Originally Posted by Kepi

Look guys, when this all degenerates into yet another quagmire, I'm sure that you'll all be able to come up with a million and a half defenses for yet another episode of the endless parade of failure that is the Boomer political legacy. Just remember, I totally told you so.

Boomer political legacy: resistance to the Vietnam, Gulf and Iraq wars sponsored by GIs and Silents. It was Boomers who marched and spoke out against these wars and elected anti-war politicians. It is not a Boomer per se, but a Boomer/Xer cusper who is sponsoring the campaign against the IS.

Boomer political legacy: Support for environmental, consumer and anti-corruption movements that changed America in manifold ways. Boomers created such groups as move-on, and invented netroots campaigns like my once-fellow boomer classmate Joe Trippi did.

Boomer political legacy: the best president of our era, Bill Clinton, who balanced the budget, boosted the middle class and kept us out of war.

Boomer political legacy: Elizabeth Warren, who created an agency that will protect us from financial predators that ruin our economy.

Generational resentment is not the way to reform and guide our country, Mr. Kepi.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Boomer political legacy: resistance to the Vietnam, Gulf and Iraq wars sponsored by GIs and Silents. It was Boomers who marched and spoke out against these wars and elected anti-war politicians. It is not a Boomer per se, but a Boomer/Xer cusper who is sponsoring the campaign against the IS.

Boomer political legacy: Support for environmental, consumer and anti-corruption movements that changed America in manifold ways. Boomers created such groups as move-on, and invented netroots campaigns like my once-fellow boomer classmate Joe Trippi did.

Boomer political legacy: the best president of our era, Bill Clinton, who balanced the budget, boosted the middle class and kept us out of war.

Boomer political legacy: Elizabeth Warren, who created an agency that will protect us from financial predators that ruin our economy.

Generational resentment is not the way to reform and guide our country, Mr. Kepi.

Very well said, but wasn't it also the Boomers who create more austere conditions in our workplaces, often referred to as the electronic sweatshop, and other trends which made liars out of so many futurists who had once espoused that we would become a more leisured society? They certainly missed big time on this one. For many the only choices are overwork or out of work. And wasn't it also the Boomers who, through mass gentrification, threw many well-meaning people without much income out in the streets, creating the largest homeless population since the Great Depression? And weren't they also responsible for pushing so much crass political correctness down our throats? And did they also create a sad pivot point the the political-economic sphere, creating the (in)convenient marriage between Corporate America and government on both Federal and state levels, thus creating the giant stalemate we have today by which virtually no legislation that would benefit the average Joe and Jane can get passed? Can we now even dare trust that things are going to work out?

Originally Posted by Kepi

Apologist, no. Someone who understands that you have to understand a situation before you stick your nose in and commit to failing for 13 years, yes. You can cry or bark or whatever it is you think you're doing for the rest of your life because it makes you feel good about yourself, but you'll keep on pushing for failure, because you're missing the biggest piece of the puzzle: terrorists aren't a nation state, they're just common criminals.

Treating them like a nation state leads that group or others like it to be treated like a nation state by everyone, and that creates groups like ISIS. So congrats, buddy, you and I created the fundamental regional instability that culminated in ISIS. Do you think, collectively, we can beat these guys without further destabilizing the region? I sure don't, because we never have. It's a 100 year old cycle of failure.

Personally, I don't think we should continue throwing ourselves into an arena we can't win in. If you can't win, you bow out. There's no point in trying. We've proven for 100 years that we can't win in this region of the world. That's fine, let's take our ball and go home.

It might be fair to ask whether ISIS are today's version of the Nazis.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

It might be fair to ask whether ISIS are today's version of the Nazis.

That's a good question with an obvious "No" answer. The other question should be "are we the same US from World War II, which is also, obviously "no".

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Very well said, but wasn't it also the Boomers who create more austere conditions in our workplaces, often referred to as the electronic sweatshop, and other trends which made liars out of so many futurists who had once espoused that we would become a more leisured society? They certainly missed big time on this one. For many the only choices are overwork or out of work.

No, it was the few rich people of several generations.

You can say that we Boomers were not well-organized and consistent enough to carry through our visions as fully as you would have liked.

And wasn't it also the Boomers who, through mass gentrification, threw many well-meaning people without much income out in the streets, creating the largest homeless population since the Great Depression?

Gentrification just moves the poor from one place to another. I would rather blame trickle-down economic policies. There's a closer cause and effect relationship between the time these policies came into effect and the time when inequality and homelessness grew, as shown in many charts and graphs already posted.

