In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On September 16 2015 09:58 cLutZ wrote: The path to failure is easy to avoid, if you acknowledge its existence, which America has failed to do recently.
Hey guys we have a five star general here who can end terrorism.
No I can't. I can know, however, that that is not a military goal.
Edit: By the way, the military generals will tell you that they could end terrorism if they got to do what they wanted.
No shit. This idea that we couldn't stomp out an insurgency if we wanted to is so damned myopic historically. Plenty of nations/countries/peoples have been successful at it -- including the US.
Has any insurgency been "stomped out" quickly since the dawn of the information age and the era of globalization? That's kind of the key role player here. Look at Russia's efforts in Afghanistan. It's much easier to stomp out Afghani tribesmen than it is Afghani tribesmen funded by their next door neighbors and equipped with rocket launchers by the CIA.
On September 16 2015 09:58 cLutZ wrote: The path to failure is easy to avoid, if you acknowledge its existence, which America has failed to do recently.
Hey guys we have a five star general here who can end terrorism.
No I can't. I can know, however, that that is not a military goal.
Edit: By the way, the military generals will tell you that they could end terrorism if they got to do what they wanted.
No shit. This idea that we couldn't stomp out an insurgency if we wanted to is so damned myopic historically. Plenty of nations/countries/peoples have been successful at it -- including the US.
If by "successful" you mean conquered them for decades until the nation overthrew them and are today's communist, terrorist or militaristic dictactorships, then sure, so much success.
Not a lot of Native American terrorists. Or German. Or Japanese.
It took more than 100 years (maybe even 200, I can't remember) of slaughter, genocide, and manipulation to deal with Native American "terrorists." I dunno if Obama or any military generals have that long in Syria.
On September 16 2015 09:58 cLutZ wrote: The path to failure is easy to avoid, if you acknowledge its existence, which America has failed to do recently.
Hey guys we have a five star general here who can end terrorism.
No I can't. I can know, however, that that is not a military goal.
Edit: By the way, the military generals will tell you that they could end terrorism if they got to do what they wanted.
No shit. This idea that we couldn't stomp out an insurgency if we wanted to is so damned myopic historically. Plenty of nations/countries/peoples have been successful at it -- including the US.
Has any insurgency been "stomped out" quickly since the dawn of the information age and the era of globalization? That's kind of the key role player here. Look at Russia's efforts in Afghanistan. It's much easier to stomp out Afghani tribesmen than it is Afghani tribesmen funded by their next door neighbors and equipped with rocket launchers by the CIA.
On September 16 2015 09:58 cLutZ wrote: The path to failure is easy to avoid, if you acknowledge its existence, which America has failed to do recently.
Hey guys we have a five star general here who can end terrorism.
No I can't. I can know, however, that that is not a military goal.
Edit: By the way, the military generals will tell you that they could end terrorism if they got to do what they wanted.
No shit. This idea that we couldn't stomp out an insurgency if we wanted to is so damned myopic historically. Plenty of nations/countries/peoples have been successful at it -- including the US.
If by "successful" you mean conquered them for decades until the nation overthrew them and are today's communist, terrorist or militaristic dictactorships, then sure, so much success.
Not a lot of Native American terrorists. Or German. Or Japanese.
It took more than 100 years (maybe even 200, I can't remember) of slaughter, genocide, and manipulation to deal with Native American "terrorists." I dunno if Obama or any military generals have that long in Syria.
Treating them like a singular block was my mistake, and you should have called me out on it. But, each individual tribe and subtribe did not resist for hundreds of years. Plus, we live in an accelerated world. 10 Years then is the equivalent of 1 or 2 now.
No matter how you divide up Native groups doesn't change the method of almost entire annihilation...is that seriously what you think should be done in the Mid East? Dust off the small pox blankets?
Decision time approaches for the US Federal Reserve. It’s been a long time coming. Yet for all the months of anticipation, and the acres of column inches the decision has already attracted, it will be no less momentous an event when it eventually does. If the Open Market’s Committee takes the plunge, it will be the first US rate hike in nearly 10 years.
For much of this time, rates have remained close to zero. Admittedly, a rise of just 0.25 percentage points would, to most people, seem neither here nor there. Yet it would at least be a start, a first baby step on the long march back to interest rate normalisation – if not the relatively high real rates of interest we had before the crisis. Few think global demand will allow for this latter prospect for a long time to come.
