I think the USA needs to be cautious in entering foreign wars and sparking more instability. The USA military is viewed as the do all and end all problem solver. Whenever there are problems with any ally or otherwise the USA is suppose to be tapped to bring weapons and soldiers to solve the problem. I remind Daesh exists because the USA entered into an illegal and immoral war in Iraq.
Everyone accepts that reality, right? France was attacked by people acting in proxy for Daesh. The attackers were recruited to carry out this attack by a charismatic leader in Syria. There are citizens of Australia that have acted on the behalf and also migrated to Syria. These are all facts. No one believes there is no charismatic movement, do they? Where are the facts?
No one wants Europe to be the next war for freedom in the global community. There has been security in Europe and while killing is the enemies domain, it may only serve to increase that capacity if the USA military is involved when there is no solution at the end of that knee jerk reaction.
Seven heavily armed men killed over one hundred people in France and wounded over three hundred. That is nearly 500 people with a new and different reality today. What is going to be the reaction of society if these problems continue?
We all witnessed the attacks of September 11, 2001 and Americans began to stand in lines at airports to secure their flights. Did anyone ever think that would become a reality in a country with infrastructure that is to keep them safe? People value life and if surrendering to a maniacal leader will insure their lives they will live to fight another day. Civilization is in question and how it uses it's power. ie: Iraq post invasion when facing a real security issue.
I think NATO has a responsibility to all it's members. It is up to France to identify where NATO can add to greater security. There is an influx of unknown people. That has to be addressed. We know at least one person was involved in the Paris killings in a way that manifested due to open borders in Europe.
Daesh has stated openly that France is to be a target again. That has to be addressed and if soldiers from NATO in the streets in France brings about greater stability then that is where NATO should be concentrated. What good are soldiers in Syria when it does nothing to end the violence among the people of France?
I think Europe and NATO need to come to the understanding about war and what is EFFECTIVE. The USA in Iraq turned loose the old Saddam Ba'athists to organize and bring about a feared militia in Syria. That was a horrible idea. It was a war of convenience and not necessity. Is Iraq going to be the 51st state of the USA ahead of Puerto Rico? If this lame military effort goes on much longer, the USA will need an income from Iraq's oil to maintain a war of decades.
Everyone accepts that reality, right? France was attacked by people acting in proxy for Daesh. The attackers were recruited to carry out this attack by a charismatic leader in Syria. There are citizens of Australia that have acted on the behalf and also migrated to Syria. These are all facts. No one believes there is no charismatic movement, do they? Where are the facts?
No one wants Europe to be the next war for freedom in the global community. There has been security in Europe and while killing is the enemies domain, it may only serve to increase that capacity if the USA military is involved when there is no solution at the end of that knee jerk reaction.
Seven heavily armed men killed over one hundred people in France and wounded over three hundred. That is nearly 500 people with a new and different reality today. What is going to be the reaction of society if these problems continue?
We all witnessed the attacks of September 11, 2001 and Americans began to stand in lines at airports to secure their flights. Did anyone ever think that would become a reality in a country with infrastructure that is to keep them safe? People value life and if surrendering to a maniacal leader will insure their lives they will live to fight another day. Civilization is in question and how it uses it's power. ie: Iraq post invasion when facing a real security issue.
I think NATO has a responsibility to all it's members. It is up to France to identify where NATO can add to greater security. There is an influx of unknown people. That has to be addressed. We know at least one person was involved in the Paris killings in a way that manifested due to open borders in Europe.
Daesh has stated openly that France is to be a target again. That has to be addressed and if soldiers from NATO in the streets in France brings about greater stability then that is where NATO should be concentrated. What good are soldiers in Syria when it does nothing to end the violence among the people of France?
I think Europe and NATO need to come to the understanding about war and what is EFFECTIVE. The USA in Iraq turned loose the old Saddam Ba'athists to organize and bring about a feared militia in Syria. That was a horrible idea. It was a war of convenience and not necessity. Is Iraq going to be the 51st state of the USA ahead of Puerto Rico? If this lame military effort goes on much longer, the USA will need an income from Iraq's oil to maintain a war of decades.
NATO and the European Union have to come to terms of what caused this instability in their country and deal with it. There is no answer in Syria if all a military operation means is increased dangers in Europe. I remind this attack in Paris was planned by cells of terrorists in the community. The one person from Syria that migrated to Greece could not wait to kill in France and took up weapons without question among strangers. Would that person have been killed by the USA military in Syria? Not necessarily.
