|
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 20 2016 07:35 LegalLord wrote:
Trump just hit 270. The Nevertrumper failure is complete.
I wouldn't really call it a failure for people who were realistic. It's the most faithless electors for president since 1872.
Also Faith Spotted Eagle is now tied with Clinton for being one of the first women to receive a presidential electoral vote.
|
On December 20 2016 08:05 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2016 03:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 03:20 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 03:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 03:06 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 02:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 02:38 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 02:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 02:08 Doodsmack wrote:
I think there was plenty of disdain and hate for the war at all times, as well as multiple rationales before it started. Most of the war's supporters now don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole, because history is not treating it well. The argument that the war was well-conceived to begin with is a convenient out for those who were originally supporters. Just saying that the actions of the US Military during the first two weeks matched up precisely with what was requested to both the UN and Congress. Yes, the US with 100, more?, times the budget of the aged Iraqi military were able to swiftly dispatch an insignificant but clearly visible foe. Truly a work of art for the ages /s. Looking at the easiest and simplest part of the iraq war and going 'we did that well' is not something worth celebrating. I'm not celebrating. LegalLord asked if anything in Iraq did better than things done in Libya and Syria. And for the most part, there was only one. The invasion of Iraq went better then the invasion that didn't happen in Libya and Syria. Bravo. You did something better then... not doing it at all (and that's assuming you don't want to debate that not invading at all would have been an improvement for Iraq). After spending a billion dollars on Libya the US Military has jack shit to show when it comes to results. No progress in improving the country, no progress to show that anything was won, just a billion dollars spent to kill random people over the course of 3-4 years. If you consider that much more successful than the first two weeks of Iraq before the started moving the goal posts then I don't know what metric you measure success. As I have stated many times before, The US has no interest in winning the war in Syria. Its wants to drag it out as long as possible and bleed as much resources from the forces in the region as possible. Iraq shows that the US could have ended it in days if it wanted to. The lack of progress you describe as a failure is very much a successful operation and a billion dollars is a lot cheaper then Iraq turned out to be. Yes, occupation is more expensive than not occupying. And being that the argument presented for the Iraq War was not an occupation but simply a disarming of the people in power, it did in 2 weeks what the intended plan was for Libya failed to do in the span of 4 years. And, just like I said, it wasn't until the goal posts started getting shoved further and further as the plan got changed further and further that Iraq became a quagmire. Had the US simply showed up in Libya, spent 2 weeks retaking the capital, and then give the land to the rebel forces after they decimated the Libyan army, then Libya would have been where it is now but 4 years sooner and for a LOT LOT cheaper. But instead we simply spent years throwing random rockets and random targets with the hopes that the rebel forces would get their act together. End result was thousands dying for no reason and both sides of the conflicting at war for 4 years what should have been lasting a month. EDIT Don't get me wrong, I think Iraq was shit, I think the whole thing was shit, I think that people were presented with a scary enough threat that many felt forced to do something about it. A kind of "ignorance is bliss but now that I know how I can I not do something" hero complex. The two options for why it got extended are both awful. Either we got into a quagmire that was too horrible to leave because too many people would die (and die they did when we left) or some homicidal elites in our leadership decided they enjoyed having children bleed on foreign soil. It really doesn't matter to me which one of those two bullshit possibilities dragged Iraq longer than the month needed to realize they either couldn't find WMDs or couldn't find proof of WMDs. You understand that in both your Iraq and Syria scenario your basically creating the ISIS Kalifaat for them right? If you fuck up Iraq and then leave ISIS takes it over entirely instead of the resistance offered now. Dito for Syria where the 'moderate' rebels probably wouldn't have held out. So instead of spending the money on an Iraq occupation and a Syria stalemate you create a 2 country state of radical Islam who hate the West. I really don't see how this is an improvement. Show nested quote +On December 20 2016 04:08 LegalLord wrote:On December 20 2016 03:20 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 03:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 03:06 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 02:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 02:38 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 02:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 02:08 Doodsmack wrote:
I think there was plenty of disdain and hate for the war at all times, as well as multiple rationales before it started. Most of the war's supporters now don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole, because history is not treating it well. The argument that the war was well-conceived to begin with is a convenient out for those who were originally supporters. Just saying that the actions of the US Military during the first two weeks matched up precisely with what was requested to both the UN and Congress. Yes, the US with 100, more?, times the budget of the aged Iraqi military were able to swiftly dispatch an insignificant but clearly visible foe. Truly a work of art for the ages /s. Looking at the easiest and simplest part of the iraq war and going 'we did that well' is not something worth celebrating. I'm not celebrating. LegalLord asked if anything in Iraq did better than things done in Libya and Syria. And for the most part, there was only one. The invasion of Iraq went better then the invasion that didn't happen in Libya and Syria. Bravo. You did something better then... not doing it at all (and that's assuming you don't want to debate that not invading at all would have been an improvement for Iraq). After spending a billion dollars on Libya the US Military has jack shit to show when it comes to results. No progress in improving the country, no progress to show that anything was won, just a billion dollars spent to kill random people over the course of 3-4 years. If you consider that much more successful than the first two weeks of Iraq before the started moving the goal posts then I don't know what metric you measure success. As I have stated many times before, The US has no interest in winning the war in Syria. Its wants to drag it out as long as possible and bleed as much resources from the forces in the region as possible.Iraq shows that the US could have ended it in days if it wanted to. The lack of progress you describe as a failure is very much a successful operation and a billion dollars is a lot cheaper then Iraq turned out to be. I don't think that worked out. For one, they created ISIS, which is going to be problematic for years to come (first taste was when they entered Mosul and forced further US involvement). Second, the US credibility in the region seems to have gone down the shitter with the rise of ISIS and the effect is felt all around the world with the refugee crisis, increase in terrorism, and populist movements all over Europe and in the US. Third of all, the "bleed each other dry" part sort of went out the window when Russia entered into the scene. As I linked in the other thread, Hezbollah became stronger from Syrian cooperation, Iran seems to have gained a lot (including security agreements with both Russia and China), Assad gets the best chance he's had in years to consolidate power, and Russia has spent an absolutely trivial amount ( alternative, newer but possibly more biased source) in Syria, and in fact a third of what the US has spent since 2014 on containing ISIS. Maybe that was the goal, but it seems to have failed, like most of the other US interventions in the area. Much of the reason is that the US military just doesn't know how to keep costs down. ISIS forming in the wake of the Iraq withdraw is a failure 100%. My resource draining stalemate solution is for how to deal with ISIS existing without a 2nd invasion (unacceptable to the US people). -At that point you either bomb them into submission, they go underground and terror cells ruin everyones day. -You don't intervene and hope they don't win but with Russia not in the picture yet at this point there is a big chance ISIS does win. -You prolong the conflict to drain resources and keep their focus away from US soil terrorism. I believe they took the 3e option and while it has resulted in the refugees crisis thats a problem for Europe and not the US who are safely far away. And again while Europe had some terrorist attacks (While they claim ISIS allegiance I wonder how many of these attacks were actually being orchestrated but ISIS itself) the US has been pretty safe from them. When Russia came along the plan kinda fell apart and I don't think they were expected to join by the US. I'm still kinda convinced its the best of the options available tho at the time. In hindsight staying entirely out of it and letting Russia fix it with Assad might have been a better solution. And yes I agree with your final point that the US military is horribly cost inefficient and using high tech expensive to operate equipment when cheaper options would be just as successful.
