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 08 2016 03:16 zlefin wrote: It's dumb cuz we all know it's easy to militarily defeat ISIS, the question is how to handle the aftermath so things actually become stable. And on how much you want to spend.
And if you listen to Trump's speech (and not just read the bullet points), he very clearly understands that the solution is not just military in nature and talks about that.
you can't expect me to go off info you never provided; I look at hwat was brought into and maybe what was linked in the thread.
it also doesn't change that he doens't understand we already have plans that could defeat isis, and it's pretty darn easy to do so anyways. and all the other points about his wasteful spending.
So let me get this straight. It's unfair for me to presume that you're up to speed on the issue, but it's perfectly okay for you to throw out baseless assumptions like the underlined above?
On September 08 2016 03:16 zlefin wrote: It's dumb cuz we all know it's easy to militarily defeat ISIS, the question is how to handle the aftermath so things actually become stable. And on how much you want to spend.
And if you listen to Trump's speech (and not just read the bullet points), he very clearly understands that the solution is not just military in nature and talks about that.
do you have a link?
I'm not sure that it's been posted yet. He just gave it this morning.
well, I can't respond to something that's unavailable. until then I'll have to stick to mocking trump for his general foolishness.
Welp, I think you just answered it. Foolishness on parade!
And what do we do with all the hardened militias from that war? If the Soviets had stayed in Afghanistan we'd not have been attacked by Al Qaeda, they'd have been busy. If we defeat ISIS then suddenly we have a bunch of well armed and battle hardened militias who are pissed off at Turkey and Israel (among others). Boredom and militias is not a great combination, fortunately ISIS has already decimated Hezbollah but I can't imagine Israel is looking forward to the Iranian trained and battle hardened survivors returning. I'd bet a fair bit that Turkey doesn't want the Kurdish militias getting bored either and even Russia remembers that when Muslims aren't killing each other they're pretty high up on the list of targets due to Chechyna. It's easy to forget just how big and how recent the Moscow Theatre and Beslan School attacks were, but they were fucking huge.
On September 08 2016 03:16 zlefin wrote: It's dumb cuz we all know it's easy to militarily defeat ISIS, the question is how to handle the aftermath so things actually become stable. And on how much you want to spend.
And if you listen to Trump's speech (and not just read the bullet points), he very clearly understands that the solution is not just military in nature and talks about that.
you can't expect me to go off info you never provided; I look at hwat was brought into and maybe what was linked in the thread.
it also doesn't change that he doens't understand we already have plans that could defeat isis, and it's pretty darn easy to do so anyways. and all the other points about his wasteful spending.
So let me get this straight. It's unfair for me to presume that you're up to speed on the issue, but it's perfectly okay for you to throw out baseless assumptions like the underlined above?
it's not baseless at all. one of the thigns the military does, all the time, is prepare plans for various operations and contingencies. So i'm sure they already do have plans for it. The hard part isn't the military defeat anyways, which could be done even with a very shitty plan. even trump could make a plan to militarily defeat isis that would work, as could a child.
why must you unsoundly defend trump? surely there are people more worth the defense?
On September 08 2016 03:16 zlefin wrote: It's dumb cuz we all know it's easy to militarily defeat ISIS, the question is how to handle the aftermath so things actually become stable. And on how much you want to spend.
And if you listen to Trump's speech (and not just read the bullet points), he very clearly understands that the solution is not just military in nature and talks about that.
you can't expect me to go off info you never provided; I look at hwat was brought into and maybe what was linked in the thread.
it also doesn't change that he doens't understand we already have plans that could defeat isis, and it's pretty darn easy to do so anyways. and all the other points about his wasteful spending.
So let me get this straight. It's unfair for me to presume that you're up to speed on the issue, but it's perfectly okay for you to throw out baseless assumptions like the underlined above?
it's not baseless at all. one of the thigns the military does, all the time, is prepare plans for various operations and contingencies. So i'm sure they already do have plans for it. The hard part isn't the military defeat anyways, which could be done even with a very shitty plan.
Good god. Here you are continuing to presume that Trump isn't addressing things that I already said he has. That's one sick double down on ignorance.
On September 08 2016 03:16 zlefin wrote: It's dumb cuz we all know it's easy to militarily defeat ISIS, the question is how to handle the aftermath so things actually become stable. And on how much you want to spend.
And if you listen to Trump's speech (and not just read the bullet points), he very clearly understands that the solution is not just military in nature and talks about that.
you can't expect me to go off info you never provided; I look at hwat was brought into and maybe what was linked in the thread.
it also doesn't change that he doens't understand we already have plans that could defeat isis, and it's pretty darn easy to do so anyways. and all the other points about his wasteful spending.
