|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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. |
United States44203 Posts
On December 03 2015 01:23 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2015 01:04 Plansix wrote:On December 03 2015 00:59 QuanticHawk wrote:On December 03 2015 00:54 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 02 2015 07:50 zlefin wrote:On December 02 2015 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
The way some people are glossing over Trump encouraging his supporters to beat up a protester, pushing neo-nazi propaganda, being endorsed by several neo-nazi groups, and just straight up lying about watching this video of thousands of New Jersey Muslims celebrating after 9/11, and all the other lies, is impressive.
But yeah it's just the pesky liberal media that wants to focus on his racism, lies, and bigotry... The Republican party certainly doesn't want to talk about it.
he might not be lying, but misremembering; most people are very confident in their memories, but there is much research to show how unreliable they can be. I think that once you double down on demonstrably false misremembering (and still can't prove your memory was right with a shred of evidence beyond the work of a journalist that personally doesn't even corroborate your story) it becomes lying. At least Carson seems to have stopped doing that. Agreed, but I'd also add that when you repeatedly open your mouth about major things without even bothering to do the slightest bit of fact checking it's pretty much on par with lying intentionally. continuing to double down on the shit about Muslims in the States cheering is so gross and stupid http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-isis-terrorists-you-have-take-out-their-families-n472711His current plan is that we need to kill the terrorist families too. Per Trump, we need to kill everyone that the terrorist care about. This is the guy dominating the news cycle and the rest of the world seeing this. I can’t even begin to think of what normal folks in the middle east much be thinking. He is like a recruiter's dream. Didn't Russia actually have a lot of success by taking similar approaches in the past?
Not really. If the effort put into rounding up the families of those captured and putting them in the Gulag was put into supplying the troops perhaps fewer would have been captured. It's not like they were just randomly surrendering, they were being fucked from above. It was basically just an extension of "stop dying you cowards". Hell, Stalin's own son was captured after his "kill the families" rule was in force.
|
On December 03 2015 01:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2015 01:27 Mohdoo wrote:On December 03 2015 01:12 Simberto wrote:
I am still not convinced that Trump is not actually trolling.
It appears to me that he is just trying to say increasingly more ridiculous things until people stop taking him seriously, and is as surprised as you and i that that still hasn't happened. I see a lot of people say this sort of thing but I don't understand why. He is winning. People are really just not paying proper credit to how effective it has been. And if you look at 2008 and 2012, you will see that chest beating, anti-establishment rhetoric has been super effective. I really think Trump is just doing what he perceives as the best idea. He's not a huge bigot and he's not a huge troll. He is doing everything he can to win the nomination. He is making up stories about Muslims in New Jersey cheering as the twin towers fell. Completely false in every way. He insulted a disabled person because he could. He is talking about murdering people just because their family members decided to join ISIS, even if they are not actively assisting them. The man is a bigot, asshole and a blight on the US. Luckily he also has like a 89% unfavorable rating with the majority of the US population.
I don't think Trump actually holds these views. I think that being the one "informing" people about these sorts of things gives him credibility to the demographic he is trying to appeal to. It is his way of distinguishing himself and reinforcing his "take charge and tell it like it is" image. It is good politics and it is serving him well. No one appears more likely than him to land the nomination at this point. That is worth something.
|
On December 03 2015 00:36 oneofthem wrote:
some of that is fraud detection and fulfilling reporting etc procedures. but the fat cats in the industry and future direction for further profit extraction is in the care providers and medical devices. the guys holding all the monopoly and information advantage.
And somehow in other countries insurancecompanies are ablo to do this at 1/4 of the cost? What makes you think all this stuff is somehow Special to the US. Do you actually think other contries don't have to do reporting, fraud detection and all this?
And yes, the general huge costs in the health industry are not driven by insurance companies but thats not really the Topic.
|
On December 03 2015 01:36 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2015 01:33 Plansix wrote:On December 03 2015 01:27 Mohdoo wrote:On December 03 2015 01:12 Simberto wrote:
I am still not convinced that Trump is not actually trolling.
