2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Akrasia

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What is it about the existing coalition that Bernie disagrees with?

Is he seeking a UN intervention force?

The current U.S. led coalition is too western focused. Most of the countries in the hot zone are not members of that coalition, then there is the competing Russian coalition.

Sanders believes that the only way to spread the contagion of islamic extremism, is for the muslim nations in the middle east to lead the coalition against ISIS.

I don't know what his position on U.N. involvement in the fight against ISIS is, but if I was to guess, It would be that he supports using the U.N. as the legitimate body to maintain peace and security.

The U.N. does have it's historic drawbacks, and it might not be possible to get U.N. agreement while the permanent members of the Security council can veto them. I think the U.N. development organisations have a big role in preventing the spread of extremism through education and economic assistance to poor developing nations.

BoJack Horseman

Akrasia wrote: »

Sanders believes that the only way to spread the contagion of islamic extremism, is for the muslim nations in the middle east to lead the coalition against ISIS.

How though?

What form does this entail, under what command would it have?
And with what consent from the Iraqi & Syrian governments?

Fr Tod Umptious

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

How?

Usual flimflam and pandering from the Dems.

People are worried about radical Islam right now and want someone who can address those fears right now, whether than involves racial profiling, increased military activity, greater survalance etc.

Its only natural to feel that way about the threat, its only natural for people to lean towards the person who on the face of it is giving the answers that they want to hear, and that person is not running in the Democratic primaries.

Akrasia

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Usual flimflam and pandering from the Dems.

People are worried about radical Islam right now and want someone who can address those fears right now, whether than involves racial profiling, increased military activity, greater survalance etc.

Its only natural to feel that way about the threat, its only natural for people to lean towards the person who on the face of it is giving the answers that they want to hear, and that person is not running in the Democratic primaries.

People want to hear things, but reactionary populism tends to backfire in the medium term.

This is why I said Sanders tends to avoid this question.

'I demand action now' is stupid if immediate action causes more problems down the line.

It's basic military strategy for one side to provoke the other into doing something that will harm them later on. Security services should be resourced to do their job of providing security, but military forces should only be deployed when there is a clear strategy for how to win the war.

Akrasia

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

How though?

What form does this entail, under what command would it have?
And with what consent from the Iraqi & Syrian governments?

There are many ways that these coalitions can be structured. I'll leave that to the diplomats.

The Iraqi and Syrian governments have a responsibility to secure their own territories and should be cooperating with international efforts to contain ISIS.

If Sanders was in power, he could first ratify the international criminal court and then use these powers to bring terrorist organisers and sympathisers within these states to justice. The U.N. security council would make that kind of a decision, but that's not going to happen when the U.S. haven't ratified the treaty.

K-9

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Usual flimflam and pandering from the Dems.

People are worried about radical Islam right now and want someone who can address those fears right now, whether than involves racial profiling, increased military activity, greater survalance etc.

Its only natural to feel that way about the threat, its only natural for people to lean towards the person who on the face of it is giving the answers that they want to hear, and that person is not running in the Democratic primaries.

How do you fight war on radical Islam?

Starting by staying out of wars in the Middle East would be a start. Obviously it isn't as simple as that, but no interventions in Iraq or Libya would be a start.

Billy86

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Usual flimflam and pandering from the Dems.

People are worried about radical Islam right now and want someone who can address those fears right now, whether than involves racial profiling, increased military activity, greater survalance etc.

Its only natural to feel that way about the threat, its only natural for people to lean towards the person who on the face of it is giving the answers that they want to hear, and that person is not running in the Democratic primaries.

Good thing we here in Ireland have no experience of working together with those who were considered previously our enemy, to successfully target our own terrorism. It's also not like, being Irish, we have experience of that same former enemy attempting various other methods, not least of all brute force, to no avail. Good thing we also don't have our own experience of how negatively profiling a nation/race of people as terrorists and scum does absolutely nothing to help build that bridge and in fact just serves to knock down each brick as it's being laid.