So let me get this straight. It's unfair for me to presume that you're up to speed on the issue, but it's perfectly okay for you to throw out baseless assumptions like the underlined above?
it's not baseless at all. one of the thigns the military does, all the time, is prepare plans for various operations and contingencies. So i'm sure they already do have plans for it. The hard part isn't the military defeat anyways, which could be done even with a very shitty plan.
Good god. Here you are continuing to presume that Trump isn't addressing things that I already said he has. That's one sick double down on ignorance.
then provide the link. oh wait, you already said you can't. how about you stop arguing the point until you can actually provide the link so I can see for myself? especially given your long history of bias, I can't rely on your word on what trump addressed adequately. it also doesn't change the validity of the claim that it's dumb that trump doesn't know we already have military plans for the job. or of the numerous other critiques. or of the fact that mocking trump is fun.
On September 08 2016 02:52 xDaunt wrote: You guys do understand that Point Number 1 doesn't mean that the military has to present a plan that destroys ISIS in 30 days of combat, right? He said he wants to see a plan to destroy ISIS 30 days after he takes office.
Pretty sure we already have a plan. Actually, we probably have like a bajillion of them. The military isn't just sitting around jerking themselves and polishing their buttons. But Trump will have the best plans, believe me.
To be particularly partisan, this looks like a transparent attempt at pandering in advance of the CiC town hall tonight. I call it transpandering.
I'm sure that there are numerous plans that exist, any number of which could be selected and then made current to account for current conditions on the ground, intelligence, and global deployments. There's nothing unreasonable about this first point, and I find it amusing that so many are attacking it.
The administration's ISIS strategy is based around no boots on the ground (though I think the advisers bit is toeing that line sometimes) and a variety of other parameters. It is likely the best, or one of the best, plans given the parameters set around what we're willing to invest in this effort and up to date with all the things you mentioned.
If under a President Trump those parameters change to include boots on the ground, less discriminatory strikes against targets with civilians around them and so forth there will be more options on the table and new plans will need to be made.
However, it's the difference between saying "we need a bridge across the river" and "we need to build a bridge across this river that can support x amount of traffic, can be completed in y time and costs z dollars". It's easy to say you can build a better bridge given none of the constraints of the current architect.
On September 08 2016 03:16 zlefin wrote: It's dumb cuz we all know it's easy to militarily defeat ISIS, the question is how to handle the aftermath so things actually become stable. And on how much you want to spend.
And if you listen to Trump's speech (and not just read the bullet points), he very clearly understands that the solution is not just military in nature and talks about that.
you can't expect me to go off info you never provided; I look at hwat was brought into and maybe what was linked in the thread.
it also doesn't change that he doens't understand we already have plans that could defeat isis, and it's pretty darn easy to do so anyways. and all the other points about his wasteful spending.
So let me get this straight. It's unfair for me to presume that you're up to speed on the issue, but it's perfectly okay for you to throw out baseless assumptions like the underlined above?
it's not baseless at all. one of the thigns the military does, all the time, is prepare plans for various operations and contingencies. So i'm sure they already do have plans for it. The hard part isn't the military defeat anyways, which could be done even with a very shitty plan.
Good god. Here you are continuing to presume that Trump isn't addressing things that I already said he has. That's one sick double down on ignorance.
then provide the link. oh wait, you already said you can't. how about you stop arguing the point until you can actually provide the link so I can see for myself? especially given your long history of bias, I can't rely on your word on what trump addressed adequately.
You are literally making shit up about Trump and yet you accuse me of being biased. This is too rich.
it also doesn't change the validity of the claim that it's dumb that trump doesn't know we already have military plans for the job. or of the numerous other critiques.
And you are still making shit up. Why are you presuming that Trump thinks that the military doesn't already have contingencies to take out ISIS? I already pointed out that any such plan has to be updated before it can be presented to Trump, hence there is nothing out of the ordinary in his request. It boggles the mind that you do not understand this very simple concept.
On September 08 2016 03:34 xDaunt wrote: I already pointed out that any such plan has to be updated before it can be presented to Trump, hence there is nothing out of the ordinary in his request. It boggles the mind that you do not understand this very simple concept.
On September 08 2016 02:52 xDaunt wrote: You guys do understand that Point Number 1 doesn't mean that the military has to present a plan that destroys ISIS in 30 days of combat, right? He said he wants to see a plan to destroy ISIS 30 days after he takes office.
Pretty sure we already have a plan. Actually, we probably have like a bajillion of them. The military isn't just sitting around jerking themselves and polishing their buttons. But Trump will have the best plans, believe me.
