Bin Laden dead.

urroner wrote:

Also he did not use a woman as a shield, and he was unarmed at the time, they did not try to capture him, but double tap the head.

I believe in capital punishment. What good would it have done to have kept him alive? Sometimes, we need to do things that would normally be reprehensible to prevent things even more reprehensible. Life isn't fair and we can't expect that a "one rule fits all" attitude. We don't have a world of ivory towers and plastic flowers and I don't see it any time soon.



Yes, we should be working towards a world of love and peace, but that isn't going to happen until all humankind gets an attitude change. The characteristics that got our earliest ancestors through life, the characteristics that gave them a chance to survive, don't work well in a civilized world, but it's what we have to deal with.



A characteristic in blacks that helped them survive malaria now causes sickle cell anemia in their descendants. The characteristics that helped the people survive in ancient Central and South America now gives them a very high rate of diabetes and in Native Americans, another similar characteristic makes them highly susceptible to alcoholism.



I'm glad he wasn't taken alive and I hope that the timing of his death will solve more problems then it creates.

OBL got off easy. It would have been nice if they had captured him, taken him to Guantanamo and waterboarded him (torture! OMG can't have that!!). But two to the face I guess will have to suffice for one of the most evil men to walk the earth.

I don't buy the argument that we're fighting them over there so we don't fight them here. If they (a terrorist organization) ever got their hands on a CBRN (Chemical/Biologic/Radioactive/Nuclear) weapon, then they certainly wouldn't use it over there, they certainly wouldn't use it in Iraq or Afghanistan. They would do everything they could to bring it to the States to be detonated here.

Well, it is difficult to argue someone who doesn't accept the data, but here goes.



The 1996 US had troops in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Morrocco and Turkey. They had just attempted operations in multiple African nations.



Re: Germany, Japan, Korea, etc. I'll excerpt from the Pape article again since you can't take the time to click through:

Some have disputed the causal link between foreign occupation and suicide terrorism, pointing out that some occupations by foreign powers have not resulted in suicide bombings -- for example, critics often cite post-World War II Japan and Germany. Our research provides sufficient evidence to address these criticisms by outlining the two factors that determine the likelihood of suicide terrorism being employed against an occupying force.



The first factor is social distance between the occupier and occupied. The wider the social distance, the more the occupied community may fear losing its way of life. Although other differences may matter, research shows that resistance to occupations is especially likely to escalate to suicide terrorism when there is a difference between the predominant religion of the occupier and the predominant religion of the occupied.



Religious difference matters not because some religions are predisposed to suicide attacks. Indeed, there are religious differences even in purely secular suicide attack campaigns, such as the LTTE (Hindu) against the Sinhalese (Buddhists).



Rather, religious difference matters because it enables terrorist leaders to claim that the occupier is motivated by a religious agenda that can scare both secular and religious members of a local community -- this is why Osama bin Laden never misses an opportunity to describe U.S. occupiers as "crusaders" motivated by a Christian agenda to convert Muslims, steal their resources, and change the local population's way of life.



The second factor is prior rebellion. Suicide terrorism is typically a strategy of last resort, often used by weak actors when other, non-suicidal methods of resistance to occupation fail. This is why we see suicide attack campaigns so often evolve from ordinary terrorist or guerrilla campaigns, as in the cases of Israel and Palestine, the Kurdish rebellion in Turkey, or the LTTE in Sri Lanka.



Re: the holy land

There can be no arguing violence has decreased (both in occupied lands and within the Jewish state) since the occupations of Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank have ceased. For you to purport otherwise is simply a lie.



Re: Free trade

Free trade is the only thing that positively correlates with peace (contrary to what people tell you about democracy and peace where there is no correlation). You can try to deny the data here as well (check the Cato Institute reports) but you will still be wrong. Imagine that, the freedom and agency that God provides us results peace and prosperity. Or we can try things your way. Oh and sending money to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel by the US government does not equal free trade.



