This is shameful

[tailfins]

I'll give you this much. Spacing out your cessation of hostilities over such extended periods is definitely better than the other scenario I addressed.

But even so ... YOU'RE STILL DOING TERRORISTS SOME FAVOURS, FAVOURS THEY'VE IN NO WAY EARNED.

I ask why you're REALLY so keen to make life easier for them ? Easier than it would be otherwise ?

Can you tell me why Lefties keep on doing this ? I'd really like to know !!!!

And anyway, I suggest a tactical flaw to your latest proposal. If ISIS can't discern a pattern in any of that, and it so happened that lulls coincided with hostage beheadings ... how would THAT be perceived ?

Perhaps a hostage beheading would stop such lulls in their tracks, force a rethink ? Or -- would it make not a jot of difference ? Would your determination to give terrorists their breaks actually be too great to involve consideration for the death of the hostage, and his/her family's feelings ?

Regardless, giving ISIS terrorists any breaks at all, WILL be seen as weakness by those terrorists. You might never convince them that it was anything else ... in which case, you are still unacceptably endangering hostage lives to an extent that you wouldn't have been otherwise.

I've nothing at all against your troops being paid well, or getting the utmost respect ... why WOULD I have ?? But, consider ... an emboldened enemy is one that'll be a WORSE enemy for your troops to fight ... harder to defeat, if the enemy's morale is boosted. Is that, Revelarts, your idea of doing your best for your people ???

Give ISIS any breaks at all, and it'll profit THEM, to the detriment of YOUR forces (.. or any other Coalition forces that may ever be involved). Terrorists consider part of their war to be a propaganda war. I have no interest in helping them gain victories on ANY level, at all.

But then - I'm not a Leftie ...

President GW Bush was correct when he said that we deal with those who would harm America on THEIR soil so we don't have to deal with them on OUR soil. Notice that I didn't specify any particular religion.

[Drummond]

President GW Bush was correct when he said that we deal with those who would harm America on THEIR soil so we don't have to deal with them on OUR soil. Notice that I didn't specify any particular religion.

... and he was exactly right. I totally agree. It's the only possible common-sense approach to take. By total contrast, unilaterally deciding to give terrorist enemies BREAKS from their being dealt with, only aids the enemy. Doing it different ways changes the degree of advantage they get, but the advantage IS STILL THERE for them to exploit.

Revelarts scorns my seeing Leftie 'Boogeymen' ... YET ... time and again, I keep seeing that very same line from them. Always, it's some excuse or other to be kind or considerate to terrorists, and wholly needlessly so.

I'm thoroughly fed up with it !!

[I suppose the next plea will have something or other to do with considering terrorists' so-called 'human rights' .... a favourite nonsense the Left indulges in !! .. ??]

[revelarts]

Drummond consider this, If we were to make an unannounced cessation of war activity on 1 day this month then another day next month the savings could be used to PAY to have more experienced men in uniform STAY ON THE JOB for 5 more years and pay their pensions in full. How much work would it take to replace the decades of experience loss in the field and in arrears if we decommission men because we say we say we can't pay them any longer? is that a solid goal Drummond? why do i have to explain this?! Are you going to pay them? Is England going to send us money to do so?

Don't IMAGINE my "liberal Motives", my so-called "liberal agenda" or make up BS about what i REALLY MEAN, i've stated what i really mean. One solution to real one problem. Don't crazily extrapolate my issue specific comment into a some sinister agenda! Sorry to say that's BS Crazy talk Drummond.

You seem MUCH more obsessed with fighting fantasy liberals and BOGGYMAN liberal polices than creating a sensible effort against the terrorist. Or treating our troops with real respect by making sure thay are getting paid and treated well. All the verbal respect and, RAH RAH US Mil, is nice but when they are homeless on the streets because with PTSD they can't keep a job and the VA isn't giving them SQUAT, all your respect to keep your imagined safety for 2 days won't mean jack

I'll give you this much. Spacing out your cessation of hostilities over such extended periods is definitely better than the other scenario I addressed.

But even so ... YOU'RE STILL DOING TERRORISTS SOME FAVOURS, FAVOURS THEY'VE IN NO WAY EARNED.

I ask why you're REALLY so keen to make life easier for them ? Easier than it would be otherwise ?

Can you tell me why Lefties keep on doing this ? I'd really like to know !!!!

And anyway, I suggest a tactical flaw to your latest proposal. If ISIS can't discern a pattern in any of that, and it so happened that lulls coincided with hostage beheadings ... how would THAT be perceived ?

Perhaps a hostage beheading would stop such lulls in their tracks, force a rethink ? Or -- would it make not a jot of difference ? Would your determination to give terrorists their breaks actually be too great to involve consideration for the death of the hostage, and his/her family's feelings ?

Regardless, giving ISIS terrorists any breaks at all, WILL be seen as weakness by those terrorists. You might never convince them that it was anything else ... in which case, you are still unacceptably endangering hostage lives to an extent that you wouldn't have been otherwise.

