[VIDEO] ~ Michael Scheur = Neocon?

[Reason]

YouTube - If That's What We're Gonna Focus On There's Gonna Be A Lot Of Dead Americans! Michael Scheur (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeXcLn_0J8w)

[0zzy]

no he is not a neocon.

[Reason]

no he is not a neocon.

I was surprised to hear the comments he made in the above video.

[raiha]

So was I.

[NYgs23]

He's more of a tactician than a political philosopher. He's talking about what to do in the context of fighting these people. But his last comment shows that he also understands the bigger picture.

[0zzy]

I was surprised to hear the comments he made in the above video.

Have you ever read anything he has wrote? He has always talked about annihilating the enemy, rather than slowly bleeding while occupying their country and creating more enemies.

[Kotin]

but he assesses the enemy as we do.. and he does not believe in invasion and occupying.. trust me he is not a neocon.. he is our greatest ally in foreign policy.


read imperial hubris or marching towards hell..

[ibaghdadi]

Here's my take.

First off, Sheuer isn't a neocon. If you want to know where he stands, either read one of his books, or do a search on Youtube for all his clips.

However, Sheuer's solution is a recipe for disaster. In fact it's all that Al-Qaeda wants - more US troops on the ground on Muslim land. For them it would mean more recruits, more US debt, and more dead American soldiers.

All in all, any suggestion that the terrorists have any motive at all will be dismissed by the vast majority of US media (and public) as treasonous. "They hate us for our freedom" may be a lie, but it's a convenient one, and one that saves a lot of people a lot of thinking.


Iyad

[Romulus]

This is an important clip.

Sheuer's main flaw is the thinking that we should "annihilate them".

To his credit, he does identify the problems in our unconditional support for Israel and other tyrannical middle eastern govs. BUT the answer is NOT to use force, as he suggest because that will in fact create, again, more resentment and recruitment for those who hate us.The answer is complete and unconditional withdraw of troops and support of Israel, whether the status quo likes that or not, its the truth of the solution.

I was a little disappointed though when Scheuer said 'annihilate them'. We have proven that we aren't cable and its not possible.

Is anyone else getting tired of the 'its not our fault they hate us' line?

[CharlesTX]

Don't we have a Michael Scheuer contact on board that can contact Michael and get him to clarify his position?

[Todd]

Don't we have a Michael Scheuer contact on board that can contact Michael and get him to clarify his position?

Deborah K

[Romulus]

Don't we have a Michael Scheuer contact on board that can contact Michael and get him to clarify his position?

He does contradict himself. I wish that was clarified.

[Pericles]

I'd suggest to you that unlike some members of this board, Scheuer does believe that there is a number of people motivated by radical Islam who are going to attack US / Western society whether we are involved in the Middle East or not.

Our being in the Middle East supplies these people with more support than they would have if we were not there, but the premise that we have brought all of this on ourselves is not shared (by me anyway), and I won't speak for anyone else.

If you are on board with the idea that there are guys who will commit acts of terrorism because of the influence of western culture around the world, it make sense to take violence to them before they can do violence to our interests. That is the proper role of the CIA.

[MRoCkEd]

Michael believes like us in a non-interventionist foreign policy. However, he believes that if you are going to fight a war to win you need to annihilate everyone in sight.

[Romulus]

I'd suggest to you that unlike some members of this board, Scheur does believe that there is a number of people motivated by radical Islam who are going to attack US / Western society whether we are involved in the Middle East or not.

Our being in the Middle East supplies these people with more support than they would have if we were not there, but the premise that we have brought all of this on ourselves is not shared (by me anyway), and I won't speak for anyone else.

If you are on board with the idea that there are guys who will commit acts of terrorism because of the influence of western culture around the world, it make sense to take violence to them before they can do violence to our interests. That is the proper role of the CIA.

I agree with what you said.. but we have proven that not only are we incapable of identifying, isolating and exterminating the "real" terrorists... we have made the problem a whole lot worse by trying. So when I hear any calls to annihilate them, I have to refer back to that.

Edit: Or maybe he IS right. That he knows we CAN do the job, but of course TPTB wont allow us to do so? Because that would mean an 'end' to the conflict? And we can't have that of course! War is good for the state so it must be sustained.

[revolutionisnow]

Not a neocon.

YouTube - Bill Maher interviews Michael Scheuer on Israel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZbzs5BwBLA)

[AmericaFyeah92]

I'd suggest to you that unlike some members of this board, Scheuer does believe that there is a number of people motivated by radical Islam who are going to attack US / Western society whether we are involved in the Middle East or not.

