|
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. |
On December 12 2015 09:43 Cowboy64 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2015 09:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
The fundamental problem with the strategy regarding ISIS isn't that we couldn't or wouldn't wipe them off the map in a month or so. The big problem is what the hell do we do after we drive them out/undercover?
No one has a solution for that part. So it sounds good saying things like "We'll bomb the shit out of them" but it's no more a winning strategy than sticking our thumbs up our asses and waiting.
So the real argument isn't even over ISIS, the argument (once you strip away the BS rhetoric and posturing) is, does the US want a massive DMZ in the Middle East that for all intents and purposes would be necessary for the foreseeable future (50-infinity years).
EDIT: I guess I should say a "BF American Military base" instead of DMZ. What happens if we don't? Maybe we don't have to do it and the conservatives are overstating the threat?
Nothing in the short term. Its 30K people in the middle east holding a section of land that no one is willing to fight over. Long term it could be a problem. The problem is that we can't just charge in "get them" because there is no one to give the land they occupy to. We would just go in, remove ISIS, create another power vacuum and someone else will take their place.
And most of the big players in the Middle East are waiting for the West to sweep in and handle the problem so they don't have to.
|
After Vietnam and Korea I'd also be a little careful about statements like "we're absolutely going to wreck them in like five minutes". Technical superiority doesn't guarantee an actual win and you'd probably have to put significant number of boots on the ground for decades maybe.
|
United States43929 Posts
On December 12 2015 10:36 Nyxisto wrote:
After Vietnam and Korea I'd also be a little careful about statements like "we're absolutely going to wreck them in like five minutes". Technical superiority doesn't guarantee an actual win and you'd probably have to put significant number of boots on the ground for decades maybe.
If cost wasn't an issue and nor was collateral damage we could hit bomb every brick that is placed on top of another brick. Both are issues.
Korea was a land war against China who had already been fighting for 15 years, they knew their shit and they were using a lot of American equipment.
In reference to the Paper Tiger comment, the legacy of the Bush Doctrine has been a change in government in a half dozen states across two continents with a huge amount of land destabilized. If Osama truly thought America lacked strength then he was laughably wrong, a thought that may have entered his brain a split second before American bullets did. What America lacked is judgement, an understanding of which problems can be solved by military force and which cannot. I think it's absurd to argue that America is weak given their unparalleled ability to fuck shit up globally. Osama killed 3,000 innocents, America killed 300,000 innocents in response. The terrorists are the ones who are weak, the only meaningful way they can damage America is by baiting out poorly conceived and disproportionate responses.
|
I didn't say America is weak, I'm saying that winning against an inferior force isn't simple and also that the 'win conditions' aren't "we have fucked shit up". I assume the United States don't go to war simply to fuck shit up and that resources and lives spared are a significant part of what constitutes winning a war. It's not like ISIS hisses a white flag at some point and then you have "won" and they have "lost".
I don't think the United States has actually won any significant war after World War II in the sense that they get out of it what they wanted to. Nearly all of the larger military conflicts have ended in stalemates with adverse geopolitical results ten or twenty years later. Sure Saddam Hussein ended up in the gutter, that alone doesn't mean that the Iraq war was worth it.
|
United States43929 Posts
On December 12 2015 10:48 Nyxisto wrote:
I didn't say America is weak, I'm saying that winning against an inferior force isn't simple and also that the 'win conditions' aren't "we have fucked shit up". I assume the United States don't go to war simply to fuck shit up and that resources and lives spared are a significant part of what constitutes winning a war. It's not like ISIS hisses a white flag at some point and then you have "won" and they have "lost".
I don't think the United States has actually won any significant war after World War II in the sense that they get out of it what they wanted to get out of it.
It wasn't you who made the Paper Tiger comment, I was responding to the person who did.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
we saved korea and thereby bw
great worth imo
|
|
|
Generally I agree with you about the strength of our military. However, military strength is not eternal, and it can fade pretty fast if it's not used properly, or if the money runs out, or if it get's stretched too thin. Our ability to put a nuke up al-Baghdadi's ass is irrelevant if we all agree that we'll never use the nuke anyway. And I'm not saying we should use the nuke, I'm just saying that any weapon you're unwilling to use under any circumstances is not really a weapon, and can't really be considered as a piece of the equation. Bush upturned Iraq, but what did we do then? Eventually we left, and when we left we didn't leave many allies behind. We all agree that was pretty much a defeat for us. We can blame Bush for a lot of that, and we can blame Obama for some of it, but pointing fingers doesn't change the fact. We lost.