But watch out, the Muslims are going to take over the world. You and Glen Beck can keep blowing your hot air, but until you point out a Muslim offensive outside the middle east since the mid 1700s no one without an agenda is going to listen.

jvquarterback wrote:
Well, it is difficult to argue someone who doesn't accept the data, but here goes.



The 1996 US had troops in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Morrocco and Turkey. They had just attempted operations in multiple African nations.



Re: Germany, Japan, Korea, etc. I'll excerpt from the Pape article again since you can't take the time to click through:

Some have disputed the causal link between foreign occupation and suicide terrorism, pointing out that some occupations by foreign powers have not resulted in suicide bombings -- for example, critics often cite post-World War II Japan and Germany. Our research provides sufficient evidence to address these criticisms by outlining the two factors that determine the likelihood of suicide terrorism being employed against an occupying force.



The first factor is social distance between the occupier and occupied. The wider the social distance, the more the occupied community may fear losing its way of life. Although other differences may matter, research shows that resistance to occupations is especially likely to escalate to suicide terrorism when there is a difference between the predominant religion of the occupier and the predominant religion of the occupied.



Religious difference matters not because some religions are predisposed to suicide attacks. Indeed, there are religious differences even in purely secular suicide attack campaigns, such as the LTTE (Hindu) against the Sinhalese (Buddhists).



Rather, religious difference matters because it enables terrorist leaders to claim that the occupier is motivated by a religious agenda that can scare both secular and religious members of a local community -- this is why Osama bin Laden never misses an opportunity to describe U.S. occupiers as "crusaders" motivated by a Christian agenda to convert Muslims, steal their resources, and change the local population's way of life.



The second factor is prior rebellion. Suicide terrorism is typically a strategy of last resort, often used by weak actors when other, non-suicidal methods of resistance to occupation fail. This is why we see suicide attack campaigns so often evolve from ordinary terrorist or guerrilla campaigns, as in the cases of Israel and Palestine, the Kurdish rebellion in Turkey, or the LTTE in Sri Lanka.



Re: the holy land

There can be no arguing violence has decreased (both in occupied lands and within the Jewish state) since the occupations of Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank have ceased. For you to purport otherwise is simply a lie.



Re: Free trade

Free trade is the only thing that positively correlates with peace (contrary to what people tell you about democracy and peace where there is no correlation). You can try to deny the data here as well (check the Cato Institute reports) but you will still be wrong. Imagine that, the freedom and agency that God provides us results peace and prosperity. Or we can try things your way. Oh and sending money to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel by the US government does not equal free trade.



But watch out, the Muslims are going to take over the world. You and Glen Beck can keep blowing your hot air, but until you point out a Muslim offensive outside the middle east since the mid 1700s no one without an agenda is going to listen.

Ok you win. I still have my head in the sand and Pape is a great source to quote. Even though he does fundraisers for Islamic organizations. :bug:

Now for the dismanteling



1. Please explain to me what other countries we "occupy" outside of Iraq and Afganastan which we actually do not occupy now because we are there at the insistance of their govenments. Just because we are there doesn't mean we are an occupying force. We do not dictate sovern policies to Germany, S. Korea, Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia or any of the other countries you listed. We may put political pressure but we do not "rule" them which by definition is to truly occupy a country.



2. Please show me the "terrorists" that have come from Germany, Japan, Italy, England, etc and I would add that for his claim that the occupation causes the terrorists these people would need to come from diverse backgrounds.



3. Dhimmi Pape does not quote any facts. He simply makes statement saying it is fact. It is a fact that the world is flat. There I made one too. So please mr Dhimmi include some facts in your research not just claims that the facts exist.



4. Thanks for including the article. I already read it but hey now others can enjoy a dhimmi's

explanation to why they attacked the WTC in the early 90's. It was America's fault just like Rev. Wright said. "America's chickens have come home to roost". If I were you I would give up on the NPR stuff and start listening to Beck.



