IGX

dead man walking wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:with Afghanistan we may not have had any other real options

why have we stayed there?

Because war has become an ongoing economic stimulus package I don't expect any administration to drop in my lifetime.

nafod wrote:

dead man walking wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:with Afghanistan we may not have had any other real options

why have we stayed there?

So we don't have to go back again.

This is the thing with people arguing for boots on the ground against ISIS. If we clear them out, who fills in the vacuum? It was the vacuum that led to them in the first place. Better to be patient and let the Iraqis and others wipe them out and take ownership, however incompetently.

Afghanistan - I don't know what our interest in occupying it is/was. There are few places on the globe less hospitable to nation-building. But nation-building seems to be Obama's goal. That, and political cover for his opposition to Iraq, so as to not look like wimp.

But we could make any new Afghani training/launch sites rather inhospitable, using air power. IMO, remove the troops and let it fester in tribal chaos until a strongman imposes tyranny.

Iraq - It had potential for nation-building. But Obama removed the Training Wheels before Iraqis learned to ride.


*****

Side Note - I opposed the Iraq Invasion, then was persuaded that it had value after Ghaddafi abandoned his nuke program for fear of similar treatment. Strong Horse argument.

Now, I just think we need to prevent The Caliphate, which means to deny ISIS its homeland and tax base.

johno wrote:Afghanistan - I don't know what our interest in occupying it is/was. There are few places on the globe less hospitable to nation-building. But nation-building seems to be Obama's goal. That, and political cover for his opposition to Iraq, so as to not look like wimp.

But we could make any new Afghani training/launch sites rather inhospitable, using air power. IMO, remove the troops and let it fester in tribal chaos until a strongman imposes tyranny.

Iraq - It had potential for nation-building. But Obama removed the Training Wheels before Iraqis learned to ride.[


*****

Side Note - I opposed the Iraq Invasion, then was persuaded that it had value after Ghaddafi abandoned his nuke program for fear of similar treatment. Strong Horse argument.

Now, I just think we need to prevent The Caliphate, which means to deny ISIS its homeland and tax base.

I think with Afghanistan a case could be made that you either get in and muck about or you stay entirely the fuck out. I'd have wanted to lean towards entirely the fuck out and focus on bringing Pakistan to heel but we need to remember, no one understood our drone war capacity at that time, esp. a drone war backed by legit Intel. Now Obama deserves some flack for racking up civ bodies in his drone war but there are certainly elements of it that have been super effective. But this was 2001, we didn't know what we didn't know and the minute we put large numbers of boots on the ground our Intel opportunities would seem to have radically changed in character. I would guess it takes a certain amount of "nation building" just to get the type of goodwill needed for the scope and scale of Intel we need in the region. I could be totally wrong on that. At the end of the day, NFW were we going to avoid going in there and NFW does anyone go into that region without getting a bit fucked.

I think its time to follow the constitution and overthrow the government

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

johno wrote:Afghanistan - I don't know what our interest in occupying it is/was. There are few places on the globe less hospitable to nation-building. But nation-building seems to be Obama's goal. That, and political cover for his opposition to Iraq, so as to not look like wimp.

But we could make any new Afghani training/launch sites rather inhospitable, using air power. IMO, remove the troops and let it fester in tribal chaos until a strongman imposes tyranny.

Iraq - It had potential for nation-building. But Obama removed the Training Wheels before Iraqis learned to ride.[


*****

Side Note - I opposed the Iraq Invasion, then was persuaded that it had value after Ghaddafi abandoned his nuke program for fear of similar treatment. Strong Horse argument.

Now, I just think we need to prevent The Caliphate, which means to deny ISIS its homeland and tax base.

I think with Afghanistan a case could be made that you either get in and muck about or you stay entirely the fuck out. I'd have wanted to lean towards entirely the fuck out and focus on bringing Pakistan to heel but we need to remember, no one understood our drone war capacity at that time, esp. a drone war backed by legit Intel. Now Obama deserves some flack for racking up civ bodies in his drone war but there are certainly elements of it that have been super effective. But this was 2001, we didn't know what we didn't know and the minute we put large numbers of boots on the ground our Intel opportunities would seem to have radically changed in character. I would guess it takes a certain amount of "nation building" just to get the type of goodwill needed for the scope and scale of Intel we need in the region. I could be totally wrong on that. At the end of the day, NFW were we going to avoid going in there and NFW does anyone go into that region without getting a bit fucked.