And weren't they also responsible for pushing so much crass political correctness down our throats?

Probably, but is that such a big deal?

And did they also create a sad pivot point the the political-economic sphere, creating the (in)convenient marriage between Corporate America and government on both Federal and state levels, thus creating the giant stalemate we have today by which virtually no legislation that would benefit the average Joe and Jane can get passed? Can we now even dare trust that things are going to work out?

No indeed, as I pointed out to Kepi. It's Republican policies which have done that. That is obvious, especially regarding the "stalemate" that stops "legislation that would benefit the average Joe and Jane." Republicans are solely responsible for that.

Originally Posted by Kepi

9-11 was not military action, therefore does not warrant a war, never did, never will.

I was good with our response through Tora Bora. After that opportunity was blown, I knew the fix was in.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I was good with our response through Tora Bora. After that opportunity was blown, I knew the fix was in.

The fix would never have happened if Tora Bora had not. There were lots of other options here. The first one being that we actually fulfilled the request of the Afghani government to provide evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in 9-11, which is a common courtesy in cases of extradition, especially for two nations where their legal systems are very different. The other would be to wait a while, shut up about 9-11 for 2 years and wait for someone to eat him out, then swing in with an FBI team instead of a SEAL team and arrest him or shoot him if he resists (which was proven to work).

The wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq actually prevented resolution because Bin Laden had to do little more than read or watch any American news to realize that we were still over the top on Bin Laden. It wasn't until 08, when we shut up for a minute that he and his people relaxed a little. Why did they relax? Because we shut up. The biggest part of a well laid revenge plot is that your opponent doesn't see it coming until the end. Shutting up is the most important part in the revenge recipe, it's like yeast. That's why Tora Bora was destined for failure. They knew who was at the door.

New you may say we prevented a whole bunch of terror in the process, but there's only one thing that really did that, and it was the only good law in the sea of the worst case of utter stupidity to grip this nation: it was allowing the FBI to freeze the bank accounts if they were suspected of being linked to terrorism. That's it. That's all it took. That worked. Everything else has been a total waste of time.

Originally Posted by Kepi

The fix would never have happened if Tora Bora had not. There were lots of other options here. The first one being that we actually fulfilled the request of the Afghani government to provide evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in 9-11, which is a common courtesy in cases of extradition, especially for two nations where their legal systems are very different. The other would be to wait a while, shut up about 9-11 for 2 years and wait for someone to eat him out, then swing in with an FBI team instead of a SEAL team and arrest him or shoot him if he resists (which was proven to work).

We could have provided evidence, or more evidence, whatever the case really is. But I don't think the Taliban would have complied in any case. The Taliban are as ruthless, cruel, fanatical and self-destructive as Al Qaeda is.

The wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq actually prevented resolution because Bin Laden had to do little more than read or watch any American news to realize that we were still over the top on Bin Laden. It wasn't until 08, when we shut up for a minute that he and his people relaxed a little. Why did they relax? Because we shut up. The biggest part of a well laid revenge plot is that your opponent doesn't see it coming until the end. Shutting up is the most important part in the revenge recipe, it's like yeast. That's why Tora Bora was destined for failure. They knew who was at the door.

Except that we weren't really there. If we had been attacked, then we needed to get into the fight, whether as a war or as a police action, and not do what we're doing now with the IS. We needed to have boots on the ground. We relied instead on local warlords, and didn't get the job done. The US let OBL escape. Bush was already planning his next target.

The stealth approach might have worked, as it did in 2011, but would not have worked without a lot of intelligence access in the area, which US and NATO presence in the area certainly helped to make possible.

New you may say we prevented a whole bunch of terror in the process, but there's only one thing that really did that, and it was the only good law in the sea of the worst case of utter stupidity to grip this nation: it was allowing the FBI to freeze the bank accounts if they were suspected of being linked to terrorism. That's it. That's all it took. That worked. Everything else has been a total waste of time.

It was right to do that, but it would not have stopped him; the FBI and the USA did not have control over Al Qaeda's finances.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

It might be fair to ask whether ISIS are today's version of the Nazis.

Actually, they far more closely resemble the Cold War-era Communists - and with the Boomer Awakening having destigmatized treason, what if, after the right gets back in power in 2014/2016 (if they indeed do), our aggrieved groups - defined by race, class, etc. - decide that like a good neighbor, ISIS is there?