You can argue it both ways. But with unemployment down to little more than 5pc, and judging by recent growth in the money supply and continued economic growth now hard-baked into the system, the case for action is a relatively strong one. In my view the Fed has already left it too long. True, headline inflation remains very subdued, but it gives a somewhat misleading impression. Low prices are mainly an energy and commodity-based story. Core inflation, excluding these variable items, has been hitting rates of 1.8pc for nearly a year now.
In any case, in itself a rate hike of such a limited order of magnitude is unlikely to do much harm to the US economy, and on the stitch in time principle, it makes some sense to start now. Leave it too late, and there is a danger of having to play catch up, with much more damaging consequences for consumer spending and business confidence down the line.
On September 16 2015 12:30 KwarK wrote: Romans did it a number of times. Didn't always take the first time, took like four attempts to sort out the Jews for example, but when the solved it it stayed solved.
However they're not a great role model.
I think even the Roman model of killing every person in the country to the point that people have to be resettled there to prevent agriculture from collapsing isn't going to work anymore. There is just too many people everywhere to kill, and too many replacing the ones being killed.
On September 16 2015 09:58 cLutZ wrote: The path to failure is easy to avoid, if you acknowledge its existence, which America has failed to do recently.
Hey guys we have a five star general here who can end terrorism.
No I can't. I can know, however, that that is not a military goal.
Edit: By the way, the military generals will tell you that they could end terrorism if they got to do what they wanted.
No shit. This idea that we couldn't stomp out an insurgency if we wanted to is so damned myopic historically. Plenty of nations/countries/peoples have been successful at it -- including the US.
If by "successful" you mean conquered them for decades until the nation overthrew them and are today's communist, terrorist or militaristic dictactorships, then sure, so much success.
Not a lot of Native American terrorists. Or German. Or Japanese.
I didn´t see any German or Japanese "terrorists", although you sure did your best in ensuring they were all locked up in concentration camps during WW2.
As for Native Americans (assuming for a second you accept their practices as terrorism), yeah, if you wipe out everybody, women and children included, you will get rid of the problem. But I don´t think that´s what you meant. It seems like a bit of a tautology that if you wipe out everybody in Syria, you will get rid of terrorism there, and the war will end.
Anyway, not quite sure why I´m responding when you played such a blatant bait and switch.
On September 16 2015 09:58 cLutZ wrote: The path to failure is easy to avoid, if you acknowledge its existence, which America has failed to do recently.
Hey guys we have a five star general here who can end terrorism.
No I can't. I can know, however, that that is not a military goal.
Edit: By the way, the military generals will tell you that they could end terrorism if they got to do what they wanted.
No shit. This idea that we couldn't stomp out an insurgency if we wanted to is so damned myopic historically. Plenty of nations/countries/peoples have been successful at it -- including the US.
If by "successful" you mean conquered them for decades until the nation overthrew them and are today's communist, terrorist or militaristic dictactorships, then sure, so much success.
Not a lot of Native American terrorists. Or German. Or Japanese.
I didn´t see any German or Japanese "terrorists", although you sure did your best in ensuring they were all locked up in concentration camps during WW2.
As for Native Americans (assuming for a second you accept their practices as terrorism), yeah, if you wipe out everybody, women and children included, you will get rid of the problem. But I don´t think that´s what you meant. It seems like a bit of a tautology that if you wipe out everybody in Syria, you will get rid of terrorism there, and the war will end.
Anyway, not quite sure why I´m responding when you played such a blatant bait and switch.
No I didn't. The "total war" you are describing is the only thing we have shown to work for a foreign nation suppressing local opposition. You are illustrating my point. If you are engaging in a war to change the makeup of a foreign country, you have to be willing to engage in atrocities. We learned this in WW1 when extremists took over Germany following it by claiming the military had been "stabbed in the back". We see this in Vietnam where important military and nonmilitary targets were not targeted because of civilian populations, we see this in the Middle East where Al Qaeda and ISIS call Americans "cowards". The only way you deter such things is by making sure that every person in that country knows you could kill them by farting on the wrong button. Then you rebuild them in your image.
Edit. I am saying that total savagery is the only way to achieve the stated goals of the last 2 American administrations. I don't particularly support those goals, but I am saying that Russia/Putin are far more likely to understand this relationship between goals and tactics.
On September 16 2015 09:58 cLutZ wrote: The path to failure is easy to avoid, if you acknowledge its existence, which America has failed to do recently.
Hey guys we have a five star general here who can end terrorism.
No I can't. I can know, however, that that is not a military goal.