Fact of the matter is you can't kill ISIS because you can't kill an idea. You need to convince and persuade over time, and the leaders of ISIS aren't going to be listening to anybody from the west anytime soon.

Fr Tod Umptious

K-9 wrote: »

How do you fight war on radical Islam?

Starting by staying out of wars in the Middle East would be a start. Obviously it isn't as simple as that, but no interventions in Iraq or Libya would be a start.

You start with intelligence.
You racially profile.
You liquate known terrorist leaders.
You shud down their mouthpieces like Imams and mosques who claim to be peaceful but preache otherwise.

That's just a few off the top of my head.

BoJack Horseman

Akrasia wrote: »

There are many ways that these coalitions can be structured. I'll leave that to the diplomats.

So, president Bernie has people from the DOD & State in the oval.
They advise him (the obviously inevitable) that his desired coalition of Sunni Arab states have neither the expeditionary capability or the consent of the Shi'ite governments of Baghad & Damascus to enter their territory anyway.

This is what Bernie would be told today..

What then?

What is his plan?
It can't just be rhetoric?

JPNelsforearm

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

You start with intelligence.
You racially profile.
You liquate known terrorist leaders.
You shud down their mouthpieces like Imams and mosques who claim to be peaceful but preache otherwise.

That's just a few off the top of my head.

Why? Its not the US's or Europes job to deal with terrorism or Islam, radical or not, in the middle east. Further intervention just feeds into the cycle, expending needless energy and lives on a conflict that has been going on longer then the USA has existed as a nation. Its hubris to think a few hellfires launched at some "radical" iman's will solve anything

Fr Tod Umptious

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Why? Its not the US's or Europes job to deal with terrorism or Islam, radical or not, in the middle east. Further intervention just feeds into the cycle, expending needless energy and lives on a conflict that has been going on longer then the USA has existed as a nation. Its hubris to think a few hellfires launched at some "radical" iman's will solve anything

But its the US and Europe's job to keep its citizens safe.

And to do that you limit access to the US or Europe for radicals.

And you do that by profiling who tries to enter the country, by killing off leaders of groups who target the west, by deporting clerics who are ambiguous about terrorism.

I really don't care what Syraians or Iraqis do to each other in Syria or Iraq, as long as they do not try to destroy my society by shooting up cafés, blowing kids to bits at sports events or killing people at airports.

Billy86

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

You racially profile.
You liquate known terrorist leaders.

Here are some pictures of Muslims.

Ice Cube and Dave Chappelle are Muslim. Zinedine Zidane, Franck Ribery, Adnan Januzaj, and Edin Dzeko are all Muslim. This woman is Muslim. Here are three Chinese Muslims, for the craic.

Never mind the fact it would be of no benefit, but how do you even plan on racially profiling something that does not have a race?

Fr Tod Umptious

Billy86 wrote: »

Here are some pictures of Muslims.

Ice Cube and Dave Chappelle are Muslim. Zinedine Zidane, Franck Ribery, Adnan Januzaj, and Edin Dzeko are all Muslim. This woman is Muslim. Here are three Chinese Muslims, for the craic.

Never mind the fact it would be of no benefit, but how do you even plan on racially profiling something that does not have a race?

Stop trying to act dumb.

You pay more attention to young Muslim males in society.

So for example at airport security the 20 something year old called Ali Sahrif get a lot more attention than 60 something Mary Smith.

As a young Irish man in the 80s I got a lot of attention from security traveling to and from the UK, so what, I had nothing to hide, they were just doing it to keep me and others safe.

Billy86

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Stop trying to act dumb.

You pay more attention to young Muslim males in society.

So for example at airport security the 20 something year old called Ali Sahrif get a lot more attention than 60 something Mary Smith.

As a young Irish man in the 80s I got a lot of attention from security traveling to and from the UK, so what, I had nothing to hide, they were just doing it to keep me and others safe.

So you didn't mean Muslims, you meant brown people?

Fr Tod Umptious

Billy86 wrote: »

So you didn't mean Muslims, you meant brown people?

