IGX

Herv100 wrote:So in other words, you always vote for the biggest perceived warmonger, and this year it happens to be a Democrat. Good to know. That national debt from all the wars and "military actions" since 2000 is really looking nice. But hey, you won't have to pay it back cause you're old.

Given you have been pretty pro-Republican, why is Clinton's hawkishness a problem for you?

I'm not Herv, but if we're going to fuck around in Middle Eastern affairs, let's do so to someone's benefit. Didn't we learn anything about "light footprint" interventions from Rumsfeld's Iraq debacle?
Egypt
Libya
Syria
Iraq
Afghanistan

WTF has Obama/Hillary done well?

johno wrote:I'm not Herv, but if we're going to fuck around in Middle Eastern affairs, let's do so to someone's benefit. Didn't we learn anything about "light footprint" interventions from Rumsfeld's Iraq debacle?
Egypt
Libya
Syria
Iraq
Afghanistan

WTF has Obama/Hillary done well?

Legit query...no bating.

Can you name a recent (say 25 years) light footprint intervention that was in the interest of Nat Sec. that you'd characterize as successful in either the long or short term?

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

johno wrote:I'm not Herv, but if we're going to fuck around in Middle Eastern affairs, let's do so to someone's benefit. Didn't we learn anything about "light footprint" interventions from Rumsfeld's Iraq debacle?
Egypt
Libya
Syria
Iraq
Afghanistan

WTF has Obama/Hillary done well?

Legit query...no bating.

Can you name a recent (say 25 years) light footprint intervention that was in the interest of Nat Sec. that you'd characterize as successful in either the long or short term?

Not a single one.
That won't stop President Clinton (45) from trying again to get it right for the first time. The only question worth asking now is: where will the first war be?

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

johno wrote:I'm not Herv, but if we're going to fuck around in Middle Eastern affairs, let's do so to someone's benefit. Didn't we learn anything about "light footprint" interventions from Rumsfeld's Iraq debacle?
Egypt
Libya
Syria
Iraq
Afghanistan

WTF has Obama/Hillary done well?

Legit query...no bating.

Can you name a recent (say 25 years) light footprint intervention that was in the interest of Nat Sec. that you'd characterize as successful in either the long or short term?

Not a single one.

Bosnia

Also, quietly hunting bad guys in Somalia and Philippines.

johno wrote:I'm not Herv, but if we're going to fuck around in Middle Eastern affairs, let's do so to someone's benefit. Didn't we learn anything about "light footprint" interventions from Rumsfeld's Iraq debacle?
Egypt
Libya
Syria
Iraq
Afghanistan

WTF has Obama/Hillary done well?

I don't know how Hillary fits in, but Obama has had the most successful foreign policy since H. W. Bush. Those places are no messier than they'd be with US troops in them, except if we sent them we'd be poorer and have a lot more kids in cemeteries or being fitted for new limbs, with likely no peace.

I've heard a lot of complaints from the GOP on how he's handled those things, but never any suggestions of what a better plan would be, except for putting more troops in for longer. That approach had a pretty long experiment, with very poor results.

Neocon strategy was completely awful. Nobody says, "Gee, if Bush & Cheney were still running the show, those countries would be way better off."

nafod wrote: Can you name a recent (say 25 years) light footprint intervention that was in the interest of Nat Sec. that you'd characterize as successful in either the long or short term?

Not a single one.[/quote]
Bosnia

Also, quietly hunting bad guys in Somalia and Philippines.[/quote]

I think I'd agree on Bosnia, although I'm not sure about the true national security interest there. I'm willing to listen if someone wants to make the case.

Agree on the Philippines and I think we do have a Nat. Sec. interest there.

Somalia...not sure about our successes there, long term.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

johno wrote:I'm not Herv, but if we're going to fuck around in Middle Eastern affairs, let's do so to someone's benefit. Didn't we learn anything about "light footprint" interventions from Rumsfeld's Iraq debacle?
Egypt
Libya
Syria
Iraq
Afghanistan

WTF has Obama/Hillary done well?

I don't know how Hillary fits in, but Obama has had the most successful foreign policy since H. W. Bush. Those places are no messier than they'd be with US troops in them, except if we sent them we'd be poorer and have a lot more kids in cemeteries or being fitted for new limbs, with likely no peace.

