td11 wrote:It's as if he's dealing with completely unpredictable and insane opponents like Isis and Putin and Assad

pacino wrote:the question is why ARE they saying this stuff? it's tough talk to the public and to ISIS, pretty simple. perhaps they are also war hawks, like yourself.


if we enter Syria, we're stupid.

Roger Dorn wrote:I don't know how you are supposed to solve an ideology with our military? These kids grow up in an area of the world with extremely limited opportunities, extremely high rates of poverty, and despotic regimes hellbent on crushing freedom of expression or any kind for that matter. Militant organizations like ISIS recruit these kids from a young age and they have no shot. Simply put, the military is not any kind of solution and you kill one member of ISIS and 5 more members are recruited.

Luzinski's Gut wrote:FYI
And on ISIL:
http://20committee.com/2014/08/24/war-a ... mic-state/

It is hoped that, confronted by the rising madness and violence of IS in Iraq and Syria, Obama will find the ability to pursue the war against Salafi jihadism with the required vigor, as well as to communicate to the public the nature of the threat we face, including the reality that the struggle will be long and difficult. The Islamic State can be crushed in what remains of Obama’s second term, while defeating Salafi jihadism itself is a generational enterprise, but refusing to use the time between now and January 2017 to fight IS with all the means at our disposal will not only give the enemy time to grow and metastasize further, it would amount to presidential dereliction of duty. If President Obama does not possess the will to wage this war that has been forced upon us, he should consider devoting himself to golf full time and stepping aside in favor of Joe Biden, who has demonstrated some quite sensible views on terrorism over the years.

Luzinski's Gut wrote:And there is a strong feeling that if you eradicate them early on, you won't have to deal with them being stronger and more well developed in the future.

Luzinski's Gut wrote:FYI

On Russia:
http://20committee.com/2014/08/29/the-r ... inian-war/

And on ISIL:
http://20committee.com/2014/08/24/war-a ... mic-state/

Women often play an important role behind the scenes in radicalizing their men and keeping them that way.

drsmooth wrote:

Luzinski's Gut wrote:And there is a strong feeling that if you eradicate them early on, you won't have to deal with them being stronger and more well developed in the future.

LG, are you saying the US public holds this strong feeling? Because I'd want some polling on that.

Not sure how you truly 'eradicate them' without also eradicating at least one of the broader socioeconomic problems your post mentioned. And that feels like a much bigger, longer, more complicated project.

Luzinski's Gut wrote:2. Force the Turks/Jordanians/Saudis/Gulf State Arabs to police their backyard - this is the Sunni coalition that has the most to lose against ISIL in the long run, perhaps mentioning this quietly to the House of Saud and the rest of the Emirs sitting on the ocean of fossil fuels, as well as a gentle reminder that we aren't going to really get involved...of course, one could postulate that these countries and their political/economic structures are the very reason why a band like ISIL exists in the first place.

What we know already is that a significant number of Scottish people have a dream: where statehood, social justice and cultural self-confidence fit together into a clear and popular project.

The rest of Britain may be stunned, but should not be surprised if the enthusiasm for this dream propels enough people into the voting booths to give the yes camp a narrow victory.

If it happens there'll be a lot of finger pointing, but it's obvious in advance where the biggest problem lies: it's become impossible to express opposition to free market economics via the main Westminster parties.

Some English and Welsh voters think they're doing it by voting Ukip. But the referendum offered Scottish voters a way to do it by destroying the union. Whether you think that's illusory or mistaken, it's formed the narrative on the streets.

That's where we should be watching now; the high-camp shouting match of men in suits is a diversion.

In an interview with The Scotsman, Mr Silver said polling data was “pretty definitive”. “There’s virtually no chance that the Yes side will win”, he said. “If you look at the polls, it’s pretty definitive really where the No side is at 60-55 per cent and Yes side is about 40 or so.

“Historically, in any Yes or No vote in a referendum, it’s actually the No side that tends to grow over time, people tend not to default to changing the status quo.

“The No side is even more dominant with the younger voters, so there’s not going to be any generational thing going on.”

Wizlah wrote:Meant to say, Nate Silver made this prediction last year in the Scotsman when he was visiting the Book Festival:

In an interview with The Scotsman, Mr Silver said polling data was “pretty definitive”. “There’s virtually no chance that the Yes side will win”, he said. “If you look at the polls, it’s pretty definitive really where the No side is at 60-55 per cent and Yes side is about 40 or so.

“Historically, in any Yes or No vote in a referendum, it’s actually the No side that tends to grow over time, people tend not to default to changing the status quo.

“The No side is even more dominant with the younger voters, so there’s not going to be any generational thing going on.”

So in summary we can see the following:

- on ONE occasion (1964) Scottish MPs have turned what would have been a Conservative government into a Labour one. The Tory majority without Scottish votes would have been just one MP (280 vs 279), and as such useless in practice. The Labour government, with an almost equally feeble majority of 4, lasted just 18 months and a Tory one would probably have collapsed even faster.

- on ONE occasion (the second of the two 1974 elections) Scottish MPs gave Labour a wafer-thin majority (319 vs 316) they wouldn’t have had from the rest of the UK alone, although they’d still have been the largest party and able to command a majority in a pact with the Liberals, as they eventually did in reality.

- and on ONE occasion (2010) the presence of Scottish MPs has deprived the Conservatives of an outright majority, although the Conservatives ended up in control of the government anyway in coalition with the Lib Dems when Labour refused to co-operate with other parties in a “rainbow alliance”.

He is leaving the Conservatives because he thinks – correctly – that David Cameron will eventually recommend that Britain remain a member of the European Union. Fine. But it is quixotic to leave a party that can actually deliver what you want and join one that can’t. That is what Carswell has done.

Doubtless it will cheer the Dave Haters and the Better Off Outers but however principled you think Carswell is there remains the ticklish problem that he’s today made an EU referendum less likely not more probable.