After Paris, we need grown-ups, not apocalyptic warriors

[Ferd Berfel]

The Adults have to stand up and start speaking out. We have to drown out the frightened children. This is a Saudi/Turkish/Iranian/Syrian problem....That republicans (and Hillary) created

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/16/they_want_a_clash_of_civilizations_after_paris_we_need_grown_ups_not_apocalyptic_warriors/

They want a clash of civilizations: After Paris, we need grown-ups, not apocalyptic warriors
The Democrats need to aggressively differentiate between their mature response to ISIS vs. the GOP's childish one

It’s a step too far to say that the Paris attacks are going to completely reshape the 2016 elections, but still indisputable that national security concerns are going to weigh more prominently on voter minds than they had before. But as the candidates move to respond, one thing is becoming quite clear: The attacks should be a clarifying moment, a reminder that, regardless of the sniping that arises during primary season, electing a Democrat to office instead of a Republican is more important than ever.

Dealing with ISIS is going to require having adults in leadership, people who have the emotional maturity and intelligence to handle a volatile situation with care. The only people in this race who have that kind of maturity are the Democrats, full stop.

As evidence of this, look no further than Jeb Bush, who has been trying to position himself as the grown-up in the Republican race. And while he may be slightly more adult than his yapping counterparts, his behavior after the Paris attacks shows that, compared to Democrats, he’s still a little boy who thinks this is all a game. His behavior has been eerily reminiscent of his brother, George W. Bush: The prospect of war, which should make him somber and cautious, is instead causing what looks an awful lot like glee at getting to play war, except with real people’s lives instead of toy soldiers.

On Sunday, Bush went on Meet the Press , announcing that the United States “should declare war” and sneering at the Democrats for wanting a more cautious, considered response.

[randys1]

1. Apocalyptic is a perfect point, remembering some of the CANDIDATES, actually believe

that we need a global nuclear war to bring back Jeebus

There are people leading in the polls who believe this.

Are you frightened yet?

[AuntPatsy]

2. We do

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113313825

[maxsolomon]

3. to be clear, you're saying this is Hillary Clinton's fault

because she voted for the IWR? are any of the other 28 democratic senators at fault? what about the democratic representatives in the house?

if she'd voted no, would that have stopped bush from attacking Iraq?

or is there more to her culpability?

[hifiguy]

5. None of the others is running for president now.

[maxsolomon]

8. That one vote outweighs everything else she's done then?

Every other action taken as a US Senator.
Every action taken as Secretary of State.
Every lesson she's learned from that vote, from the consequences of it.

I think she should have voted against it, but I don't think it means Daesh is her fault. The IWR was deliberately designed as a tough vote for Centrist Dems.

She wasn't President. He abused the Authority he was given, as we all said he would.

[hifiguy]

9. "Aside from that Mrs Lincoln how did you like the play?"

Errors in judgment - or pure political cowardice - of that order are not forgivable when someone seeks the presidency, where they can be repeated on an even grander scale.

[maxsolomon]

10. Fair enough

I see the world as a messier place where Idealism is impossible.

Should she secure the nomination, I'll be voting for her next November, and I suspect you'll hold your nose and do the same.

[hifiguy]

4. I suspect that is going to be the reaction

from France and its elite antiterrorism force, the GIGN, who are technically police and not military. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Gendarmerie_Intervention_Group

I understand they can be quite nasty indeed if need be, much in the MOSSAD style, and they are empowered to investigate any attacks on French soil OR French citizens wherever they may be in the world. Screw around with GIGN at your own risk. It likely will not end well for you if you do.

[DinahMoeHum]

6. Fighting ISIS/ISIL is a job for the likes of GIGN, Interpol, FBI, etc.

IOW, law enforcement. . .NOT the military.

What happened in Paris (and in Beirut and Baghdad) was a CRIME.
NOT an "act of war"

Calling these crimes "acts of war" only lends dignity and legitimacy to the perpetrators. They deserve neither.

Leave the military out of it. It's not their job and they're not trained for that shit anyway.
Bush & Co. didn't listen and didn't learn. The rest is history.

[hifiguy]

7. The problem for governments with leaving it

to those sorts of entities is that they work best in the shadows and behind the scenes. Which means no one can get on the teevee maching and bang their chests about how they're gonna deal with the terrists. Ergo, there are no cheap political points to be made in the process.

Another thing the world could do is decriminalize most recreational drugs,which would free up many more law-enforcement resources to track clear and present dangers to innocent civilians across the western world.

[DinahMoeHum]

11. ". . .best in the shadows and behind the scenes. . ." nails it.

Fighting terrorism requires subtlety and discretion; and unfortunately the GOP blowhards are as subtle and discreet as a herd of elephants stomping along a muddy river bank.