I've heard a lot of complaints from the GOP on how he's handled those things, but never any suggestions of what a better plan would be, except for putting more troops in for longer. That approach had a pretty long experiment, with very poor results.

Neocon strategy was completely awful. Nobody says, "Gee, if Bush & Cheney were still running the show, those countries would be way better off."

I think you're insane. In Egypt, Libya, and Syria, we weakened/deposed friendly strongman types, replacing them with chaos, the Muslim Brotherhood, or ISIS.
We abandoned Iraq after it had reached relative stability (as even Obama described it) to let ISIS reign.

If the "Bush" approach had continued with a stronger US presence, we might now have one strong, friendly Muslim ally in the Middle East. Iraq would be better off.

As to your "poor results" in Iraq:


(Orange & blue represent the Surge.)


We can argue about whether we should have invaded. But it was criminal to leave the way we did.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

johno wrote:I'm not Herv, but if we're going to fuck around in Middle Eastern affairs, let's do so to someone's benefit. Didn't we learn anything about "light footprint" interventions from Rumsfeld's Iraq debacle?
Egypt
Libya
Syria
Iraq
Afghanistan

WTF has Obama/Hillary done well?

I don't know how Hillary fits in, but Obama has had the most successful foreign policy since H. W. Bush. Those places are no messier than they'd be with US troops in them, except if we sent them we'd be poorer and have a lot more kids in cemeteries or being fitted for new limbs, with likely no peace.

I've heard a lot of complaints from the GOP on how he's handled those things, but never any suggestions of what a better plan would be, except for putting more troops in for longer. That approach had a pretty long experiment, with very poor results.

Neocon strategy was completely awful. Nobody says, "Gee, if Bush & Cheney were still running the show, those countries would be way better off."

WTF are you even talking about? We have, and have had, US troops on the ground in 4/5 countries you listed.

nafod wrote:

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

johno wrote:I'm not Herv, but if we're going to fuck around in Middle Eastern affairs, let's do so to someone's benefit. Didn't we learn anything about "light footprint" interventions from Rumsfeld's Iraq debacle?
Egypt
Libya
Syria
Iraq
Afghanistan

WTF has Obama/Hillary done well?

Legit query...no bating.

Can you name a recent (say 25 years) light footprint intervention that was in the interest of Nat Sec. that you'd characterize as successful in either the long or short term?

Not a single one.

Bosnia

Also, quietly hunting bad guys in Somalia and Philippines.

I'm with Johno. I'll give you the Philippines but Somalia hasn't been a success and I'm not sure I buy the idea that Bosnia was in our interest. But at least they didn't let Wesley Clark drop the 82nd Airborne into Serbia and start WWIII.

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

johno wrote:I'm not Herv, but if we're going to fuck around in Middle Eastern affairs, let's do so to someone's benefit. Didn't we learn anything about "light footprint" interventions from Rumsfeld's Iraq debacle?
Egypt
Libya
Syria
Iraq
Afghanistan

WTF has Obama/Hillary done well?

I don't know how Hillary fits in, but Obama has had the most successful foreign policy since H. W. Bush. Those places are no messier than they'd be with US troops in them, except if we sent them we'd be poorer and have a lot more kids in cemeteries or being fitted for new limbs, with likely no peace.

I've heard a lot of complaints from the GOP on how he's handled those things, but never any suggestions of what a better plan would be, except for putting more troops in for longer. That approach had a pretty long experiment, with very poor results.

Neocon strategy was completely awful. Nobody says, "Gee, if Bush & Cheney were still running the show, those countries would be way better off."

WTF are you even talking about? We have, and have had, US troops on the ground in 4/5 countries you listed.

I didn't say we didn't have troops there. Clear your eyes of liquid shit

Those places are no messier than they'd be with US troops in them,

Edit for this:
Hillary will continue the failed neocon strategies she advocated in the past. But maybe I'm missing some irony on your part.

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:

Those places are no messier than they'd be with US troops in them,

Edit for this:
Hillary will continue the failed neocon strategies she advocated in the past. But maybe I'm missing some irony on your part.

Oops, omitted "more" that time.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:Obama has had the most successful foreign policy since H. W. Bush. Those places are no messier than they'd be with US troops in them, except if we sent them we'd be poorer and have a lot more kids in cemeteries or being fitted for new limbs, with likely no peace.