It appears to me that he is just trying to say increasingly more ridiculous things until people stop taking him seriously, and is as surprised as you and i that that still hasn't happened. I see a lot of people say this sort of thing but I don't understand why. He is winning. People are really just not paying proper credit to how effective it has been. And if you look at 2008 and 2012, you will see that chest beating, anti-establishment rhetoric has been super effective. I really think Trump is just doing what he perceives as the best idea. He's not a huge bigot and he's not a huge troll. He is doing everything he can to win the nomination. He is making up stories about Muslims in New Jersey cheering as the twin towers fell. Completely false in every way. He insulted a disabled person because he could. He is talking about murdering people just because their family members decided to join ISIS, even if they are not actively assisting them. The man is a bigot, asshole and a blight on the US. Luckily he also has like a 89% unfavorable rating with the majority of the US population. I don't think Trump actually holds these views. I think that being the one "informing" people about these sorts of things gives him credibility to the demographic he is trying to appeal to. It is his way of distinguishing himself and reinforcing his "take charge and tell it like it is" image. It is good politics and it is serving him well. No one appears more likely than him to land the nomination at this point. That is worth something.
I find the argument that “he isn’t a bigot, he is just catering to bigots for their votes” to lack any merit. Even if I believed that, it would still make Trump human garbage because he is willing to adopt the beliefs of the worst aspects of humanity just to get their votes and secure himself power. It is a level of cynicism that I refuse to reward or even consider is “good politics”. Catering to the desires of bigots and empowering is terrible garbage.
|
As abhorrent as it sounds, Trump is generally correct on what is necessary to win this conflict. Winning requires a certain level of total war that we're not presently prepared to engage in. As long as the terrorists have some line of support -- including their communities and families -- we're never going to finish them off.
|
Total war only works if there is a nation or sovereign power that can surrender or sue for peace. Without that, the war never ends and just keep chasing the problem around a region that dislikes the west. Terrorism specifically avoids the burned of being tired to a specific population or nation for this exact reason. ISIS controls an area, but they are more akin to warlords than any modern nation. Even if you kill the vast majority of ISIS members and their families, those that remain will simply recruit from another poor, disenfranchised region. It’s like trying to destroy the drug trade through military means. Its just a game of wack a mole that doesn’t’ really ever end.
|
On December 03 2015 01:51 Plansix wrote:
Total war only works if there is a nation or sovereign power that can surrender or sue for peace. Without that, the war never ends and just keep chasing the problem around a region that dislikes the west. Terrorism specifically avoids the burned of being tired to a specific population or nation for this exact reason. ISIS controls an area, but they are more akin to warlords than any modern nation. Even if you kill the vast majority of ISIS members and their families, those that remain will simply recruit from another poor, disenfranchised region. It’s like trying to destroy the drug trade through military means. Its just a game of wack a mole that doesn’t’ really ever end.
And this is completely contradicted by the historical record. There is no shortage of examples where a superior military power applied total war and completely subjugated a hostile population.
|
On December 03 2015 01:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2015 01:51 Plansix wrote:
Total war only works if there is a nation or sovereign power that can surrender or sue for peace. Without that, the war never ends and just keep chasing the problem around a region that dislikes the west. Terrorism specifically avoids the burned of being tired to a specific population or nation for this exact reason. ISIS controls an area, but they are more akin to warlords than any modern nation. Even if you kill the vast majority of ISIS members and their families, those that remain will simply recruit from another poor, disenfranchised region. It’s like trying to destroy the drug trade through military means. Its just a game of wack a mole that doesn’t’ really ever end. And this is completely contradicted by the historical record. There is no shortage of examples where a superior military power applied total war and completely subjugated a hostile population.
Yes, and then you have to subjugate the population for 30-50 years while they rebuild and exploit their resources to pay for the cost of doing so. And if people want to do that with the region is Syria, I think it might lead to a lot of violence while the rest of the middle east objects through violence. And our allies in the EU might object a whole bunch too.
