- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: There have been 295 drone strikes between Obama and Trump
Posted on 1/4/20 at 9:36 am to Gray Tiger
Posted on 1/4/20 at 9:36 am to Gray Tiger
LINK
World War One did start as a result of assassination on franz Ferdinand , dipshit
quote:
Another nonsensical and totally historically incorrect talking point.
World War One did start as a result of assassination on franz Ferdinand , dipshit
1
Posted on 1/4/20 at 9:47 am to Bison
quote:
You’re ignoring the fact that the target of the drown strike was a high ranking military leader
FIFY
The fact that Iran places a military leader so high in its food chain isn't our problem.
quote:nope
That’s how World War One was started.
Posted on 1/4/20 at 9:47 am to BayouBlitz
quote:
So, Trumpkins were bragging about how tough Trump is and how weak Obama was.
Now you're refuting that by showing how many drone strikes Obama called for.
What are you babbling about?
Posted on 1/4/20 at 9:49 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Wolf's point is that they aren't going to play nice with us if we leave them alone, and he's absolutely correct.
Yup
Posted on 1/4/20 at 9:49 am to ShortyRob
quote:
What are you babbling about?
Hes been babbling for days now. His tds is getting worse
Posted on 1/4/20 at 9:50 am to 9th life
quote:
Im not defending anything anyone’s said. Just tired of rob’s routine of assuming everyone’s position so he can shout it down. It gets old
Absolutely none of the liberals on this board currently whining had jackshit to say about any of the prior 294 drone attacks
moreover they were all dancing around like Trump was about to have another Benghazi a mere few days ago.
The facts speak for themselves.
Posted on 1/4/20 at 9:51 am to AggieHank86
quote:
The distinction between a combat drone and a cruise missile is a fine one ... more one of scale than nature
In my example Reagan used actual pilots against Libya. That was my point. There really isn't much distinction between cruise missile and drone in terms of effect
Posted on 1/4/20 at 9:52 am to Bison
quote:
World War One did start as a result of assassination on franz Ferdinand , dipshit
which has jack shite to do with the current situation, dipshit
and whose alter is this reactivated anyway?
I remember the stupidity under this name from a year or two ago, now it magically reappears.
Posted on 1/4/20 at 9:55 am to AggieHank86
quote:
But as to the broader issue, I do share some of SCL’s concerns. The bloodless nature of a drone strike (from the perspective of the aggressor) does give rise to a temptation to use them perhaps more often thean would be wise
To this point it is definitely true that cleaner war actually encourages it more on both sides.
Paradoxically the fact that we hit fewer civilians when we retaliate is likely a factor in the decision-making of those who want to commit terrorist actions.
So yes it's painless to the average American but it's also painless to the average person on the other side thus reducing the odds that their population tell their leaders to cut the crap out
Posted on 1/4/20 at 9:56 am to Bison
quote:
Like the Chinese Jack Ma once said, “ america has spent, 13 trillon in wars in the last 30 years, what if they have invest that money in their own people? ”
Dead man walking doesn't seem to know what he's talking about
Heritage Foundation
quote:
In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” In the 50 years since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. Yet progress against poverty, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, has been minimal, and in terms of President Johnson’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely. In fact, a significant portion of the population is now less capable of self-sufficiency than it was when the War on Poverty began.
Posted on 1/4/20 at 9:59 am to ShortyRob
Anything that increases Trump’s popularity is a nightmare for the left, and they’ve shown that American deaths are acceptable to them to prevent that.
Posted on 1/4/20 at 9:59 am to AggieHank86
There has to be a balance in the use of force. It cannot be used indiscriminately. I am just as concerned about feckless leadership that does not have the courage to act when our Nation’s interests are at stake and a fleeting opportunity presents itself. We cannot continue to ignore these acts of aggression. In this particular instance the intelligence was apparently quite good (he not only got the primary target but also some secondary targets as well in a location that minimized damage). Kudos to President Trump for making the call and to the US military for flawless execution.
This is the hand that we have been dealt. I do not like it but we have to play the cards we have.
This is the hand that we have been dealt. I do not like it but we have to play the cards we have.
Posted on 1/4/20 at 10:02 am to wutangfinancial
He not talking about poverty you dumbass. He’s talking about education and infrastructure
Posted on 1/4/20 at 10:03 am to ShortyRob
quote:
To this point it is definitely true that cleaner war actually encourages it more on both sides.
Paradoxically the fact that we hit fewer civilians when we retaliate is likely a factor in the decision-making of those who want to commit terrorist actions.
So yes it's painless to the average American but it's also painless to the average person on the other side thus reducing the odds that their population tell their leaders to cut the crap out
You illustrate what I’ve always found to be the quandary of modern precision “warfare.”
Is it, philosophically speaking, really a “good” or “bad” thing that we have created a framework whereby we can do “battle” with little or know actual (perceived?) risk beyond a very specific objective?
This post was edited on 1/4/20 at 10:05 am
Posted on 1/4/20 at 10:03 am to Bison
It's wonderful that you think he's a good example to use.
Posted on 1/4/20 at 10:05 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Is it, philosophically speaking, really a “good” or “bad” thing that we have created a framework whereby we can do “battle” with little or know actual (perceived?) risk beyond a very specific objective?
Minimizing risk in combat has always been, and always will be, a positive.
Posted on 1/4/20 at 10:09 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Minimizing risk in combat has always been, and always will be, a positive
I think he's referring to minimizing risk of civilian casualties. Which of course seems obviously good but as I mentioned has an arguable downside. That being that it might be arguable that cleaner war encourages military action on both sides.
It's a paradox
Posted on 1/4/20 at 10:17 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Is it? Or does the horror and waste of war cause us to be a bit more thoughtful in using it? Will we be MORE willing to engage in war, as it becomes possible for it to be “cleaner?”
Minimizing risk in combat has always been, and always will be, a positive.
Make fun all you want, but TOS routinely raised interesting philosophical questions.
Posted on 1/4/20 at 10:18 am to ShortyRob
quote:
quote:
Minimizing risk in combat has always been, and always will be, a positive
I think he's referring to minimizing risk of civilian casualties. Which of course seems obviously good but as I mentioned has an arguable downside. That being that it might be arguable that cleaner war encourages military action on both sides.
It's a paradox
Right. Does a “positive” vis a vis a specific objective create other (perhaps unforeseen) negatives down the line? Is it truly a desirable objective, in the broader philosophical sense, to make war so easy?
This post was edited on 1/4/20 at 10:19 am
Posted on 1/4/20 at 10:22 am to ShortyRob
The POTUS told the Iranians what was coming. They chose to ignore.
Doubt seriously they will retaliate of any consequence. They haven't been popped like this in years as others have either supported their rhetoric, see BHO, or cowered as a result.
DJT said, nope, not going to happen and told them so.
Doubt seriously they will retaliate of any consequence. They haven't been popped like this in years as others have either supported their rhetoric, see BHO, or cowered as a result.
DJT said, nope, not going to happen and told them so.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News