I think what happened with Iraq was that they showed up without thinking things through, saw the possibility of an ISIS, and then get caught unable to fucking leave because their choice was eternal conflict versus creating an ISIS.
But you are once again conflating hindsight and foresight and are trying to see the initial invasion of iraq as an occupation strategy when it was everything but. It was seeing weapons that needed to be eliminated, and then withdrawing once it was eliminated. Had that been the actual plan we stuck to and just left once we figured out there were no WMDs to get rid of--then everything would end up like the first Iraq war where we showed up, killed soldiers, left Sadam in power, let thousands die to his regime, and be happy westerners reaping the benefits of ignorance.
Instead we showed up, saw no objectives, change the objectives, and then dug in. We fucked up big time.
The current policy we have where we literally just kill people for pleasure for no tactical gain is literally the worst of all worlds option. Because now its a fuck up as plan A as opposed to a fuck up as plan C.
|
Efforts made by groups like the anti-Trump Hamilton Electors to sway the Electoral College vote to a more moderate candidate have dominated the media landscape this week, but so far most of the surprise “faithless electors” to emerge out of today’s Electoral College vote have been Democrats choosing not to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Clinton will not be receiving 4 of the 12 electoral votes in Washington state, despite winning there. Three of the electors cast their vote for former Republican Secretary of State Colin Powell.
The other faithless elector cast their vote for Standing Rock activist and tribe leader Faith Spotted Eagle. Before Standing Rock, Spotted Eagle has devoted her life to fighting for environmental justice for Native American communities as well as healing and shepherding the women within these communities.
While the motives behind this vote have not been reported, Clinton was heavily criticized during her campaign for being largely silent about the human rights abuses perpetrated on the Dakota Pipeline protesters by mercenaries and heavily-armed police, saying only that “all of the parties involved…need to find a path forward that serves the broadest public interest. As that happens, it’s important that on the ground in North Dakota, everyone respects demonstrators’ rights to protest peacefully and workers’ rights to do their jobs safely.”
Minnesota elector and former Bernie Sanders delegate Muhammad Abdurrahman also said that he would not vote for Clinton, and was replaced by somebody who would in accordance with state law.
A similar incident occurred in Maine, where elector David Bright attempted to vote for Sanders but was compelled to vote for Clinton by state law.
Bright wrote in a Facebook post why he wanted to vote for Sanders:
“I cast my vote for Bernie Sanders not out of spite, or malice, or anger, or as an act of civil disobedience. I mean no disrespect to our nominee. I cast my vote to represent thousands of Democratic Maine voters – many less than a third my age – who came into Maine politics for the first time this year because of Bernie Sanders…
“So I cast my Electoral College vote for Bernie Sanders today to let those new voters who were inspired by him know that some of us did hear them, did listen to them, do respect them and understand their disappointment. I want them to know that not only can they come back to the process, but that they will be welcomed back; that there is room in the Democratic Party for their values.”
The only instance of electors defecting from Trump so far are two electors in Texas who gave one vote each to John Kasich and Paul Ryan. As of this writing, Trump has received the needed 270 votes from the Electoral College to secure the presidency.
Source
|
On December 20 2016 08:20 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2016 07:35 LegalLord wrote:
Trump just hit 270. The Nevertrumper failure is complete. I wouldn't really call it a failure for people who were realistic. It's the most faithless electors for president since 1872. Also Faith Spotted Eagle is now tied with Clinton for being one of the first women to receive a presidential electoral vote.
Actually, the first woman to receive an electoral vote was in 1972.