Unless you are talking about subjugating all of the Middle East, which will require a war effort our nation is not willing to entertain. Plus there are those problems of other nations in the EU, Russia and China not being ok with that.
|
On December 03 2015 01:51 Plansix wrote:
Total war only works if there is a nation or sovereign power that can surrender or sue for peace. Without that, the war never ends and just keep chasing the problem around a region that dislikes the west. Terrorism specifically avoids the burned of being tired to a specific population or nation for this exact reason. ISIS controls an area, but they are more akin to warlords than any modern nation. Even if you kill the vast majority of ISIS members and their families, those that remain will simply recruit from another poor, disenfranchised region. It’s like trying to destroy the drug trade through military means. Its just a game of wack a mole that doesn’t’ really ever end.
I think you underestimate what they mean by total war.
|
On December 03 2015 01:23 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2015 01:04 Plansix wrote:On December 03 2015 00:59 QuanticHawk wrote:On December 03 2015 00:54 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 02 2015 07:50 zlefin wrote:On December 02 2015 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
The way some people are glossing over Trump encouraging his supporters to beat up a protester, pushing neo-nazi propaganda, being endorsed by several neo-nazi groups, and just straight up lying about watching this video of thousands of New Jersey Muslims celebrating after 9/11, and all the other lies, is impressive.
But yeah it's just the pesky liberal media that wants to focus on his racism, lies, and bigotry... The Republican party certainly doesn't want to talk about it.
he might not be lying, but misremembering; most people are very confident in their memories, but there is much research to show how unreliable they can be. I think that once you double down on demonstrably false misremembering (and still can't prove your memory was right with a shred of evidence beyond the work of a journalist that personally doesn't even corroborate your story) it becomes lying. At least Carson seems to have stopped doing that. Agreed, but I'd also add that when you repeatedly open your mouth about major things without even bothering to do the slightest bit of fact checking it's pretty much on par with lying intentionally. continuing to double down on the shit about Muslims in the States cheering is so gross and stupid http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-isis-terrorists-you-have-take-out-their-families-n472711His current plan is that we need to kill the terrorist families too. Per Trump, we need to kill everyone that the terrorist care about. This is the guy dominating the news cycle and the rest of the world seeing this. I can’t even begin to think of what normal folks in the middle east much be thinking. He is like a recruiter's dream. Didn't Russia actually have a lot of success by taking similar approaches in the past?
If with the past, you mean, did Stalin have some success of quashing opposition by killing not only dissidents, but their families as well? Then yes, it worked like a charm. Germany did that too with resistance fighters' families in Europe. Aren't people claiming Trump is NOT another Stalin or Hitler? It's getting harder by the minute.
|
On December 03 2015 01:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2015 01:53 xDaunt wrote:On December 03 2015 01:51 Plansix wrote:
Total war only works if there is a nation or sovereign power that can surrender or sue for peace. Without that, the war never ends and just keep chasing the problem around a region that dislikes the west. Terrorism specifically avoids the burned of being tired to a specific population or nation for this exact reason. ISIS controls an area, but they are more akin to warlords than any modern nation. Even if you kill the vast majority of ISIS members and their families, those that remain will simply recruit from another poor, disenfranchised region. It’s like trying to destroy the drug trade through military means. Its just a game of wack a mole that doesn’t’ really ever end. And this is completely contradicted by the historical record. There is no shortage of examples where a superior military power applied total war and completely subjugated a hostile population. Yes, and then you have to subjugate the population for 30-50 years while they rebuild and exploit their resources to pay for the cost of doing so. And if people want to do that with the region is Syria, I think it might lead to a lot of violence while the rest of the middle east objects through violence. And our allies in the EU might object a whole bunch too. Unless you are talking about subjugating all of the Middle East, which will require a war effort our nation is not willing to entertain. Plus there are those problems of other nations in the EU, Russia and China not being ok with that.
