Chuck Devore: Taliban and Al Qaeda do not present existential threat to US

Chuck Devore on Afghanistan from a California Senate Debate today:




(the embed code is screwed up and will give you problems if you embed. The height value is too low. It should be width=”545″ height=”349″ in both places)

UPDATE: I rushed this out earlier and didn’t get to chime in with my own thoughts, as I had to take my mom out for a wonderful Mother’s day dinner.

I agree with Chuck here, as I think most of you do as well. They aren’t an existential threat in terms of nuclear weapons, at least for now. Let’s hope Pakistan doesn’t fall to the Taliban anytime soon. But that being said, there are potential existential threats in the Muslim world that we do need to worry about. And in order for us to do that, as Chuck so eloquently said, we need to kill our enemies in Afghanistan and move on. I know, easier said than done. But that needs to be our policy. After all, allowing Iran to ‘bulk up’ is a really bad idea and we need to be ready to get behind Israel when they do attack Iran.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

22 thoughts on “Chuck Devore: Taliban and Al Qaeda do not present existential threat to US

  1. Please explain where I need to get up to speed. I'm very aware of Operation Northwoods. I've had the 15 page pdf for quite awhile. Do I expect the government to protect us in a real crisis? Not for one second. I quit believing that years ago. I feel even less the government can protect us now under Obama. This statement by Rahm Emanuel ” You never want a serious crisis to go to waste ” is indicative of what is happening now. I believe the government will use any crisis to take further control of us. I may be wrong, but I think the oil leak crisis in the Gulf is a good example.

    I still believe what I said about Al Queda and Taliban.

  2. William, do yourself a favor. Get up to speed on the history of “government sponsored terror” before making claims handed to you by corporate interest. I for one will NOT give up ANY liberty for false freedom and anyone who does is a fool ! The people who expect this government to protect them in a “real” crises are becoming less and less as people realize our government is now a Bank Run Country Club that the republic of America is not a member of. Google “operation northwoods” for a crash course in trusting life and limb to elected authority.

  3. CHUCK DEVORE has my vote . Fiorina is two faced , she supported john mccain and his CAP AND TAX , in the last presidential ellection . Now she has flopped like a fish , and is against CAP AND TAX . Campbell has no back bone , and does not know, what he wants . CHUCH DEVORE has never swayed from his values and beliefs , unlike the rocking chairs , fiorina and campbell . CHUCK DEVORE is clearly the best candidate , as he tore up fiorina and campbell in the senate debate , on all issues

  4. The Taliban and al-Qaeda are very much a threat to our existence, as a country where people feel free to travel, go to a place like Times Square, or even be on a military base. We were very fortunate in 2 of these cases, but our luck will not hold out forever. It doesn't take an army, just a few successes with their bombs and our country will no longer exist as we know it now.

  5. This is exactly what I'm talking about. I guess mankind isn't ready to evolve past their irrational fears yet.

  6. Chuck Devore is ignorant.
    He is also very timid.
    He forbids any criticism being posted on his YouTube page.

  7. It's simple here, people. As I've said before…I don't live in California, so I can't put my 2 cents in the ballot box. I'll just do so here instead.

    This is turning into Medina all over again and it's sad. This had BETTER not happen in Oklahoma or I'm gonna be PISSED.

  8. “Existential threat” means a threat to our existence. The Taliban and al-Qaeda do not have armies, air forces, navies, nuclear weapons, or an industrial base. They can hurt us, they cannot, by definition, destroy us (the definition of an “existential threat”). The People's Republic of China, with the world's 2d largest economy, the largest army, the largest population, a continental landmass, and a nuclear arsenal, does present an “existential threat” to America that will only grow over time.

  9. This video is being used to smear Chuck DeVore, interesting because those blogging seem to realize he speaks the truth… but Carly Fiorina and even Sarah Palin supporters are just spreading the line “not a threat” and leaving out “existential. Some of them are saying this is just like “Bush bashing.” Sorry, it is not, Chuck DeVore supported the surge in Iraq recognizing the difference in the two countries.

  10. You are quibbling with terms. The existential threat is nuclear terrorism. A terrorist group or nation with nukes or a nuke could paralyze the western world (nuclear blackmail). Even worst would be a radical state with the thinking of an al Qaeda, that has the capability to launch nuclear missiles at a whim. 9-11 revealed this existential threat. We saw an unaccountable group launch a broad base attack on the United States. This was only possible because they had a radical state in which they could train and plan for those attacks. So we have to be keen on these unaccountable groups and of course the proliferation of strategic weapons that could wind up in their hands.