IIRC, the first drones to fly over Afghanistan were prototypes rushed into use by necessity, and unarmed because they had been envisioned as Intel tools themselves.
Also, I'm not sure anyone in the early days envisioned having 100,000 boots on the ground a la the USSR in the 80s. But Tora Bora, the Iraq war and the Surge, led to a lot of politically motivated accusations about W taking his eye off the ball and not denying"the good war" resources in order to send them to Iraq, the bad war (that many democrats supported).
I give Obama some credit for fighting ISIS the way W probably intended to fight the Taliban and AQ.
I take away credit for believing in the myth of "moderate allies" other than the Kurds, and trashing the constitution in the process.
Isn't he justifying current actions in Libya via the 2003 congressional authorization of use of force in Iraq?
That's some disgusting abuse of power.

The Ginger Beard Man wrote: That's some disgusting abuse of power.

republicans control congress. what are they doing?

nada . . . except fault obama no matter what he does.

that's some disgusting irresponsibility.

Blaidd Drwg wrote: Now Obama deserves some flack for racking up civ bodies in his drone war

have you become a vegan?

you want civilian casualties?

dead man walking wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote: Now Obama deserves some flack for racking up civ bodies in his drone war

have you become a vegan?

you want civilian casualties?

You want to play count the dead civilians? Cool...then we should all doff our hats to Ghengis Khan for setting the bar so high and leaving us all blamesless by comparison. But me thinks that to be a stupid game.

AFAIK, Dresden was extremely effective at it's stated purpose with horrific collateral damage..no doubt. War is hell....

The assassination drone war is occasionally very effective and often very very not..we'd normally say war is hell but no one has the balls to cop to the fact it is in fact A War..or more accurately sloppy assassinations. I'm good with either. Just call it what it is and take off the white hat. No POTUS gets to work in anything but the grey side of the force.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:we'd normally say war is hell but no one has the balls to cop to the fact it is in fact A War..or more accurately sloppy assassinations. I'm good with either. Just call it what it is and take off the white hat.

yes

this "war" against non-state crazies is s a deadly game of whack-a-mole, and the rodents will never be entirely exterminated. as you say, "call it what it is"

Grandpa's Spells wrote:Every video of Arab/Libyan vs. Arab/Libyan atrocities, while terrible, is a repudiation of "If we don't fight them over there, we'll have to fight them here." We can't make parties in a civil war stop committing war crimes.

We can stop giving them training and weapons. We can encourage the Gulf States to stop giving them weapons and training.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBczHTf18fc[/youtube]

Grandpa's Spells wrote:Nothing Obama has done is remotely akin to the epic fuckups of W. His video montage would be quite a bit longer. There's a reason 2000-2008 is seemingly erased from the GOP memory banks.

Speaking of "memory banks". ... Here's the Presser where W Bush discusses the treaty with Libya to dismantle "weapons of mass destruction".

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b2XG3tiIlM[/youtube]

Bush wasn't a complete war monger. He did wrong. So did Obama.

Trouble is that too many people excuse Obama. Cause? Don't know.


You sidestepped Donbass, Troy. Guess you like torchlight parades?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foqRBVlo__k[/youtube]


Maybe you like the Wolfsangle?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTAFVs17P_8[/youtube]


Why is your Party sending our Tax money to these pukes? Why, Troy?

dead man walking wrote:

The Ginger Beard Man wrote: That's some disgusting abuse of power.

republicans control congress. what are they doing?

nada . . . except fault obama no matter what he does.

that's some disgusting irresponsibility.

LMAO at giving Obama a pass on Libya and Syria, countries that didn't attack us just like Iraq. You know, the exact same policy of Cheney who you just wished would die of a heart attack.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/ ... ng-islami/

He went around Congress to do both. Try not to be such a hypocritical old partisan faggot.