I'm not saying it would be easy. I'm just pointing out what's necessary to win (ie Trump is generally correct on that point) and that it can be done if sufficient resources are allocated to the effort. We (basically everyone in the world) are just not prepared to do it.
|
United States44203 Posts
On December 03 2015 01:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2015 01:51 Plansix wrote:
Total war only works if there is a nation or sovereign power that can surrender or sue for peace. Without that, the war never ends and just keep chasing the problem around a region that dislikes the west. Terrorism specifically avoids the burned of being tired to a specific population or nation for this exact reason. ISIS controls an area, but they are more akin to warlords than any modern nation. Even if you kill the vast majority of ISIS members and their families, those that remain will simply recruit from another poor, disenfranchised region. It’s like trying to destroy the drug trade through military means. Its just a game of wack a mole that doesn’t’ really ever end. And this is completely contradicted by the historical record. There is no shortage of examples where a superior military power applied total war and completely subjugated a hostile population.
And whenever the perpetrator of that total war lost history called it genocide. History is full of literal genocide and it certainly works very well if you're complete enough about it. But you have to do it really thoroughly, the British tried it in Ireland but we left some Catholics alive and that caused trouble for hundreds of years afterwards. You guys did a better job with your natives, both by obliterating them and their culture and creating a system of dependency upon the US government for aid. Hell, it took the Romans three attempts to finally end their Jewish problem. The total obliteration of a hostile population is hard work and at some point some bleeding heart liberals will start asking you why you're being literally Hitler.
Nobody anywhere thinks that genocide doesn't solve problems. It's just that generally we try not to be that guy.
|
On December 03 2015 02:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2015 01:53 xDaunt wrote:On December 03 2015 01:51 Plansix wrote:
Total war only works if there is a nation or sovereign power that can surrender or sue for peace. Without that, the war never ends and just keep chasing the problem around a region that dislikes the west. Terrorism specifically avoids the burned of being tired to a specific population or nation for this exact reason. ISIS controls an area, but they are more akin to warlords than any modern nation. Even if you kill the vast majority of ISIS members and their families, those that remain will simply recruit from another poor, disenfranchised region. It’s like trying to destroy the drug trade through military means. Its just a game of wack a mole that doesn’t’ really ever end. And this is completely contradicted by the historical record. There is no shortage of examples where a superior military power applied total war and completely subjugated a hostile population. And whenever the perpetrator of that total war lost history called it genocide. History is full of literal genocide and it certainly works very well if you're complete enough about it. But you have to do it really thoroughly, the British tried it in Ireland but we left some Catholics alive and that caused trouble for hundreds of years afterwards. You guys did a better job with your natives, both by obliterating them and their culture and creating a system of dependency upon the US government for aid. Hell, it took the Romans three attempts to finally end their Jewish problem. The total obliteration of a hostile population is hard work and at some point some bleeding heart liberals will start asking you why you're being literally Hitler. Nobody anywhere thinks that genocide doesn't solve problems. It's just that generally we try not to be that guy.
All out genocide isn't necessary. But let's face it: the West has a large number of people who quibble over the use of the atomic bomb against the Japanese. We're clearly not prepared to get serious about ISIS and radical Islam, so it's all moot anyway.
