A “yes” or “no” answer will suffice. If he wished to explain the yes or no, I’d love to hear it....
You're not going to get a yes or no answer here ... :-) ... but here is some answer ...
And I "get on this" -- more than a lot of things -- just because I've followed the issue from way back in the 90s...
The text of his rebuttal statement ...
To go back to the previous question though, I think it's very important what's going on in Afghanistan. It's very important that we understand that the Taliban and Al Qaeda does not present an existential threat to the United States. [emphasis is his]
They don't have an industrial base; they don't have armies. They're terrorists. Now, because of the fact that Afghanistan has no means of national support for a large army -- where is the end-game? [emphasis his] Are you proposing that we just stay in Afghanistan until they develop a modern economy and a modern democracy?
For Heaven's sakes, their constitution was drafted by the French as part of the NATO mission and it envisions a strong central government which is inimical to Afghan culture and tradition. I'm an intelligence officer. I'm a lieutenant colonel. I've studied this issue. We need to kill our enemies. [emphasis his] We don't need to build a modern nation-state where one cannot exist for a hundred years.
It's as I've said before... this is nothing but the same lame type of thinking that existed prior to the 9/11 attack.
Take a look at it this way. They didn't have a modern army back before 9/11 either. They didn't have the national support for a large army back then either, prior to 9/11. They weren't a modern nation-state back then, prior to 9/11 either.
BUT, in spite of that, they did great damage to the U.S. and it's economy and caused us to bring our own full military power to bear -- and we're still bringing it to bear now.
Chuck DeVore wants to act like a liberal and "cut and run" from the way I see it. And he's using the "justification" to do it -- that "they don't have an army; they can't support an army; they are not a modern nation-state" ... and by saying "where is the end-game" ... he's proposing the "cut-and-run" solution that we all have heard about from the Marxist/Leftists/Liberals... except that now -- Chuch DeVore is one of them ...
Sure, just like the Democrats... "kill our enemies" ... yeah sure ... LOL ...
I'm guessing that the next thing you'll hear from Chuck DeVore is "Don't forget to read them their miranda rights, too ... :-) ...
Nope, we don't need any more liberals in dealing with terrrorists -- taking a seat in the United States Senate... stay home, Chuck DeVore...
Also, as I said in Post #27 ...
Well, I see that's the problem that certain types like DeVore have. Before 9/11 there were a lot of "supposition" about Al Qaeda and what could happen in the way of a major terrorist attack. I know as I followed it back then in the late 90s and all the way up to 9/11. And I'm seeing and hearing the same "pre-9/11 rhetoric" now ... once again ...
A lot of people back then dismissed things too ... until the "facts came in" -- those "facts" are now called "9/11" ...
Well, we don't need anyone waiting for those "facts" like 9/11 to arrive, before they will treat things like the Taliban and Al Qaeda as existential threats (as the Bush Administration had no problem doing and they did treat them as existential threats; unlike this Obama Administration and unlike Chuck DeVore).
Sorry, I'm going to go on what is the supposition from known experience that we've already had in the past ... and I'm not waiting for the "facts" of a nuked metropolitan area to "confirm the theory" ...
Chuck DeVore can stay out of the Senate with the attitude that the Taliban and Al Qaeda represent no existential threat to the United States. I don't want to have to be telling him the "facts" of a nuked city -- after it happens ...
And as I said in Post #13
That is nothing but pre-9/11 "thinking" that got us into this trouble in the first place ... thinking that they were no threat to us... yeah! until they did that on 9/11 ... hoo-boy!
And yet again, it's exactly this type of "thinking" that Chuck DeVore exhibits here, that will lead to the next major attack on the United States by either the Taliban or Al Qaeda or any of the Muslim terrorists working out of that general region.
The Bush Administration made a real point of that (i.e., the threat being very real and existential) ... and we could be talking about weapons of mass destruction, like biological, affecting millions upon millions of people, or nukes, taking about two or three or four major metropolitan areas.
But, even if they did take out three major metropolitan areas, at once, with nukes -- would that cause the U.S. to cease to exist... nope! However, it would exist in a radically different world, afterwards -- just like that radically different world after 9/11.
Apparently some people want to have that happen first -- before they perceive an "existential threat" to the U.S. -- it sure sounds like "pre-9/11 thinking" to me... and so, I think that's a sure sign that many have slipped back into that disinterested thinking of pre-9/11...
And if we've got this guy, Chuck DeVore in that pre-9/11 thinking too... as evidenced by what he just said -- then we don't need him in the U.S. Senate, at all.
You’re not going to get a yes or no answer here ... :-) ... but here is some answer ...
___________________________
Fair enough — It wasn’t a “yes” or “no” exactly, but it explained DeVore’s answer. Thanks for posting.