|
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 September 08 2016 03:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Here's the relevant sections, to save everybody some time
"The current strategy of toppling regimes with no plan for what to do the day after only produces power vacuums that are filled simply by terrorists. Gradual reform, not sudden and radical change should be our guiding objective in that region. We should work with any country that shares our goal of destroying ISIS and defeating radical islamic terrorism. [...] This will require military warfare, but also cyber warfare, financial warfare and ideological warfare."
|
He is aware that we didn’t topple the regime in Syria, right? We sort of cheered on the efforts of trying to overthrow a shitty dictator we didn’t like, but that was it. Are we going to stop every revolution and coup in the Middle East going forward?
|
On September 08 2016 04:21 Plansix wrote:
He is aware that we didn’t topple the regime in Syria, right? We sort of cheered on the efforts of trying to overthrow a shitty dictator we didn’t like, but that was it. Are we going to stop every revolution and coup in the Middle East going forward?
You're forgetting about all of the aid and weaponry that we've sent to the rebels in Syria.
|
Finished reviewing that speech; not a terrible speech, but as usual several significant factual errors that betray serious misunderstanding, as well as other basic errors.
The addressing on the ISIS issue is passable but unimpressive, mostly typical politician's blather, rather than trump's usual worse blather.
A bunch of vagueness with no actual plan, no statement of what you're truly willing to spend.
The usual idiocy about repeating the words "radical islamic terrorism" which only makes it harder to win.
so I stand by my insulting and mockery of trump, as it was sound.
|
On September 08 2016 04:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 04:21 Plansix wrote:
He is aware that we didn’t topple the regime in Syria, right? We sort of cheered on the efforts of trying to overthrow a shitty dictator we didn’t like, but that was it. Are we going to stop every revolution and coup in the Middle East going forward? You're forgetting about all of the aid and weaponry that we've sent to the rebels in Syria.
I remember Republicans like McCain pushing for that and finally getting their way, only to find out that it wasn’t such a great idea.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sen-mccain-its-time-to-arm-syrias-rebels/
|
On September 08 2016 03:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 03:49 oBlade wrote: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.
What the US is doing in the country is firstly not working, and secondly there isn't a plan, it's just a waiting game as everyone keeps admitting, drone and air strikes and random arms trafficking are chiefly something to point to to pretend you're working on it. It's something the president can brag about at a State of the Union address. He can come in like Professor Farnsworth and go "good news everyone, we blew up another ISIS truck," because there's nobody to ask: is there no endgame, isn't Syria still fractured into a civil war between 5 groups with millions of people displaced and no multilateral coalition working on it?
Waiting has only served to prolong and worsen the situation. That's why not going in three years ago was a mistake.
|
On September 08 2016 04:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 04:23 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2016 04:21 Plansix wrote:
He is aware that we didn’t topple the regime in Syria, right? We sort of cheered on the efforts of trying to overthrow a shitty dictator we didn’t like, but that was it. Are we going to stop every revolution and coup in the Middle East going forward? You're forgetting about all of the aid and weaponry that we've sent to the rebels in Syria. I remember Republicans like McCain pushing for that and finally getting their way, only to find out that it wasn’t such a great idea. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sen-mccain-its-time-to-arm-syrias-rebels/
Your capacity to deflect knows no bounds.
|
United States43262 Posts
On September 08 2016 04:31 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 03:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 08 2016 03:49 oBlade wrote: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. What the US is doing in the country is firstly not working, and secondly there isn't a plan, it's just a waiting game as everyone keeps admitting, drone and air strikes and random arms trafficking are chiefly something to point to to pretend you're working on it. It's something the president can brag about at a State of the Union address. He can come in like Professor Farnsworth and go "good news everyone, we blew up another ISIS truck," because there's nobody to ask: is there no endgame, isn't Syria still fractured into a civil war between 5 groups with millions of people displaced and no multilateral coalition working on it? Waiting has only served to prolong and worsen the situation. That's why not going in three years ago was a mistake.
Worsen it for whom? Not America surely, not worse than having troops on the ground in a five way melee including chemical weapons in range of American allies and NATO members.
|
On September 08 2016 03:24 KwarK wrote:
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.
Unless Syria continues forever, that is something we will have to deal with in any case. Whether Trump solves ISIS in 30 days, or it takes another 5 years..
|
On September 08 2016 04:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 04:30 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2016 04:23 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2016 04:21 Plansix wrote:
He is aware that we didn’t topple the regime in Syria, right? We sort of cheered on the efforts of trying to overthrow a shitty dictator we didn’t like, but that was it. Are we going to stop every revolution and coup in the Middle East going forward? You're forgetting about all of the aid and weaponry that we've sent to the rebels in Syria. I remember Republicans like McCain pushing for that and finally getting their way, only to find out that it wasn’t such a great idea. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sen-mccain-its-time-to-arm-syrias-rebels/ Your capacity to deflect knows no bounds.
I just try to avoid the revisionist history where everything is Obama’s fault or confusing the chain of events in the Syrian Civil war.
