[quote]There was a distinct shift in doctrine and execution of aspects vital to stability, security and reliability. The first factor is one of the most obvious, in which I mean I point to the neglect of the Korean Peninsula, the expansion of ISIS and its evolutions, the interactions with Iran, ignoring of Israel and of course the on going diplomatic problem which has become Turkey and greater Europe. I will reiterate that this is not leveled squarely on the Obama administration, but under that extended period territory gained all but vanished. They had many opportunities to improve these elements not on a prospect of globalism or "unity", but of national interests; they did not, as was their policy. The next element is security, which is one that can only be discussed to varying lengths, but the lacking of secured borders, extensive screening and vetting of foreign nationals, and a failure to fight a dynamic threat at its core has escalated the odds (as we have seen with the increased issues of detection for electronic devices). It is sad to comment on, but vehicle ramming type attacks, knife attacks and similarly cheap, expedient, efficient means will continue to rise to. More notably, to address the issue of "nuclear terrorism" that is an extremely unlikely scenario, what is more likely is an improvised radiological device that contaminates an area after detonation because of its psychological, not physical, potential; all of this stems from an eroded environment lacking a focus on physical national security. [/quote] They avoided boots on the ground policies, because that is more or less why they were elected to do. If Obama had doubled down on Bush's style of direct intervention, the Republicans would have maneuvered him out in 2012. We still vote for our leaders, and because of this, we cannot pull off the sort of permanent occupations that would be necessary for what you are talking about. Americans have always been reluctant Imperialists, and our unwillingness to fully occupy the middle east for several generations is part of that. As for the vetting thing, this hasn't been a serious issue. We are not Europe, we do not have Europe's problems. If we were dealing with terrorism on the level of France it would be one thing, but we are not. Shit, in the last eight years school shootings have killed more than Islamic terrorism in the United States. I'll even go so far as to say that part of Obama's problems is that he kept in place a lot of the security features that people are not comfortable with. The NSA and the drone programs are part of his legacy. The guy wasn't exactly a hippie [quote]As a side note, the real threat of radical Islam is the conversion of the non-native populace and conditioning them to their customs or forcing them to abide laws foreign to their land. This is considered by some to be an "extreme" statement, but it is one I believe to be accurate because the radical Islamic leaders have realized, as a relative whole no matter their particular leaning on Wahhabism, that they cannot alter the strategic level without doing so. Looking at Europe as my point of reference, with its absolute and continued collapse between this factor and a broken economy, I believe it safe to say the mainland might be regrettably lost for the foreseeable future. [/quote] It's not so much an extreme statement as a bizarre one. [url=http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2015/01/FT_15.01.14_MuslimPopulation420px.png]Muslims don't break 10 percent in any European country[/url]. The "Europe is now a Caliphate" thing is a meme. Forced conversion to Islam on a large scale is insanely unlikely. Honestly, "The water is turning the freaking frogs gay" is more likely. [quote]To transition to the current topics, the credible threat is not nationalism in any case, be it found in the United States, China, Russia, the United Kingdom and so on. Political ideology is not the greatest external threat to anyone and the abstract demon of capitalist society is, in fact, its saving grace. Since the end of the Second World War, the booming defense industry has continued to display technologies and developments that are on the level of science fiction... all while pinching every pretty penny it can from the pockets of taxpayers. It is just the nature of the beast; it wants to be fed. Conflict and war feed it, with those times in between when it is most hungry. However, without it, I believe we would be worse off. I also need mention that it is not even linked with nationalism in the United States, to which I can only assume you are meaning in majority.