|
On December 20 2016 08:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2016 08:05 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 03:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 03:20 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 03:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 03:06 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 02:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 02:38 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 02:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 02:08 Doodsmack wrote:
I think there was plenty of disdain and hate for the war at all times, as well as multiple rationales before it started. Most of the war's supporters now don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole, because history is not treating it well. The argument that the war was well-conceived to begin with is a convenient out for those who were originally supporters. Just saying that the actions of the US Military during the first two weeks matched up precisely with what was requested to both the UN and Congress. Yes, the US with 100, more?, times the budget of the aged Iraqi military were able to swiftly dispatch an insignificant but clearly visible foe. Truly a work of art for the ages /s. Looking at the easiest and simplest part of the iraq war and going 'we did that well' is not something worth celebrating. I'm not celebrating. LegalLord asked if anything in Iraq did better than things done in Libya and Syria. And for the most part, there was only one. The invasion of Iraq went better then the invasion that didn't happen in Libya and Syria. Bravo. You did something better then... not doing it at all (and that's assuming you don't want to debate that not invading at all would have been an improvement for Iraq). After spending a billion dollars on Libya the US Military has jack shit to show when it comes to results. No progress in improving the country, no progress to show that anything was won, just a billion dollars spent to kill random people over the course of 3-4 years. If you consider that much more successful than the first two weeks of Iraq before the started moving the goal posts then I don't know what metric you measure success. As I have stated many times before, The US has no interest in winning the war in Syria. Its wants to drag it out as long as possible and bleed as much resources from the forces in the region as possible. Iraq shows that the US could have ended it in days if it wanted to. The lack of progress you describe as a failure is very much a successful operation and a billion dollars is a lot cheaper then Iraq turned out to be. Yes, occupation is more expensive than not occupying. And being that the argument presented for the Iraq War was not an occupation but simply a disarming of the people in power, it did in 2 weeks what the intended plan was for Libya failed to do in the span of 4 years. And, just like I said, it wasn't until the goal posts started getting shoved further and further as the plan got changed further and further that Iraq became a quagmire. Had the US simply showed up in Libya, spent 2 weeks retaking the capital, and then give the land to the rebel forces after they decimated the Libyan army, then Libya would have been where it is now but 4 years sooner and for a LOT LOT cheaper. But instead we simply spent years throwing random rockets and random targets with the hopes that the rebel forces would get their act together. End result was thousands dying for no reason and both sides of the conflicting at war for 4 years what should have been lasting a month. EDIT Don't get me wrong, I think Iraq was shit, I think the whole thing was shit, I think that people were presented with a scary enough threat that many felt forced to do something about it. A kind of "ignorance is bliss but now that I know how I can I not do something" hero complex. The two options for why it got extended are both awful. Either we got into a quagmire that was too horrible to leave because too many people would die (and die they did when we left) or some homicidal elites in our leadership decided they enjoyed having children bleed on foreign soil. It really doesn't matter to me which one of those two bullshit possibilities dragged Iraq longer than the month needed to realize they either couldn't find WMDs or couldn't find proof of WMDs. You understand that in both your Iraq and Syria scenario your basically creating the ISIS Kalifaat for them right? If you fuck up Iraq and then leave ISIS takes it over entirely instead of the resistance offered now. Dito for Syria where the 'moderate' rebels probably wouldn't have held out. So instead of spending the money on an Iraq occupation and a Syria stalemate you create a 2 country state of radical Islam who hate the West. I really don't see how this is an improvement. On December 20 2016 04:08 LegalLord wrote:On December 20 2016 03:20 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 03:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 03:06 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 02:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 02:38 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 02:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 02:08 Doodsmack wrote:
I think there was plenty of disdain and hate for the war at all times, as well as multiple rationales before it started. Most of the war's supporters now don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole, because history is not treating it well. The argument that the war was well-conceived to begin with is a convenient out for those who were originally supporters. Just saying that the actions of the US Military during the first two weeks matched up precisely with what was requested to both the UN and Congress. Yes, the US with 100, more?, times the budget of the aged Iraqi military were able to swiftly dispatch an insignificant but clearly visible foe. Truly a work of art for the ages /s. Looking at the easiest and simplest part of the iraq war and going 'we did that well' is not something worth celebrating. I'm not celebrating. LegalLord asked if anything in Iraq did better than things done in Libya and Syria. And for the most part, there was only one. The invasion of Iraq went better then the invasion that didn't happen in Libya and Syria. Bravo. You did something better then... not doing it at all (and that's assuming you don't want to debate that not invading at all would have been an improvement for Iraq). After spending a billion dollars on Libya the US Military has jack shit to show when it comes to results. No progress in improving the country, no progress to show that anything was won, just a billion dollars spent to kill random people over the course of 3-4 years. If you consider that much more successful than the first two weeks of Iraq before the started moving the goal posts then I don't know what metric you measure success. As I have stated many times before, The US has no interest in winning the war in Syria. Its wants to drag it out as long as possible and bleed as much resources from the forces in the region as possible.Iraq shows that the US could have ended it in days if it wanted to. The lack of progress you describe as a failure is very much a successful operation and a billion dollars is a lot cheaper then Iraq turned out to be. I don't think that worked out. For one, they created ISIS, which is going to be problematic for years to come (first taste was when they entered Mosul and forced further US involvement). Second, the US credibility in the region seems to have gone down the shitter with the rise of ISIS and the effect is felt all around the world with the refugee crisis, increase in terrorism, and populist movements all over Europe and in the US. Third of all, the "bleed each other dry" part sort of went out the window when Russia entered into the scene. As I linked in the other thread, Hezbollah became stronger from Syrian cooperation, Iran seems to have gained a lot (including security agreements with both Russia and China), Assad gets the best chance he's had in years to consolidate power, and Russia has spent an absolutely trivial amount ( alternative, newer but possibly more biased source) in Syria, and in fact a third of what the US has spent since 2014 on containing ISIS. Maybe that was the goal, but it seems to have failed, like most of the other US interventions in the area. Much of the reason is that the US military just doesn't know how to keep costs down. ISIS forming in the wake of the Iraq withdraw is a failure 100%. My resource draining stalemate solution is for how to deal with ISIS existing without a 2nd invasion (unacceptable to the US people). -At that point you either bomb them into submission, they go underground and terror cells ruin everyones day. -You don't intervene and hope they don't win but with Russia not in the picture yet at this point there is a big chance ISIS does win. -You prolong the conflict to drain resources and keep their focus away from US soil terrorism. I believe they took the 3e option and while it has resulted in the refugees crisis thats a problem for Europe and not the US who are safely far away. And again while Europe had some terrorist attacks (While they claim ISIS allegiance I wonder how many of these attacks were actually being orchestrated but ISIS itself) the US has been pretty safe from them. When Russia came along the plan kinda fell apart and I don't think they were expected to join by the US. I'm still kinda convinced its the best of the options available tho at the time. In hindsight staying entirely out of it and letting Russia fix it with Assad might have been a better solution. And yes I agree with your final point that the US military is horribly cost inefficient and using high tech expensive to operate equipment when cheaper options would be just as successful. I think what happened with Iraq was that they showed up without thinking things through, saw the possibility of an ISIS, and then get caught unable to fucking leave because their choice was eternal conflict versus creating an ISIS. But you are once again conflating hindsight and foresight and are trying to see the initial invasion of iraq as an occupation strategy when it was everything but. It was seeing weapons that needed to be eliminated, and then withdrawing once it was eliminated. Had that been the actual plan we stuck to and just left once we figured out there were no WMDs to get rid of--then everything would end up like the first Iraq war where we showed up, killed soldiers, left Sadam in power, let thousands die to his regime, and be happy westerners reaping the benefits of ignorance. Instead we showed up, saw no objectives, change the objectives, and then dug in. We fucked up big time. The current policy we have where we literally just kill people for pleasure for no tactical gain is literally the worst of all worlds option. Because now its a fuck up as plan A as opposed to a fuck up as plan C.
