The only thing about Bush Sr's war I didn't like was that he didn't finish it. You could argue that even the first one we should not have done, but at least with that one we were invited. The second one was sold to us based on a lie.

I think our forgien policy has sucked since WW2. I think our war hawks even forget the history of Jefferson in his support of the French Revolution. Just because you do something does not mean the outcome will end up the way you want. 

I am not an isolationist either, but I think we need to stop thinking WW2 tactics still apply. 

Terrorists are the dumb and ignorant mofo's of the world. They fight a losing battle against 7 billion people. They kill innocent people of all races, creeds and nationalities. They use their resources to purchase ammo and fight a war they can not manage. They expect to have a country under their control but the world will not have it. They will never succeed.

They use a beheading of a journalist to strike fear in the public. Who fucking cares? The public doesn't. They are numb already with 20 years of war and beheadings. We see it on the internet and we see worse. We see children and women who are innocent being raped and beaten. We see far worse deaths that take many weeks or months to finish. A beheading, no matter how dramatic, loses potency over time. We just don't give a shit.

The terrorists would be better off forming a corporation. They could take over businesses which sell natural resources. They could use their money to buy stock and slowly take over an entire market. Hostile take overs. Selling off those smaller companies to make a profit. After 20-30 years they would be left with billions and they could influence countries and people in to Islam.

I'm sorry the family lost a loved one, but tens of thousands, no hundreds of thousands have lost their life in this war in far worse conditions.

Well that is why I say you could make that case, but we were still invited. It would take something like the reconstruction like we did with Japan and Germany, but a bit too late and we are already drained to do anything like that right now.

I still do not think we can be isolationists either. Dont really know what we can do long term other than pick what we can do, limit it, and not play world's police. 

We really do have a bad habit of playing all sides of the middle east off of each other stupidly hoping that if we do one side will magically come arround. But then again the weapons industry and big oil are a market everyone is invested in and turmoil drives up prices.

But out of all the things I cannot dissagree on is tha Bush Jr caused this mess.

The real problem with the Islamic States PR tactics is that Mexican drug cartels are actually more vicious, and closer to home. Who can get particularly upset at a beheading done largely off camera when videos coming out of Mexico show the whole thing? Who hasn't heard of or actually seen the chainsaw beheading that was released a year or two ago (the chainsaw was actually the easy part to watch, compared to what came after)?

"Religion is worth the name only so long as it is in consonance with reason. If it fails to satisfy that requisite, if it has to make up for its discomfiture in argument by handling the sword, it needs no other argument for its falsification. The sword it wields cuts its own throat before reaching others."

Groups like IS need to be seen to be fighting "The West" to justify their own continued existence. To do that, they of course have to provoke us first, which is what all this psychotic barbarism is about.

I just saw what looks like a nine year old holding up a severed head. If crap like that works, they're just going to keep doing it.

As cruel as it sounds, if at all possible, it's probably best to ignore them.

Oh yea, I stumbled accross that video of the drug gang beheading those women. Don't know if you saw it but that was the sickest thing I ever have seen in my life outside the pictures of the Holocaust.

This is what I mean by we are all the same species. We as a species produce both cruelty and compassion. The only thing that can increase peace and reduce violence is economic stability. The less disparity the more people have what they need, the less likely they are to get that desperate to the point of violence. Yes, you will always have greedy pricks who do not give a fuck. 

True, but defeating your enemy is another angle to getting in.

I never heard of one with women in it. I saw one with two guys getting killed. They were forced to confess to ratting out some gang members and then shit got nasty.

Though not directed at me, digitals question could have been. So I'll answer anyway: it was a news headline that caught my eye. No search was necessary.

It was on page 7,394 of a google search for the word "evolution"

+1

Can I hear an Amen!

My father told me when I was a young lad, that an American general was fighting Islamic extremists in the philippines.

He told me the extremists were slaughtering villagers and capture missionaries, beheading them, etc. The general, after capturing 15-20 of the shitheads took them to an open trench. He ordered that each of the bullets be dipped in pigs blood (most likely not) and then had each of them shot in the head. When they fell in to the pit they took a bucket of pigs shit and blood and poured it over the dead bodies. The last extremist on the line was left alive. The general told the guy, "All your friends are unclean and won't be going to heaven. Go tell your friends what we will do when we kill them. Apparently it worked. The extremists didn't want to die and not go to heaven. They quit their shit and went back to farming or whatever. Personally. I'd start making videos of pumping live pigs blood in to the fuckers. I'd hook up a intravenous tube from a pig to an extremists and show them still alive but receiving pigs blood. Then watch as the fuckers lay down their weapons and go home.

