- 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: Why do you support more war and more American involvement and death in the Middle East?
Posted on 10/16/19 at 9:18 pm to DeusVultMachina
Posted on 10/16/19 at 9:18 pm to DeusVultMachina
quote:
Why? Why can't we put America first and let other nations fight their own wars?
He’s trolling
0
Posted on 10/16/19 at 9:21 pm to DeusVultMachina
quote:
I'm not trying to snark ya
I don't think you are, and using 20/20 hindsight the results are far from ideal. But at the time, in a moment such as that, how do we not act in such a way?
It's fubar for sure. I tend to agree, it's a no win situation over there bc you can't snuff out an ideal that entrenched. But something had to be done. The MOST ideal situation is to maniacally monitor and protect the homeland, the borders.
But I do also see the necessity of stepping in on grave humanitarian crises.
Posted on 10/16/19 at 9:22 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
The only permanent solution would be to genocidally glass the entire region. Neither I nor you would support that, nor would most I'm sure.
But this is endemic to their very culture. Us being there does not change that one iota.
I am saying that we are fighting conflicts without goals, and we often create the monsters ourselves. Leaving the region will perhaps allow them to sort themselves. Our resources are better spent on our own domestic security and with EXTREME tightening of border and immigration controls. That's a different discussion also worth having, but I digress.
Toppling the dictators and warlords seems to make it worse, obviously, as the destabilization increases and new criminal terror networks arise out of the chaos we create.
But this is endemic to their very culture. Us being there does not change that one iota.
I am saying that we are fighting conflicts without goals, and we often create the monsters ourselves. Leaving the region will perhaps allow them to sort themselves. Our resources are better spent on our own domestic security and with EXTREME tightening of border and immigration controls. That's a different discussion also worth having, but I digress.
Toppling the dictators and warlords seems to make it worse, obviously, as the destabilization increases and new criminal terror networks arise out of the chaos we create.
Posted on 10/16/19 at 9:47 pm to DeusVultMachina
I'm going to risk some confused responses with this, but- it's a complex and interconnected issue, and I'm afraid Displaced Buckeye has a couple valid points.
The US right now is the preeminent power in the world. A great part of that power is military presence and efficiency.
There was a period post-Vietnam where we stayed home and out of things, in the later 70's. During that time, the Soviets flexed a bit more, and pushed their brand into some areas nearer to us. There initially was some concern that we would stagnate and decline, and ultimately lose the Cold War.
Then, we got involved in things again. A little work in some Caribbean island, which showed us that we weren't dead yet (and I remember some folks terrified that the Hardened Cubans were going to be waiting for us there). Then a big arse-kicking in Panama, really got the juices flowing. Then the Gulf War(s); which on the grand strategic scale, allowed us to test and practice... and what we determined (and showed the world) was, WE'RE GOOD at this.
Remember, go look back at Top Gun for the climate of the period. Maverick was supposed to be puckered up about facing Libyan MiGs. We look back at that now, and it seems laughable- we'd splash every plane in the ME in a week. But then, actual confrontation against them was scary.
I guess it goes to readiness. You have to have a competent military to project strength, and the best way to gauge and elevate that competency is actual conflict. The Sandbox, on the strategic level, is the place you get to do that. We can't do that in Eastern Europe, it's too close to Russia. We can't do that in the Pacific, it's too close to China. I suppose we could find another reason to rip up some Central or South American country, but that would just provoke refugees traveling via Mexico to increase exponentially.
I'm for pulling out of Syria, and I'm not for jumping into random conflicts in the ME just for the heck of it. But it does serve a couple purposes for our military, that we haven't been able to reproduce elsewhere.
That's why the generals want it.
The US right now is the preeminent power in the world. A great part of that power is military presence and efficiency.
There was a period post-Vietnam where we stayed home and out of things, in the later 70's. During that time, the Soviets flexed a bit more, and pushed their brand into some areas nearer to us. There initially was some concern that we would stagnate and decline, and ultimately lose the Cold War.
Then, we got involved in things again. A little work in some Caribbean island, which showed us that we weren't dead yet (and I remember some folks terrified that the Hardened Cubans were going to be waiting for us there). Then a big arse-kicking in Panama, really got the juices flowing. Then the Gulf War(s); which on the grand strategic scale, allowed us to test and practice... and what we determined (and showed the world) was, WE'RE GOOD at this.
Remember, go look back at Top Gun for the climate of the period. Maverick was supposed to be puckered up about facing Libyan MiGs. We look back at that now, and it seems laughable- we'd splash every plane in the ME in a week. But then, actual confrontation against them was scary.