To be particularly partisan, this looks like a transparent attempt at pandering in advance of the CiC town hall tonight. I call it transpandering.
I'm sure that there are numerous plans that exist, any number of which could be selected and then made current to account for current conditions on the ground, intelligence, and global deployments. There's nothing unreasonable about this first point, and I find it amusing that so many are attacking it.
The administration's ISIS strategy is based around no boots on the ground (though I think the advisers bit is toeing that line sometimes) and a variety of other parameters. It is likely the best, or one of the best, plans given the parameters set around what we're willing to invest in this effort and up to date with all the things you mentioned.
If under a President Trump those parameters change to include boots on the ground, less discriminatory strikes against targets with civilians around them and so forth there will be more options on the table and new plans will need to be made.
However, it's the difference between saying "we need a bridge across the river" and "we need to build a bridge across this river that can support x amount of traffic, can be completed in y time and costs z dollars". It's easy to say you can build a better bridge given none of the constraints of the current architect.
I'm sure that the Pentagon has plans basic plans in place to address all of the options you describe above. They create plans for alien invasions and zombie apocalypses, FFS. My point is only that whatever plan that has been created already that best fits what Trump wants to do likely has been collecting dust for a while, and needs to be updated and revised before it can be deployed.
On September 08 2016 03:16 zlefin wrote: It's dumb cuz we all know it's easy to militarily defeat ISIS, the question is how to handle the aftermath so things actually become stable. And on how much you want to spend.
And if you listen to Trump's speech (and not just read the bullet points), he very clearly understands that the solution is not just military in nature and talks about that.
you can't expect me to go off info you never provided; I look at hwat was brought into and maybe what was linked in the thread.
it also doesn't change that he doens't understand we already have plans that could defeat isis, and it's pretty darn easy to do so anyways. and all the other points about his wasteful spending.
So let me get this straight. It's unfair for me to presume that you're up to speed on the issue, but it's perfectly okay for you to throw out baseless assumptions like the underlined above?
it's not baseless at all. one of the thigns the military does, all the time, is prepare plans for various operations and contingencies. So i'm sure they already do have plans for it. The hard part isn't the military defeat anyways, which could be done even with a very shitty plan.
Good god. Here you are continuing to presume that Trump isn't addressing things that I already said he has. That's one sick double down on ignorance.
then provide the link. oh wait, you already said you can't. how about you stop arguing the point until you can actually provide the link so I can see for myself? especially given your long history of bias, I can't rely on your word on what trump addressed adequately.
You are literally making shit up about Trump and yet you accuse me of being biased. This is too rich.
it also doesn't change the validity of the claim that it's dumb that trump doesn't know we already have military plans for the job. or of the numerous other critiques.
And you are still making shit up. Why are you presuming that Trump thinks that the military doesn't already have contingencies to take out ISIS? I already pointed out that any such plan has to be updated before it can be presented to Trump, hence there is nothing out of the ordinary in his request. It boggles the mind that you do not understand this very simple concept.
I accused you of such because you have a long demonstrated history of such. I've also been very clear that I'm mocking trump, and it's clearly of a somewhat jocular nature, which allows for a bit more flexibility. Military contingency plans would be continuously updated btw. And again, the plans don't really change anything, as we all know it's easy to do. The question is whether or not to pay the cost, for the limited actual benefits. So asking for a plan accomplishes nothing that wasn't already done. And of course all the points about the other flaws in what he siad which you have not addressed. I also maintain it'd be better for you to just wait until the thing is posted online then post it here so I can analyze it, instead of this silly spat you're bringing.
On September 08 2016 03:16 zlefin wrote: It's dumb cuz we all know it's easy to militarily defeat ISIS, the question is how to handle the aftermath so things actually become stable. And on how much you want to spend.
And if you listen to Trump's speech (and not just read the bullet points), he very clearly understands that the solution is not just military in nature and talks about that.
you can't expect me to go off info you never provided; I look at hwat was brought into and maybe what was linked in the thread.
it also doesn't change that he doens't understand we already have plans that could defeat isis, and it's pretty darn easy to do so anyways. and all the other points about his wasteful spending.
So let me get this straight. It's unfair for me to presume that you're up to speed on the issue, but it's perfectly okay for you to throw out baseless assumptions like the underlined above?
it's not baseless at all. one of the thigns the military does, all the time, is prepare plans for various operations and contingencies. So i'm sure they already do have plans for it. The hard part isn't the military defeat anyways, which could be done even with a very shitty plan.