5. Free trade does not lead to peace. Freedom does. Free people that enjoy liberty also enjoy prosperity. Hence no actionable reason to rebel except when they are misled by a charismatic person to percieve that they are being treated unfairly. Sound familiar? Again free trade does not cause peace. It actually is a result of peace. Otherwise we could go to N. Korea and say here we will do free trade. Do you really believe that they will suddenly give up on communism and the takeover of S. Korea? If so then look at Vietnam. We left and a couple of years later the communist took over the whole country. Oh, thats because they didn't have free trade with the U.S. :skeptic:



6. I gave you the number of Sharia courts now found in England (85). Does that not register in your mind? How about all the muslim riots in England, France, and the Netherlands? I guess you want to see an actual military advance. I guess you haven't read the founding principles of the muslim brotherhood. Go read them, I doubt you will find any references (actually I know you won't) to tanks and planes but you will see the overall strategy in taking over the middle east and then branching out to the rest of the world. As for your example, I give you Lebanon. There used to be more Christians than muslims in that country. Their constitution even forbids that the president of the country be muslim. Did you know they claim to have the oldest Catholic religion (Maronites)? Now the vast majority of all Lebanese Christians live outside of Lebanon. They got tired of the attacks and violence by the muslims and left the country. Strange how there are no Christians involved in attacking Isreal and they didn't attack (suicide bomber or rocket) them when they did occupy parts of Lebanon. I wonder why that is? And they, the Christians, had the most cause to hate Isreal. It was almost entirely Christian owned lands that were taken and are still "held" by Isreal (they make up the buffer between Isreal and Lebanon). I wonder why Pape didn't mention them in his report? Just an oversite I'm sure. So if you are waiting for proof if the form of tanks and planes and battleships, I think you need to understand that there will be no military invasion, it will be through subtle means. Like the 4th floor (i think it is the 4th floor) that is planned to house islamic lawyers to plan and use U.S. laws against America to implement sharia law. We had two judges so far actually rule in favor of turning over judicial matters to a sharia court here in the US. I suspect those should be overturned (and the judges should be disbarred).



7. Please let the Isreali's know that the violence has subsided. That the numerous rockets and mortars launched last year were actually just wedding celebration pyrotechnics that just happened to land on Isreali soil. Yep, since Gaza was restored to its rightful owners, er occupiers, since there has never been a country called Palastine, there is nothing but peace.



8. So as I stated earlier, please stop tuning in to NPR. You know the ones that have been shown time and again to lean very heavily to the left. BTW I don't listen to Glenn Beck. I read, stay current on events, use reasoning, and don't accept tripe from either side until I have thought it through and done some investigating. Kinda like the tripe you posted here from mr pape. I think you should have done a little more research into the man before you started basing your arguments on his "facts".

end deconstruction (or destruction if you prefer) of yours that were mostly his arguments.

The new bin Laden drink - Two shots and a splash of water.

jvquarterback wrote:
The 1996 US had troops in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Morrocco and Turkey. They had just attempted operations in multiple African nations.

That's a far cry from "occupation" of a country. I mean, we didn't even occupy Iraq the first time we defeated Hussein. We had to stay next-door at Saudi Arabia's house.



I don't understand all the American-left self-punishment and angst over the death of a hell-bound murderer. Did you want to give him a good old-fashioned American trial instead? The man was a legit war-time target. Anyone surrounding him (I would make an exception for children who can't make informed, adult decisions on which tyrant to follow) were legit war-time targets, even the woman who got herself shot for bin Laden.



There are those in the Middle East who hate America and everything it stands for. There are those in America that hate America and everything it stands for. There are those in the Middle East that will do anything to detonate themselves in a crowd of Americans. There are those in America that will do anything to detonate themselves in a crowd of Americans. There are Muslims who want to kill Americans. There are Christians who want to kill Americans. See the pattern here?