[/quote] Yup, globalization was great in its earlier stages. If it was 1960 I'd be a rabid capitalist. But it isn't 1960. We have new problems. However, what you are describing isn't what I mean by rising nationalism at all. It's a tricky word because it's definition is so broad, but what I mean by rising Nationalism is an increased emphasis on the Nation as the driving force of society. It's been there for some time obviously, but the driving force of society since Breton Woods has been the expansion and globalization of capitalism. As democracy becomes associated with corruption and global capitalism with economic malaise, we are seeing a rebellion against this seventy year status quo. The problem with nationalism taking the wheel is that, whereas capitalism at the very least wants to keep markets as open as possible and therefore shuns wars between major centers of wealth, nationalism's driving forces are all tied to pride and honor and superiority over other nations, which exacerbates friction. We know this because the period where Nationalism was dominant, roughly 1848 to 1945, culminated in two of the worst wars in human history. I think it would have been much worse too if most western nations hadn't been able to feed Nationalism via colonialism, but since colonialism is more complicated than the world wars imma not count it as a direct cause of nationalism. Anyway, basic point I'm making is that, now that global capitalism has shot its wad, we gotta figure out how we advance to whatever the next level is, and I'm against Nationalism as our starting point because I think it runs too much of a risk of World War, and we can't afford World Wars anymore what with technology the way it is. [quote]How do I come to that conclusion? No one is under the illusion that these companies have any other objective other than to make money off of martial technology. There's not the honor and superiority of the warfighter in it, but the understanding that without their presence, the United States would be lacking some of its core military assets; air, space and cyber warfare advantages. This is not to ignore how well prepared and equipped the land or sea based elements are, but it is no secret that the future of conflict is moving smaller and larger at the same time. Realistically, the only issues I really have politically with the behemoth is that the government is terrible at making deals and prioritizing anything, especially with independent contractors or agencies, at all levels, local all the way up to federal. [/quote] I'm not worried about the military-industrial complex. Sure, it's ugly, but these large scale government projects were required to keep capitalism stable enough to use. We've mostly used it to stir up shit, which again is ugly, but it isn't apocalyptic. What I mean by rising nationalism is grassroots level, like the Trump movement and the Alt-Right and all that fun shit. Movements that attack parts of capitalism conservatism usually doesn't attack, and is filling in ideological gaps with old school Kippling style "Dulce et decorum est, Pro patria mori" nationalism. [quote]The tension I mention is of a different brand and methodology, again which is why I cite it as more dangerous. The fact alone you turned to the prior references is why I use it. In this era you are seeing a portion of the American populace directly sympathize with the enemy, to the extent of supporting or defending them both in word and action. You have citizens of a country attempting to defend tenants of radical Islam, ignoring the aspects of Sharia Law alone, and welcoming fundamental elements of foreign indoctrination that make self-radicalization possible.[/quote] The left is mainly driven by a fear of pogroms in this case. Nobody wants sharia law, but not everybody sees sharia law hiding behind every fence post, so for many people this bloated threat-of-Islam rhetoric seems like the a request for another Final Solution type thing. In closing, perspective is funny I suppose. To me, Radical Islam doesn't even make the top three of America's problems (Which would be, uh, 1: Economic stagnation 2: The Racial Divide 3: The Polarization of the Right and Left). Europe has a problem, sure, but in the passing sense, not in the existential sense. The only part of the world where radical Islam is an existential threat is, obviously, the middle east. But that has been true since at least the seventies. Personally, call me an optimist I guess, but I think this radical Islam shit is a growing pain the the Middle East's path the westernization. The systems proposed by Islamists are inherently Fascist, and as we saw from actually Fascists, their thesis is so wrong that a state like ISIS couldn't survive a generation without collapsing. But also like Fascists, they can only exist to oppose a society lurching to the left, which would mean westernization is happening in the middle east. [/quote] [quote=@Penny] All this talk of the radical Islamic threat is giving me a nice mid 2000's vibe. Broad swathes of the West are going to implement Sharia law any day now ect ect. [/quote] Remember when they had that picture of Obama wearing that silly Mario looking costume and everyone was pointing at it like "See! He's gonna make us all Muslim in that mario costume." Those were the days, man. [quote=@Iuniper] Haha. I'm a determinist, which means I don't believe in free will. This the antithesis of libertarianism. : ) [/quote] I'd say having political opinions in general is the antithesis of determinism, but I suppose you have you couldn't chose not to have political opinions in the first place, wat since that is determined and all. [quote=@Dynamo Frokane] Oh and to answer your question LolCat, I identify as an Authoritarian Centrist, I'm right of center and left of center on a fairly equal amount of views. [/quote] So you are Hillary Clinton, basically.