The civil war started in 2011. The push to arm the rebels was in 2012. We didn’t do shit for a while but hang out and provide moral support and good feelings. And arming the rebels was a brain child of both Republicans and Democrats. Shit got real when ISIS charged into Iraq and then everyone started to blame everyone else for letting it happen. As if we could have stopped it or it wouldn't have happened some place else.
|
On September 08 2016 04:31 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 03:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 08 2016 03:49 oBlade wrote: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. What the US is doing in the country is firstly not working, and secondly there isn't a plan, it's just a waiting game as everyone keeps admitting, drone and air strikes and random arms trafficking are chiefly something to point to to pretend you're working on it. It's something the president can brag about at a State of the Union address. He can come in like Professor Farnsworth and go "good news everyone, we blew up another ISIS truck," because there's nobody to ask: is there no endgame, isn't Syria still fractured into a civil war between 5 groups with millions of people displaced and no multilateral coalition working on it? Waiting has only served to prolong and worsen the situation. That's why not going in three years ago was a mistake.
The mistake has been having any involvement in Syria whatsoever (and throwing Iraq to the wolves, but that's another matter). The US clearly isn't prepared for any more military adventurism, so why bother throwing money and aid at the rebels? The only reason why we would do it would be to intentionally create a shit show and resource sink for Russia, Syria, and Iran.
|
On September 08 2016 04:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 04:33 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2016 04:30 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2016 04:23 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2016 04:21 Plansix wrote:
He is aware that we didn’t topple the regime in Syria, right? We sort of cheered on the efforts of trying to overthrow a shitty dictator we didn’t like, but that was it. Are we going to stop every revolution and coup in the Middle East going forward? You're forgetting about all of the aid and weaponry that we've sent to the rebels in Syria. I remember Republicans like McCain pushing for that and finally getting their way, only to find out that it wasn’t such a great idea. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sen-mccain-its-time-to-arm-syrias-rebels/ Your capacity to deflect knows no bounds. I just try to avoid the revisionist history where everything is Obama’s fault. The civil war started in 2011. The push to arm the rebels was in 2012. We didn’t do shit for a while but hang out and provide moral support and good feelings. And arming the rebels was a brain child of both Republicans and Democrats.
It's incredibly telling that you're viewing this through a partisan lens when I didn't even mention Obama or either party when talking about how it was the US that armed and aided the rebels. You are utterly incapable of conceding anything.
|
United States43262 Posts
On September 08 2016 04:35 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 03:24 KwarK wrote:
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. Unless Syria continues forever, that is something we will have to deal with in any case. Whether Trump solves ISIS in 30 days, or it takes another 5 years..
So why not enjoy the respite while it lasts?
|
On September 08 2016 04:35 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 03:24 KwarK wrote:
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. Unless Syria continues forever, that is something we will have to deal with in any case. Whether Trump solves ISIS in 30 days, or it takes another 5 years..
Its easier to deal with whatever comes out of syria after years of bloody war that drained everyones coffers then it is to try and occupy the entire middle east.
I say again. Syria is going exactly as America wants it to go. Your enemies are kept occupied and are draining manpower and resources they are now not spending on fighting America.
The longer it goes on and the more of a back and forth it is the better it is for America.
If you cannot control the region (you cant) then its better to ensure they are to busy to be threat.
|
On September 08 2016 04:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 04:39 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2016 04:33 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2016 04:30 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2016 04:23 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2016 04:21 Plansix wrote:
He is aware that we didn’t topple the regime in Syria, right? We sort of cheered on the efforts of trying to overthrow a shitty dictator we didn’t like, but that was it. Are we going to stop every revolution and coup in the Middle East going forward? You're forgetting about all of the aid and weaponry that we've sent to the rebels in Syria. I remember Republicans like McCain pushing for that and finally getting their way, only to find out that it wasn’t such a great idea. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sen-mccain-its-time-to-arm-syrias-rebels/ Your capacity to deflect knows no bounds. I just try to avoid the revisionist history where everything is Obama’s fault. The civil war started in 2011. The push to arm the rebels was in 2012. We didn’t do shit for a while but hang out and provide moral support and good feelings. And arming the rebels was a brain child of both Republicans and Democrats. It's incredibly telling that you're viewing this through a partisan lens when I didn't even mention Obama or either party when talking about how it was the US that armed and aided the rebels. You are utterly incapable of conceding anything.