Originally Posted by Kepi

The fix would never have happened if Tora Bora had not. There were lots of other options here. The first one being that we actually fulfilled the request of the Afghani government to provide evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in 9-11, which is a common courtesy in cases of extradition, especially for two nations where their legal systems are very different. The other would be to wait a while, shut up about 9-11 for 2 years and wait for someone to eat him out, then swing in with an FBI team instead of a SEAL team and arrest him or shoot him if he resists (which was proven to work).

The wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq actually prevented resolution because Bin Laden had to do little more than read or watch any American news to realize that we were still over the top on Bin Laden. It wasn't until 08, when we shut up for a minute that he and his people relaxed a little. Why did they relax? Because we shut up. The biggest part of a well laid revenge plot is that your opponent doesn't see it coming until the end. Shutting up is the most important part in the revenge recipe, it's like yeast. That's why Tora Bora was destined for failure. They knew who was at the door.

New you may say we prevented a whole bunch of terror in the process, but there's only one thing that really did that, and it was the only good law in the sea of the worst case of utter stupidity to grip this nation: it was allowing the FBI to freeze the bank accounts if they were suspected of being linked to terrorism. That's it. That's all it took. That worked. Everything else has been a total waste of time.

The nation's blood lust made your ideas non-starters. Something dramatic had to be done; there was no other viable option. So your idea has merit, but it had no chance of being tried.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The nation's blood lust made your ideas non-starters. Something dramatic had to be done; there was no other viable option. So your idea has merit, but it had no chance of being tried.

Exactly the crux of my criticism: the "adults" of the nation at this time were incapable of doing anything competent because they could not exercise the most basic defining characteristic of being an adult, which is suppressing one's own feelings in order to build towards positive results. The Silent, Boomer, and Xer generation failed in choosing to sate their bloodlust instead of doing something right. The Boomer generation failed in leadership when they weren't able to temper emotions, and they couldn't do it because they don't know how to temper their own emotions.

Because of this general disposition the leadership in this country is entirely incompetent as they have never actually learned to be adults. They're just old children who are actually ruled by nothing but base emotions, fear being the most prominent. You can't run anything like that, but the Boomer leadership won't do anything but cater to their own fears, and thus lack the ability to do anything but, so ultimately they have no option but utter failure.

Originally Posted by Kepi

The fix would never have happened if Tora Bora had not. There were lots of other options here. The first one being that we actually fulfilled the request of the Afghani government to provide evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in 9-11, which is a common courtesy in cases of extradition, especially for two nations where their legal systems are very different. The other would be to wait a while, shut up about 9-11 for 2 years and wait for someone to eat him out, then swing in with an FBI team instead of a SEAL team and arrest him or shoot him if he resists (which was proven to work).

The wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq actually prevented resolution because Bin Laden had to do little more than read or watch any American news to realize that we were still over the top on Bin Laden. It wasn't until 08, when we shut up for a minute that he and his people relaxed a little. Why did they relax? Because we shut up. The biggest part of a well laid revenge plot is that your opponent doesn't see it coming until the end. Shutting up is the most important part in the revenge recipe, it's like yeast. That's why Tora Bora was destined for failure. They knew who was at the door.

New you may say we prevented a whole bunch of terror in the process, but there's only one thing that really did that, and it was the only good law in the sea of the worst case of utter stupidity to grip this nation: it was allowing the FBI to freeze the bank accounts if they were suspected of being linked to terrorism. That's it. That's all it took. That worked. Everything else has been a total waste of time.

I don't agree with treating the 911 act of terror as a police action. The initial military response was fully warranted.

Originally Posted by radind

I don't agree with treating the 911 act of terror as a police action. The initial military response was fully warranted.

So if some of our neo-nazis decide to hop over to China and blue something up, you're cool if they come over here and wage war?

Originally Posted by Kepi

So if some of our neo-nazis decide to hop over to China and blue something up, you're cool if they come over here and wage war?

I don't see anyone( 'neo-nazi's or otherwise ) doing such nonsense. This looks like a bogus strawman to me. I prefer to deal with the threats as they are. You can deal with the hypotheticals.
When terrorist strike us , we need to strike them hard.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Exactly the crux of my criticism: the "adults" of the nation at this time were incapable of doing anything competent because they could not exercise the most basic defining characteristic of being an adult, which is suppressing one's own feelings in order to build towards positive results. The Silent, Boomer, and Xer generation failed in choosing to sate their bloodlust instead of doing something right. The Boomer generation failed in leadership when they weren't able to temper emotions, and they couldn't do it because they don't know how to temper their own emotions.