Edit: By the way, the military generals will tell you that they could end terrorism if they got to do what they wanted.
No shit. This idea that we couldn't stomp out an insurgency if we wanted to is so damned myopic historically. Plenty of nations/countries/peoples have been successful at it -- including the US.
If by "successful" you mean conquered them for decades until the nation overthrew them and are today's communist, terrorist or militaristic dictactorships, then sure, so much success.
Not a lot of Native American terrorists. Or German. Or Japanese.
Germany and Japan do have terrorists.
Germany and Japan aren't terrorist nations because they're 1st world industrial powerhouse nations with armies, which they were before WW2 as well.
But sure, if you want to believe that the only reason they aren't terrorist nations are because rah rah America...?
On September 16 2015 09:58 cLutZ wrote: The path to failure is easy to avoid, if you acknowledge its existence, which America has failed to do recently.
Hey guys we have a five star general here who can end terrorism.
No I can't. I can know, however, that that is not a military goal.
Edit: By the way, the military generals will tell you that they could end terrorism if they got to do what they wanted.
No shit. This idea that we couldn't stomp out an insurgency if we wanted to is so damned myopic historically. Plenty of nations/countries/peoples have been successful at it -- including the US.
If by "successful" you mean conquered them for decades until the nation overthrew them and are today's communist, terrorist or militaristic dictactorships, then sure, so much success.
Not a lot of Native American terrorists. Or German. Or Japanese.
I didn´t see any German or Japanese "terrorists", although you sure did your best in ensuring they were all locked up in concentration camps during WW2.
As for Native Americans (assuming for a second you accept their practices as terrorism), yeah, if you wipe out everybody, women and children included, you will get rid of the problem. But I don´t think that´s what you meant. It seems like a bit of a tautology that if you wipe out everybody in Syria, you will get rid of terrorism there, and the war will end.
Anyway, not quite sure why I´m responding when you played such a blatant bait and switch.
No I didn't. The "total war" you are describing is the only thing we have shown to work for a foreign nation suppressing local opposition. You are illustrating my point. If you are engaging in a war to change the makeup of a foreign country, you have to be willing to engage in atrocities. We learned this in WW1 when extremists took over Germany following it by claiming the military had been "stabbed in the back". We see this in Vietnam where important military and nonmilitary targets were not targeted because of civilian populations, we see this in the Middle East where Al Qaeda and ISIS call Americans "cowards". The only way you deter such things is by making sure that every person in that country knows you could kill them by farting on the wrong button. Then you rebuild them in your image.
Edit. I am saying that total savagery is the only way to achieve the stated goals of the last 2 American administrations. I don't particularly support those goals, but I am saying that Russia/Putin are far more likely to understand this relationship between goals and tactics.
Seriously? Vietnam?
The country that was conquered and occupied by France for about a century before they had a civil uprising? The country that saw millions of people die and was left destitute because America thought charging in with guns, bombs and napalm was the only thing stopping communism from taking over the world?
The nation that's becoming increasingly more stable and democratic only after being left alone for 40 years?
Being as drunk as I am, I want to pop in with a few opinions and a final word followed by what will probably be me in a puddle of my own vomit from soju.
1. Who cares about Kim Davis she had a job she didn't do the job it was a government job I am bi and idgf 2. Donald Trump is a businessman and his campaign is a publicity stunt this has been asked and confirmed by him in 2011 3. Donald Trump is not even a politician he's doing it to raise awareness of his industry and it's working well quite smart imo 4. Who gives a fuck about gay marriage lol it doesn't bother you let people be happy 5. This thread makes my hopes for humanity drop to the ground
On September 16 2015 13:55 WolfintheSheep wrote: Seriously? Vietnam?
The country that was conquered and occupied by France for about a century before they had a civil uprising? The country that saw millions of people die and was left destitute because America thought charging in with guns, bombs and napalm was the only thing stopping communism from taking over the world?
The nation that's becoming increasingly more stable and democratic only after being left alone for 40 years?
How is this, in any way, a contradiction of my point that foreign powers can only suppress insurrection through force? France imposed 100 years of "stability" and when the locals perceived weakness (along with infusions of money to disaffected dissidents) they rebelled, successfully. And America only halfheartedly stepped into their place.
Nothing in the statements I made precludes native populations from self-actualizing. Its a commentary on attempting to impose that on nations from the outside.
On September 16 2015 09:58 cLutZ wrote: The path to failure is easy to avoid, if you acknowledge its existence, which America has failed to do recently.