Good god. Here you are continuing to presume that Trump isn't addressing things that I already said he has. That's one sick double down on ignorance.
then provide the link. oh wait, you already said you can't. how about you stop arguing the point until you can actually provide the link so I can see for myself? especially given your long history of bias, I can't rely on your word on what trump addressed adequately.
You are literally making shit up about Trump and yet you accuse me of being biased. This is too rich.
it also doesn't change the validity of the claim that it's dumb that trump doesn't know we already have military plans for the job. or of the numerous other critiques.
And you are still making shit up. Why are you presuming that Trump thinks that the military doesn't already have contingencies to take out ISIS? I already pointed out that any such plan has to be updated before it can be presented to Trump, hence there is nothing out of the ordinary in his request. It boggles the mind that you do not understand this very simple concept.
Too much "yur bad" comments and not enough actual Trump plans. Here is a good one from March. Trump calls for ground 20-30k troops in Iraq to fight ISIS.
Donald Trump would deploy up to 30,000 American soldiers in the Middle East to defeat the Islamic State, he said at Thursday night’s debate.
Trump was answering a question about comments from General Lloyd Austin III, the head of U.S. Central Command who said more troops on the ground would be needed to defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq.
“We really have no choice, we have to knock out ISIS,” Trump said. “I would listen to the generals, but I’m hearing numbers of 20,000-30,000.”
Trump typically rails against American military involvement around the world, but he was not alone in calling for ground troops in Iraq and Syria at the debate.
Donald Trump's campaign manager fired back Wednesday at an ad produced by the pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC Priorities USA taking on the Republican nominee's fitness to be commander in chief.
The 30-second ad out Tuesday, titled "I Love War," features Trump uttering the phrase, "I love war, in a certain way," at a rally last November, while featuring snippets of him remarking that he "knows more about ISIS than the generals do" and calling "nuclear, the power, the devastation ... very important to me."
"I love war, putting nuclear weapons on the table. The Clinton camp says that's irresponsible," ABC's George Stephanopoulos remarked to Kellyanne Conway at the start of their interview on "Good Morning America."
Conway responded that what is actually "irresponsible" is "taking little, cherry-picking little snippets of what he said and not giving the full context of the sentence let alone the speech."
"This woman was secretary of state for four years. And I think the reason she's struggling in the polls part is because aren't really fond of that record and she will be held account for that record," Conway said, ripping into Clinton over her recent polling troubles. "She's actually been in control of many aspects of our national security and our troops and our defense and I think that given all of her advantages, including her super PAC including her campaign hang spent over $200 million most in paid advertising one wonders why is she not at 50, 60 percent in the polls. Why isn’t she at 60, 65 percent among women? Hillary Clinton has a Hillary Clinton problem."
Asked what Trump means when he said, "I love war," Conway demurred.
"I'd have to see the entire snippet there but obviously many commanders in chief have made the very difficult decision to go to war," Conway responded. "You have Hillary Clinton as secretary of state calling a Russia reset that didn't work, she was wrong on Libya, she was wrong on Syria, she was certainly wrong on Benghazi and I think they'll both be held to account for that."
Conway went on to say that she was "glad" Clinton has "come out of hiding ... because people deserve a conversation with the candidates."
"You don't just do ads against each other. And we do very few ads," Conway said, touting Trump's recent campaign events and endorsements, including the 88 retired military generals and admirals who endorsed him Tuesday, and, Conway added, "he did a military preparedness town hall in Virginia then he was in North Carolina and he got to talk to the voters directly."
Yet another reason not to vote for Trump: his plan to deploy troops to “defeat ISIS”. Throwing our troops in to fight people with nothing to lose, no future beyond ISIS and with no clear goal or end to the military effort. In an area filled with conflict, chemical weapons and other groups that would gladly join the cause.
If Trump wanted to grant ISIS the greatest recruiting tool ever, all he needs to do is promise to invade Syria to stop them. Just give them the war they have been begging for.
On September 08 2016 03:45 Plansix wrote: Yet another reason not to vote for Trump: his plan to deploy troops to “defeat ISIS”. Throwing our troops in to fight people with nothing to lose, no future beyond ISIS and with no clear goal or end to the military effort. In an area filled with conflict, chemical weapons and other groups that would gladly join the cause.
If Trump wanted to grant ISIS the greatest recruiting tool ever, all he needs to do is promise to invade Syria to stop them. Just give them the war they have been begging for.
"No, no, don't you understand, ISIS wants you to fight them."
The president should have intervened three years ago and that's why this is now an electoral issue.
Donald Trump's campaign manager fired back Wednesday at an ad produced by the pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC Priorities USA taking on the Republican nominee's fitness to be commander in chief.
