terrorists in every corner of the earth until they no longer have the will to kill innocent Americans/Christians/Muslims/etc.
It's not appeasement to realize that leaving people alone is better than bombing them into democracy, and it's not blaming America, the typical argument of those with no argument, to realize that our foreign policy has blowback.
ap⋅pease
  /əˈpiz/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-peez] Show IPA
Use appeasement in a Sentence
See web results for appeasement
See images of appeasement
–verb (used with object), -peased, -peas⋅ing.
1. to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe: to appease an angry king.
2. to satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage: The fruit appeased his hunger.
3. to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.
See bolded portion please.
Your argument is essentially to yield or concede enforcing our national security interests overseas in an effort to soothe their fiery terrorists hearts is it not? Are these terrorists demands NOT belligerent? Would our yielding to their demands not be conciliatory in its efforts?
Justice would SURELY be an expense of your policy. Our principles, as Obama himself has stated, even in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, would SURELY be compromised. And finally our security would be worse off for it. Your foreign policy leanings are childish and naive at best and if implemented would lead to a surge in terrorism and strikes against this country and our allies.
The simple fact remains that if their were no threat, we would not be over there. Ignoring the threat does not make it go away. We tried that during the Clinton years by treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue and it cost us thousands of American lives. I was in 9th grade and barely knew what a Muslim was when I saw the horror they inflicted on my country as I walked into my next class. This country should fight terrorists in every corner of the earth until they no longer have the will to kill innocent Americans/Christians/Muslims/etc.
No, it's not my goal to soothe any fiery terrorist hearts. It's my goal to let people live their lives in peace so that they don't become terrorists in the first place.
ap⋅pease
  /əˈpiz/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-peez] Show IPA
Use appeasement in a Sentence
See web results for appeasement
See images of appeasement
verb (used with object), -peased, -peas⋅ing.
1. to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe: to appease an angry king.
2. to satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage: The fruit appeased his hunger.
3. to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.
See bolded portion please.
Your argument is essentially to yield or concede enforcing our national security interests overseas in an effort to soothe their fiery terrorists hearts is it not? Are these terrorists demands NOT belligerent? Would our yielding to their demands not be conciliatory in its efforts?
Justice would SURELY be an expense of your policy. Our principles, as Obama himself has stated, even in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, would SURELY be compromised. And finally our security would be worse off for it. Your foreign policy leanings are childish and naive at best and if implemented would lead to a surge in terrorism and strikes against this country and our allies.
The simple fact remains that if their were no threat, we would not be over there. Ignoring the threat does not make it go away. We tried that during the Clinton years by treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue and it cost us thousands of American lives. I was in 9th grade and barely knew what a Muslim was when I saw the horror they inflicted on my country as I walked into my next class. This country should fight terrorists in every corner of the earth until they no longer have the will to kill innocent Americans/Christians/Muslims/etc.
No, it's not my goal to soothe any fiery terrorist hearts. It's my goal to let people live their lives in peace so that they don't become terrorists in the first place.
Where does it stop? Do we simply give in every time an angry nation/people/group attack our innocent civilians? What kind of precedent will this set? You say we should "let people live their lives". Were we NOT allowing the recently failed Nigerian bomber his liberty? Sounds to me as though he had too much liberty and now our President and Homeland Security director are scrambling to figure out why.
Only someone who "blames America" could possibly twist America's foreign policy to effectively blame it for a man being deprived of peace when that same policy let the man freely fly into the country in the first place to experience our constitutionally protected freedoms.
Your arguments constantly defeat themselves. I'm new here but I've already grown tired of talking down to your level. Either raise your game or I'll move on.
Weakness on the world stage breeds aggression from those who seek to do us damage. Appeasement DOES NOT work.
No, it's not my goal to soothe any fiery terrorist hearts. It's my goal to let people live their lives in peace so that they don't become terrorists in the first place.
Where does it stop? Do we simply give in every time an angry nation/people/group attack our innocent civilians? What kind of precedent will this set? You say we should "let people live their lives". Were we NOT allowing the recently failed Nigerian bomber his liberty? Sounds to me as though he had too much liberty and now our President and Homeland Security director are scrambling to figure out why.
Only someone who "blames America" could possibly twist America's foreign policy to effectively blame it for a man being deprived of peace when that same policy let the man freely fly into the country in the first place to experience our constitutionally protected freedoms.
Your arguments constantly defeat themselves. I'm new here but I've already grown tired of talking down to your level. Either raise your game or I'll move on.
Weakness on the world stage breeds aggression from those who seek to do us damage. Appeasement DOES NOT work.
You're perfectly free not to "talk down to my level" if you feel it's beneath you.
However, had we not bombed Yemen, killing innocent civilians, the would-be Christmas bomber would not have attempted to kill innocent American civilians. These are his own words.
Also, it's not "blaming America" to criticize government policies, especially ones that do not make us any safer. As I said before, the "blame America" nonsense is the argument of those without an argument.