Your right, I'm not considering a hypothetical where Sadam was left in power because that was never the plan to begin with. (ignoring the instability and possible rise of ISIS even with Sadam in power but his army destroyed)
|
On December 20 2016 08:52 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2016 08:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 08:05 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 03:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 03:20 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 03:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 03:06 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 02:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 02:38 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 02:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Just saying that the actions of the US Military during the first two weeks matched up precisely with what was requested to both the UN and Congress.
Yes, the US with 100, more?, times the budget of the aged Iraqi military were able to swiftly dispatch an insignificant but clearly visible foe. Truly a work of art for the ages /s. Looking at the easiest and simplest part of the iraq war and going 'we did that well' is not something worth celebrating. I'm not celebrating. LegalLord asked if anything in Iraq did better than things done in Libya and Syria. And for the most part, there was only one. The invasion of Iraq went better then the invasion that didn't happen in Libya and Syria. Bravo. You did something better then... not doing it at all (and that's assuming you don't want to debate that not invading at all would have been an improvement for Iraq). After spending a billion dollars on Libya the US Military has jack shit to show when it comes to results. No progress in improving the country, no progress to show that anything was won, just a billion dollars spent to kill random people over the course of 3-4 years. If you consider that much more successful than the first two weeks of Iraq before the started moving the goal posts then I don't know what metric you measure success. As I have stated many times before, The US has no interest in winning the war in Syria. Its wants to drag it out as long as possible and bleed as much resources from the forces in the region as possible. Iraq shows that the US could have ended it in days if it wanted to. The lack of progress you describe as a failure is very much a successful operation and a billion dollars is a lot cheaper then Iraq turned out to be. Yes, occupation is more expensive than not occupying. And being that the argument presented for the Iraq War was not an occupation but simply a disarming of the people in power, it did in 2 weeks what the intended plan was for Libya failed to do in the span of 4 years. And, just like I said, it wasn't until the goal posts started getting shoved further and further as the plan got changed further and further that Iraq became a quagmire. Had the US simply showed up in Libya, spent 2 weeks retaking the capital, and then give the land to the rebel forces after they decimated the Libyan army, then Libya would have been where it is now but 4 years sooner and for a LOT LOT cheaper. But instead we simply spent years throwing random rockets and random targets with the hopes that the rebel forces would get their act together. End result was thousands dying for no reason and both sides of the conflicting at war for 4 years what should have been lasting a month. EDIT Don't get me wrong, I think Iraq was shit, I think the whole thing was shit, I think that people were presented with a scary enough threat that many felt forced to do something about it. A kind of "ignorance is bliss but now that I know how I can I not do something" hero complex. The two options for why it got extended are both awful. Either we got into a quagmire that was too horrible to leave because too many people would die (and die they did when we left) or some homicidal elites in our leadership decided they enjoyed having children bleed on foreign soil. It really doesn't matter to me which one of those two bullshit possibilities dragged Iraq longer than the month needed to realize they either couldn't find WMDs or couldn't find proof of WMDs. You understand that in both your Iraq and Syria scenario your basically creating the ISIS Kalifaat for them right? If you fuck up Iraq and then leave ISIS takes it over entirely instead of the resistance offered now. Dito for Syria where the 'moderate' rebels probably wouldn't have held out. So instead of spending the money on an Iraq occupation and a Syria stalemate you create a 2 country state of radical Islam who hate the West. I really don't see how this is an improvement. On December 20 2016 04:08 LegalLord wrote:On December 20 2016 03:20 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 03:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 03:06 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 02:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 02:38 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 02:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Just saying that the actions of the US Military during the first two weeks matched up precisely with what was requested to both the UN and Congress.
Yes, the US with 100, more?, times the budget of the aged Iraqi military were able to swiftly dispatch an insignificant but clearly visible foe. Truly a work of art for the ages /s. Looking at the easiest and simplest part of the iraq war and going 'we did that well' is not something worth celebrating. I'm not celebrating. LegalLord asked if anything in Iraq did better than things done in Libya and Syria. And for the most part, there was only one. The invasion of Iraq went better then the invasion that didn't happen in Libya and Syria. Bravo. You did something better then... not doing it at all (and that's assuming you don't want to debate that not invading at all would have been an improvement for Iraq). After spending a billion dollars on Libya the US Military has jack shit to show when it comes to results. No progress in improving the country, no progress to show that anything was won, just a billion dollars spent to kill random people over the course of 3-4 years. If you consider that much more successful than the first two weeks of Iraq before the started moving the goal posts then I don't know what metric you measure success. As I have stated many times before, The US has no interest in winning the war in Syria. Its wants to drag it out as long as possible and bleed as much resources from the forces in the region as possible.Iraq shows that the US could have ended it in days if it wanted to. The lack of progress you describe as a failure is very much a successful operation and a billion dollars is a lot cheaper then Iraq turned out to be. I don't think that worked out. For one, they created ISIS, which is going to be problematic for years to come (first taste was when they entered Mosul and forced further US involvement). Second, the US credibility in the region seems to have gone down the shitter with the rise of ISIS and the effect is felt all around the world with the refugee crisis, increase in terrorism, and populist movements all over Europe and in the US. Third of all, the "bleed each other dry" part sort of went out the window when Russia entered into the scene. As I linked in the other thread, Hezbollah became stronger from Syrian cooperation, Iran seems to have gained a lot (including security agreements with both Russia and China), Assad gets the best chance he's had in years to consolidate power, and Russia has spent an absolutely trivial amount ( alternative, newer but possibly more biased source) in Syria, and in fact a third of what the US has spent since 2014 on containing ISIS. Maybe that was the goal, but it seems