The 30-second ad out Tuesday, titled "I Love War," features Trump uttering the phrase, "I love war, in a certain way," at a rally last November, while featuring snippets of him remarking that he "knows more about ISIS than the generals do" and calling "nuclear, the power, the devastation ... very important to me."
"I love war, putting nuclear weapons on the table. The Clinton camp says that's irresponsible," ABC's George Stephanopoulos remarked to Kellyanne Conway at the start of their interview on "Good Morning America."
Conway responded that what is actually "irresponsible" is "taking little, cherry-picking little snippets of what he said and not giving the full context of the sentence let alone the speech."
"This woman was secretary of state for four years. And I think the reason she's struggling in the polls part is because aren't really fond of that record and she will be held account for that record," Conway said, ripping into Clinton over her recent polling troubles. "She's actually been in control of many aspects of our national security and our troops and our defense and I think that given all of her advantages, including her super PAC including her campaign hang spent over $200 million most in paid advertising one wonders why is she not at 50, 60 percent in the polls. Why isn’t she at 60, 65 percent among women? Hillary Clinton has a Hillary Clinton problem."
Asked what Trump means when he said, "I love war," Conway demurred.
"I'd have to see the entire snippet there but obviously many commanders in chief have made the very difficult decision to go to war," Conway responded. "You have Hillary Clinton as secretary of state calling a Russia reset that didn't work, she was wrong on Libya, she was wrong on Syria, she was certainly wrong on Benghazi and I think they'll both be held to account for that."
Conway went on to say that she was "glad" Clinton has "come out of hiding ... because people deserve a conversation with the candidates."
"You don't just do ads against each other. And we do very few ads," Conway said, touting Trump's recent campaign events and endorsements, including the 88 retired military generals and admirals who endorsed him Tuesday, and, Conway added, "he did a military preparedness town hall in Virginia then he was in North Carolina and he got to talk to the voters directly."
Absolutely hilarious that she says "you have to hear the context" and doesn't actually know the context as his campaign manager despite having a clearly prepped response.
(for reference here's some more context: "This is the Trump theory on war," he said. "But I'm good at war. I've had a lot of wars of my own. I'm really good at war. I love war in a certain way. But only when we win.")
On September 08 2016 03:45 Plansix wrote: Yet another reason not to vote for Trump: his plan to deploy troops to “defeat ISIS”. Throwing our troops in to fight people with nothing to lose, no future beyond ISIS and with no clear goal or end to the military effort. In an area filled with conflict, chemical weapons and other groups that would gladly join the cause.
If Trump wanted to grant ISIS the greatest recruiting tool ever, all he needs to do is promise to invade Syria to stop them. Just give them the war they have been begging for.
"No, no, don't you understand, ISIS wants you to fight them."
The president should have intervened three years ago and that's why this is now an electoral issue.
Do you think the U.S. isn't fighting ISIS or something? We're just not deploying into another quagmire. Yet, anyway.
On September 08 2016 03:45 Plansix wrote: Yet another reason not to vote for Trump: his plan to deploy troops to “defeat ISIS”. Throwing our troops in to fight people with nothing to lose, no future beyond ISIS and with no clear goal or end to the military effort. In an area filled with conflict, chemical weapons and other groups that would gladly join the cause.
If Trump wanted to grant ISIS the greatest recruiting tool ever, all he needs to do is promise to invade Syria to stop them. Just give them the war they have been begging for.
"No, no, don't you understand, ISIS wants you to fight them."
The president should have intervened three years ago and that's why this is now an electoral issue.
No, fuck that. If we intervened* in Syria then we would be responsible for all the carnage happening now**. Do you remember Iraq 2005? When we toppled the tyrant and the people turned on each other, it became America's problem. You break it, you bought it.
* Can you specifically explain the parameters of this imagined intervention? Precisely what did you have in mind? NFZ would have done diddly. At most it would have resulted in more cities under rebel control. Peacekeepers/Western Occupiers would have united the Jihadists into a monolithic anti western bloc instead of squabbling rivals as they are now. Toppling Assad with no occupation afterwards would have turned Syria into a bigger and vastly bloodier Libya with various warlords controlling shifting territory.
** any intervention would have resulted in instability and carnage, but with different groups shooting at each other but with the bonus of some of them shooting at Americans too. The magnitude of the carnage may have been different to an unknowable degree.
The key with criticizing Obama’s response to Syria is to never provide specifics, only say that we should have done more and done better. Specifics have counter points and reasons why that solution isn’t viable. Just ask questions like “So you think the current situation in Syria is acceptable?” Keep the burden of response on other people. Then you don’t need to support your criticism.
EPT