Except that Obama expanded this stupid shit to Libya, Syria and East Ukraine... At least when Junior Bush did stupid shit he did not step on the toes of nuclear powers.... at worst that cretin Shakaashvili got all froggy and jumped, then got his ass broken.

Much worse in Donbass.... the US is backing State Terrorism.

Here Obama admits that the US "brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine".

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmUNCsT8TjU[/youtube]


Here's two ladies discussing how Obama will 'drown in his own blood' among other things.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgUwo5tcOs4[/youtube]

Here was the last moments of a woman attacked by Poroshenko's forces, which used military weapons on defenseless civilians. She lost both limbs below the knee. Total murder, man.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSuDqut45t4[/youtube]



Here is someone eating the heart of a Syrian Soldier.




Mass shooting of Syrians. This is solely Obama's deal.

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



Khaddafy's last few minutes...

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IB8NH_cwt1A[/youtube]

The next Sociopath in Chief celebrating his death "We came, we saw, he died". People take this bitch seriously? She is batshit crazy.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DXDU48RHLU[/youtube]


Anyone else remember the Democrats and Progressives freaking out about the CIA "assassinating" "government leaders" in the 1970s? How times have changed - now they laugh about it.




Troy, if this is "success" to you..... do I have to say it?

Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize. He is worse than Baby Bush. You are so fucking wrong about this guy.

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.

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.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Herv100 wrote:So in other words, you always vote for the biggest perceived warmonger, and this year it happens to be a Democrat. Good to know. That national debt from all the wars and "military actions" since 2000 is really looking nice. But hey, you won't have to pay it back cause you're old.

Given you have been pretty pro-Republican, why is Clinton's hawkishness a problem for you?

I've been against the neocon/neolib foreign policy since Bush. If I've been pro-republican it has been on certain issues where some Republicans have a more libertarian viewpoint.

johno wrote:

nafod wrote:

Can you name a recent (say 25 years) light footprint intervention that was in the interest of Nat Sec. that you'd characterize as successful in either the long or short term?

Not a single one.

Bosnia

Also, quietly hunting bad guys in Somalia and Philippines.

I think I'd agree on Bosnia, although I'm not sure about the true national security interest there. I'm willing to listen if someone wants to make the case.

Agree on the Philippines and I think we do have a Nat. Sec. interest there.

Somalia...not sure about our successes there, long term.

JMO, Somalia is more about long-term maintenance, as that corner of the universe ain't never going to be right. After the mess in Mogadishu/BarterTown, we've managed to convince African countries to adopt African Solutions to African Problems and have Somalis, Kenyans, Ethiopians, and the African Union through AMISOM to go out and kill (and get killed by) Al Shabaab. We provide some brains, regular intel and the occasional Hellfire on an HVI to keep the clown car shit show demolition derby moving in the right direction without having to commit our troops directly.

nafod wrote:

johno wrote: Somalia...not sure about our successes there, long term.

JMO, Somalia is more about long-term maintenance,
...
We provide some brains, regular intel and the occasional Hellfire on an HVI to keep the clown car shit show demolition derby moving in the right direction without having to commit our troops directly.

Thanks, good info. I suspect we're doing the same in other "troubled" parts of the world...Yemen, etc. And only my libertarian brain has any problem with that.

I truly don't care who wins now as long as there is no Bernie or Hillary in the whithouse

tough old man wrote:I truly don't care who wins now as long as there is no Bernie or Hillary in the whithouse

If Biden were the Democrat nominee, would you consider him?

johno wrote:

nafod wrote:

johno wrote: Somalia...not sure about our successes there, long term.

JMO, Somalia is more about long-term maintenance,
...
We provide some brains, regular intel and the occasional Hellfire on an HVI to keep the clown car shit show demolition derby moving in the right direction without having to commit our troops directly.

Thanks, good info. I suspect we're doing the same in other "troubled" parts of the world...Yemen, etc. And only my libertarian brain has any problem with that.

interesting article in the atlantic about the expanded definition of "war,"
where is our military: everywhere.
what does our military do: everything

http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... ry/494846/

The fact that Bosnia and Somalia are debatable make me inclined to put them on the list of potentially successful. The balance of the rest are hard to swallow even if with Afghanistan we may not have had any other real options...no one was ready for tough love to the Saudis or Pakis.

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

why have we stayed there?

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.