Sorry. I assumed you were taking a shot at the administration’s response. You are right, that was my mistake.
|
On September 08 2016 04:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 04:31 oBlade wrote:On September 08 2016 03:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 08 2016 03:49 oBlade wrote: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. What the US is doing in the country is firstly not working, and secondly there isn't a plan, it's just a waiting game as everyone keeps admitting, drone and air strikes and random arms trafficking are chiefly something to point to to pretend you're working on it. It's something the president can brag about at a State of the Union address. He can come in like Professor Farnsworth and go "good news everyone, we blew up another ISIS truck," because there's nobody to ask: is there no endgame, isn't Syria still fractured into a civil war between 5 groups with millions of people displaced and no multilateral coalition working on it? Waiting has only served to prolong and worsen the situation. That's why not going in three years ago was a mistake. The mistake has been having any involvement in Syria whatsoever (and throwing Iraq to the wolves, but that's another matter). The US clearly isn't prepared for any more military adventurism, so why bother throwing money and aid at the rebels? The only reason why we would do it would be to intentionally create a shit show and resource sink for Russia, Syria, and Iran.
Grats you found the reason why we armed the rebels.
Because ISIS was winning to much and by bringing in a 3e party the resource sink for Syria and Iran was created.
Russia was stupid enough to get involved on their own.
|
On September 08 2016 04:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 04:31 oBlade wrote:On September 08 2016 03:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 08 2016 03:49 oBlade wrote: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. What the US is doing in the country is firstly not working, and secondly there isn't a plan, it's just a waiting game as everyone keeps admitting, drone and air strikes and random arms trafficking are chiefly something to point to to pretend you're working on it. It's something the president can brag about at a State of the Union address. He can come in like Professor Farnsworth and go "good news everyone, we blew up another ISIS truck," because there's nobody to ask: is there no endgame, isn't Syria still fractured into a civil war between 5 groups with millions of people displaced and no multilateral coalition working on it? Waiting has only served to prolong and worsen the situation. That's why not going in three years ago was a mistake. Worsen it for whom? Not America surely, not worse than having troops on the ground in a five way melee including chemical weapons in range of American allies and NATO members.
For everyone, including America if the cost of intervention later is greater than intervention earlier. What's so bad about chemical weapons that the greatest army in the world can deal with 10 years of suicide bombers and the road blowing up underneath them but couldn't have targeted and blown up chemical weapon stores? This just sounds like an excuse.
|
On September 08 2016 04:49 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 04:34 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 04:31 oBlade wrote:On September 08 2016 03:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 08 2016 03:49 oBlade wrote: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. What the US is doing in the country is firstly not working, and secondly there isn't a plan, it's just a waiting game as everyone keeps admitting, drone and air strikes and random arms trafficking are chiefly something to point to to pretend you're working on it. It's something the president can brag about at a State of the Union address. He can come in like Professor Farnsworth and go "good news everyone, we blew up another ISIS truck," because there's nobody to ask: is there no endgame, isn't Syria still fractured into a civil war between 5 groups with millions of people displaced and no multilateral coalition working on it? Waiting has only served to prolong and worsen the situation. That's why not going in three years ago was a mistake. Worsen it for whom? Not America surely, not worse than having troops on the ground in a five way melee including chemical weapons in range of American allies and NATO members. For everyone, including America if the cost of intervention later is greater than intervention earlier. What's so bad about chemical weapons that the greatest army in the world can deal with 10 years of suicide bombers and the road blowing up underneath them but couldn't have targeted and blown up chemical weapon stores? This just sounds like an excuse.
Um…are you in the armed service or going to serve in this war? Because I don’t think you get to be dismissive of the dangers of chemical weapons if you aren’t going to go over there yourself. And you don't get to call it an excuse.
|
On September 08 2016 04:02 KwarK wrote:
Also unlike Iraq Syria actually has chemical weapons.
Iraq had chemcical weapons that we sold them, that they used previously in a war and on their own civilians, and that we were trying to dispose of secretly before the ISIS invasion.
|
United States43262 Posts
On September 08 2016 04:49 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 04:34 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 04:31 oBlade wrote:On September 08 2016 03:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 08 2016 03:49 oBlade wrote: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. What the US is doing in the country is firstly not working, and secondly there isn't a plan, it's just a waiting game as everyone keeps admitting, drone and air strikes and random arms trafficking are chiefly something to point to to pretend you're working on it. It's something the president can brag about at a State of the Union address. He can come in like Professor Farnsworth and go "good news everyone, we blew up another ISIS truck," because there's nobody to ask: is there no endgame, isn't Syria still fractured into a civil war between 5 groups with millions of people displaced and no multilateral coalition working on it? Waiting has only served to prolong and worsen the situation. That's why not going in three years ago was a mistake. Worsen it for whom? Not America surely, not worse than having troops on the ground in a five way melee including chemical weapons in range of American allies and NATO members. For everyone, including America if the cost of intervention later is greater than intervention earlier. What's so bad about chemical weapons that the greatest army in the world can deal with 10 years of suicide bombers and the road blowing up underneath them but couldn't have targeted and blown up chemical weapon stores? This just sounds like an excuse.
You're not sure why we're worried about Sarin gas stockpiles in range of Israel given we've been able to deal with IEDs? Okay, well basically a lot of our solution to IEDs is "that's unfortunate but we'll give them a nice funeral with a cool folded flag and shit". We do what we can to mitigate them but IEDs have been effective. The same approach doesn't work so well in Tel Aviv.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
