|
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 February 07 2016 11:33 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2016 11:30 oBlade wrote:
I think we all know what they mean, even if they misuse a term. They're not talking about Rolling Thunder, that's why Cruz's reference was the first Gulf War and not Vietnam. They're just saying increase air strikes. "I hate spics. Spics suck ass, we should build a wall and whip them out of the country." Sorry, misused some terms. I obviously meant "we should reduce illegal immigration".
Come off it.
On February 07 2016 11:33 m4ini wrote:
I certainly do know what they mean (and no, it's not indiscriminate, so that's a lie and a half already), so does he. Use the correct term. And i'm from germany, i've seen the results of actual carpet bombing. Someone throwing those terms around to gather votes is disgusting.
If your point is that Cruz is using the wrong word (carpet bombing) to intentionally appear strong to people who are misinformed, that's a fairly obvious point, and it's not something that politicians are going to stop doing so long as huge swaths of the population are not experts on every issue. We can read between the lines and understand what they actually mean.
|
oBlade, I do agree with your point but this guy just tried to say waterboarding was OK. So I don't think it applies to Cruz in particular.
|
On February 07 2016 11:27 m4ini wrote:
Sigh, because obviously, "overwhelming air power" will help destroying a "philosophy".
Cute btw that he still thinks that carpet bombing is not indiscriminate. Either he knows and he's lying, or he doesn't know what carpet bombing actually is.
Worked on Nazism no?
Its all rhetorical nonsense on ISIS by all 9 still running though. The only viable options are 1) Completely disengage; 2) What is essentially assassinations ala the Bin Laden raid, just more often; or 3) Total destruction via airpower and artillery plus ground occupation with over 200k troops ala Dresden. Its a nasty truth, but post WWII wars 100% support this, basically, all or nothing approach.
|
Canada11509 Posts
On February 07 2016 11:28 Danglars wrote:
Apocalyptic Group. Guys, new take on ISIS!
How do you mean new? The ISIS promo videos tend to be of the 'come at me bro, we need 80 banners to fight us at Dabiq' variety.
|
On February 07 2016 11:42 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2016 11:28 Danglars wrote:
Apocalyptic Group. Guys, new take on ISIS! How do you mean new? The ISIS promo videos tend to be of the 'come at me bro, we need 80 banners to fight us at Dabiq' variety.
It's entirely how he styled his answer.
"Guys we gotta realize this is an apocalyptic group" on what'll he do. He goes on with mush (He could've skirted over to hurting their recruitment or something). It's Rubio and it was very non-sequitur in terms of addressing the question and the followup.
|
On February 07 2016 11:40 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2016 11:27 m4ini wrote:
Sigh, because obviously, "overwhelming air power" will help destroying a "philosophy".
Cute btw that he still thinks that carpet bombing is not indiscriminate. Either he knows and he's lying, or he doesn't know what carpet bombing actually is. Worked on Nazism no? Its all rhetorical nonsense on ISIS by all 9 still running though. The only viable options are 1) Completely disengage; 2) What is essentially assassinations ala the Bin Laden raid, just more often; or 3) Total destruction via airpower and artillery plus ground occupation with over 200k troops ala Dresden. Its a nasty truth, but post WWII wars 100% support this, basically, all or nothing approach.
If we didn't draw dumbass lines over there, increasing regional power by empowering friendly groups willing to embrace democratic ideas would be a reasonable option, that with help from "assassinations", could be basically what GWB wanted Iraq to be but on a more realistic scale.
|
On February 07 2016 11:40 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2016 11:27 m4ini wrote:
Sigh, because obviously, "overwhelming air power" will help destroying a "philosophy".
Cute btw that he still thinks that carpet bombing is not indiscriminate. Either he knows and he's lying, or he doesn't know what carpet bombing actually is. Worked on Nazism no?
Yeah. Totally did. For germany. Apart from all the neo-nazis that are back on the rise again (guess, not totally). Which in terms of islamic fundamentalism would mean you have plenty of suicide bombers and cells around.
You wanna argue that there's no neo-nazis anymore? Really? Neo-Nazi? There's no "ISIS country" that you can bomb to oblivion. To even act like both things are somehow similar is already extremely weird.
Its all rhetorical nonsense on ISIS by all 9 still running though. The only viable options are 1) Completely disengage; 2) What is essentially assassinations ala the Bin Laden raid, just more often; or 3) Total destruction via airpower and artillery plus ground occupation with over 200k troops ala Dresden. Its a nasty truth, but post WWII wars 100% support this, basically, all or nothing approach.