Again you are acting dumb.

Mary Smith could be African Irish, did that ever cross your mind ?

But regardless of what colour Ali Sahriff is, the likely hood is he is a Muslim with that name.

Akrasia

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

So, president Bernie has people from the DOD & State in the oval.
They advise him (the obviously inevitable) that his desired coalition of Sunni Arab states have neither the expeditionary capability or the consent of the Shi'ite governments of Baghad & Damascus to enter their territory anyway.

This is what Bernie would be told today..

What then?

What is his plan?
It can't just be rhetoric?

ISIS are Sunni (Wahhabi is a branch of Sunni islam) Iraq and Syria have to be less happy with these Sunni extremists actively taking over their territory and terrorising their citizens than the prospect of a coalition that includes Sunni states with the primary purpose overthrowing ISIS and undermining this most extreme ideology.

Have there ever been open and honest negotiations on forming a cross cultural coalition to tackle this specific threat? Perhaps even a coalition of coalitions?

Saudi have formed a coalition of Islamic states, Russia are siding with Syria, America are

K-9

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But its the US and Europe's job to keep its citizens safe.

And to do that you limit access to the US or Europe for radicals.

And you do that by profiling who tries to enter the country, by killing off leaders of groups who target the west, by deporting clerics who are ambiguous about terrorism.

I really don't care what Syraians or Iraqis do to each other in Syria or Iraq, as long as they do not try to destroy my society by shooting up cafés, blowing kids to bits at sports events or killing people at airports.

You protect your own patch, that's needless to say. Staying out of conflicts that aren't really our business would also help. Most of the reason EU countries get involved in Syria or wherever is due to a colonial past, no point repeating the same mistakes over and over.

BoJack Horseman

Akrasia wrote: »

ISIS are Sunni (Wahhabi is a branch of Sunni islam) Iraq and Syria have to be less happy with these Sunni extremists actively taking over their territory and terrorising their citizens than the prospect of a coalition that includes Sunni states with the primary purpose overthrowing ISIS and undermining this most extreme ideology

That is an assumption on your part.... which is fine of course.
But I hope that President Sanders has something better.

Iraq is heavily Shia & It's government all but proxies of Tehran.
I don't see any likelihood of a coalition of KSA, UAE & Qatari armed columns just rolling into Iraq.
In all likelihood, they will be attacked or attack well before they reach ISIS territory in Anbar & it will all just descend into a shia v sunni sh*t show with the KSA coalition fighting Iranian Republican Guardsmen in Iraq

Then you are back also to the truism that none of these 4 nations (including Bahrain) have the military capability to engage in an expeditionary campaign so far from base to begin with.

So, politically it's whimsical, if not disastrous.
Militarily, it's all but impossible with their currently resources & force structure of the arab states militaries.

What is the difference between Bernie & Donald vis-a-vis ISIS?
Both have their rhetoric & it seems there is nothing behind either.
What does Bernie do when he's told the fact that his "make the arabs do it" plan is not going to happen?

Billy86

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Again you are acting dumb.

Mary Smith could be African Irish, did that ever cross your mind ?

But regardless of what colour Ali Sahriff is, the likely hood is he is a Muslim with that name.

No, I'm pointing something out that should be very obvious - if anything talks of 'racially profiling' something that does not have a race is playing dumb. China alone has from 22-50mn Muslims for example. Only 20% of Muslims live in Arab countries. The largest Muslim population in the world is Indonesia (about 1 in 8 Muslims worldwide being Indonesian). The country is over 87% Muslim. Yet Indonesia has over 400 different ethnic groups, of which Arabs make up only a small part.

Trying to compare that to perhaps one of the least racially mixed countries in the world (Ireland before the Celtic Tiger) is again, playing dumb or simply just being disingenuous.

You also can't 'racially profile by name' - because a name is not a race. Again, perhaps you meant something else? Also, you'll just be letting the Richard 'shoe bomber' Reid's of the world through, while wasting your time interrogating Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam.

oscarBravo

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

You pay more attention to young Muslim males in society.