I'm more anti-interventionist than most people to the left of center, but it's lazy and dishonest to lump an invasion of a stable foreign state with intervention in two states that were already in the midst of an active civil war.

Herv100 wrote:

dead man walking wrote:

The Ginger Beard Man wrote: That's some disgusting abuse of power.

republicans control congress. what are they doing?

nada . . . except fault obama no matter what he does.

that's some disgusting irresponsibility.

LMAO at giving Obama a pass on Libya and Syria, countries that didn't attack us just like Iraq. You know, the exact same policy of Cheney who you just wished would die of a heart attack.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/ ... ng-islami/

He went around Congress to do both. Try not to be such a hypocritical old partisan faggot.

not a pass, just don't buy the "disgusting irresponsibility" rhetoric.

we didn't bomb iran, contrary to the wishes of some r's, and he hasn't sent a significant force of ground troops into syria, contrary to the wishes of some r's.

by the way, what's your cure for the middle east?

dead man walking wrote:

The Ginger Beard Man wrote: That's some disgusting abuse of power.

republicans control congress. what are they doing?

nada . . . except fault obama no matter what he does.

that's some disgusting irresponsibility.

To attempt to fix something puts the hot potato in your hands. Congress would rather blame our Supreme Executive. Hence, the kabuki theater of our Repuglican representatives on Iran, Obamacare revisions, debt ceiling, etc. Give yourself cover and blame the other guy.

The Republican Congress's weapon is the "power of the purse." But each time they use it, they take a beating from the media and in the polls. So they are now toothless, except for blocking bills that Dems propose. And their toothlessness is pissing off a percentage of their base.

dead man walking wrote:

Herv100 wrote:

dead man walking wrote:

The Ginger Beard Man wrote: That's some disgusting abuse of power.

republicans control congress. what are they doing?

nada . . . except fault obama no matter what he does.

that's some disgusting irresponsibility.

LMAO at giving Obama a pass on Libya and Syria, countries that didn't attack us just like Iraq. You know, the exact same policy of Cheney who you just wished would die of a heart attack.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/ ... ng-islami/

He went around Congress to do both. Try not to be such a hypocritical old partisan faggot.

not a pass, just don't buy the "disgusting irresponsibility" rhetoric.

we didn't bomb iran, contrary to the wishes of some r's, and he hasn't sent a significant force of ground troops into syria, contrary to the wishes of some r's.

by the way, what's your cure for the middle east?

DMW, you're not wrong. As Johno said, the Rs have power of the purse, and they haven't exercised it. I'm sick of the Benghazi political circus for just that reason.
Also, if McCain had won in 2008, I don't doubt that he could have gotten support for a full blown, 100,000 boots on the ground, undeclared war in Syria. Bipartisan support, of course.
Solutions to the Middle East? I keep coming back to conversations I had post 9/11 with my dad and an uncle (not his brother, but my mom's brother): they both said the exact same thing: "This is why we never should have stop developing the neutron bomb. The radiation dissipated in three weeks." Can't really get behind that, but if it does have,to be us or them...

Going back to the OP's original question, Peggy Noonan has an article in the WSJ that helps clarify on an emotional level, why Trump, why Sanders & why Brexit.

I think it gets down to this:

DrDonkeyLove wrote: I think it gets down to this:

If you're stuck in the T-bird in the final scene from Thelma & Louise, why not just romp on the gas?

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:

dead man walking wrote:

Herv100 wrote:

dead man walking wrote:

The Ginger Beard Man wrote: That's some disgusting abuse of power.

republicans control congress. what are they doing?

nada . . . except fault obama no matter what he does.

that's some disgusting irresponsibility.

LMAO at giving Obama a pass on Libya and Syria, countries that didn't attack us just like Iraq. You know, the exact same policy of Cheney who you just wished would die of a heart attack.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/ ... ng-islami/

He went around Congress to do both. Try not to be such a hypocritical old partisan faggot.

not a pass, just don't buy the "disgusting irresponsibility" rhetoric.

we didn't bomb iran, contrary to the wishes of some r's, and he hasn't sent a significant force of ground troops into syria, contrary to the wishes of some r's.

by the way, what's your cure for the middle east?