Yup, all or nothing it would be. Considering that #3 already didn't work, i'd go with #1.
|
My top choice might not win the nomination, but I can look forward to Bush & Kasich departing this entire show soon.
|
I'm curious if Carson hangs on till SC just to fuck over Cruz, he's got the money and enough support to do it. Kasich is sticking around with a 4th or better performance (as long as it's in the double digits).
|
Christie has unmanned Rubio this debate. Rubio's worst debate by FAR
It's clear that Trump is still the Alpha. Cruz is such a fucking wimp
Christie and Trump have done quite well imo
|
NATE SILVER 9:42 PM
Cruz is having a little bit of trouble with the torture question, in part because his campaign is really hoping to pick up some Rand Paul supporters, and libertarians tend to be highly critical of George W. Bush’s so-called “enhanced interrogation” techniques.
Yeah I feel like NH was the wrong audience for it
|
Uh oh.
Policing a foreign country, literally? That doesn't sound like trouble at all.
edit: subtle pro-life.
|
this v. Hillary question is dumb
|
On February 07 2016 11:40 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2016 11:27 m4ini wrote:
Sigh, because obviously, "overwhelming air power" will help destroying a "philosophy".
Cute btw that he still thinks that carpet bombing is not indiscriminate. Either he knows and he's lying, or he doesn't know what carpet bombing actually is. Worked on Nazism no? Its all rhetorical nonsense on ISIS by all 9 still running though. The only viable options are 1) Completely disengage; 2) What is essentially assassinations ala the Bin Laden raid, just more often; or 3) Total destruction via airpower and artillery plus ground occupation with over 200k troops ala Dresden. Its a nasty truth, but post WWII wars 100% support this, basically, all or nothing approach.
What worked on Nazism was rolling tanks into the Reichstag (and the Soviets actually won that war, despite Hollywood's bet efforts to suggest otherwise), and the second World war wasn't asymmetric warfare to say the least. Without ground forces airstrikes will do absolutely nothing.
|
Kasich campaigning before the debate:
Kasich, who has appealed to voters across the ideological spectrum in an effort to attract independent voters, ran into yet another Democratic voter who told the Ohio governor that he's the only Republican he would vote for.
"I ought to be running in a Democrat primary, I got more Democrats for me -- you have any Republican friends?" Kasich jokingly replied.
What Republicans have been thinking for so long now.
|
On February 07 2016 11:55 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2016 11:40 cLutZ wrote:On February 07 2016 11:27 m4ini wrote:
Sigh, because obviously, "overwhelming air power" will help destroying a "philosophy".
Cute btw that he still thinks that carpet bombing is not indiscriminate. Either he knows and he's lying, or he doesn't know what carpet bombing actually is. Worked on Nazism no? Its all rhetorical nonsense on ISIS by all 9 still running though. The only viable options are 1) Completely disengage; 2) What is essentially assassinations ala the Bin Laden raid, just more often; or 3) Total destruction via airpower and artillery plus ground occupation with over 200k troops ala Dresden. Its a nasty truth, but post WWII wars 100% support this, basically, all or nothing approach. What worked on Nazism was rolling tanks into the Reichstag (and the Soviets actually won that war, despite Hollywood's bet efforts to suggest the opposite), and the second World war wasn't asymmetric warfare to say the least.
Apart from the obvious problem that while national socialism as a form of government died out, nazi ideology certainly didn't. Not even close.
Why someone would assume it would be different against something that you can't "remove", is simply beyond me.
|
On February 07 2016 11:45 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2016 11:40 cLutZ wrote:On February 07 2016 11:27 m4ini wrote:
Sigh, because obviously, "overwhelming air power" will help destroying a "philosophy".
Cute btw that he still thinks that carpet bombing is not indiscriminate. Either he knows and he's lying, or he doesn't know what carpet bombing actually is. Worked on Nazism no? Yeah. Totally did. For germany. Apart from all the neo-nazis that are back on the rise again (guess, not totally). Which in terms of islamic fundamentalism would mean you have plenty of suicide bombers and cells around. You wanna argue that there's no neo-nazis anymore? Really? Neo-Nazi? There's no "ISIS country" that you can bomb to oblivion. To even act like both things are somehow similar is already extremely weird.
ISIS is here, it's called Islamic State for a reason:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Territorial_control_of_the_ISIS.svg
|
On February 07 2016 11:45 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2016 11:40 cLutZ wrote:On February 07 2016 11:27 m4ini wrote:
Sigh, because obviously, "overwhelming air power" will help destroying a "philosophy".
Cute btw that he still thinks that carpet bombing is not indiscriminate. Either he knows and he's lying, or he doesn't know what carpet bombing actually is. Worked on Nazism no? Yeah. Totally did. For germany. Apart from all the neo-nazis that are back on the rise again (guess, not totally). Which in terms of islamic fundamentalism would mean you have plenty of suicide bombers and cells around. You wanna argue that there's no neo-nazis anymore? Really? Neo-Nazi? There's no "ISIS country" that you can bomb to oblivion. To even act like both things are somehow similar is already extremely weird. Show nested quote +
Its all rhetorical nonsense on ISIS by all 9 still running though. The only viable options are 1) Completely disengage; 2) What is essentially assassinations ala the Bin Laden raid, just more often; or 3) Total destruction via airpower and artillery plus ground occupation with over 200k troops ala Dresden. Its a nasty truth, but post WWII wars 100% support this, basically, all or nothing approach.