Our being in the Middle East supplies these people with more support than they would have if we were not there, but the premise that we have brought all of this on ourselves is not shared (by me anyway), and I won't speak for anyone else.

If you are on board with the idea that there are guys who will commit acts of terrorism because of the influence of western culture around the world, it make sense to take violence to them before they can do violence to our interests. That is the proper role of the CIA.

That's just not true...his entire pundit career has been dedicated to refuting the "they hate western culture" idea. He lays out clearly their reasons for jihad (ALL having to do with foreign policy) in each of his books.

He just tends to get defensive whenever his old employer (CIA) is brought up

[ItsTime]

Michael believes like us in a non-interventionist foreign policy. However, he believes that if you are going to fight a war to win you need to annihilate everyone in sight.

As we should. If we are going to go to war we must go to war.

[Reason]

hmmm

[1000-points-of-fright]

If you read any of his books you know that he is a non-interventionist and believes that our foreign policy is the reason they attack. Changing our foreign policy is the best way to eventually end this conflict. But if we're not going to change our foreign policy, then the only option to win is annihilation. This half-assed bullshit is just gonna bleed us dry. That's his argument.

[Romulus]

As we should. If we are going to go to war we must go to war.

He's not a Neocon. Problem is.. when we go to war, like now, neocons are in charge, and you get what weve got.

What I think he is saying is that we (the US) need to go to war to defend the US and do it correctly under that policy. NOT the policy weve got now for Israel, etc.

PS. Bill Mahr is disgusting.

[angelatc]

YouTube - If That's What We're Gonna Focus On There's Gonna Be A Lot Of Dead Americans! Michael Scheur (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeXcLn_0J8w)

No. Have you read his books? He's a realist.

[ItsTime]

He's not a Neocon. Problem is.. when we go to war, like now, neocons are in charge, and you get what weve got.

What I think he is saying is that we (the US) need to go to war to defend the US and do it correctly under that policy. NOT the policy weve got now for Israel, etc.

PS. Bill Mahr is disgusting.

I agree with you I dont think he is a neo-con.

[angelatc]

Michael believes like us in a non-interventionist foreign policy. However, he believes that if you are going to fight a war to win you need to annihilate everyone in sight.

That's what we wanted in Afghanistan after 9/11. We wanted the government to drop nuclear weapons and napalm. We wanted to strip mine the mountains the terrorists train is. We wanted to hurt them so badly that any other country who might briefly consider the harboring of groups devising such tactics would receive such immediate resistance from the citizens that Al Qaeda would find itself homeless. We wanted Afghanistan turned into a rubble filled parking lot.

Instead, we got Iraq.

[Romulus]

If you read any of his books you know that he is a non-interventionist and believes that our foreign policy is the reason they attack. Changing our foreign policy is the best way to eventually end this conflict. But if we're not going to change our foreign policy, then the only option to win is annihilation. This half-assed bullshit is just gonna bleed us dry. That's his argument.

I agree.

[Romulus]

That's what we wanted in Afghanistan after 9/11. We wanted the government to drop nuclear weapons and napalm. We wanted to strip mine the mountains the terrorists train is. We wanted to hurt them so badly that any other country who might briefly consider the harboring of groups devising such tactics would receive such immediate resistance from the citizens that Al Qaeda would find itself homeless. We wanted Afghanistan turned into a rubble filled parking lot.

Instead, we got Iraq.

Actually the 9/11 attacks were coordinated in Germany and Yemen as told by the NSA in the documentary 'Spy Factory'. So making Afgan a glass parking lot would have been based on incorrect intelligence, like Iraq having WMD's.

[Cowlesy]

That's what we wanted in Afghanistan after 9/11. We wanted the government to drop nuclear weapons and napalm. We wanted to strip mine the mountains the terrorists train is. We wanted to hurt them so badly that any other country who might briefly consider the harboring of groups devising such tactics would receive such immediate resistance from the citizens that Al Qaeda would find itself homeless. We wanted Afghanistan turned into a rubble filled parking lot.

Instead, we got Iraq.

And still have Afghanistan, and maybe Yemen and Pakistan now.

[1000-points-of-fright]

That's what we wanted in Afghanistan after 9/11. We wanted the government to drop nuclear weapons and napalm. We wanted to strip mine the mountains the terrorists train is. We wanted to hurt them so badly that any other country who might briefly consider the harboring of groups devising such tactics would receive such immediate resistance from the citizens that Al Qaeda would find itself homeless. We wanted Afghanistan turned into a rubble filled parking lot.


Who is this we? Speak for yourself sister. I wanted surgically targeted brutal black-ops. Total Black September on steroids shit.

[Pericles]

Who is this we? Speak for yourself sister. I wanted surgically targeted brutal black-ops. Total Black September on steroids shit.

Winner! There is no point in trying to occupy useless dirt. The boys in DC confused the Taliban as Afghanistan just because they were the de facto government. Doing what should have been done can't be shown on TV, and modern politics is all about looking good on TV.

[Romulus]

Winner! There is no point in trying to occupy useless dirt. The boys in DC confused the Taliban as Afghanistan just because they were the de facto government. Doing what should have been done can't be shown on TV, and modern politics is all about looking good on TV.

Its not useless dirt. Its a key strategic regional strongpoint, with a great opium crop to boot.

Afgan has shit to do with killing enemies. Thats just BS sold to the American public to justify the bigger picture that's not talked about on TV.

The drunks in DC dont know any better and dont care as long as they get their deals under the table.

[angelatc]

Actually the 9/11 attacks were coordinated in Germany and Yemen as told by the NSA in the documentary 'Spy Factory'. So making Afgan a glass parking lot would have been based on incorrect intelligence, like Iraq having WMD's.

Are you seriously now denying that the Al Qaeda training camps were in Afghnistan?

And it doesn't even matter. If we thought Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan, we should have leveled Afghanistan. They attacked us, and we needed to strike back hard enough to make the concept of another strike here absolutely unthinkable.


Instead, we got the Patriot Act. We lost more than they did.

[angelatc]

Who is this we? Speak for yourself sister. I wanted surgically targeted brutal black-ops. Total Black September on steroids shit.

The majority of the country agreed with me on 9/12. We should have shown the world sheer brute force up front and in their faces. The black ops stuff is too covert, too low key and too slow to send the message we needed to send, which was quite simply, "if we find out that any of you are involved in this in the very slightest, we will simply remove all of you from the face of the Earth."

I think the Black ops stuff is more credible as premeptive war - if you think somebody might be plotting against the United States, you take them out and pretend you didn't.

We've got it all backwards.

[tonesforjonesbones]

That man has always said the same thing. Either we have to stay OUT Of their business or we have to FIGHT to WIN and stop pussy footing around. He's the expert and not us. TONES

[constituent]

The majority of the country agreed with me on 9/12


Yes, who could forget the psychotic, idiot masses drooling for revenge on 9/12?

"U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!"

I'll certainly never forget...

[Imperial]

I'd suggest to you that unlike some members of this board, Scheuer does believe that there is a number of people motivated by radical Islam who are going to attack US / Western society whether we are involved in the Middle East or not.

Our being in the Middle East supplies these people with more support than they would have if we were not there, but the premise that we have brought all of this on ourselves is not shared (by me anyway), and I won't speak for anyone else.

If you are on board with the idea that there are guys who will commit acts of terrorism because of the influence of western culture around the world, it make sense to take violence to them before they can do violence to our interests. That is the proper role of the CIA.

I agreed with you up to the point of "taking violence to them". That is really bad. CIA should focus on intelligence gathering and counter-espionage, which would include counter-terror. Like foiling plots but not initiating violence.

[Chaohinon]

That's what we wanted in Afghanistan after 9/11. We wanted the government to drop nuclear weapons and napalm. We wanted to strip mine the mountains the terrorists train is. We wanted to hurt them so badly that any other country who might briefly consider the harboring of groups devising such tactics would receive such immediate resistance from the citizens that Al Qaeda would find itself homeless. We wanted Afghanistan turned into a rubble filled parking lot.

Instead, we got Iraq.They attacked us because of our unceasing military aggression, so the solution is even more extreme military aggression?

Barf

[Romulus]

Are you seriously now denying that the Al Qaeda training camps were in Afghnistan?

And it doesn't even matter. If we thought Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan, we should have leveled Afghanistan. They attacked us, and we needed to strike back hard enough to make the concept of another strike here absolutely unthinkable.

Yeah.. they swung on monkey bars or something. Give me a break... if you think leveling Afghanistan was the 'right' thing to do after 9/11, you are not an 'Anti-War Republican'.

It's not as simple as you're making it out to be.


Yes, who could forget the psychotic, idiot masses drooling for revenge on 9/12?

"U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!"

I'll certainly never forget...

How can we forget.. they still exist. Even here.

[Todd]

No. Have you read his books? He's a realist.

Finally....

someone who knows a bit about International relations theory.

He's much closer to realist theory than non interventionism.

[AuH20]

They attacked us because of our unceasing military aggression, so the solution is even more extreme military aggression?

Barf

It can't be simplified as solely as a response to military aggression. There are religious catalysts are well. It's very complex, and simply stating that "they hate us for our freedom" or "they're tired of being exploited" isn't the end-all explanation.