yeah, or that great scene in the searchers where john wayne shoots out the dead comanche warrior's eyes so that his ghost has to wander the earth.

it's good to use other's superstitions as a defense if you know how. once here in slovakia i had a hare krishna come up to try to proselytize me (or more likely just get a donation). fyi, hare krishnas are an extreme devotional sect that believe only the worship of krishna is a valid path to liberation. for them, even the other hindu gods are just blind alleys. he greeted me with "hare krishna" and before he could even get into his spiel, i placed my palms together and answered him with "om namah shivaya," which is the most common mantra to shiva. i actually don't think shaivites ever use it as a greeting, but i did anyway. most hare krishnas have dabbled in enough sanskrit to know such a famous mantra, so i figured he would recognize it. it totally threw him and he looked at me almost fearfully before crossing the street to get away from me. it worked much more effectively than just "not interested" or "fuck off."

   The alleged act was attributed to General John J. ( Black Jack ) Pershing though it appears to be an urban legend.    http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_black_jack_pershing.htm

    According to this source, Muslims are to avoid eating or touching pork in the same ways that observant Jews are; a violation of this dietary guidline in either religion does not amount to the loss of salvation, ceremonialyl unclean, yes...doomed to Muslim hell...no.

  Anyway, I prefer how the KGB resolved a hostage crisis in Lebanon during the 1980's.  Nothing nearly so poetic as pigs blood, just simple Russian "pragmatism".

Got to admit the Soivets were way ahead of us on so many things. And they took zero shit from anyone on most matters. One reason why I might have always had some sort of affinity for them. 

    I have only limited knowledge of Soviet era tactics but from my academic sources ( books, news articles, etc )  it appears they operate with a completely different mentality than do western armies.   They seem to discriminate less about inflicting collateral damage, sometimes rescued hostages = dead hostages.   Even with super power status they did not prevail in Afghanistan but later withdrew.  Nevertheless, there seems to be a general attitude, perhaps even down to the civilian level, that given the right provocation all bets are off and no quarter shall be given to their opponents.   My opinion at the moment is that attitude is not a left-over manifestaion of communist "methods" but perhaps an even deeper cultural attitude that goes back much further in history.  Anyway, I don't speak from authority on the matter just my impression at the moment.

Everything that I have read on the history of Russia thus far (and I am certainly no expert) would hint that you are right. I know that before I could just dive off into my reading about the Russian Revolution, it was kind of important to get an understanding of Russia BEFORE the revolution. Decembrists, Nihilists and other types of factions that played a part in late 19th century Russia. Oddly enough, one can gain a better understanding of what life must have been like with writers like Dostoevsky and others. But then again, I am no scholar on the matter. 

and britain didn't prevail in the american colonies, america didn't prevail in korea, vietnam, iraq, or afghanistan. it's just nearly impossible for any foreign army to conquer people on their native soil without strong collaberation from large sectors of those people. the romans and british did so well precisely because they used military action as an absolute last resort, and even then history shows us that their empires couldn't be sustained longer than a couple centuries. nowadays, with ease of communication, high literacy, and free exchange of ideas, empires are pretty much impossible.

Israel has proved that doesn't work.

You'd need more settlers than locals, you'd need to kill off significant numbers of locals, and you'd need to segregate the locals; just to have the level of success seen in North America. Which is certainly not a complete success, even after 300 years.

Maybe things are different in the US (I doubt it), but they aren't hanging by a thread here. There are tribes from coast to coast to coast, and they have had significant impact on Canada as a whole. They get a LOT of special treatment that costs money in one way or another, and it isn't likely to change soon.

That their languages have been nearly destroyed and their cultures marginalized and their bloodlines diluted doesn't change that they are a separate society in many ways, with their own culture and authority. They've blocked off tourism sites and entire cities in their attempts to regain land stolen from them. They recently took over a park in Vancouver and gave the city an eviction notice.

Both the US and Canada have spent tens of billions of dollars on native issues, and said issues are ongoing.

And this with a massive difference between military and technological capabilities of both sides, something that would not be the case if it were attempted in the middle east. The natives here didn't have a single firearm. The natives there have AK's and tanks and drones.

Not to mention that there aren't enough people to outnumber the locals even if we abandoned the entire continent.

As for central and South America, both are complete disasters. Mexico is in worse shape than many African and middle eastern countries, and South American nations have spent the last 20 years allying against North American interests. There is no success down there at all.