Can you tell me of a time when Americans were calm and rational in the face of threats or disputes? I don't know of any such time.

Because of this general disposition the leadership in this country is entirely incompetent as they have never actually learned to be adults. They're just old children who are actually ruled by nothing but base emotions, fear being the most prominent. You can't run anything like that, but the Boomer leadership won't do anything but cater to their own fears, and thus lack the ability to do anything but, so ultimately they have no option but utter failure.

Again, as far as war and peace is concerned, which is the concern of this thread, I know of no time that was any different, or really, anywhere.

I'm not so sure emotions are the reason that our economic and ecological policies have been so screwed up in the last 34 years. Maybe, but for sure it's been a libertarian or neo-liberal ideology that's the problem. Perhaps millennials can help spur a return to a more communitarian approach, which was more common over the 40 or 50 years before that.

Originally Posted by radind

I don't see anyone( 'neo-nazi's or otherwise ) doing such nonsense. This looks like a bogus strawman to me. I prefer to deal with the threats as they are. You can deal with the hypotheticals.
When terrorist strike us , we need to strike them hard.

There's no hypothetical. It's exactly what we did, these criminals came over here and committed a crime, so we declared war on the country they lived in. The only thing hypothetical about it is your own emotional opinions of the nation's involved.

We didn't hit the terrorists hard. We hit a nation state whose government was installed by us hard, and further destabilized the region. You know, just like the last time we were there and we worked with Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban to beat the USSR. Our response was, and more or less has been inappropriate, and therefore ineffective, since WWII. If you want to be effective, you have to do the right thing, the rightest possible way that your tools allow. We've failed to meet any of those standards.

Originally Posted by Kepi

There's no hypothetical. It's exactly what we did, these criminals came over here and committed a crime, so we declared war on the country they lived in. The only thing hypothetical about it is your own emotional opinions of the nation's involved.

We didn't hit the terrorists hard. We hit a nation state whose government was installed by us hard, and further destabilized the region. You know, just like the last time we were there and we worked with Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban to beat the USSR. Our response was, and more or less has been inappropriate, and therefore ineffective, since WWII. If you want to be effective, you have to do the right thing, the rightest possible way that your tools allow. We've failed to meet any of those standards.

You and I clearly see things differently. The attack on 911 deserved more than police action.
I do fault Bush for the occupations and we can not know the outcome if we had continued pursuit of the terrorists , but not occupied Afghanistan and then Iraq.

Afghanistan is a mess, but the way Obama has handled it after Bush left it unattended offers some hope that the country can advance and finally recover. Their new leaders appear to be rather able fellows, and interested in the right things. I hope it works out.

Originally Posted by radind

You and I clearly see things differently. The attack on 911 deserved more than police action.
I do fault Bush for the occupations and we can not know the outcome if we had continued pursuit of the terrorists , but not occupied Afghanistan and then Iraq.

Except the response you want doesn't exist with in the bounds of our existing system of, you know, reality. Our options were law enforcement action or war. Those are the two options that were there. Law enforcement was right because Al Queda did not represent a nation state and therefore was not an army, and war was wrong because Al Queda did not represent a nation state and therefore was not an army. There's really not another option in the grab bag. It's Law Enforcement or Military... And nothing else. There's literally no other option and one is right and one is wrong.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Afghanistan is a mess, but the way Obama has handled it after Bush left it unattended offers some hope that the country can advance and finally recover. Their new leaders appear to be rather able fellows, and interested in the right things. I hope it works out.

I'm sure that we'll find a reason to go attack them in another couple decades. It's a thing we do. Install fundamentalist leaders, then go in and call them monsters and kick them out. Install a secular dictatorship, sell them weapons of mass destruction, then 20 years later clause them for having weapons of mass destruction. Just a never ending cycle of failure and misery.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Except the response you want doesn't exist with in the bounds of our existing system of, you know, reality. Our options were law enforcement action or war. Those are the two options that were there. Law enforcement was right because Al Queda did not represent a nation state and therefore was not an army, and war was wrong because Al Queda did not represent a nation state and therefore was not an army. There's really not another option in the grab bag. It's Law Enforcement or Military... And nothing else. There's literally no other option and one is right and one is wrong.

You are entitled to your opinion just a I am entitled to mine. You say 'war' , and I say justifed response ( that was not war in my view).