|
On December 03 2015 02:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2015 01:56 Plansix wrote:On December 03 2015 01:53 xDaunt wrote:On December 03 2015 01:51 Plansix wrote:
Total war only works if there is a nation or sovereign power that can surrender or sue for peace. Without that, the war never ends and just keep chasing the problem around a region that dislikes the west. Terrorism specifically avoids the burned of being tired to a specific population or nation for this exact reason. ISIS controls an area, but they are more akin to warlords than any modern nation. Even if you kill the vast majority of ISIS members and their families, those that remain will simply recruit from another poor, disenfranchised region. It’s like trying to destroy the drug trade through military means. Its just a game of wack a mole that doesn’t’ really ever end. And this is completely contradicted by the historical record. There is no shortage of examples where a superior military power applied total war and completely subjugated a hostile population. Yes, and then you have to subjugate the population for 30-50 years while they rebuild and exploit their resources to pay for the cost of doing so. And if people want to do that with the region is Syria, I think it might lead to a lot of violence while the rest of the middle east objects through violence. And our allies in the EU might object a whole bunch too. Unless you are talking about subjugating all of the Middle East, which will require a war effort our nation is not willing to entertain. Plus there are those problems of other nations in the EU, Russia and China not being ok with that. I'm not saying it would be easy. I'm just pointing out what's necessary to win (ie Trump is generally correct on that point) and that it can be done if sufficient resources are allocated to the effort. We (basically everyone in the world) are just not prepared to do it.
I am sure the US, Russia and China all scrabbling over the Middle East trying to secure whatever power they can would not lead to the US being any safer. What you refer to as victory is just imperialism with a new justification.
And yes, China and Russia wouldn’t allow the US to get such a strong foothold in the Middle East. I doubt the EU would either.
On December 03 2015 02:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2015 02:03 KwarK wrote:On December 03 2015 01:53 xDaunt wrote:On December 03 2015 01:51 Plansix wrote:
Total war only works if there is a nation or sovereign power that can surrender or sue for peace. Without that, the war never ends and just keep chasing the problem around a region that dislikes the west. Terrorism specifically avoids the burned of being tired to a specific population or nation for this exact reason. ISIS controls an area, but they are more akin to warlords than any modern nation. Even if you kill the vast majority of ISIS members and their families, those that remain will simply recruit from another poor, disenfranchised region. It’s like trying to destroy the drug trade through military means. Its just a game of wack a mole that doesn’t’ really ever end. And this is completely contradicted by the historical record. There is no shortage of examples where a superior military power applied total war and completely subjugated a hostile population. And whenever the perpetrator of that total war lost history called it genocide. History is full of literal genocide and it certainly works very well if you're complete enough about it. But you have to do it really thoroughly, the British tried it in Ireland but we left some Catholics alive and that caused trouble for hundreds of years afterwards. You guys did a better job with your natives, both by obliterating them and their culture and creating a system of dependency upon the US government for aid. Hell, it took the Romans three attempts to finally end their Jewish problem. The total obliteration of a hostile population is hard work and at some point some bleeding heart liberals will start asking you why you're being literally Hitler. Nobody anywhere thinks that genocide doesn't solve problems. It's just that generally we try not to be that guy. All out genocide isn't necessary. But let's face it: the West has a large number of people who quibble over the use of the atomic bomb against the Japanese. We're clearly not prepared to get serious about ISIS and radical Islam, so it's all moot anyway.
We could just travel back in time 50 years and replace radical Islam with Communism and have the same discussion. The simple fact is that your solution is not the only one. It is just the one that you believe would be successful.
|
On December 03 2015 01:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2015 01:51 Plansix wrote:
Total war only works if there is a nation or sovereign power that can surrender or sue for peace. Without that, the war never ends and just keep chasing the problem around a region that dislikes the west. Terrorism specifically avoids the burned of being tired to a specific population or nation for this exact reason. ISIS controls an area, but they are more akin to warlords than any modern nation. Even if you kill the vast majority of ISIS members and their families, those that remain will simply recruit from another poor, disenfranchised region. It’s like trying to destroy the drug trade through military means. Its just a game of wack a mole that doesn’t’ really ever end. And this is completely contradicted by the historical record. There is no shortage of examples where a superior military power applied total war and completely subjugated a hostile population.
Sorry to be a downer, but I would ask Israel about that approach and how that worked out. I think they have a bit of experience with that kind of thing.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
daunt has this idea that the radical islamic presence in the middle east is representative and dominant of these societies. it would be like seeing black panthers and then recommending nuking all the projects.
|
Dunno, killing everyone works quite well in solving a problem with other people, at least in the long term. As the native populations of Australia or America about that.