DMW, you're not wrong. As Johno said, the Rs have power of the purse, and they haven't exercised it.

Here's my view. Somehow or another ( I blame talk radio and right wing media a fair bit) the voters got it into their minds that their should be NO COMPROMISE and they would not accept anything less. But the founding brothers put together a system that REQUIRES COMPROMISE within the house, within the senate, between the house and senate, between congress and the executive, on the SCOTUS, and between all of those folks. The system fails otherwise, which it is doing.

So the republicans have attempted to deliver what the voters have wanted, to the point of Cruz shutting down the government to demonstrate his NO COMPROMISE bona fides, with the inevitable outcome of failed government.

nafod wrote:Here's my view. Somehow or another [BLACK PRESIDENT] ( I blame talk radio and right wing media a fair bit) the voters got it into their minds that their should be NO COMPROMISE and they would not accept anything less. But the founding brothers put together a system that REQUIRES COMPROMISE within the house, within the senate, between the house and senate, between congress and the executive, on the SCOTUS, and between all of those folks. The system fails otherwise, which it is doing.

So the republicans have attempted to deliver what the voters have wanted, to the point of Cruz shutting down the government to demonstrate his NO COMPROMISE bona fides, with the inevitable outcome of failed government.

Fixed that one for you. Look how the GOP responds....by nominating a White Supremacist friendly con man.

nafod wrote:Here's my view. Somehow or another ( I blame talk radio and right wing media a fair bit) the voters got it into their minds that their should be NO COMPROMISE and they would not accept anything less. But the founding brothers put together a system that REQUIRES COMPROMISE within the house, within the senate, between the house and senate, between congress and the executive, on the SCOTUS, and between all of those folks. The system fails otherwise, which it is doing.

So the republicans have attempted to deliver what the voters have wanted, to the point of Cruz shutting down the government to demonstrate his NO COMPROMISE bona fides, with the inevitable outcome of failed government.

Where was the compromise about Slavery? Where was the compromise about "pacification" of Native Americans?

Was the Civil War an act of Compromise? Where the many "Indian Wars" an act of compromise?

If the System required compromise tell me why did we need Roe v Wade and Obergefell vs Hodges? Did Congress agree to limit the scope of Abortions in the US? How about Same Sex Marriages? Which bill was passed that legalized that practice across the US?

If the system required compromise why do bureaucracies get the powers that they have acquired? Recently the EPA has created "Climate Change Remediation" out of a few Court cases and a pile of Executive Memoranda. When did Congress delegate to the EPA the power to impose CO2 regulations?

Sounds to me like the System was intended to delay and frustrate Progress - so instead of Congress and the Executive making laws Courts and Bureaucrats make laws.

Sometimes we even have a war. Hardly a compromise, yes?

Gene wrote: When did Congress delegate to the EPA the power to impose CO2 regulations?

the clean air act.

blessed by the supreme court.

calm down gene

dead man walking wrote:

Gene wrote: When did Congress delegate to the EPA the power to impose CO2 regulations?

the clean air act.

blessed by the supreme court.

Congress never stated that the Clean Air Act covered CO2. The USSC accepted a lawsuit filed by proxies of the EPA to "compel" it to regulate CO2. The Bank and big Business funded activist organizations help bankroll this crap.

Then again, the Court also said that escaped Slaves can be returned to their "masters" and that Civil Forfeiture is Constitutional. Go figure.

dead man walking wrote:calm down gene

Drop dead.

I miss Chesser's rabid defense of anything republican backed up by right wing faux news site stories...and probably the left wing goofball shit of the Resident Quack counterbalancing it. Thanks to WGM for making me think about that stupid shit.

Yes, I'm drunk wrote:If Hillary gets to nominate Scalia's replacement, do you think the Second Amendment will still mean in "X" number of years what it means to American citizens today?
I'd wager it wont.

Silly example. The Second Amendment means something very different to American citizens today, than it meant before Scalia re-wrote it in his Heller opinion in 2008.

If Hillary names Scalia's replacement, the Second Amendment has a chance to go back to something like what it meant for the ~200 years up thru 2007. But any movement in that direction would likely be slow & incremental. SCOTUS doesn't like to whipsaw.