I guess it goes to readiness. You have to have a competent military to project strength, and the best way to gauge and elevate that competency is actual conflict. The Sandbox, on the strategic level, is the place you get to do that. We can't do that in Eastern Europe, it's too close to Russia. We can't do that in the Pacific, it's too close to China. I suppose we could find another reason to rip up some Central or South American country, but that would just provoke refugees traveling via Mexico to increase exponentially.
I'm for pulling out of Syria, and I'm not for jumping into random conflicts in the ME just for the heck of it. But it does serve a couple purposes for our military, that we haven't been able to reproduce elsewhere.
That's why the generals want it.
Posted on 10/16/19 at 9:47 pm to DeusVultMachina
quote:
The only permanent solution would be to genocidally glass the entire region.
That isn't a permanent solution, either. Limiting ourselves geographically has always been a weak-minded stance. You would have to expand to more than just the Middle East, and that would be the worst mistake in human history.
quote:
But this is endemic to their very culture. Us being there does not change that one iota.
Correct. They want to kill us whether they do it over there against people who shoot back, or here against people drinking coffee and reading the paper.
quote:
I am saying that we are fighting conflicts without goals
That's a problem of intent, not action. We should be in these countries, but I've had about enough of thumbsuckers dictating our military posture.
quote:
Toppling the dictators and warlords seems to make it worse, obviously, as the destabilization increases and new criminal terror networks arise out of the chaos we create.
I agree. We need to let them know that we don't give a frick about them, unless they support and protect our enemies. If they do, we frick them up.
Posted on 10/16/19 at 9:49 pm to Scoob
quote:
I'm afraid Displaced Buckeye has a couple valid points.
I always have valid points, even if they're missed or unpopular.
Posted on 10/16/19 at 9:57 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
quote:
The only permanent solution would be to genocidally glass the entire region.
That isn't a permanent solution, either. Limiting ourselves geographically has always been a weak-minded stance. You would have to expand to more than just the Middle East, and that would be the worst mistake in human history.
quote:
But this is endemic to their very culture. Us being there does not change that one iota.
Correct. They want to kill us whether they do it over there against people who shoot back, or here against people drinking coffee and reading the paper.
quote:
I am saying that we are fighting conflicts without goals
That's a problem of intent, not action. We should be in these countries, but I've had about enough of thumbsuckers dictating our military posture.
quote:
Toppling the dictators and warlords seems to make it worse, obviously, as the destabilization increases and new criminal terror networks arise out of the chaos we create.
I agree. We need to let them know that we don't give a frick about them, unless they support and protect our enemies. If they do, we frick them up.
We both agree on the content of this post. It even highlights my stance on immigration/border security.
The aims should be better defined, so that terror networks can instead be targeted by intelligence agencies. Massed-scale military intervention has led to populace-wide insurgent campaigns, they see themselves as victims of invasion and this breeds increased hostility and new terror cells. We are good for recruitment apparently.
Our broad military strategy is not working for us.
This post was edited on 10/16/19 at 9:58 pm
Posted on 10/16/19 at 10:01 pm to Scoob
*channels Iverson*
We talkin' bout practice?
We talkin' bout practice?
Posted on 10/16/19 at 10:07 pm to Nguyener
Seems like the people closest to that issue should be the ones helping.
Posted on 10/16/19 at 10:18 pm to DeusVultMachina
quote:Remember how I said my reply would provoke some responses?
*channels Iverson*
We talkin' bout practice?
Sorry for the lol gif, since it really isn't a laughing matter.
But, to use the sports analogy, yeah. Practice, and while you're at it, put on an exhibition for the Russians, and anyone else considering whether they want a piece of us. "Shock and Awe".
You don't get "battle-hardened troops" just by cleaning up after hurricanes. The rest of the world isn't going to idealistically sit back and play nice, if we shut it all down and stay just in our own borders. If they think we're weak, they will push us.
It's a shitty worldview, I know, and it's a shitty world. But notice, nobody organized and with a semblance of a target (meaning a country) is fricking with us right now. It's isolated organizations, that you can't find to hit back easily. That isn't because the world is more civilized, it's because there isn't a country out there that wants any part of us, rhetoric notwithstanding.
Posted on 10/16/19 at 10:36 pm to Scoob
quote:
"Shock and Awe"
I get what you're saying. But shock and awe ain't working at all. It feels like blowing up your house to try and kill a cockroach, and still failing of course.
We need intense, widespread (but subtle) targeted propaganda and disinformation to attempt generational change amongst their populace (like how our MSM has done our populace, lol). We need to infiltrate their mosques, teach their schools. We need terrorist factions to war amongst each other. Its just as much of a "long game play" as the current never-ending boots on the ground strategy. Intelligence is a key component. Force our "allies" and proxies to do the body bag work.