In 2005, Al Queda sent 3 coordinated suicide bombers to attack the Sheraton, Days Inn, and Radisson hotels in Amman Jordan. One of them jumped on the table in a ballroom in the middle of a Muslim wedding where he promptly detonated his belt, killing the groom's father and dozens of the wedding party. Lots of people died that day and most of them, if not all, were Muslim. There's no love for Al Queda in Jordan.



And while they may hate American government and policies, they still love Americans and are truly warm, hospitable, and devoutly religious people. How do I know? Well, I'm in Jordan right now and that's what the Jordanians I've met tell me.



Just be careful when you lump several hundred million people into one anti-American hate group. It's naive and just incorrect.

1) Occupy - 1. to reside in 4. to sieze possession and control.

2) So the US can occupy territory in England, Germany, S Korea, Japan, etc without fear of terrorism. But they it cannot occupy Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia or Lebanon without that threat. The Chinese can occupy territory in Pakistan and N Korea without fear of terrorism, but I doubt they could occupy territory in Japan, S Korea or the US without the threat of terrorism.

3) 1980-2003 300 suicide attacks in the world 10% aimed at Americans

2003-2009 1800 suicide attacks in the world 90% aimed at Americans

I would add to this the number of attacks prior to US involvement in the middle east back in the 1940s: 0.

Do you dispute any of these facts.

4) The people in the WTC and the TT were not at fault. The government that rules over them put them in danger. See point #3.

5) Again you clearly did not read the source or you would see we are in agreement (see the Cato 2005 Economic Freedom report chapter 2). And if you review the level of freedom in the countries you cite before our government imposes embargoes and after they are lifted the economic freedom of those countries increases dramatically. That is, if we pursue free trade with people you would consider enemies, they begin to embrace freedom.

6) Individuals should be able to submit themselves to whichever arbitrator they choose. So Sharia courts if treated correctly should be as much an issue as LDS church courts. If people want to submit themselves to such a court it is within their rights. The riots in Europe are far more to do with jobless rates among immigrants which result because of ridiculous labor laws in Western Europe. So the fact that Muslims have more children than Christians is now a cause for you to declare war against them? Thanks for the Lebanese history primer.

7) The Jewish state and the people who live in the holy land are plenty capable to recognize a decrease in violence. They have had it and they recognize it.

8. What you call reason is simply ignoring facts because they do not fit in with what you want to believe. You resort to ad hominem attacks against those who present data rather than presenting other data to refute a claim. Such methods and fear-mongering are repugnant and beneath you.

Thanks for some perspective cougarclaw. I don't buy that all Muslims are hellbent on destroying America. Are some of them? Sure, but they are also determined to bring down their own governments if it means more power for them. If left alone, they have enough issues between themselves that they would not be able to unify as they have with common enemy in the United States.



I believe we are only agitating more people than we are calming because people will fiercely defend their land, their God, religion, freedom, peace, wives, and children (i'll let you figure out that source). If, by our presence, people in the middle east feel that some of these liberties are being threatened they will join a group in order to counter that threat. I really believe the reason AQ has flourished as of late is because more Muslims sense a threat by the USA's presence in their countries. If the USA doesn't have a presence, people go back to being peaceful farmers under somewhat tyrannical leaders instead of suicide bombers.



This may be an isolated incident, or it may happen more than we would like to admit (one guy in the article unfortunately was raised LDS) but this article made me absolutely sick when I read it. If this were to happen in my area, you can bet that the whole town/county/state/coutry would be absolutely enraged by it. I can understand how an afgan citizen in that area would feel it his duty to join a terrorist organization to counter what he feel was a threat. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Finally though, our economy is collapsing before our eyes. This is the number one national security threat facing the United States. Why our government has determined that it is our duty to patrol the middle east at a time when we are asking congress to add 2 TRILLION dollars to the national debt and creditors are becoming increasingly skeptical or our ability to pay is unbelievable to me. For this reason alone I feel that our presence worldwide must be reduced significantly.



