The bad news about ISIS's defeat in Ramadi

Agreed - I believe the post WWII model in Europe, Japan and Korea might well have worked in Iraq with some modification. With a continuing fighting force in residence the Iraq would have been a prime center of Western influence in the ME. One key mistake made was giving the Iraq government too much control. They couldn’t and can’t handle it. The European WWII model would have worked, I believe.

I don't know how much the Saudi's fund terror.

Saddam was visibly supporting terror. He was openly paying the families of suicide bombers. He had training camps. He had stockpiles of yellow cake uranium and bragged about his nuclear mujadeen. And he was the only head of state to applaud 9/11.

We should have followed Britain's example and put a dictator on the throne. And we should have written the constitution not them. And that constitution needed to recognize that their culture needed to change.

And we should have used the oil both to reimburse ourselves for disposing him and to rebuild Iraq.

We should have left Saddam in power. He was a dick, to be sure, and not our friend. But he kept a lid on the radical jihadis. Just like Khadafi, Mubarak, and Assad.

And the Shah of Iran. The Biggest blunder by the stupidest President up until the current one.

Yes, Saddam was a dick, and we should have took him out, but we should have got our @$$ out of there immediately and let some other Dick take over.

The difference would be that the new Dick wouldn't F*** with us.

Even the nation building crap wouldn't have turned out so bad if we hadn't let naive good intentions get in the way. The decision to disband the Iraqi army and to ban all Bathe party members from government was about the most concentrated stupidity I have ever witnessed in my life.

When they made the announcement I started screaming at my radio about how plumb idiot stupid such a thing was. I knew in an instant that the hundreds of thousands of people who did not fight us much when we invaded would all suddenly turn against us and do everything they could to shed American blood.

Eisenhower knew how to do it right. You prosecute the worst offenders, you let the rest go, provided they thereafter keep a clean nose.

The nation building crap was a bad idea in both Iraq and Afghanistan. You were absolutely correct in knowing how bad a blunder it was to eliminate the Baathists. We should have let them continue to run the county, and the warning to whoever took Saddam’s place was pretty clear: Don’t piss us off or we take you out, too.

As for Afghanistan, we were right to go in. But we were wrong to take prisoners and to stay more than two months. We should have rounded up every Al Qaeda and Taliban we could find in that two months, shot them, left a nice pile of skulls as a warning to the rest, and gone home.

The nation building crap was a bad idea in both Iraq and Afghanistan. You were absolutely correct in knowing how bad a blunder it was to eliminate the Baathists. We should have let them continue to run the county, and the warning to whoever took Saddam's place was pretty clear: Don't piss us off or we take you out, too.

As for Afghanistan, we were right to go in. But we were wrong to take prisoners and to stay more than two months. We should have rounded up every Al Qaeda and Taliban we could find in that two months, shot them, left a nice pile of skulls as a warning to the rest, and gone home.

This is how I see things as well. I do not believe Western Democracy is compatible with an Islamic based society. They will simply vote for more extreme Islamism.

We may not agree on everything, but we are pretty much in agreement on this. I’ve studied history, political philosophy and law pretty much my whole life. The individual liberties and constitutional protections Americans take for granted are so rarely found in the history of mankind that we don’t know how fortunate we are. The Founding Fathers of this country were a unique set of remarkable men placed in a unique place and time in history.

Our form of political society is culturally incompatible with most of the milieus presently found in the world and that ever existed. Islam is at the top of that list.

These three things are difficult for most Americans to grasp:

1. Our system is an anomaly;

2. It won’t work everywhere; in fact, it rarely works anywhere, and;

3. It is at best an unnatural and therefore fragile political/social order, and always under threat of extermination.

In fact, the extermination of our rights in point #3 is happening right here before our eyes.

I have a very Hobbesian social outlook as to the nature of man.

We may not agree on everything, but we are pretty much in agreement on this.

If we have disagreed on something in the past, I no longer recall what it was. I try to make a point to let past arguments go, and only in a few cases do I bother to remember that certain other Freepers are against me.

I think most of us agree on a majority of things, though some of us have very solid disagreements on some particular sub issue(s).

I've studied history, political philosophy and law pretty much my whole life. The individual liberties and constitutional protections Americans take for granted are so rarely found in the history of mankind that we don't know how fortunate we are. The Founding Fathers of this country were a unique set of remarkable men placed in a unique place and time in history.

This is true, but our situation is actually far worse than that. Americans post 1950 may be unaware of how unique we are, but Americans post 1990 have become downright stupid. A majority of them now know little of anything of value. They have no grasp of history of any sort. Of Logic, of Science, or of common sense.

Our Liberal Education system combined with our Liberal Media, have brought us to a state of Idiocracy. Americans are now dumber than they have ever been in the History of the United States. A Frontier plainsman of the 1800 has more sense than do our modern college professors.

3. It is at best an unnatural and therefore fragile political/social order, and always under threat of extermination.

And this is a point that many people with whom I converse fail to grasp. Christianity is unnatural. The norm for the human mind is to hit back with vengeance. "Turning the other cheek" is completely unnatural. Only the belief that this behavior is divinely inspired convinces anyone to try it.

Our US System is based on a Christian foundation, and yes it is very unnatural to the normal mental state of man. "Equality", is another characteristic of the Christian faith, and that too is very unnatural for man. We have to make conscious mental efforts to deny what is obvious to the reptilian portion of our brains.

No, people really aren't equal. Some are far more powerful and capable than others, but because our society is founded on Christian ideas, we overlook that and say, "in the eyes of God, all his children are equal."