However, we have gladly decided that genocide isn't acceptable, which is a good decision in my opinion. Even if you don't support this based on ethical values, you should still consider the fact that if genocide is an acceptable solution to problems, at some point you are going to change from genocider to genocidee. Which isn't a fun position to be in.
|
On December 03 2015 02:24 oneofthem wrote:
daunt has this idea that the radical islamic presence in the middle east is representative and dominant of these societies. it would be like seeing black panthers and then recommending nuking all the projects.
Dominant? No. Significant? Absolutely.
|
United States44203 Posts
On December 03 2015 02:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2015 02:03 KwarK wrote:On December 03 2015 01:53 xDaunt wrote:On December 03 2015 01:51 Plansix wrote:
Total war only works if there is a nation or sovereign power that can surrender or sue for peace. Without that, the war never ends and just keep chasing the problem around a region that dislikes the west. Terrorism specifically avoids the burned of being tired to a specific population or nation for this exact reason. ISIS controls an area, but they are more akin to warlords than any modern nation. Even if you kill the vast majority of ISIS members and their families, those that remain will simply recruit from another poor, disenfranchised region. It’s like trying to destroy the drug trade through military means. Its just a game of wack a mole that doesn’t’ really ever end. And this is completely contradicted by the historical record. There is no shortage of examples where a superior military power applied total war and completely subjugated a hostile population. And whenever the perpetrator of that total war lost history called it genocide. History is full of literal genocide and it certainly works very well if you're complete enough about it. But you have to do it really thoroughly, the British tried it in Ireland but we left some Catholics alive and that caused trouble for hundreds of years afterwards. You guys did a better job with your natives, both by obliterating them and their culture and creating a system of dependency upon the US government for aid. Hell, it took the Romans three attempts to finally end their Jewish problem. The total obliteration of a hostile population is hard work and at some point some bleeding heart liberals will start asking you why you're being literally Hitler. Nobody anywhere thinks that genocide doesn't solve problems. It's just that generally we try not to be that guy. All out genocide isn't necessary. But let's face it: the West has a large number of people who quibble over the use of the atomic bomb against the Japanese. We're clearly not prepared to get serious about ISIS and radical Islam, so it's all moot anyway.
Japan was a peer. We didn't need to kill every Japanese person to convince them to stop being dicks. They operated like us. A guy at the top of Japan told them to stop being dicks and they stopped and then a guy at the top of America told the Americans to stop killing the Japanese so the Americans stopped.
Radical Islam, of which ISIS is a symptom, is not a peer. We can't have Allah show up and tell them all to stop and even if they did that wouldn't stop the other sects and tribes from being mad. The facebook meme with the mushroom cloud that reads "America has been at peace with Japan for 70 years, it's time to make peace with Islam" is not actually a good suggestion of policy.
Also a look at the things America actually did in WWII would suggest that we don't want to emulate that.
http://www.npr.org/2015/06/22/415194765/u-s-troops-tested-by-race-in-secret-world-war-ii-chemical-experiments
Maybe shit like that is what it takes to win a total war but I think many people would say that kind of war isn't worth winning, not when the biggest problem radical Islam poses to Americans is additional airport security and tax dollars that could be spent on better things. What's wrong with "we don't really have a good solution to this so we're just going to take reasonable and proportionate measures to mitigate the negative impact while admitting that it isn't a magic bullet"?
|
On December 03 2015 02:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2015 02:24 oneofthem wrote:
daunt has this idea that the radical islamic presence in the middle east is representative and dominant of these societies. it would be like seeing black panthers and then recommending nuking all the projects. Dominant? No. Significant? Absolutely.
So we should wage war on the entire Middle East because an unknown, but “significant” number of Muslims want to be violent towards us? And this is just the desire to commit violence against the US, not the means to be able to do so? And in what world do you think China would let us get away with that? Or the other Muslim nations that are not radicalized?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