Yup, all or nothing it would be. Considering that #3 already didn't work, i'd go with #1.
#3 wasn't tried for the record, but actually I think that Germany still is so hostile to neo NAZIs is evidence it did work. The 90%+ of the populace that remembers the tradegy wrought on them as a result of Russia and America's backlash to that ideology has kept it suppressed. Personally, I actually prefer #1, or #2. I'm just saying that halfhearted efforts ala Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc so not create long term solutions. And, they get Americans killed, along with whoever we are naively trying to liberate.
Honestly, given America's technical sophistication, we cannot even do #3 without violating the Geneva conventions.
|
On February 07 2016 11:57 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2016 11:45 m4ini wrote:On February 07 2016 11:40 cLutZ wrote:On February 07 2016 11:27 m4ini wrote:
Sigh, because obviously, "overwhelming air power" will help destroying a "philosophy".
Cute btw that he still thinks that carpet bombing is not indiscriminate. Either he knows and he's lying, or he doesn't know what carpet bombing actually is. Worked on Nazism no? Yeah. Totally did. For germany. Apart from all the neo-nazis that are back on the rise again (guess, not totally). Which in terms of islamic fundamentalism would mean you have plenty of suicide bombers and cells around. You wanna argue that there's no neo-nazis anymore? Really? Neo-Nazi? There's no "ISIS country" that you can bomb to oblivion. To even act like both things are somehow similar is already extremely weird. ISIS is here, it's called Islamic State for a reason: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Territorial_control_of_the_ISIS.svg
Yeah. Right.
Because it's not an ideology. And all the latest terror attacks came directly from isis controlled territories, and totally weren't "self radicalized" groups who agreed with what ISIS stands for (their ideology).
Just wow, really.
#3 wasn't tried for the record, but actually I think that Germany still is so hostile to neo NAZIs is evidence it did work. The 90%+ of the populace that remembers the tradegy wrought on them as a result of Russia and America's backlash to that ideology has kept it suppressed. Personally, I actually prefer #1, or #2. I'm just saying that halfhearted efforts ala Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc so not create long term solutions. And, they get Americans killed, along with whoever we are naively trying to liberate.
Must've dreamed about american "freedom- and democracy-dispensers" in the middle east then.
And yes, i just said. Germans are (mostly) hostile against nazis. Other countries are not. The US being one of the biggest front runner. The ideology and "hitler-idolization" still is strong in other countries. And that's the whole problem. Just assume the 3rd reich is the caliphate, you bomb them, raid them, whatever - what about the ideology, the thing that makes people suicide-bomb?
You have self-radicalizing groups everywhere. They're not contacted by the ISIS, but they seek contact to the ISIS. It's not ISIS recruiting, it's people trying to get in. That won't change, even if the caliphate is destroyed. The exact same as nazis. They still exist in vast numbers, they just don't bomb shit. Not because hitler recruited them, but because they for whatever reason resonate with his message.
That's why "non-indiscriminate saturation surgical carpet bombing" is not an option. No matter what you do, by doing that, you will prove other people right, which will form cells.
Think cancer. Literally. You can operate the big melanoma, but chances are high that it'll spread again.
|
On February 07 2016 11:59 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2016 11:57 oBlade wrote:On February 07 2016 11:45 m4ini wrote:On February 07 2016 11:40 cLutZ wrote:On February 07 2016 11:27 m4ini wrote:
Sigh, because obviously, "overwhelming air power" will help destroying a "philosophy".
Cute btw that he still thinks that carpet bombing is not indiscriminate. Either he knows and he's lying, or he doesn't know what carpet bombing actually is. Worked on Nazism no? Yeah. Totally did. For germany. Apart from all the neo-nazis that are back on the rise again (guess, not totally). Which in terms of islamic fundamentalism would mean you have plenty of suicide bombers and cells around. You wanna argue that there's no neo-nazis anymore? Really? Neo-Nazi? There's no "ISIS country" that you can bomb to oblivion. To even act like both things are somehow similar is already extremely weird. ISIS is here, it's called Islamic State for a reason: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Territorial_control_of_the_ISIS.svg Yeah. Right. Because it's not an ideology. And all the latest terror attacks came directly from isis controlled territories, and totally weren't "self radicalized" groups who agreed with what ISIS stands for (their ideology). Just wow, really.
I don't know why you're being coy about this. Nazism was an ideology, and despite what you would have us believe, it's no longer a significant threat to civilization and free society, because the state that was built on it no longer exists.
How can you say "ISIS controlled territories" and not grasp that the strength of the organization, their ability to conduct attacks in Europe, is fundamentally connected to controlling an area the size of a country? Do you consider Al-Qaeda has become more or less of a threat after the assassinations of its leadership and it being stamped out of territories where it enjoyed a safe haven?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