to have failed, like most of the other US interventions in the area. Much of the reason is that the US military just doesn't know how to keep costs down. ISIS forming in the wake of the Iraq withdraw is a failure 100%. My resource draining stalemate solution is for how to deal with ISIS existing without a 2nd invasion (unacceptable to the US people). -At that point you either bomb them into submission, they go underground and terror cells ruin everyones day. -You don't intervene and hope they don't win but with Russia not in the picture yet at this point there is a big chance ISIS does win. -You prolong the conflict to drain resources and keep their focus away from US soil terrorism. I believe they took the 3e option and while it has resulted in the refugees crisis thats a problem for Europe and not the US who are safely far away. And again while Europe had some terrorist attacks (While they claim ISIS allegiance I wonder how many of these attacks were actually being orchestrated but ISIS itself) the US has been pretty safe from them. When Russia came along the plan kinda fell apart and I don't think they were expected to join by the US. I'm still kinda convinced its the best of the options available tho at the time. In hindsight staying entirely out of it and letting Russia fix it with Assad might have been a better solution. And yes I agree with your final point that the US military is horribly cost inefficient and using high tech expensive to operate equipment when cheaper options would be just as successful. I think what happened with Iraq was that they showed up without thinking things through, saw the possibility of an ISIS, and then get caught unable to fucking leave because their choice was eternal conflict versus creating an ISIS. But you are once again conflating hindsight and foresight and are trying to see the initial invasion of iraq as an occupation strategy when it was everything but. It was seeing weapons that needed to be eliminated, and then withdrawing once it was eliminated. Had that been the actual plan we stuck to and just left once we figured out there were no WMDs to get rid of--then everything would end up like the first Iraq war where we showed up, killed soldiers, left Sadam in power, let thousands die to his regime, and be happy westerners reaping the benefits of ignorance. Instead we showed up, saw no objectives, change the objectives, and then dug in. We fucked up big time. The current policy we have where we literally just kill people for pleasure for no tactical gain is literally the worst of all worlds option. Because now its a fuck up as plan A as opposed to a fuck up as plan C. Your right, I'm not considering a hypothetical where Sadam was left in power because that was never the plan to begin with. (ignoring the instability and possible rise of ISIS even with Sadam in power but his army destroyed)
That is arguable, as Bush Sr. was able to do an invasion in Iraq without leaving a power vacuum.
|
On December 20 2016 08:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2016 08:52 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 08:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 08:05 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 03:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 03:20 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 03:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 03:06 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 02:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 02:38 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Yes, the US with 100, more?, times the budget of the aged Iraqi military were able to swiftly dispatch an insignificant but clearly visible foe. Truly a work of art for the ages /s.
Looking at the easiest and simplest part of the iraq war and going 'we did that well' is not something worth celebrating. I'm not celebrating. LegalLord asked if anything in Iraq did better than things done in Libya and Syria. And for the most part, there was only one. The invasion of Iraq went better then the invasion that didn't happen in Libya and Syria. Bravo. You did something better then... not doing it at all (and that's assuming you don't want to debate that not invading at all would have been an improvement for Iraq). After spending a billion dollars on Libya the US Military has jack shit to show when it comes to results. No progress in improving the country, no progress to show that anything was won, just a billion dollars spent to kill random people over the course of 3-4 years. If you consider that much more successful than the first two weeks of Iraq before the started moving the goal posts then I don't know what metric you measure success. As I have stated many times before, The US has no interest in winning the war in Syria. Its wants to drag it out as long as possible and bleed as much resources from the forces in the region as possible. Iraq shows that the US could have ended it in days if it wanted to. The lack of progress you describe as a failure is very much a successful operation and a billion dollars is a lot cheaper then Iraq turned out to be. Yes, occupation is more expensive than not occupying. And being that the argument presented for the Iraq War was not an occupation but simply a disarming of the people in power, it did in 2 weeks what the intended plan was for Libya failed to do in the span of 4 years. And, just like I said, it wasn't until the goal posts started getting shoved further and further as the plan got changed further and further that Iraq became a quagmire. Had the US simply showed up in Libya, spent 2 weeks retaking the capital, and then give the land to the rebel forces after they decimated the Libyan army, then Libya would have been where it is now but 4 years sooner and for a LOT LOT cheaper. But instead we simply spent years throwing random rockets and random targets with the hopes that the rebel forces would get their act together. End result was thousands dying for no reason and both sides of the conflicting at war for 4 years what should have been lasting a month. EDIT Don't get me wrong, I think Iraq was shit, I think the whole thing was shit, I think that people were presented with a scary enough threat that many felt forced to do something about it. A kind of "ignorance is bliss but now that I know how I can I not do something" hero complex. The two options for why it got extended are both awful. Either we got into a quagmire that was too horrible to leave because too many people would die (and die they did when we left) or some homicidal elites in our leadership decided they enjoyed having children bleed on foreign soil. It really doesn't matter to me which one of those two bullshit possibilities dragged Iraq longer than the month needed to realize they either couldn't find WMDs or couldn't find proof of WMDs. You understand that in both your Iraq and Syria scenario your basically creating the ISIS Kalifaat for them right? If you fuck up Iraq and then leave ISIS takes it over entirely instead of the resistance offered now. Dito for Syria where the 'moderate' rebels probably wouldn't have held out. So instead of spending the money on an Iraq occupation and a Syria stalemate you create a 2 country state of radical Islam who hate the West. I really don't see how this is an improvement. On December 20 2016 04:08 LegalLord wrote:On December 20 2016 03:20 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 03:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 03:06 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 02:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 02:38 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Yes, the US with 100, more?, times the budget of the aged Iraqi military were able to swiftly dispatch an insignificant but clearly visible foe. Truly a work of art for the ages /s.
