Tom Clancy has used a lot of different scenarios, he even had Japs flying planes into US buildings. Iām not saying this is black and white, that ALL enemies were Soviets now ALL enemies are Arabs.
You missed the point. In the novel, Clancy used Muslim terrorists as the villains. Hollywood didn't want to insult Muslims and so they swapped the villains, now Eurotrash, NeoNazi millionaires became the villains who set off a nuclear bomb in America.
A lot of what these groups are is just anger, anger at their rubbish lives, and they take it out on those around them, and even each other. (Griffin, buddies with David Duke, Stephen āDonā Black and Preston Wiginton, some of the USās biggest far right fascists, racists and anti-Semites, has even been kicked out of his own party recently.)
This is no different than leftist agitating to increase taxes on the wealthy. Driven by envy and dissatisfaction with their own lives. That's the nature of poltics.
One thing is to fight immigration, another thing is to call for the killing of immigrants, or placing them in lower status or whatever.
No sorry, you don't get to lock in ill-gotten gains. When a people have multiculturalism imposed on them by socialist elites via a silent coup, then they have a right to reset society to the condition in which it existed prior to the imposition. No one has called for killing immigrants. France has implemented plans to pay them to leave. Others are calling for forced repatriation.
Telling a woman who is being raped that she has a right to stop a gang rape from arising but no right to stop the ongoing rape, that the ongoing rape must be locked in and permanent, is a ludicrous construction for a just position.
But while Islam and Nazism and Communism are rotten at their core, so is what is happening within the US.
I agree.
This fight for oil, the scramble for resources that doesnāt take into account human beings, the claim that itās all for democracy, liberty and freedom while the US govt goes around the world destroying all three of these, itās plain disgusting.
I agree.
The US is making Islam more radical, more despicable.
Don't be like a woman, transfer agency for female transgressions onto men. Islamic peoples and governments have agency, they're not simply reacting to the West. Islam is not more radical due to the actions of the West. Islam is radical because of its core beliefs. There's a reason that Islam is famous for its Bloody Borders - almost everywhere Islam has a significant presence we find conflict with non-Islamic peoples. War with the Jews, war with the Christians, war with Islamic sects, war with Hindus, war with Buddhists, war with animists, war with Russians, war with Spanish, war with Canadians, war with Americans.
It itself is continuing in the same vain that happened in the Cold War, supporting dictators, taking down democratically elected leaders, doing whatever it can to make sure its ideology is first in the world, and pretending its ideology is something different.
I agree. On topic,
the Bush-Gore debate on nation building:
MODERATOR: Well, let's stay on the subject for a moment. New question related to this. I figured this out; in the last 20 years there have been eight major actions that involved the introduction of U.S. ground, air or naval forces. Let me name them. Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo. If you had been president for any of those interventions, would any of those interventions not have happened?
GORE: Can you run through the list again?
MODERATOR: Sure. Lebanon.
GORE: I thought that was a mistake.
MODERATOR: Grenada.
GORE: I supported that.
MODERATOR: Panama.
GORE: I supported that.
MODERATOR: Persian Gulf.
GORE: Yes, I voted for it, supported it.
MODERATOR: Somalia.
GORE: Of course, and that again -- no, I think that that was ill-considered. I did support it at the time. It was in the previous administration, in the Bush-Quayle administration, and I think in retrospect the lessons there are ones that we should take very, very seriously.
MODERATOR: Bosnia.
GORE: Oh, yes.
MODERATOR: Haiti.
GORE: Yes.
MODERATOR: And then Kosovo.
GORE: Yes.
MODERATOR: We talked about that. Want me to do it with you? Lebanon.
BUSH: Make a couple comments.
MODERATOR: Sure, absolutely, sure. Somalia.
BUSH: Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either.
MODERATOR: What about Lebanon?
BUSH: Yes.
MODERATOR: Grenada.
BUSH: Yes.
MODERATOR: Panama?
BUSH: Yes. Some of them I've got a conflict of interest on, if you know what I mean.