People overlook how much of Western civilization absolutely requires a Christian world view. It doesn't work at all with Islam. In Islam, "equality" is an abomination. It rejects the idea that there is any sort of equality between it's worshipers. No, some are far superior than others. Islam is one giant pecking order from the lowliest slave up to Allah.

Yes, the United States is very unnatural to the normal condition of man. It is artificial, and only maintainable so long as the ideas which underpin it hold sway. In other words, not likely very much longer.

That you too have noticed our condition is "Unnatural" is very astute of you. I wish others would understand this as well.

I have a very Hobbesian social outlook as to the nature of man.

As do I. The "Strong man" form of government always comes natural to mankind. This "Republic" business requires a great deal of mental conditioning to get set up, but everyone understands the "Strong Man" form of government instinctively.

No, people really aren't equal. Some are far more powerful and capable than others, but because our society is founded on Christian ideas, we overlook that and say, "in the eyes of God, all his children are equal."

People overlook how much of Western civilization absolutely requires a Christian world view.

It is this Christian concept of "equality" that made possible the development of our legal system with it's core principles of "due process of law" and "equal justice under law." What it lacks in practice does not invalidate its concept; the concept that governments are all accountable to a "higher law" and that in dealing with its citizens, the individual citizen has rights protecting against arbitrary action by the state. Islam, having no concept of "render unto Ceasar," for the same reason, has no concept of "due process" or "equal protection." Nowhere does Islam, in theory or practice, recognize the individual rights of man.

As do I. The "Strong man" form of government always comes natural to mankind. This "Republic" business requires a great deal of mental conditioning to get set up, but everyone understands the "Strong Man" form of government instinctively.

I am a faculty advisor to our high school's "We The People" Constitutional Law program. One of this year's questions involved "the default form of government," and the unit addressing the question had a lively discussion on the topic. I asked them to consider, when the drying climate of the Sahara forced the nomads into the Nile valley to form the first civilization, what form of government did they create? And how was it different than what was found in Sumeria, the Indus valley, and China? And to consider the forms of government selected by the Native Americans as they began their later, and completely independent, ascent to civilization. It was always the leadership of the "strong man." One of the students wishes to be a geneticist, and we discussed whether there was a "leader gene" in the human species, and she said if it exits, it's in Chromosome 23 but it's characteristics have not yet been fully identified. We also discussed the "Milgram Experiment," where the Nuremburg defense of "I was just following orders" has a basis in our inherent psychological imprinting.

There is no question that our form of social/political system at the founding of our country, while still flawed, provided the basis of the most prosperous society ever created. But it existed only in the face of some very strong natural headwinds.

And I completely agree that our population as a whole has completely lost all sense of perspective and rationality. Perhaps it is also part of human nature to be a victim of your own prosperity as a people. We forget what got us here. Just like the Old Testament, which I summarize as: "God's people suffer, they turn to Him, they become prosperous, they turn away from Him, and suffer. Repeat process."

It is this Christian concept of "equality" that made possible the development of our legal system with it's core principles of "due process of law" and "equal justice under law." What it lacks in practice does not invalidate its concept; the concept that governments are all accountable to a "higher law" and that in dealing with its citizens, the individual citizen has rights protecting against arbitrary action by the state.

Exactly right. Our legal foundation requires a Christian based world view. It doesn't work if you try it as a secular or Islamic based world view.

Islam, having no concept of "render unto Ceasar," for the same reason, has no concept of "due process" or "equal protection." Nowhere does Islam, in theory or practice, recognize the individual rights of man.

Exactly right.

I am a faculty advisor to our high school's "We The People" Constitutional Law program. One of this year's questions involved "the default form of government," and the unit addressing the question had a lively discussion on the topic. I asked them to consider, when the drying climate of the Sahara forced the nomads into the Nile valley to form the first civilization, what form of government did they create? And how was it different than what was found in Sumeria, the Indus valley, and China? And to consider the forms of government selected by the Native Americans as they began their later, and completely independent, ascent to civilization. It was always the leadership of the "strong man."

That is a very good way to present and explain the situation.

There is no question that our form of social/political system at the founding of our country, while still flawed, provided the basis of the most prosperous society ever created. But it existed only in the face of some very strong natural headwinds.

At the time of our founding, every other nation (except Switzerland) was ruled by a King or Emperor. Yes, we were absolutely an aberration.

And I completely agree that our population as a whole has completely lost all sense of perspective and rationality. Perhaps it is also part of human nature to be a victim of your own prosperity as a people.

My explanation for this? The severing of the negative feedback effect between foolish behavior and bad consequences. The primary example of this was the 1964 "Great Society" program. Since the government took financial responsibility for the bad decisions of the poorest members of society, it has encouraged further bad decisions, and an ever expanding population that makes bad decisions.

Plus the effect of pumping all that taxpayer money (and borrowed money, i.e. "debt") is to enrich a lot of people who would not otherwise have been enriched. (Meaning people who administrate these programs, i.e. Liberals and socialist minded Bureaucrats.)

Money which is disconnected from the difficulty of producing it engenders a cavalier attitude toward's common sense. The Children of Wealthy people often develop a serious disconnect from cause and effect because they themselves have not had to squarely face the consequences of their own actions, or lack thereof.

This latest "Affluenza" boy who is recently in the news is a prime example of what I mean.

We as a nation are suffering from a partial "real" (from our inherent wealth) and partially "artificial" (as the result of our borrowing and spending) "Affluenza". And it has made us stupid. It has disconnected our population from cause and effect.

Alexander Tytler seemingly understood this dynamic over 200 years ago.