Looking at the easiest and simplest part of the iraq war and going 'we did that well' is not something worth celebrating. I'm not celebrating. LegalLord asked if anything in Iraq did better than things done in Libya and Syria. And for the most part, there was only one. The invasion of Iraq went better then the invasion that didn't happen in Libya and Syria. Bravo. You did something better then... not doing it at all (and that's assuming you don't want to debate that not invading at all would have been an improvement for Iraq). After spending a billion dollars on Libya the US Military has jack shit to show when it comes to results. No progress in improving the country, no progress to show that anything was won, just a billion dollars spent to kill random people over the course of 3-4 years. If you consider that much more successful than the first two weeks of Iraq before the started moving the goal posts then I don't know what metric you measure success. As I have stated many times before, The US has no interest in winning the war in Syria. Its wants to drag it out as long as possible and bleed as much resources from the forces in the region as possible.Iraq shows that the US could have ended it in days if it wanted to. The lack of progress you describe as a failure is very much a successful operation and a billion dollars is a lot cheaper then Iraq turned out to be. I don't think that worked out. For one, they created ISIS, which is going to be problematic for years to come (first taste was when they entered Mosul and forced further US involvement). Second, the US credibility in the region seems to have gone down the shitter with the rise of ISIS and the effect is felt all around the world with the refugee crisis, increase in terrorism, and populist movements all over Europe and in the US. Third of all, the "bleed each other dry" part sort of went out the window when Russia entered into the scene. As I linked in the other thread, Hezbollah became stronger from Syrian cooperation, Iran seems to have gained a lot (including security agreements with both Russia and China), Assad gets the best chance he's had in years to consolidate power, and Russia has spent an absolutely trivial amount ( alternative, newer but possibly more biased source) in Syria, and in fact a third of what the US has spent since 2014 on containing ISIS. Maybe that was the goal, but it seems to have failed, like most of the other US interventions in the area. Much of the reason is that the US military just doesn't know how to keep costs down. ISIS forming in the wake of the Iraq withdraw is a failure 100%. My resource draining stalemate solution is for how to deal with ISIS existing without a 2nd invasion (unacceptable to the US people). -At that point you either bomb them into submission, they go underground and terror cells ruin everyones day. -You don't intervene and hope they don't win but with Russia not in the picture yet at this point there is a big chance ISIS does win. -You prolong the conflict to drain resources and keep their focus away from US soil terrorism. I believe they took the 3e option and while it has resulted in the refugees crisis thats a problem for Europe and not the US who are safely far away. And again while Europe had some terrorist attacks (While they claim ISIS allegiance I wonder how many of these attacks were actually being orchestrated but ISIS itself) the US has been pretty safe from them. When Russia came along the plan kinda fell apart and I don't think they were expected to join by the US. I'm still kinda convinced its the best of the options available tho at the time. In hindsight staying entirely out of it and letting Russia fix it with Assad might have been a better solution. And yes I agree with your final point that the US military is horribly cost inefficient and using high tech expensive to operate equipment when cheaper options would be just as successful. I think what happened with Iraq was that they showed up without thinking things through, saw the possibility of an ISIS, and then get caught unable to fucking leave because their choice was eternal conflict versus creating an ISIS. But you are once again conflating hindsight and foresight and are trying to see the initial invasion of iraq as an occupation strategy when it was everything but. It was seeing weapons that needed to be eliminated, and then withdrawing once it was eliminated. Had that been the actual plan we stuck to and just left once we figured out there were no WMDs to get rid of--then everything would end up like the first Iraq war where we showed up, killed soldiers, left Sadam in power, let thousands die to his regime, and be happy westerners reaping the benefits of ignorance. Instead we showed up, saw no objectives, change the objectives, and then dug in. We fucked up big time. The current policy we have where we literally just kill people for pleasure for no tactical gain is literally the worst of all worlds option. Because now its a fuck up as plan A as opposed to a fuck up as plan C. Your right, I'm not considering a hypothetical where Sadam was left in power because that was never the plan to begin with. (ignoring the instability and possible rise of ISIS even with Sadam in power but his army destroyed) That is arguable, as Bush Sr. was able to do an invasion in Iraq without leaving a power vacuum.
Which was a war to drive the army from Kuwait and ended shortly after that was successful. They didn't want to search the Iraqi desert looking for hidden caches of WMD's like you want them to, which requires a much more thorough destruction of the army to allow such an operation in safety.
And to dispel any lingering illusion that the original intend was to simply hunt WMD's and not a transfer of power. "Operation Iraqi Freedom" doesn't sound like a quick in and out search operation.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 20 2016 08:05 Gorsameth wrote:
When Russia came along the plan kinda fell apart and I don't think they were expected to join by the US.
No, not in the slightest. To be fair, I can't say I was expecting Russian intervention either - it's been one hell of a statement on world involvement that Russia didn't really look ready to take at the time - but no, the US basically didn't see it as a realistic possibility.
The first they seemed to have heard of it was when a Russian general in Baghdad came to the US embassy there and asked them to relay this message to Obama: "Air strikes in an hour. Don't get in the way." Well, maybe that one would be popular with the "Putin doesn't respect Obama" crowd, lol.
|
On December 20 2016 08:19 Doodsmack wrote:
Totally rational.
maybe that's not such a bad idea. who cares if we get it back?
|
On December 20 2016 09:31 IgnE wrote:maybe that's not such a bad idea. who cares if we get it back?
Because its the reply an 8 year old gives when a bully takes his ball on the playground "well... I didnt want that ball anyway".
Trump complained that other countries are laughing at the US for being weak and now he wants to back down from Russia by lifting the sanctions and China but letting them just steal their stuff.
Not a great signal to send the word "screw with us and we will not do anything back".