[lester1/2jr]

he is non interventionist but also pro interrogations and so forth.

he thanks both Pat BUchanan and Mark Steyn in his latest book


He's not a neocon but he has a very unique take on these issues so some confusion is understandable I think.

[LibertyEagle]

They attacked us because of our unceasing military aggression, so the solution is even more extreme military aggression?

Barf

Unfortunately, the reality is that there ARE some nut jobs out there who hate us and it has nothing whatsoever to do with our interventionism. To not face that is foolhardy.

What we are doing now however, is their dream. Because, we are giving credence to their sales pitch for others to join them. And until we stop meddling in other sovereign nations' affairs and occupying their countries, we are the biggest sales tool to increase their ranks that they have.

So, non-interventionism, yes, but not with a blindfold on. And I'm going to say this again that non-interventionism does not mean pacifism. If we are attacked, or there is an eminent threat, it is my belief that we should wipe those who did it off the face of this earth. After that's done, we should return home and resume minding our own business, trading with people, traveling and being well-wishers to all.

[Chaohinon]

Robert Pape laid it out pretty clearly that porn and heavy metal aren't significant jihad motivators. Without an imposing foreign military presence turning common Muslims into raving killers, terrorism would never happen.

[Son of Detroit]

Unfortunately, the reality is that there ARE some nut jobs out there who hate us and it has nothing whatsoever to do with our interventionism. To not face that is foolhardy.

What we are doing now however, is their dream. Because, we are giving credence to their sales pitch for others to join them. And until we stop meddling in other sovereign nations' affairs and occupying their countries, we are the biggest sales tool to increase their ranks that they have.

So, non-interventionism, yes, but not with a blindfold on. And I'm going to say this again that non-interventionism does not mean pacifism. If we are attacked, or there is an eminent threat, it is my belief that we should wipe those who did it off the face of this earth. After that's done, we should return home and resume minding our own business, trading with people, traveling and being well-wishers to all.

+1

[Dieseler]

What would have been nice is if we had actually investigated the greatest Crime of The New American Century and sought out the Actual perpetrators of that crime.
We could have then dealt Justice unto those who were responsible rather than creating generation after generation of rightly angry, angry is to soft here... rather than creating generation after generation of people sworn to vengeance against US.
If we had done that, then the World would be viewing America in a completely different light today.

[Romulus]

Unfortunately, the reality is that there ARE some nut jobs out there who hate us and it has nothing whatsoever to do with our interventionism. To not face that is foolhardy.

What we are doing now however, is their dream. Because, we are giving credence to their sales pitch for others to join them. And until we stop meddling in other sovereign nations' affairs and occupying their countries, we are the biggest sales tool to increase their ranks that they have.

So, non-interventionism, yes, but not with a blindfold on. And I'm going to say this again that non-interventionism does not mean pacifism. If we are attacked, or there is an eminent threat, it is my belief that we should wipe those who did it off the face of this earth. After that's done, we should return home and resume minding our own business, trading with people, traveling and being well-wishers to all.

agreed.

however when "we are attacked" is the tricky part.

Where is that video of the kid in class getting smacked in the back of the head a few time only to turn around a punch the kid who was doing nothing?

We need to revamp our foreign policy, period.

[Romulus]

What would have been nice is if we had actually investigated the greatest Crime of The New American Century and sought out the Actual perpetrators of that crime.
We could have then dealt Justice unto those who were responsible rather than creating generation after generation of rightly angry, angry is to soft here... rather than creating generation after generation of people sworn to vengeance against US.
If we had done that, then the World would be viewing America in a completely different light today.

YES, exactly that.

[raiha]

Yeah 'Invade Iraq' ....remember the sentiment? and you were all frigging wrong; Vietnam: the greatest crime since WW2 and wrong again! 4 million people dead, three countries ruined wrong, wrong wrong...mainly because people act out of emotion and do not insert a slice of rational thinking into the mix. And they lack the ability to reflect that ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

Osama Bin Laden was hiding in Afghanistan when the US depleted uranium was contaminating Iraq for countless centuries.
http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/depleted-uranium-weapons-in-iraq-drastic-birth-defects-in-fallujah/
The US asked the Taliban to deliver the OBS brigade to them and the Taliban asked for proof that he was involved. This was not forthcoming...Well shit we had to bomb SOMEBODY...our dander was up...anybody will do.

So Bush invades Afghanistan because the Taliban asked for proof before agreeing to the demands.
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0905c.asp

As for the current unwinnable, undeclared, illegal, imperialistic war in Afghanistan, I'm not altogether sure that anyone asks the Afghanis what they want? Probably because they don't give a rat's patoot what the Afghanis want.