So for example at airport security the 20 something year old called Ali Sahrif get a lot more attention than 60 something Mary Smith.

That's an utterly brilliant idea.

Making every young Muslim male feel like a suspected terrorist will definitely make us all safer and couldn't possibly have any negative consequences. We know this for a fact, because you personally didn't have a problem with being treated as a terror suspect when you were younger, and there's no evidence whatsoever that young Muslim males feel any resentment at being treated as potential terrorists.

eire4

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed, it is noticeable Clinton was the only presidency to run surpluses, yet he gets attacked and Bush airbrushed from history by some.

The Clinton administration was far from perfect but Democrats are the only party to have s track record of running surpluses in the last 4 decades. For some reason Reagen gets the adulation instead.

A friend told me once that very often when it comes to significant policy moves that you do not see the real effects of them until years later very often after the president who made the policy has left office. I think in many ways that is how Regan gets away with so much as he was the president who began many things such as running up massive budget deficits, trickle down economics, deregulation etc which have destroyed so many Americans lives economically.


Your absolutely correct about Clinton actually running surplus' that is a valid point. Although for me he in many other ways continued the trends begun by Regan that has destroyed so many lives and exacerbated the wealth and income gap so badly in the US. Clinton is the one who did away with Glass-Steagal as well as other financial deregulation, it was Clinton's crime bill that lead to the criminal justice fiasco that is the US justice and prison system today, major welfare cuts etc.


So again yes Clinton did do much better with the budget no question about it but for me he overall was part of the trend since Regan that has destroyed the lives of so many Americans economically.

B_Wayne

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Again you are acting dumb.

Mary Smith could be African Irish, did that ever cross your mind ?

But regardless of what colour Ali Sahriff is, the likely hood is he is a Muslim with that name.

White people can and have been terrorists... Breivik for example. A tiny minority of Muslims are terrorists, your solution is to treat them all like second class human beings. Your basis, their name and skin colour. That's a pretty terrible policy that would in all probability increase the amount of radicals....

Would also make individuals such as Breivik feel a lot more justified in terms of their hate speech.

eire4

Akrasia wrote: »

It's calculated by the party strategists, but the ordinary people on the street are the ones who need to have the cognitive dissonance of knowing that Bush presided over the 8 years immediately prior to the 2008 market crash, while still believing that it was the democratic Obama who is responsible for the recession.

And knowing that the republican controlled congress and senate deliberately refused to cooperate with Obama and blocked everything he tried to do, while still believing that Obama was weak and ineffectual as president because he passed fewer laws than others have.

It is the same tactic they use to push the Government is bad myth. They defund an agency until it cannot do its job effectively and then they jump up and scream see government is bad it cannot do the job properly. See we need to hand things over to the private sector to get it done right and by the way don't pay any attention to private chemical plants blowing up or massive oil spills etc as the private sector is always better.


What that translated means hand things over to guys who have paid us enough money in campaign contributions.


Of course the reality is that neither public or private is better or worse inherently then the other.

eire4

Akrasia wrote: »

I don't think the numbers of states won is good enough anymore, he needs to win big and win often. He needs landslides in his fertile ground. Clinton won some of the southern states by 70 to 30. Sanders needs to do this in his home ground.

I hope that Sanders will win Arizona as well as comprehensive victories in Utah and Idaho. He's put the work in, he's been really pounding the campaign trail in Arizona. If he loses there, I don't see any hope for him.

If Sanders gets more than 53% of the vote in Arizona and 60%+ in Idaho and Utah, then I think it's game (back) on.

I agree with you overall. Although I think any kind of win in Arizona would be massive for him as it is extremely unlikely. Given the polling Sanders winning Arizona is highly unlikely. His best bet is to get close enough that the delegate split essentially makes it a draw. Why I say him winning 7 is so important is it is about momentum. He needs to be able to go into New York with the ability to do what he did in Illinois and essentially made it a draw. Certainly if he can get 60% or more in a number of the upcoming states then that is huge. But really the ultimate end game is to get to California in June with momentum and still be close enough that a win there could see him catch Clinton.