|
On December 20 2016 09:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2016 08:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 08:52 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 08:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 08:05 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 03:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 03:20 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 03:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 03:06 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 02:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
I'm not celebrating. LegalLord asked if anything in Iraq did better than things done in Libya and Syria. And for the most part, there was only one. The invasion of Iraq went better then the invasion that didn't happen in Libya and Syria. Bravo. You did something better then... not doing it at all (and that's assuming you don't want to debate that not invading at all would have been an improvement for Iraq). After spending a billion dollars on Libya the US Military has jack shit to show when it comes to results. No progress in improving the country, no progress to show that anything was won, just a billion dollars spent to kill random people over the course of 3-4 years. If you consider that much more successful than the first two weeks of Iraq before the started moving the goal posts then I don't know what metric you measure success. As I have stated many times before, The US has no interest in winning the war in Syria. Its wants to drag it out as long as possible and bleed as much resources from the forces in the region as possible. Iraq shows that the US could have ended it in days if it wanted to. The lack of progress you describe as a failure is very much a successful operation and a billion dollars is a lot cheaper then Iraq turned out to be. Yes, occupation is more expensive than not occupying. And being that the argument presented for the Iraq War was not an occupation but simply a disarming of the people in power, it did in 2 weeks what the intended plan was for Libya failed to do in the span of 4 years. And, just like I said, it wasn't until the goal posts started getting shoved further and further as the plan got changed further and further that Iraq became a quagmire. Had the US simply showed up in Libya, spent 2 weeks retaking the capital, and then give the land to the rebel forces after they decimated the Libyan army, then Libya would have been where it is now but 4 years sooner and for a LOT LOT cheaper. But instead we simply spent years throwing random rockets and random targets with the hopes that the rebel forces would get their act together. End result was thousands dying for no reason and both sides of the conflicting at war for 4 years what should have been lasting a month. EDIT Don't get me wrong, I think Iraq was shit, I think the whole thing was shit, I think that people were presented with a scary enough threat that many felt forced to do something about it. A kind of "ignorance is bliss but now that I know how I can I not do something" hero complex. The two options for why it got extended are both awful. Either we got into a quagmire that was too horrible to leave because too many people would die (and die they did when we left) or some homicidal elites in our leadership decided they enjoyed having children bleed on foreign soil. It really doesn't matter to me which one of those two bullshit possibilities dragged Iraq longer than the month needed to realize they either couldn't find WMDs or couldn't find proof of WMDs. You understand that in both your Iraq and Syria scenario your basically creating the ISIS Kalifaat for them right? If you fuck up Iraq and then leave ISIS takes it over entirely instead of the resistance offered now. Dito for Syria where the 'moderate' rebels probably wouldn't have held out. So instead of spending the money on an Iraq occupation and a Syria stalemate you create a 2 country state of radical Islam who hate the West. I really don't see how this is an improvement. On December 20 2016 04:08 LegalLord wrote:On December 20 2016 03:20 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 03:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 03:06 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 02:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
I'm not celebrating. LegalLord asked if anything in Iraq did better than things done in Libya and Syria. And for the most part, there was only one. The invasion of Iraq went better then the invasion that didn't happen in Libya and Syria. Bravo. You did something better then... not doing it at all (and that's assuming you don't want to debate that not invading at all would have been an improvement for Iraq). After spending a billion dollars on Libya the US Military has jack shit to show when it comes to results. No progress in improving the country, no progress to show that anything was won, just a billion dollars spent to kill random people over the course of 3-4 years. If you consider that much more successful than the first two weeks of Iraq before the started moving the goal posts then I don't know what metric you measure success. As I have stated many times before, The US has no interest in winning the war in Syria. Its wants to drag it out as long as possible and bleed as much resources from the forces in the region as possible.Iraq shows that the US could have ended it in days if it wanted to. The lack of progress you describe as a failure is very much a successful operation and a billion dollars is a lot cheaper then Iraq turned out to be. I don't think that worked out. For one, they created ISIS, which is going to be problematic for years to come (first taste was when they entered Mosul and forced further US involvement). Second, the US credibility in the region seems to have gone down the shitter with the rise of ISIS and the effect is felt all around the world with the refugee crisis, increase in terrorism, and populist movements all over Europe and in the US. Third of all, the "bleed each other dry" part sort of went out the window when Russia entered into the scene. As I linked in the other thread, Hezbollah became stronger from Syrian cooperation, Iran seems to have gained a lot (including security agreements with both Russia and China), Assad gets the best chance he's had in years to consolidate power, and Russia has spent an absolutely trivial amount ( alternative, newer but possibly more biased source) in Syria, and in fact a third of what the US has spent since 2014 on containing ISIS. Maybe that was the goal, but it seems to have failed, like most of the other US interventions in the area. Much of the reason is that the US military just doesn't know how to keep costs down. ISIS forming in the wake of the Iraq withdraw is a failure 100%. My resource draining stalemate solution is for how to deal with ISIS existing without a 2nd invasion (unacceptable to the US people). -At that point you either bomb them into submission, they go underground and terror cells ruin everyones day. -You don't intervene and hope they don't win but with Russia not in the picture yet at this point there is a big chance ISIS does win. -You prolong the conflict to drain resources and keep their focus away from US soil terrorism. I believe they took the 3e option and while it has resulted in the refugees crisis thats a problem for Europe and not the US who are safely far away. And again while Europe had some terrorist attacks (While they claim ISIS allegiance I wonder how many of these attacks were actually being orchestrated but ISIS itself) the US has been pretty safe from them. When Russia came along the plan kinda fell apart and I don't think they were expected to join by the US. I'm still kinda convinced its the best of the options available tho at the time. In hindsight staying entirely out of it and letting Russia fix it with Assad might have been a better solution. And yes I agree with your final point that the US military is horribly cost inefficient and using high tech expensive to operate equipment when cheaper options would be just as successful. I think what happened with Iraq was that they showed up without thinking things through, saw the possibility of an ISIS, and then get caught unable to fucking leave because their choice was eternal conflict versus creating an ISIS. But you are once again conflating hindsight and foresight and are trying to see the initial invasion of iraq as an occupation strategy when it was everything but. It was seeing weapons that needed to be eliminated, and then withdrawing once it was eliminated. Had that been the actual plan we stuck to and just left once we figured out there were no WMDs to get rid of--then everything would end up like the first Iraq war where we showed up, killed soldiers, left Sadam in power, let thousands die to his regime, and be happy westerners reaping the benefits of ignorance. Instead we showed up, saw no objectives, change the objectives, and then dug in. We fucked up big time. The current policy we have where we literally just kill people for pleasure for no tactical gain is literally the worst of all worlds option. Because now its a fuck up as plan A as opposed to a fuck up as plan C. Your right, I'm not considering a hypothetical where Sadam was left in power because that was never the plan to begin with. (ignoring the instability and possible rise of ISIS even with Sadam in power but his army destroyed) That is arguable, as Bush Sr. was able to do an invasion in Iraq without leaving a power vacuum. Which was a war to drive the army from Kuwait and ended shortly after that was successful. They didn't want to search the Iraqi desert looking for hidden caches of WMD's like you want them to, which requires a much more thorough destruction of the army to allow such an operation in safety. And to dispel any lingering illusion that the original intend was to simply hunt WMD's and not a transfer of power. "Operation Iraqi Freedom" doesn't sound like a quick in and out search operation.