CAFB, there is certainly a pattern there. I'm sure there are people in Africa and Europe and Asia and Russia as well. Should we invade these countries as well? We should if we follow patterns. So who is going to pay for the USA to track down these people in the world who hates the US and has occasional thoughts of blowing us up?



I hate to say this but I think that OBL was a brilliant mastermind. He knew exactly what he wanted to do and he accomplished it. He wanted the USA to live in fear so much that we are taking our own liberties away. Check. He wanted us to spend billions and trillions fighting "terror" (whatever that is). Check. He wanted to inspire Muslims to hate America and join his cause. Check. It's sad, but I feel that the actions the USA took only enabled him to become more successful than he ever could have imagined.

jvquarterback wrote:
1) Occupy - 1. to reside in 4. to sieze possession and control.

2) So the US can occupy territory in England, Germany, S Korea, Japan, etc without fear of terrorism. But they it cannot occupy Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia or Lebanon without that threat. The Chinese can occupy territory in Pakistan and N Korea without fear of terrorism, but I doubt they could occupy territory in Japan, S Korea or the US without the threat of terrorism.

3) 1980-2003 300 suicide attacks in the world 10% aimed at Americans

2003-2009 1800 suicide attacks in the world 90% aimed at Americans

I would add to this the number of attacks prior to US involvement in the middle east back in the 1940s: 0.

Do you dispute any of these facts.

4) The people in the WTC and the TT were not at fault. The government that rules over them put them in danger. See point #3.

5) Again you clearly did not read the source or you would see we are in agreement (see the Cato 2005 Economic Freedom report chapter 2). And if you review the level of freedom in the countries you cite before our government imposes embargoes and after they are lifted the economic freedom of those countries increases dramatically. That is, if we pursue free trade with people you would consider enemies, they begin to embrace freedom.

6) Individuals should be able to submit themselves to whichever arbitrator they choose. So Sharia courts if treated correctly should be as much an issue as LDS church courts. If people want to submit themselves to such a court it is within their rights. The riots in Europe are far more to do with jobless rates among immigrants which result because of ridiculous labor laws in Western Europe. So the fact that Muslims have more children than Christians is now a cause for you to declare war against them? Thanks for the Lebanese history primer.

7) The Jewish state and the people who live in the holy land are plenty capable to recognize a decrease in violence. They have had it and they recognize it.

8. What you call reason is simply ignoring facts because they do not fit in with what you want to believe. You resort to ad hominem attacks against those who present data rather than presenting other data to refute a claim. Such methods and fear-mongering are repugnant and beneath you.

Ok now your getting circular.



1 & 2 You are playing semantics. You know the occupy in which the dhimmi Pape attempts to confuse are with the two you listed. Don't fall for his subtley. Being there with permission is different than being there without permission (of the legal government).

3. This one is a slight of hand. But I'm not falling for it. Can you tell me where the 90% happened? Nearly all of them are were in Iraq and Afganastan. A couple of attempts on planes coming here but that is all. Hmmm.. I wonder why? Oh, because that is one of their battle tactics since they don't have tanks and fighter planes. How may bases did we have in the 1940's in the Middle East? I think the 0 is kind of an obvious result when we didn't really have a presence in the middle east except when we drove through there on our way to Berlin.

4. This one makes no sense. We occupied no country when they attacked the WTC. So what was our governments crime when they bombed the WTC the first and second time? Your argument and that of the dhimmi is one of occupation. Please point out that occupation. And don't take us in circles. Occupation as in we went in, invaded the country and dictated all terms of government. Just being there with the permission of the legal government does not entail an occupation. To say it does is false and dishonest.

5. Please explain how free trade led to peace with any of our enemies? So if we would have just lifted every embargo against Cuba then they would be our friends? Explain to me why they are so poor. Because we won't trade with them? They are free to trade with every other country in the world but they are still destitute. It is because of their communist government. Why else on earth would there be a shortage of fish on an island?! Because of bad government. Freedom leads to peace. Free trade follows. If we would have taken out that S.O.B. in Cuba years ago and liberated the people from his grasp they would be our allies.

6. Sorry but this is way off. You cannot compare Sharia with an LDS church court. I have yet to see one verdict that said it was good that a father killed his daughter because she was a sinner and dishonored the family. How many hands have Bishops or stake presidents called to be cut off? How many stonings for adultery and fornication and blasphemy? And the only thing at stake when you go to an LDS court is your standing in the church. Nothing else. They can't imprison you, they can't banish you, they can't take your hand or your head. To follow, in this country we are subject to the laws of this land with the supreme law being that of the constitution. LDS courts do not violate a single law or statute. Sharia law violates nearly all the ones listed in the Bill of Rights (ammendments 1-10) and even the ones penned into the original document, life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. So please don't mention this one again. It is a very steep cliff.

7. And the rockets and mortars? Tokens of that peace I guess?

8. Again I ask but I'm sure you won't provide them because the dhimmi doesn't. What facts? Claiming that facts exist does not mean they do. As for your "facts" listed above, they are so easily explained. We have declared war on terrorism and are now taking the fight to them. We are now over there with a huge presence. And the terrorist that we fight use suicide bombers as one of the ways they attack us. We are in a state of war not peace over there. and the Christian Lebonese? They don't fit the narrative. Some day I'll list all of Quin's laws on liberalism. Maybe that will help.

1-4. Presence, occupation, call it what you want. American troops in the middle east correlate with attacks against US citizens (in the US and abroad). I don't care or presume to know why Germans don't (now) attack US citizens. I do care that my family is in greater danger as a result of the presence (aka occupation) of US soldiers in the middle east. Those are the facts. You even admit them as such when you say the reason no US citizen was attacked by a middle easterner prior to the 1950s is because there weren't any US soldiers residing in the middle east.



5. I do not know how or why economic freedom (as described by the Cato Institute researchers) leads to peace, I do know that the data indicate that it does lead to peace. I believe in freedom from a religious perspective, but this argument in favor of economic freedom is in the data. I know the chapter I referenced is long and the statistical analysis is a bit complex, but the data are there.



6. Sure they are different. Ban them where you are if you want. I think individuals with disputes should be able to choose any arbiter they mutually agree upon in their pursuit of happiness. If one party doesn't agree to the Sharia arbiter they should be free to choose another. Which was my point: If treated correctly they aren't a big deal.



7. No one is saying everything will be forgiven the moment the correct decision is made to cease the presence/occupation of US soldiers in the middle east, but just as there has been an enormous immediate benefit in the holy land, we will eventually see the same amount of violence against US citizens observed prior to 1950.



8.You continue to deny the data. I have suggested you present your own data but you have failed to do so. I doubt anyone else is reading this but if they are I am sure they will recognize your failed arguments and lack of data.



BTW, I wasn't talking about ad hominem attacks against me, which I can see you refrained from in you last post, I was speaking about Dr. Pape. You brought up his appearing at a fundraiser for a muslim group. When it comes to making an informed decision I don't care what he does, I only care what the data show. For instance, I use data in my practice obtained in Nazi concentration camps. I don't believe in the methods used or the prejudices of the physicians who performed the experiments, but I also don't run around calling the people who obtained the data Nazis and refuse to accept the truths they observed about the human body. To do so would put my patients in danger, which is what happens to people any time you ignore the data.

OBL got exactly what he deserved--the Teancum treatment. Back then it was a spear, now it is a bullet. Regardless, he was swept from the earth before he was able to continue to spread his poison. Evil like his must be eradicated before it spreads and takes you over--because it will. So says the Book of Mormon, and that is a good enough teacher for me.

Lawboy wrote:
OBL got exactly what he deserved--the Teancum treatment. Back then it was a spear, now it is a bullet. Regardless, he was swept from the earth before he was able to continue to spread his poison. Evil like his must be eradicated before it spreads and takes you over--because it will. So says the Book of Mormon, and that is a good enough teacher for me.

Totally agree, I love the lesson that Teancum taught us and wish the USA would follow his lead. No invasion, no trillion dollar wars, just get rid of the dude. If it takes using navy seals invading a compound, I'm fine with that.

unfortunately, just getting rid of the dude didn't stop his second in command from continuing the war, and it also gave the Lamanites a wonderful recruiting tool to use against the Nephite "murderers" for years afterwards.



But it does make for an excellent Rambo moment.

So is the argument here that the U.S. should have an isolationist foreign policy?

declocoug wrote:
CAFB, there is certainly a pattern there. I'm sure there are people in Africa and Europe and Asia and Russia as well. Should we invade these countries as well? We should if we follow patterns. So who is going to pay for the USA to track down these people in the world who hates the US and has occasional thoughts of blowing us up?

I guess I didn't make my point clearly. My point is: it doesn't where the U.S. conducts its foreign policy, there will be those who will attack and kill Americans. If the U.S. were completely isolationist my theory is that there would be those in the world that would insist the U.S. were evil because of it and would bring terrorist attacks wherever they could (Oklahoma City, Seattle, wherever).



I think it's naive to think that if the U.S. would keep to itself things would be just fine. There are just too many American interests abroad. I agree, however, that the policy in the middle east has run its course and needs to be redirected, but you can't simply bring everyone home overnight. But now that bin Laden is dead, perhaps the timeline can be accelerated. After all, I just pulled a non-volunteer 365-day vacation to a craphole in that country.

CAFB_04-12 wrote:

CAFB, there is certainly a pattern there. I'm sure there are people in Africa and Europe and Asia and Russia as well. Should we invade these countries as well? We should if we follow patterns. So who is going to pay for the USA to track down these people in the world who hates the US and has occasional thoughts of blowing us up?

I guess I didn't make my point clearly. My point is: it doesn't where the U.S. conducts its foreign policy, there will be those who will attack and kill Americans. If the U.S. were completely isolationist my theory is that there would be those in the world that would insist the U.S. were evil because of it and would bring terrorist attacks wherever they could (Oklahoma City, Seattle, wherever).



I think it's naive to think that if the U.S. would keep to itself things would be just fine. There are just too many American interests abroad. I agree, however, that the policy in the middle east has run its course and needs to be redirected, but you can't simply bring everyone home overnight. But now that bin Laden is dead, perhaps the timeline can be accelerated. After all, I just pulled a non-volunteer 365-day vacation to a craphole in that country.

I agree with some of what you've said, and I wish you didn't have to spend 365 days there. Sorry you had to go through that and I appreciate the sacrifice. I have family members who have went through the same "vacations".



Not arguing for isolationist, just think we've gone to the extreme in the other direction. And we can't afford it to boot. If by isolationist you mean getting our military out of wars and uneccessary occupations, I'm all for that. Let Americans do trade with whom and where they please (that is not isolationist). If those foreign countries are not protecting these American institutions from attack, they will lose the benefit of having Americans to do business with, and the groups committing the attacks will suffer public backlash when/if they attack institutions that have helped citizens in those foreign countries find jobs.



And if we are being attacked either way as you suggest for being "isolationists" or for what is perceived as "empire building" I'll take isolationist. I think the USA has been caught in a case of he who throws the second punch looks like the villian sort of mess. We were provoked/punched/attacked. Did we need to act? Yes. Did we go too far. I'm afraid so, and too often we have looked like the villian which has added to the anti-American fervor abroad.

The data suggest otherwise CAFB.

You can find "data" to support whatever position you want to promote. I have seen here, a propensity to use data that completely ignores the volume of data and only uses that one string that supports the desired conclusion.

CAFB_04-12 wrote:
So is the argument here that the U.S. should have an isolationist foreign policy?

Apparently so, however, neither isolationism nor appeasement work. Those policies almost had the whole world speaking German a few years back.