Fr Tod Umptious

B_Wayne wrote: »

White people can and have been terrorists... Breivik for example. A tiny minority of Muslims are terrorists, your solution is to treat them all like second class human beings. Your basis, their name and skin colour. That's a pretty terrible policy that would in all probability increase the amount of radicals....

Would also make individuals such as Breivik feel a lot more justified in terms of their hate speech.

That's true, Brevik is white, so was McVeigh.

But let's look at the profiles of the folks that have carried out the majority of terrorist attacks in the west.

Muslim males.

People really need to get off the PC high horses and start to admit that the biggest thread to western security and society comes from Muslim males and no one else.

eire4

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Why? Its not the US's or Europes job to deal with terrorism or Islam, radical or not, in the middle east. Further intervention just feeds into the cycle, expending needless energy and lives on a conflict that has been going on longer then the USA has existed as a nation. Its hubris to think a few hellfires launched at some "radical" iman's will solve anything

We probably do not agree very often:) but on this point I am very much in agreement with you. The Americans intervention and invasion of Iraqi and how they made a pigs ear of the post invasion has opened this whole pandora's box and made the world a much less safe place for any westerner really. The Americans continual shoot first attitude to so much of their middle east foreign policy has been a total disaster for everyone. It needs to stop.

oscarBravo

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

People really need to get off the PC high horses...

...and roll around in the islamophobic gutter?

The chances of any given young Muslim male being a terrorist are so vanishingly small as to be essentially non-existent. Treating them all as potential terrorists is one highly effective way to increase those chances.

Of course, anyone who's remotely interested in actually thinking about the issue already knows this. Anyone who genuinely believes that the most effective way to combat terrorism is to victimise the very people who are susceptible to radicalisation in the first place... they're unlikely to be swayed by logic.

Billy86

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

That's true, Brevik is white, so was McVeigh.

But let's look at the profiles of the folks that have carried out the majority of terrorist attacks in the west.

Muslim males.

People really need to get off the PC high horses and start to admit that the biggest thread to western security and society comes from Muslim males and no one else.

I take it you have supporting statistical evidence for this?

Because from 1980 - 2005, Muslims were responsible for 6% of terrorist attacks in the US - 1% more than communists, 1% less than Jewish terrorists, 18% less than 'Extreme Left Wing Groups' and 36% less than Latino. 16% were marked up as 'other'. These are as per the FBI.

And in Europe from 2011 - 2014, Muslims were responsible for about 1.07% of all terrorist attacks in Europe. That is per Interpol.

Because I'm pretty sure that neither 6% nor 1% constitute a majority.

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

I take it you have supporting statistical evidence for this?

Because from 1980 - 2005, Muslims were responsible for 6% of terrorist attacks in the US - 1% more than communists, 1% less than Jewish terrorists, 18% less than 'Extreme Left Wing Groups' and 36% less than Latino. 16% were marked up as 'other'. These are as per the FBI.

What constitutes a "terrorist attack"?

And in Europe from 2011 - 2014, Muslims were responsible for about 1.07% of all terrorist attacks in Europe. That is per Interpol.

Because I'm pretty sure that neither 6% nor 1% constitute a majority.

Again, what are they defining as a terrorist attack?

Fr Tod Umptious

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and roll around in the islamophobic gutter?

The chances of any given young Muslim male being a terrorist are so vanishingly small as to be essentially non-existent. Treating them all as potential terrorists is one highly effective way to increase those chances.

Of course, anyone who's remotely interested in actually thinking about the issue already knows this. Anyone who genuinely believes that the most effective way to combat terrorism is to victimise the very people who are susceptible to radicalisation in the first place... they're unlikely to be swayed by logic.

Airports, metro stations, cafés, concert halls, sports events, all being blown up and people murdered in the name if Islam.

With that going on I have no problem with being islamophobic