MODERATOR: I do, I do. The Persian Gulf, obviously. And Bosnia. And you have already talked about Kosovo. But the reverse side of the question, Governor, that Vice President Gore mentioned, 600,000 people died in Rwanda in 1994. There was no U.S. intervention, no intervention from the outside world. Was that a mistake not to intervene?
BUSH: I think the administration did the right thing in that case. I do. It was a horrible situation, no one liked to see it on our TV screens, but it's a case where we need to make sure we have an early warning system in place in places where there could be ethnic cleansing and genocide the way we saw it there in Rwanda. And that's a case where we need to use our influence to have countries in Africa come together and help deal with the situation. The administration, seems like we're having a great love fest tonight, but the administration made the right decision on training Nigerian troops for situations just such as this in Rwanda, and so I thought they made the right decision not to send U.S. troops into Rwanda.
And here's the part on nation-building, which speaks directly to your concerns about busy-body Americans:
MODERATOR: So what would you say, Governor, that somebody would say hey wait a minute, why not Africa, I mean why the Middle East, why the Balkans, but not Africa, when 600,000 people's lives are at risk?
BUSH: Well, I understand, and Africa is important. And we've got to do a lot of work in Africa to promote democracy and trade, and there are some -- Vice President mentioned Nigeria is a fledgling democracy. We have to work with Nigeria. Itās an important continent. But there's got to be priorities, and Middle East is a priority for a lot of reasons, as is Europe and the Far East, our own hemisphere. And those are my four top priorities should I be the president, not to say we won't be engaged nor work hard to get other nations to come together to prevent atrocity. I thought the best example of a way to handle the situation was East Timor when we provided logistical support to the Australians, support that only we can provide. I thought that was a good model. But we can't be all things to all people in the world, Jim. And I think that's where maybe the vice president and I begin to have some differences. I'm worried about overcommitting our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. You mentioned Haiti. I wouldn't have sent troops to Haiti. I didn't think it was a mission worthwhile. It was a nation building mission, and it was not very successful. It cost us billions, a couple billions of dollars, and I'm not so sure democracy is any better off in Haiti than it was before.
MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, do you agree with the governor's views on nation building, the use of military, our military, for nation building as he described and defined it?
GORE: I don't think we agree on that. I would certainly also be judicious in evaluating any potential use of American troops overseas. I think we have to be very reticent about that. But look, Jim, the world is changing so rapidly. The way I see it, the world is getting much closer together. Like it or not, we are now -- the United States is now the natural leader of the world. All these other countries are looking to us. Now, just because we cannot be involved everywhere, and shouldn't be, doesn't mean that we should shy away from going in anywhere. Now, both of us are kind of, I guess, stating the other's position in a maximalist extreme way, but I think there is a difference here. This idea of nation building is kind of a pejorative phrase, but think about the great conflict of the past century, World War II. During the years between World War I and World War II, a great lesson was learned by our military leaders and the people of the United States. The lesson was that in the aftermath of World War I, we kind of turned our backs and left them to their own devices and they brewed up a lot of trouble that quickly became World War II. And acting upon that lesson in the aftermath of our great victory in World War II, we laid down the Marshall Plan, President Truman did. We got intimately involved in building NATO and other structures there. We still have lots of troops in Europe. And what did we do in the late '40's and '50's and '60's? We were nation building. And it was economic. But it was also military. And the confidence that those countries recovering from the wounds of war had by having troops there. We had civil administrators come in to set up their ways of building their towns back.
MODERATOR: You said in the Boston debate, Governor, on this issue of nation building, that the United States military is overextended now. Where is it overextended? Where are there U.S. military that you would bring home if you become president?