Hey guys we have a five star general here who can end terrorism.
No I can't. I can know, however, that that is not a military goal.
Edit: By the way, the military generals will tell you that they could end terrorism if they got to do what they wanted.
No shit. This idea that we couldn't stomp out an insurgency if we wanted to is so damned myopic historically. Plenty of nations/countries/peoples have been successful at it -- including the US.
Has any insurgency been "stomped out" quickly since the dawn of the information age and the era of globalization? That's kind of the key role player here. Look at Russia's efforts in Afghanistan. It's much easier to stomp out Afghani tribesmen than it is Afghani tribesmen funded by their next door neighbors and equipped with rocket launchers by the CIA.
On September 16 2015 09:58 cLutZ wrote: The path to failure is easy to avoid, if you acknowledge its existence, which America has failed to do recently.
Hey guys we have a five star general here who can end terrorism.
No I can't. I can know, however, that that is not a military goal.
Edit: By the way, the military generals will tell you that they could end terrorism if they got to do what they wanted.
No shit. This idea that we couldn't stomp out an insurgency if we wanted to is so damned myopic historically. Plenty of nations/countries/peoples have been successful at it -- including the US.
If by "successful" you mean conquered them for decades until the nation overthrew them and are today's communist, terrorist or militaristic dictactorships, then sure, so much success.
Not a lot of Native American terrorists. Or German. Or Japanese.
It took more than 100 years (maybe even 200, I can't remember) of slaughter, genocide, and manipulation to deal with Native American "terrorists." I dunno if Obama or any military generals have that long in Syria.
ISIS is doing a pretty damned good job cleansing the parts of Syria and Iraq that it contols. Y'all are kidding yourselves if you think the world has moved beyond barbarism.
But it doesn't have to go that far. America did a pretty effective job crushing insurrection in the Philippines.
On September 16 2015 13:55 WolfintheSheep wrote: Seriously? Vietnam?
The country that was conquered and occupied by France for about a century before they had a civil uprising? The country that saw millions of people die and was left destitute because America thought charging in with guns, bombs and napalm was the only thing stopping communism from taking over the world?
The nation that's becoming increasingly more stable and democratic only after being left alone for 40 years?
How is this, in any way, a contradiction of my point that foreign powers can only suppress insurrection through force? France imposed 100 years of "stability" and when the locals perceived weakness (along with infusions of money to disaffected dissidents) they rebelled, successfully. And America only halfheartedly stepped into their place.
Nothing in the statements I made precludes native populations from self-actualizing. Its a commentary on attempting to impose that on nations from the outside.
Ah, so that's your line of reasoning then.
Vietnam only wanted to oust their occupiers because France sucked at it. It's not because people don't like being occupied by people oppressing them. America can clearly do a better job.
And if America only "halfheartedly" stepped in by burning down entire forests and villages and wiping all the villagers out, then I suppose you mean that you should've killed everyone who could've remotely hated you? Which would be everyone, because that's what happens when you try to oppress a nation with mass graves. But I suppose, technically, that wiping out an entire country does stop them from becoming terrorists.
On September 16 2015 09:58 cLutZ wrote: The path to failure is easy to avoid, if you acknowledge its existence, which America has failed to do recently.
Hey guys we have a five star general here who can end terrorism.
No I can't. I can know, however, that that is not a military goal.
Edit: By the way, the military generals will tell you that they could end terrorism if they got to do what they wanted.
No shit. This idea that we couldn't stomp out an insurgency if we wanted to is so damned myopic historically. Plenty of nations/countries/peoples have been successful at it -- including the US.
Has any insurgency been "stomped out" quickly since the dawn of the information age and the era of globalization? That's kind of the key role player here. Look at Russia's efforts in Afghanistan. It's much easier to stomp out Afghani tribesmen than it is Afghani tribesmen funded by their next door neighbors and equipped with rocket launchers by the CIA.
On September 16 2015 12:34 cLutZ wrote:
On September 16 2015 12:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On September 16 2015 12:03 xDaunt wrote:
On September 16 2015 11:42 cLutZ wrote:
On September 16 2015 11:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On September 16 2015 09:58 cLutZ wrote: The path to failure is easy to avoid, if you acknowledge its existence, which America has failed to do recently.
Hey guys we have a five star general here who can end terrorism.
No I can't. I can know, however, that that is not a military goal.
Edit: By the way, the military generals will tell you that they could end terrorism if they got to do what they wanted.