  11. Actually I had less fear from the Soviet Union at any time because they were concerned about the consequences of an attack on us. I consider Al Qaeda and the Taliban a much greater threat because they don't have that fear.

  12. No, I think that's exactly what people are saying. You understand the term “existential,” right? Yes, 9/11 was a tragedy and many innocent Americans lost their lives because of some bad people. Should we make every attempt to avoid that from happening again? Of course. But it isn't an existential threat. An existential threat is what we faced during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. An enemy that could completely destroy us if they so desired. Al Qaeda does not have that capability, at present, as far as I know.

  13. I don't think that al Qaeda and the Taliban are existential threats to the U.S. per se, but a failed state in the middle east or at least one that would permit radical islamist to train and plot attacks on the West is. So in that sense its important that we support an amicable government in Afghanistan, which is under the constant threat of the Taliban, the former regime which permitted Al Qaeda to plot 9-11. So to that end there will be some nation building and indeed we have done this in the past in Germany, Japan, and now recently in Iraq. This will always be in the cards in the aftermath of any war we are engaged in. No one here is saying the 9-11 attacks did not reveal an existential threat to the U.S?

  14. For starters, the requirement to purchase anything is a gross misinterpretation of the so called “commerce clause”, and the tired argument comparing it to the car insurance mandate ( which are State law not Federal) doesn't hold water as driving is a privilege not a right and if you don't drive a car you aren't made to purchase insurance. The commerce clause was for preventing states from levying tariffs on goods moving from state to state. I don't know how it works in your state but here I cannot buy heath insurance across state lines. The fines we have been told are not taxes but the IRS has suddenly been granted Law enforcement authority to levy and collect fines on something that is not a tax? I'll admit I haven't read the entire bill ,I don't know anyone who has, and I am still muddling through it. I believe that the Federal Government with this bill has stepped far beyond its limited authority under the Constitution.

    Myself from what I have seen we are fairly close to doing as much as we can do militarily in Afghanistan, as far as completely destroying Al Qaeda? I don't think thats possible with conventional forces, the answer to that question in my opinion is with “Black Ops” and most people don't like to think about those types of things, but in this type of conflict it is far and away the most effective at dealing with terrorists.
    Iraq was a mistake, with Saddam in power the Iranians were too distracted to bother with anything else, I believe we jumped too soon, the administration acted on flawed intelligence. But whats done is done. I believe we are at the endgame as far as Iraq goes and it is time to withdraw our forces and let the Iraqis deal with Iraq. There really is nothing more for our forces to do there militarily. No, I don't believe in “Nation Building”, when you fight a war you are going in there to fight and win. I don't believe our forces should be used as a “police force” to quote Bruce Willis in the Siege “The Army is a broadsword not a surgical instrument”. However as to the war in Iraq ,once the situation there was handed over to the UN to oversee after the first Gulf War we should have kept working within the UN and not acted unilaterally. Although frankly I despise the UN as impotent and useless,in fact I support US withdrawal from the UN for many reasons which I won't go into now. My point with the war in Iraq is this, if you expect others to abide by the format you help set then you constrain yourself to act within the same format. In that point is how I see that The Iraq War was wrong.

  15. What clause gives the Federal government the power to demand all people purchase a good or service?

    The other points are more ambiguous. For instance, though the fed has the power to regulate interstate commerce, does that translate to a power to destroy certain sectors of the economy intentionally?

  16. I guess I'd just like to ask what aspects of the health care bill are “unconstitutional?”

    I otherwise agree with Mr. Devore. The Taliban and Al Qaeda do not represent an existential threat to the U.S. But I'm unclear what his proposed solution is. I understand that he doesn't want the U.S. spending money on schools and other infrastructure, and he wants the U.S. to “kill bad guys,” but what's HIS endgame? How many bad guys do we need to kill before we know we're “safe?”

    Also, implicit in his argument is the idea that the Iraq war was a complete waste. If you buy the argument that it wasn't motivated by the search for weapons of mass destruction after all, and was actually about “regime change,” then I'd imagine he's completely against that war and has been since 2003. I'd like to hear his opinion on that, and yours as well Kenin.

  17. If lived in California, I'd vote for him on the points he made in the video alone. He is correct on both points, Obamacare IS unconstitutional on several levels. As for Afghanistan the majority of the infrastructure that was in place when we arrived was built by the soviets when they were there in the early 80's,the remainder we have built.Our troops should be focused on killing the enemy not building schools,leave that to the Afghans.

Comments are closed.