BUSH: First let me just say one comment about what the vice president said. I think one of the lessons in between World War I and World War II is we let our military atrophy. And we can't do that. We've got to rebuild our military. But one of the problems we have in the military is we're in a lot of places around the world. And I mentioned one, and that's the Balkans. I would very much like to get our troops out of there. I recognize we can't do it now, nor do I advocate an immediate withdrawal. That would be an abrogation of our agreement with NATO. No one is suggesting that. But I think it ought to be one of our priorities to work with our European friends to convince them to put troops on the ground. And there is an example. Haiti is another example. Now there are some places where I think -- you know, I've supported the administration in Columbia. I think it's important for us to be training Columbians in that part of the world. The hemisphere is in our interest to have a peaceful Columbia. But --
MODERATOR: The use of the military, there -- some people are now suggesting that if you don't want to use the military to maintain the peace, to do the civil thing, is it time to consider a civil force of some kind that comes in after the military that builds nations or all of that? Is that on your radar screen?
BUSH: I don't think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation building core from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops. I strongly believe we need to have a military presence in the Korean peninsula, not only to keep the peace in the peninsula, but to keep regional stability. And I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO, but I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the extra strategy obvious.
GORE: I don't disagree with that. I certainly don't disagree that we ought to get our troops home from places like the Balkans as soon as we can, as soon as the mission is complete. That's what we did in Haiti. There are no more than a handful of American military personnel in Haiti now. And Haitians have their problems, but we gave them a chance to restore democracy. That's really about all we can do. But if you have a situation like that right in our backyard with chaos about to break out and flotillas forming to come across the water, and all kinds of violence there, right in one of our neighboring countries there, then I think that we did the right thing there. And as for this idea of nation building, the phrase sounds grandiose. And, you know, we can't be -- we can't allow ourselves to get overextended. I certainly agree with that. And that's why I've supported building up our capacity. I've devoted in the budget I've proposed, as I said last week, more than twice as much as the governor has proposed. I think that it's in better shape now than he generally does. We've had some disagreements about that. He said that two divisions would have to report not ready for duty, and that's not what the joint chiefs say. But there's no doubt that we have to continue building up readiness and military strength. And we have to also be very cautious in the way we use our military.
It's interesting to observe how 9/11 flipped Bush's position to match that of Gore's. We still see that playing out today with ISIS. People in the West want to shape the Middle East into a Western mold rather than to allow them to develop their own societal model with the ISIS Caliphate.
The point is that the US is doing things that arenāt good, itās causing more problems in the world than anyone else.
Part of this, a huge part in fact, arises simply from American stature. The Global System is of American design. America works to maintain that system. If America had the power of Canada, then the Global System would carry the imprimatur of China and Saudi Arabia, for instance. Human rights would be devalued, forced adherence to ideology would be normalized, the Charter of Human Rights would likely not even exist, the Soviet Union would likely still be in power, etc.
What you need to suss out is the degree of American policy which goes beyond what is necessary in keeping the world operating on an American vision of global affairs.
At home rights and freedoms and democracy are at a second rate level compared to various countries in Europe.
If you have a plan on how to ethnically cleans America to bring about the same level of cultural homogeneity found in Europe, then I'm eager to read your plan.
But abroad is where the US laughs at democracy, freedom and liberty.
Because American foreign policy experts are kind of idiots because they've been captured by ideology and are not guided by realism, nor informed by religious and cultural details of foreign lands.
Taking down democratically elected leader Hugo Chavez in the 2002 coup dāetat while at the same time supporting Saudi Arabia, you couldnāt make it up.
Are you some kind of Chavez truther? People have their own damn agency, you know, everyone is not a puppet of America.
Well I was in Constantinople airport in April, I havenāt visited the actual city since 2009.
Christian Constantinople ceased to exist in 1453.
However the point you seem to be making is that in history things have changed. Sure they have, however this happened before the contemporary era for this issue that Iād say started about 200 years ago, more or less.
My point is that Islam is not solely reaction, it's proactive. Islam didn't come to hold it's territory in the world by reacting to foreign initiated invasions, repelling the invaders and capturing their lands. Islam is designed as a vehicle for war.
Iām talking about the vilifying of Islam by Bush, the making of a common enemy for the US and the west to get behind, and for all of this to change massively. Bush changed the game.
You seem to be divorced from reality. It's guys like me who vilify Islam, not idiots like Bush:
