Mike, most of what you say here makes sense. But the one idea I question is
when you say "whoever is pushing the hardest will have the most influence." I'd
like to think that that way of operating is no longer most effective on the
world stage. How about: whoever can benefit humanity the most will have the
most influence?
On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:36 AM, "Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Leadership comes with a price. Do we lead the world in our values or take a
back seat and let others do the leading? We see ISIS leading in the middle east
and Putin leading in Eastern Europe now. Obviously we have a president that
believes in leading from *behind* and we now see how well that works.< Like it
or not, we live in a New World Order. Everybody is interconnected. We can not
return to isolationism and live as we are accustomed to. We either shape the
world to our liking or it will shape us to it's liking and whoever is pushing
the hardest will have the most influence. Are you ready for Islamic, Russian
or any other kind of totalitarianism?"< To those that are given much, much is
expected." What is the greater good, spending your share to *help* the
unproductive get a piece of the pie or making a big enough pie so everybody can
have a chance at a piece? <The US, with it's values and resources, is the
obvious choice as a leader of the free
world and should always seek assistance from like minded nations and that is
the responsibility of a strong leader.
On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 6:22 AM, "'Richard J. Williams'
pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2014 10:02 PM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
>That's why we needed a residual force in Iraq. They, the Iraqis, were
>developing the skills while we were there. We backed them up and gave them the
>confidence they needed to get it done. The average Iraqi soldier doesn't trust
>or have faith in their own commanders unless there are American commanders
>over seeing an operation with American soldiers to back them up if needed. We
>left too early and created a vacuum. ISIS filled it. The same fate awaits
>Afghanistan. American lives and treasure have been waisted. Bush forecast this
>very event if we left too early.Extremist would take over and we would spend
>even more lives and treasure to take it back in order to prevent something
>worse. Obama should get on his knees and beg General McCrystal and General
>David Petraeus to come back and restore what they had accomplished, hopefully
>with a greater coalition.
>
In the next U.S. presidential elections the main issue will be U.S.
funding for military self-defense, not health care reform or
immigration. The question is, how long will the U.S. be willing or
able to fund the Western world to defend itself from Russian
aggression or ISIS terrorism? How long will America be willing to
have their back Europe, the Far East, or anywhere else? It's all
about money and where to spend it.
>
>
>
>On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 7:35 PM, mailto:jr_...@yahoo.com[FairfieldLife]
>mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>Richard,
>
>
>As mentioned by the US generals, the US cannot win the war against ISIS by air
>power alone. It still needs military boots on the ground to drive away the
>militants from Iraq. The military boots should not be coming from American
>soldiers. The military boots should be from the Iraqi forces. It is their
>country and they should be defending it.
>
>
>
>---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mailto:punditster@... wrote :
>
>
>On 9/9/2014 11:11 AM, Bhairitu noozguru@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:
>
>
>>
>>>The US funded the Mujahideen to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan.
>>>Why? Because greedy US businessmen wanted their hands on the recently
>>>revealed to the public rich resources in the Afghanistan (which was why
>>>Russians were there in the first place). Then the Mujahideen because
>>>Al-Qaeda and a new boogeyman to get the American people in a "war mood" and
>>>support spending heavily on defense which of course profited the military
>>>industrial complex. Then the US supported ISIS to help overthrow the Syrian
>>>government. Now they are the new boogeyman to drum up more defense
>>>spending. Best way to defeat ISIS was to not support them in the first
>>>place.
>>>
>
>>The past is already gone, you
need to face the present. The
best way
to defeat ISIS is to vote for
the political candidate that
will be
willing to fund the U.S.
military. The the only way to
defeat ISIS
is with U.S. military air power.
That's what President Obama is
already doing. Without U.S.
military air support, the
European and
Middle Eastern governments will
NOT be able to defeat ISIS. It's
not
complicated.
>>>
>>
>>
>>>On 09/08/2014 07:34
PM, jr_esq@...
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's the formation of a new government in Iraq, according to Kerry. IMO,
>>>>this indeed is the most reasonable of all approaches, along with the
>>>>necessary support from world governments to defeat ISIS.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>https://news.yahoo.com/kerry-heads-mideast-talks-islamic-state-180834352.html
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Romney *was* the man for the job but the poor and naive are not noted for
making wise choices
otherwise they wouldn't be poor or naive. Maybe he'll run again
as buyers remorse sets in, but don't count on it.