And all I'm asking is: What if they saw us lose, and now they believe that we're just going to keep losing? And what if they actually believe what they say (shocking, I know!) and Osama never really cared about seeing the caliphate with his own eyes? What if those people who flew the planes into the buildings weren't planning on living to see victory, so they were perfectly content to play the long game?
I don't know the answers, but I'm starting to think most of our politicians don't have any real plans either.
|
Almost everyone can dream up a scenario where using our nukes would be justifiable. The issue is that too many people think nuking parts of the middle east is justifiable at this point in time, but it isn't.
You don't really want rash actors with no sense of self preservation in control of nukes, that goes for allowing others to get them and who we elect here~
|
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2015/12/11/expert-new-england-police-union-that-endorsed-trump-doesn-represent-most-officers-views/4VRS3ZHt07qCjjnvZaUqoL/story.html?p1=feature_pri_hp
But what does that vote of confidence really mean? Nothing, according to Tom Nolan, a former Boston Police Department lieutenant who now teaches criminology at Merrimack College.
“Up until a few months ago, no one had ever heard of them,” Nolan said. “This is some wingnut faction of cops who came together and made up some club, and then try to get on the national stage by doing these grandstanding political things.”
Nolan said he was not aware of the organization, which was founded in 2005, endorsing a presidential candidate in the past. The group’s executive director, Jerry Flynn, a Lowell policeman who’s currently on leave, did not respond to a request for comment from Boston.com.
Nolan, who served in the Boston police force for 27 years, said the association’s views don’t represent those of most police officers in New England—especially of those in Boston.
“They’re trying to give the impression that they represent Boston police officers, but they’re not a labor union that actually negotiates contracts,” he said. “This organization is largely constituted by small departments in New Hampshire that are attempting to get a big splash.”
|
A Muslim store owner was attacked in Queens in what police are investigating as a bias crime, authorities say.
A man walked into the Fatima Food Mart on 21st Avenue in Astoria on Saturday and yelled that he wanted to "kill Muslims," then repeatedly punched the owner, according to police and the owner.
A mosque in Jersey City, home to a large Muslim population, has been getting hate mail and phone threats, NBC 4 New York first reported Tuesday, prompting concerned religious leaders to meet with community officials and police Wednesday.
Source
So is it reasonable to expect Trump to come out against these types of violent/hateful outbursts against innocent Muslims? Or is it another case of "maybe he should have been roughed up" like a black protester at his rally?
|
It's Trump. He is easy to predict. When he has the choice between being an asshole and being a decent human being, he will always choose being an asshole.
|
On December 12 2015 20:42 Simberto wrote:
It's Trump. He is easy to predict. When he has the choice between being an asshole and being a decent human being, he will always choose being an asshole.
Trump is such an idiot that the leader of the US Nazi Party seems to think his Muslim ban is impossible
This headline is trending on facebook:
American Nazi Party: Chairman Rocky Suhayda Says Donald Trump's Muslims Ban Is Improbable
"Unless Trump plans on ruling by Presidential Decree, I don’t see how he would implement any of his plans," he told Buzzfeed. Trump proposed banning Muslims from entering the U.S.
Yeah I know. The USA has a Nazi party, we know who their leader is and he smarter than Trump, despite being a Nazi party leader! Which is a thing.... somehow.
|
So this is to further associate Trump with Nazis right?
Ahaha! Even the US Nazi Party (which no one here knew existed until now) disagrees with Trump so we're right high five!
|
Even mentally defunct individuals should be able to work out that you can't and shouldn't ban ALL peoples of a certain religion from entering the country.
|
Yes we can (Obama tm). It is constitutional.
It's a matter of will. I think his ban comment was jumping the shark but you see Trump now making more nuanced statements such as banning people who originate from specific terrorist infested countries, etc.
This meme of Trump being a fascist now makes everyone not even read his statements through objective lens but rather through left wing lens. And that's a shame because he's the front runner by 20+ points.
|
Poor Trump not being viewed through an objective lens.....lol, as though his ban comments stand on their own outside a "left wing lens," which doesn't even make sense when self-proclaimed nazis disagree with him. Funny stuff.
|
Which makes sense because Trump isn't a nazi. Why is this so difficult for you?
|
The problem is that you seem to agree that we can and maybe you even agree that we should ban all muslims. If that is your stance you aren't being rational.
EDIT: And no, banning all muslims from entering the country is not at all constitutional. It goes against the first amendment, among others.
|
First amendment applies to citizens. Are you implying that the people of this world are citizens of the US and by default entitled to enter this country? Get real
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