The migration of terrorists into Europe is now known. The attacks happened when a member of Daesh was killed for assassinating others. Syria has a dynamic in this as does Iraq, however, currently there are two fronts to this attack in France. There is the war front in Syria and Iraq and now there is a terrorist front in France to the killing of innocent people. Russia has ended it's flights into Sharm el-Sheikh before any conclusion of the investigation of the jet crash.
There cannot be a simple answer for political expediency. If a multi-front war proves to be overwhelming and the violence spreads in Europe as Daesh is planning, the war will get worse and the decisions will be focused on control and causing death and the real question will become, "Will a mulit-front war lead to the use of nukes?"
The reason the USA used nuclear weapons in WWII was because the danger to the USA increased beyond it's military reach and expertise.
If the G20 meeting is successful the entire membership would have decided to act together to end terrorism. It would have identified where each country fits into security on their continent. It would have welcomed a war pact among countries to end the dangers of Daesh. I hope that was at least put into the agenda to meet again for national security measures.
To coin a popular phrase, "The USA is not all that." Sure, the USA has a strong military, but, there are limits. What happens if Venezuela breaks open and there is a near border war in the Gulf of Mexico? I think the global organizations such as the G20 have an opportunity to bring a realistic picture to national and international security. If they miss that opportunity, the civilized world is in trouble. I am convinced of that.
Russia's national security is based in stable governments as allies. That is an interesting concept.
If the downing of a jet is due to terrorists then the reality of Egypt has changed and there are over 200 people dead. Add that to France's deaths known to be caused by terrorism and the totals begin to add up. One hundred here, 200 there and what is the total amount of deaths from terrorism leading to a war without end.
Daesh has presented a sincere concern for every nation because of it's SUCCESSFUL charismatic movement. The global community can bring about stability or it can act foolishly and bring about a world at war with it's own inability to see the best way forward.
Every country in the world have known stability problems. If war breaks out, as it did in France and citizens are forced to take up arms, the civilized world ends and anarchy reigns. Don't think for one minute terrorist organizations won't thrive if countries are at odds with each other; quite the contrary, terrorism will flourish.
The migration of terrorists into Europe is now known. The attacks happened when a member of Daesh was killed for assassinating others. Syria has a dynamic in this as does Iraq, however, currently there are two fronts to this attack in France. There is the war front in Syria and Iraq and now there is a terrorist front in France to the killing of innocent people. Russia has ended it's flights into Sharm el-Sheikh before any conclusion of the investigation of the jet crash.
There cannot be a simple answer for political expediency. If a multi-front war proves to be overwhelming and the violence spreads in Europe as Daesh is planning, the war will get worse and the decisions will be focused on control and causing death and the real question will become, "Will a mulit-front war lead to the use of nukes?"
The reason the USA used nuclear weapons in WWII was because the danger to the USA increased beyond it's military reach and expertise.
If the G20 meeting is successful the entire membership would have decided to act together to end terrorism. It would have identified where each country fits into security on their continent. It would have welcomed a war pact among countries to end the dangers of Daesh. I hope that was at least put into the agenda to meet again for national security measures.
To coin a popular phrase, "The USA is not all that." Sure, the USA has a strong military, but, there are limits. What happens if Venezuela breaks open and there is a near border war in the Gulf of Mexico? I think the global organizations such as the G20 have an opportunity to bring a realistic picture to national and international security. If they miss that opportunity, the civilized world is in trouble. I am convinced of that.
Russia's national security is based in stable governments as allies. That is an interesting concept.
If the downing of a jet is due to terrorists then the reality of Egypt has changed and there are over 200 people dead. Add that to France's deaths known to be caused by terrorism and the totals begin to add up. One hundred here, 200 there and what is the total amount of deaths from terrorism leading to a war without end.
Daesh has presented a sincere concern for every nation because of it's SUCCESSFUL charismatic movement. The global community can bring about stability or it can act foolishly and bring about a world at war with it's own inability to see the best way forward.
Every country in the world have known stability problems. If war breaks out, as it did in France and citizens are forced to take up arms, the civilized world ends and anarchy reigns. Don't think for one minute terrorist organizations won't thrive if countries are at odds with each other; quite the contrary, terrorism will flourish.
How can a mad man in Afghanistan bring about a world at war with Islamists in every country on Earth? Who will win? What is the cost in lives, cultural survival and stability of governments? These blood thirsty Islamists don't care about how the deaths occur among the infidels, they are willing to find a way to turn a nuclear power facility in France to a weapon of death. They aren't messing around and political dogma to instill faux ideas of safety is a defeat in the face of enormous power and how it is best used.
President Hollande has every asset that NATO has at his disposal. He needs to act in a way that will end the danger to his people, not simply accept a politically attractive act of muscle flexing and more danger.