I've nothing at all against your troops being paid well, or getting the utmost respect ... why WOULD I have ?? But, consider ... an emboldened enemy is one that'll be a WORSE enemy for your troops to fight ... harder to defeat, if the enemy's morale is boosted. Is that, Revelarts, your idea of doing your best for your people ???

Give ISIS any breaks at all, and it'll profit THEM, to the detriment of YOUR forces (.. or any other Coalition forces that may ever be involved). Terrorists consider part of their war to be a propaganda war. I have no interest in helping them gain victories on ANY level, at all.

But then - I'm not a Leftie ...

[DLT]

My theory is that the chief reason why we all don't suffer more terrorist attacks than we do, is that terrorists are too busy busting their guts laughing at us, to get around to planning new atrocities.

Relying on terrorists being entertained by the West's weakness is, in my view, NOT the way to go !!!!

I disagree. The terrorists are probably more like leftists and as such, are fascists with NO sense of humor whatsoever. The only brand of humor they can ever possess or express is negative mocking, which is humorless. That said, they are mocking us big time. And are too busy planning their next big attack on America, with the help of their bud, Barack Hussein Obama, who has gutted our abilities to defend ourselves....and has resurrected that political correct Clinton/Gorelick Wall that facilitated the 9/11 attack. Hell, when Obama can't even call Nissan's attack anything but "workplace violence", that should tell you all you need to know about how he'll handle the next 9/11. That is, if he's even still in the country.

[fj1200]

...and has resurrected that political correct Clinton/Gorelick Wall that facilitated the 9/11 attack.

Link?

[Drummond]

You really have no better an answer than 'that' ?

Well, I can't say I blame you ! When I'm right, I'm right ....

[Drummond]

I disagree. The terrorists are probably more like leftists and as such, are fascists with NO sense of humor whatsoever. The only brand of humor they can ever possess or express is negative mocking, which is humorless. That said, they are mocking us big time. And are too busy planning their next big attack on America, with the help of their bud, Barack Hussein Obama, who has gutted our abilities to defend ourselves....and has resurrected that political correct Clinton/Gorelick Wall that facilitated the 9/11 attack. Hell, when Obama can't even call Nissan's attack anything but "workplace violence", that should tell you all you need to know about how he'll handle the next 9/11. That is, if he's even still in the country.

Some very good points !

I certainly agree with your comparison between terrorists and leftists ... which explains something of how it is that Obama can be associated, in character and his intentions, with both. I daresay that he'd have closed Gitmo as he planned, if the fallout from such an action hadn't been so obviously a vote loser ..

That said ... it's been such a cherished objective of Obama's, that he's never really given up on it. Which is more than can be said for The War on Terror !!!

See ...

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...terror-is-over

The "Global War on Terror" is over, President Barack Obama announced Thursday, saying the military and intelligence agencies will not wage war against a tactic but will instead focus on a specific group of networks determined to destroy the U.S.

This shift in rhetoric accompanies new or updated efforts to defeat al-Qaida and its affiliates, the president said in a speech at the National Defense University within Washington, DC's Fort McNair. Al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan is on a "path to defeat," he said, so the U.S. must focus instead on al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula -- "the most active" in plotting against the U.S. -- homegrown violent extremism and unrest in the Arab world that leads to attacks like the assault on the Benghazi diplomatic post.

"We must define our effort not as a boundless 'Global War on Terror,' but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America," Obama said.

"Deranged or alienated individuals – often U.S. citizens or legal residents – can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon," he said. "So that's the current threat: Lethal yet less capable al-Qaida affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them."

Part of this effort includes closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, which Obama says has "become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law."

Of course - even assuming that one can take Obama at his word - the problem is that if you're going to go in for 'targeted efforts' (and that means that NON-TARGETED TERRORISTS ARE LEFT ALONE), you have to GET THE CORRECT TARGETS.

... and, at the time Obama was pontificating, where did ISIS fit into all this ???

While Obama's been reducing America's anti-terrorist capabilities and efforts, ISIS has grown to be what it is today. Yet, even now, I see Lefties want the military to TAKE DAYS OFF from attacking ISIS !!

You couldn't make this stuff up .....

[Drummond]

You really have no better an answer than 'that' ?

Well, I can't say I blame you ! When I'm right, I'm right ....

By the way, Revelarts, I asked you to explain why Lefties are so keen to make life easier for terrorists. The question was genuinely meant: I'd really like to have an answer to that !!

So ... I'm asking again. Please explain.

[SassyLady]

"be all you can be" then well kick you out with partial pay.
"thank you for your service"

This is BS. They could skip buying a handful of new Planes or Delay a new drone program,
Stop the wars for 2 days and have enough cash to keep all the men plus fund other items.

the military budget is eaten up by contractors, the enlisted men are getting crapped on as usual.

So true!

[tailfins]

Link?

Would you like a tutorial on how to do web searches? Why is a link needed for common knowledge that any idiot could find?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...538r/?page=all

[SassyLady]

-- I see a Leftie agenda in the making ?

'Stop the wars for 2 days'. Yeah, sure.

Well .... it'd be a bigger saving for such cessations to last a lot longer, eh ? And if all wars just stopped .... then, heyy wouldn't that be just peachy ??