I agree. I know many people who did not believe that that was what they intended--but the argument was enough for both congressional thumbs up and to build a coalition going into the war.
Now we can argue all day about "intent" and "true vs false goals" of the war, we can talk all day about conspiracy theories, corruption stories, and correlative anxieties. But I'd rather drop this topic and just move on to the things actually in front of us--which is that passivity, sanctions, and the hands off approach is 100% useless and pointless if the countries you do it to have zero fucks about about fearing your possible escalation. If they know you won't do shit then no amount of grandstanding bullshit will make them stop what they are doing.
So we either say we are perfectly fine with systemic genocide, or we put boots on the ground for a long and bloody fight. Those are the only two options when it comes to the middle east and Africa.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The Washington electoral rebellion made this electoral college matter more humorous than I expected it to be. Good stuff.
I wonder how long it will be before the establishment Democrats take some responsibility for the actual contents of the hacked but genuine documents instead of continuing their war on Russian hacking. Sooner or later people will insist on a better explanation than "Russia did it."
|
On December 20 2016 09:36 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2016 09:31 IgnE wrote:maybe that's not such a bad idea. who cares if we get it back? Because its the reply an 8 year old gives when a bully takes his ball on the playground "well... I didnt want that ball anyway". Trump complained that other countries are laughing at the US for being weak and now he wants to back down from Russia by lifting the sanctions and China but letting them just steal their stuff. Not a great signal to send the word "screw with us and we will not do anything back".
Perhaps it's the more ominous "no, go ahead, keep it. I dare you."
|
Maybe it's just a robot and it looks better to everyone later if later you're able to say "look, we didn't make a fuss when you stole the thing, now do you mind about the artificial islands?"
|
Lol oblade. The drone is a non issue. The fact he is even responding on twitter continues to show his inadequacies.
Let's not forget this is the same guy who he would attack a foreign vessel because they were mean to our ship.
There is no rhyme or reason to his FP responses. He just says what pops into his head.
|
Newt Gingrich said Monday that President-elect Donald Trump could simply pardon members of his administration who may break anti-nepotism laws, adding that Trump's business ties require "a whole new approach" to addressing potential conflicts of interest in the presidency.
“In the case of the president, he has a broad ability to organize the White House the way he wants to. He also has, frankly, the power of the pardon,” Gingrich told WAMU’s Diane Rehm on Monday morning. “It is a totally open power, and he could simply say, ‘Look, I want them to be my advisers. I pardon them if anyone finds them to have behaved against the rules. Period.' Technically, under the Constitution, he has that level of authority.”
Gingrich was referring to a federal anti-nepotism law that could prevent Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, Trump’s daughter and son-in-law, respectively, from serving in his administration. Previously, Gingrich suggested Trump may need a waiver from Congress to have Kushner work in his administration.
On Monday, however, Gingrich said the law was the result of “Lyndon Johnson’s reaction to Bobby Kennedy, and the fact that Johnson hated Kennedy.”
“It was a very narrowly focused bill really in reaction to a particular personality thing,” he said. “I think that we have to look at it in the context of what they were trying to accomplish.”
Although Gingrich acknowledged that Trump’s potential conflicts of interest were “a very real problem,” he argued that the President-elect's massive wealth was “virtually impossible to isolate” and that “traditional rules don’t work."
"We’re going to have to think up a whole new approach,” he said.
For his part, Gingrich provided little detail as to what that approach might look like. He suggested a "review group," led by someone like former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, could "monitor regularly what was going on and would offer warnings if they get too close to the edge.”
“You can’t say that Trump Tower is not the Trump Tower or that Trump Hotel is not the Trump Hotel, and you can’t say that the kids who run it aren’t his children,” Gingrich said. “These are facts and they’re obvious.”
After returning from a commercial break, Rehm asked Richard Painter, President George W. Bush’s chief ethics lawyer from 2005 to 2007, for his reaction to Gingrich's comments.
“There is no billionaire exception in the Constitution of the United States,” Painter said, adding later: “The pardon power can not be used by the president to pardon himself, or to cause other members of his administration to engage in illegal conduct or unconstitutional conduct and then simply use the pardon power in that way. If the pardon power allows that, the pardon power allows the president to become a dictator."
Source
|
|
|
On December 20 2016 09:45 oBlade wrote:
Maybe it's just a robot and it looks better to everyone later if later you're able to say "look, we didn't make a fuss when you stole the thing, now do you mind about the artificial islands?"
Trump is deliberately testing the relationship with China by doing and saying the unexpected. He can't enact policy yet (obviously), but he can start setting the table now with public statements.
|
On December 20 2016 11:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2016 09:45 oBlade wrote:
Maybe it's just a robot and it looks better to everyone later if later you're able to say "look, we didn't make a fuss when you stole the thing, now do you mind about the artificial islands?" Trump is deliberately testing the relationship with China by doing and saying the unexpected. He can't enact policy yet (obviously), but he can start setting the table now with public statements.
Orrrrrrrrrr, he is just making it up as he goes and the results will fall to the whims of fate. Pretty sure even you have said he's a roll of the dice. This is kinda what that statement looks like in practice.
|
On December 20 2016 11:54 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2016 11:33 xDaunt wrote:On December 20 2016 09:45 oBlade wrote:
Maybe it's just a robot and it looks better to everyone later if later you're able to say "look, we didn't make a fuss when you stole the thing, now do you mind about the artificial islands?" Trump is deliberately testing the relationship with China by doing and saying the unexpected. He can't enact policy yet (obviously), but he can start setting the table now with public statements. Orrrrrrrrrr, he is just making it up as he goes and the results will fall to the whims of fate. Pretty sure even you have said he's a roll of the dice. This is kinda what that statement looks like practically.
I said he was a roll of the dice during the campaign because I wasn't entirely sure if he was going to do the things that he campaigned upon (or whether he'd be a capable executive). However, now it seems like he fully intends to. And how he's publicly commenting on Chinese relations is proof of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