Swap out big war for little war I guess, if that makes sense.
Posted on 10/16/19 at 10:39 pm to DeusVultMachina
We need ruthless secular despots in these countries who know who Daddy is.
Im mostly joking.
Im mostly joking.
Posted on 10/16/19 at 10:41 pm to davyjones
Yeah, if the shoe fits.
Thats why I also disagree with the "we gotta create democracy errywhere" guy.
Thats why I also disagree with the "we gotta create democracy errywhere" guy.
Posted on 10/17/19 at 6:13 am to davyjones
quote:agreed, and I'm not joking.
We need ruthless secular despots in these countries who know who Daddy is.
Im mostly joking.
Free societies are great to allow the general populace to pursue their deepest dreams and goals. Be a doctor or lawyer, an engineer, live in the Beltway, have a cabin in the woods.
But when your deepest dreams and goals are to kill off rival factions (the ME, the Balkans)... that also happens when you get freedom. And for far too many peoples over there, that remains the top thing they want.
Posted on 10/17/19 at 6:27 am to Nguyener
I'm not cool with genocide and oppression against other human beings because you know they are human beings.
Now that I answered your question I have one for you.
Why do the trump sheep support everything he does not matter how outlandish when even his staunchest supporters in the government are turning on him?
Are you just that all in and can't admit ya'll screwed up electing this guy. I don't even mean against Hillary, that I get, I mean in even giving him the republican nomination.
Now that I answered your question I have one for you.
Why do the trump sheep support everything he does not matter how outlandish when even his staunchest supporters in the government are turning on him?
Are you just that all in and can't admit ya'll screwed up electing this guy. I don't even mean against Hillary, that I get, I mean in even giving him the republican nomination.
Posted on 10/17/19 at 3:17 pm to DeusVultMachina
quote:
Our broad military strategy is not working for us.
I agree. Civilians and the media are too involved in the decision-making process at too low of a level.
Posted on 10/18/19 at 10:38 am to mindbreaker
quote:Stop with the hyperbole. Trump isn't committing genocide, nor is he advocating it.
I'm not cool with genocide and oppression against other human beings because you know they are human beings.
Now that I answered your question I have one for you.
Why do the trump sheep support everything he does not matter how outlandish when even his staunchest supporters in the government are turning on him?
Every president means well when they insert troops into a ME country. The problem is, and always has been, there is no exit strategy that works gracefully. We have not been able to "terraform" that area, and turn Baghdad into Seoul. We haven't, and can't create a civilized, Western-loving peaceful society that is strong, and that will endure when we pull out.
So, the options are to stay forever and suppress violence with the military, or leave and let things flare up again.
Trump is trying to get our guys out. It's about as good as it will ever be, might as well get out before it becomes a permanent assignment.
Posted on 10/18/19 at 10:39 am to Scoob
quote:
The problem is, and always has been, there is no exit strategy that works gracefully. We have not been able to "terraform" that area, and turn Baghdad into Seoul. We haven't, and can't create a civilized, Western-loving peaceful society that is strong, and that will endure when we pull out.
So, the options are to stay forever and suppress violence with the military, or leave and let things flare up again.
Yep. In a nutshell.
Posted on 10/18/19 at 10:50 am to texashorn
quote:
Then you should criticize Trump for proposing economic sanctions, at the very least.
But y'all are eating it up.
I have no problem using non military means to get a country to do what you want. It's why we have the state department amongst others.
Posted on 10/18/19 at 10:53 am to Scoob
quote:
Every president means well when they insert troops into a ME country. The problem is, and always has been, there is no exit strategy that works gracefully. We have not been able to "terraform" that area, and turn Baghdad into Seoul. We haven't, and can't create a civilized, Western-loving peaceful society that is strong, and that will endure when we pull out.
Therein lies the problem.
Who says we are obligated to transform Baghdad into Seoul. It is their country not ours. The resources we use in that area could be more effectively used in other western countries that appreciate us OR invested into areas in our country that desperately needs those funds (certain rust belt counties).
We can't make any country "love us". At best a peaceful indifference is the best we could hope for. Trying to put leader X into power, only to be overthrown a decade later by fundamentalist factions is a waste of resources. The question we have to ask is this: is what Americans want parallel to what the majority of that country's citizens want (not just the rich ones).
If it isn't, then at best your just propping up a regime that will inevitably fail. If that's the route the US wants to take, okay. But we will keep losing soldiers to "World Builiding".
This post was edited on 10/18/19 at 10:54 am
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News