Ignore, of course, the massive inroads the likes of ISIS, Al Qaeda etc would then make. Ignore the certainty of one or more Nation States turning into a Failed State, along the lines of a pre 9/11 Afghanistan .. BECAUSE, IF THE LEFT HAD ITS WAY, 9/11 WOULD TEACH US ALL PRECISELY NOTHING, AND WE'D BE JUST WAITING AROUND FOR MORE OF THEM TO HAPPEN.

Like lambs to the wholly avoidable slaughter, eh, Revelarts ??

And, who'd carp the loudest, if one such terrorist atrocity occurred ?

LEFTIES ... I'd bet ....

Drummond ... I don't see what Rev said as a leftist agenda. I see it as we need to stop the waste in the military so we can take care of those who have sacrificed for the rest of us. As he said ... just don't produce one piece of equipment and these people would be taken care of. Not leftist ... protectionist of our military members getting what they deserve.

[SassyLady]

Nobody wanted to listen to old farts who didn't know what we were talking about...when all of this began with the Clinton administration back in the 90's.

We were told to shut up, mind our own business, and be thankful we're getting something (the govt. called our pensions), even as they made excuses...as to WHY they govt. wasn't keeping their promise to Military people.

I personally warned many, many people in uniform, before I retired. How the contract with the Govt. was never going to be completely honored as the cutbacks, and what they called "DOWNSIZING" was chasing highly experienced, seasoned people out of uniform with near BRIBES for large sums of money IF...they just left active duty.

This is what our military is getting these days. BROKEN PROMISES, and all of it is being blamed on Republicans, while the Dems enjoy showing their NEAR ILLITERATE voters how they NEVER LIE.

AT ... I was also trying to communicate that Clinton was gutting our military with the downsizing (stamping me feet didn't get me anywhere ... I tried).

Megan Kelly is making sure everyone knows what is currently going on with the pink slips.

[fj1200]

Would you like a tutorial on how to do web searches? Why is a link needed for common knowledge that any idiot could find?

I don't need to do a search to know about the Gorelick memo, I was interested in the resurrection. You do raise an interesting second question though.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Would you like a tutorial on how to do web searches? Why is a link needed for common knowledge that any idiot could find?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...538r/?page=all

The corruption of the Clinton administration and its destructive policies are protected just as are those of the Obama administrations--that's the thing with dems, their slavish media and their major ally the globalists-they have the power to protect such doings for years and often even for decades to come.
If this nation survives that long it will take a 50 to a 100 years for most of the corruption and treason Obama has been doing and involved in to ever see the light of day. -Tyr

[Drummond]

Drummond ... I don't see what Rev said as a leftist agenda. I see it as we need to stop the waste in the military so we can take care of those who have sacrificed for the rest of us. As he said ... just don't produce one piece of equipment and these people would be taken care of. Not leftist ... protectionist of our military members getting what they deserve.

Sorry, Sassy, but the 'Let's find reasons not to take on terrorists, let's be kind to them, let's knock ourselves out fighting for TERRORIST human rights, GW Bush was a warmonger for ever carpet-bombing Afghanistan, and how DARE have ever considered military action against Saddam's regime' ...... I have heard Leftie bleating after Leftie bleating over all such offensive stances. To say the least, I'm sick of the way the Left finds the most puerile excuses going to give terrorist scum a break !!

We even had one ridiculous Leftie on this forum who took up pages on a thread, here, to tell me that my lack of willingness to see terrorists as 'human' was 'disgusting'.

Who else but either Muslims, or the Left, would work so hard to give terrorist scum break after break !

NOW, we've got Revelarts who wants to give them breaks from America's 'wars' ... !!!!!!!

Let me remind you of his original wording ...

This is BS. They could skip buying a handful of new Planes or Delay a new drone program,
STOP THE WARS FOR 2 DAYS and have enough cash to keep all the men plus fund other items.

... yeah. The same old 'Let's be good to terrorists' line, complete with unconvincing argument to back it. Same old, same old ... !!

I've answered that at length earlier in this thread.

Sorry, Sassy, but I've seen way too much of this BS argued out already, persistently, over YEARS. Revelarts is posting thoughts that I know the hard Left, over here, would applaud him for. [The same hard Left that hates all America stands for.]

Giving terrorists ANY break of ANY kind will embolden them, give them advantages which their savagery absolutely DOES NOT entitle them to !!

And I say this, be it true of the UK, or the US ... cutting back on military resources in the face of a fanatical and thoroughly savage enemy is absolute madness !!!

Cutting back just makes things worse for those service personnel who have to cope with the effects of those cuts. OR, it makes things worse for civilian populations, after the enemy has finished profiting from our weaknesses !!!!

I've a debating 'pal' loyal to the Left, here in the UK, who happily calls, and even genuinely regards, GWB as being 'a war criminal', and he wants to see him put on trial at The Hague - the same place that the likes of Goering and other Nazis were tried, for THEIR war crimes !!!

This is what supporting the Left leads to, I'm afraid. Give them an inch .. they'll take a light year ....