No shit. This idea that we couldn't stomp out an insurgency if we wanted to is so damned myopic historically. Plenty of nations/countries/peoples have been successful at it -- including the US.
If by "successful" you mean conquered them for decades until the nation overthrew them and are today's communist, terrorist or militaristic dictactorships, then sure, so much success.
Not a lot of Native American terrorists. Or German. Or Japanese.
It took more than 100 years (maybe even 200, I can't remember) of slaughter, genocide, and manipulation to deal with Native American "terrorists." I dunno if Obama or any military generals have that long in Syria.
ISIS is doing a pretty damned good job cleansing the parts of Syria and Iraq that it contols. Y'all are kidding yourselves if you think the world has moved beyond barbarism.
But it doesn't have to go that far. America did a pretty effective job crushing insurrection in the Philippines.
Does that mean you think the United States should have crushed the insurrection in the Philippines?
On September 16 2015 13:55 WolfintheSheep wrote: Seriously? Vietnam?
The country that was conquered and occupied by France for about a century before they had a civil uprising? The country that saw millions of people die and was left destitute because America thought charging in with guns, bombs and napalm was the only thing stopping communism from taking over the world?
The nation that's becoming increasingly more stable and democratic only after being left alone for 40 years?
How is this, in any way, a contradiction of my point that foreign powers can only suppress insurrection through force? France imposed 100 years of "stability" and when the locals perceived weakness (along with infusions of money to disaffected dissidents) they rebelled, successfully. And America only halfheartedly stepped into their place.
Nothing in the statements I made precludes native populations from self-actualizing. Its a commentary on attempting to impose that on nations from the outside.
Ah, so that's your line of reasoning then.
Vietnam only wanted to oust their occupiers because France sucked at it. It's not because people don't like being occupied by people oppressing them. America can clearly do a better job.
And if America only "halfheartedly" stepped in by burning down entire forests and villages and wiping all the villagers out, then I suppose you mean that you should've killed everyone who could've remotely hated you? Which would be everyone, because that's what happens when you try to oppress a nation with mass graves. But I suppose, technically, that wiping out an entire country does stop them from becoming terrorists.
They always wanted to oust them? I dont know what your point is. You are trying to argue against an argument that doesnt exist. People don't like being occupied. A strong occupation is capable of preventing them from being violent (see the myriad of Dictators who have done it, plus the myriad of colonial powers who did it during their zenith), not that this is a good practice. I am criticizing the practice of a soft occupation.
On September 16 2015 14:29 Velr wrote: Advocating genocide as a solution.
Am I still asleep?
Saying a strategy simply doesnt work to implement its stated goals does not mean that the negatives of other strategies that achieve it are superior. It may mean that the goal itself is not realistic, or requires too high a cost.
Edit:
Fore example. My problem with what you are saying is that I see you as saying, "The war on terror failed for [reasons I dont think you have articulated]." Whereas I am saying it failed because it had ambitious goals, not backed by the requisite level of ambitious tactics. I first think the goals were overly ambitious, but second also think that the tactics were severely miscalculated for those goals.
I think I've finally figured out what Donald Trump's campaign reminds me of. Sideshow Bob. If it ends up being Trump versus Clinton in the general election, they can even copy the campaign ad from the Simpsons with slightly different words.
"Hillary Clinton takes money from rich donors. Hillary Clinton even took money from Donald Trump, a man who brags about buying every politician. Can you trust a woman like Hillary Clinton? Vote Donald Trump for President."
On September 16 2015 14:29 Velr wrote: Advocating genocide as a solution.
Am I still asleep?
It's not so much advocating so much as acknowledging the simple fact that killing people means they can't be terrorists anymore. They're dead after all.
The main point of contention has nothing to do with advocating genocide. I don't think you'll find many people at all that would advocate killing off everyone in the middle east to deal with terrorism. That's just ridiculous and not to mention terrible morally, ethically, and in about every other way imaginable. What you would find are people that think that this is the only solution and that if you're not willing to do it you should get the hell out of the area and not bother.
Stating that genocide would work is in no way advocating that it's a good way to go about doing things.
Not that I even, personally, think genocide would work any more. Information is too easy to obtain.
isil is not a simple local insurrection. it has global and transient elements that are difficult to control across vast stretches of desert. neighboring states are also involved in various degree and you cannot eliminate the militants even if syria is turned into glass. it's not a simple case of putting the boot down hard.
Hey I'm a hung over retard but isn't mass murder as a solution what put gas in the fire for a lot of these terrorists groups that aren't religiously driven?
EPT