Originally Posted by radind

You are entitled to your opinion just a I am entitled to mine. You say 'war' , and I say justifed resonse ( that was not war in my view).

How is it justifiable? Under what logic is it acceptable to use your military against a non-military entity? Under what logic is it acceptable to hold one organizational entity responsible for the actions of another, unrelated organizational entity? You're entitled to an opinion, but opinions can, and frequently are, blatantly wrong.

Originally Posted by Kepi

How is it justifiable? Under what logic is it acceptable to use your military against a non-military entity? Under what logic is it acceptable to hold one organizational entity responsible for the actions of another, unrelated organizational entity? You're entitled to an opinion, but opinions can, and frequently are, blatantly wrong.

Personally, I'm not sure which is right, but in general, I agree with radind on this issue now. Use of the military was acceptable in this case, even if it was a police action against criminals. Because the military had the means of apprehending them, while the FBI did not. I'm not sure there is any other American organization legally empowered to do this, anyway. Finally, it was special forces that captured and killed him in 2011, and it was not necessary to invade and topple the government of Pakistan in order to do it. But we did infringe on Pakistan's territory.

The Taliban were harboring and supporting the criminals, and resisted the action to capture them once we invaded; and they had the same aims as Al Qaeda. They were practically indistinguishable. But I think it would have been good policy not to topple the Taliban Afghan government, but just to invade their country in order to capture Al Qaeda leaders.

That said, I think the nation-building policy in Afghanistan may work out, and I hope it does.

Originally Posted by Kepi

I'm sure that we'll find a reason to go attack them in another couple decades. It's a thing we do. Install fundamentalist leaders, then go in and call them monsters and kick them out. Install a secular dictatorship, sell them weapons of mass destruction, then 20 years later clause them for having weapons of mass destruction. Just a never ending cycle of failure and misery.

I don't disagree; it could be. Next turn in the cycle: 2025! (not quite 20; the cycle runs about 12 years, and a double-cycle can work too; that's 23 or 24).

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Personally, I'm not sure which is right, but in general, I agree with radind on this issue now. Use of the military was acceptable in this case, even if it was a police action against criminals. Because the military had the means of apprehending them, while the FBI did not. I'm not sure there is any other American organization legally empowered to do this, anyway. Finally, it was special forces that captured and killed him in 2011, and it was not necessary to invade and topple the government of Pakistan in order to do it. But we did infringe on Pakistan's territory.

The Taliban were harboring and supporting the criminals, and resisted the action to capture them once we invaded; and they had the same aims as Al Qaeda. They were practically indistinguishable. But I think it would have been good policy not to topple the Taliban Afghan government, but just to invade their country in order to capture Al Qaeda leaders.

That said, I think the nation-building policy in Afghanistan may work out, and I hope it does.

Here's why I keep going to the Neo-Nazi example: to say that the Taliban was harboring Al Queda is to more or less say the same thing about Neo-Nazis in the US. The primary difference is that Al Queda has major financial power, which doesn't come from the Taliban at all.

With Obama Bin Laden, that money was from inherited Saudi oil money. Osama Bin Laden wasn't a terrorist so much as a terror financier, which is arguably much worse. However to say that Bin Laden was committing acts of terror at the behest of the Taliban or for the benefit of the Taliban is just untrue. The Taliban had nothing to gain from Bin Laden's terror financing. The borders of Afghanistan did not expand due to Bin Laden's financed attacks, and the religious leaders associated with him did not gain followers or hierarchical growth because of these attacks. The nation state of Afghanistan and the terrorist finance group Al Queda had a tangential relationship at best.

Meanwhile, if we look at the operation which finally took Bin Laden down it was something that the FBI could have done. I don't have a problem with who did it as much as how it was done. If the SEALs had swung in on a singular helicopter and arrested our even killed Bin Laden without an arrest attempt, I'd be more or less okay with it, because they are using tools and tactics which are available to your larger law enforcement agencies.

As you point out, it's an infringement, but it's an extremely mild infringement. To use the Neo Nazis v. China argument, if China showed up with a full military invasion force, because some of our Nazis blew up their buildings, that's clearly war fare. They're using weapons that have no other purpose but full scale war. But if they swing in on a helicopter and only kill people associated with the Neo-Nazis? I'm going to give them a pass on that.

Why? Because there's a huge difference between thousands of troops using large scale ordinance and a small team using automatic rifles and a few grenades, tops.