Another Surge In A-Stan

[Chris0nllyn]

Why, isn't the AUMF of PL 107-40 still valid?

Yes, but Trump himself Tweeted multiple times that the President should seek approval from Congress before starting another conflict. Not to mention the 6 years of tweeting that we should get out of A-Stan.

From 2013:

The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/373581528405905408

What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/373146637184401408

You could argue we're not actually in a new conflict, just a continuation of a very long one. You could even argue the AUMF is still current, and he can do what he damn well pleases. You'd be correct on both points.

I'd like to see a goal in all this. All I've seen is perpetual war with each President using a different reasoning behind sending in more troops.

 

[Wishbone]

Bush failed, not because of the left or politics. He failed because the war on terror is not a winnable one.

I've always loved this statement from the left. One of my all time favorites.

Please expound:

Do we just say "#### it!" and all live with whatever degree of death, destruction or mayhem entertains them?

 

[Wishbone]

Easy answer. Because the Paki's have nukes.

Bribing the muslims not to attack India.

Seems to me the Europe, America and Asia tried that in the 16th through early 19th centuries.

The payoffs only brought more attacks and more payoffs.

 

[vraiblonde]

He failed because the war on terror is not a winnable one.

It depends on how you define "winning". Like the "war on poverty" and the "war on drugs" and the "war on racism" - you're right, we are never going to completely eradicate it. What we can do, however, is keep a lid on it and keep it from getting worse and taking over the country.

I hope Congress does not offer Trump carte blanche to use military force whereever he pleases. I hope Trump respects the Constitution and at least tries to have a debate about our mission(s). For years, Congress has been unwilling to step up and assert their role in all this. It's about time they do.

Congress is not qualified to design military strategy. Very few of them have even served in the military and they don't know #### about it. They know politics and that's pretty much it. Well, we can see from recent wars how it works when you allow politics to dictate the military. Congress needs to stay in its lane and let our military leaders do their job.

 

[vraiblonde]

Easy answer. Because the Paki's have nukes.

So, what? They're going to nuke us if we don't give them money?

That's bull####. I'd nuke them just for trying to shake us down.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I've always loved this statement from the left. One of my all time favorites.

Please expound:

George Bush himself said he didn't think we could win a war on terror, so it's not a "statement from the left". There's plent on the right asking the same question. Reducing the question as coming from one side is disingenuous and shows you're downplyaing it right off the batt because your mortal enemy (the left) said it.

What is terrorism? It's not a tangible enemy. It's a fighting tactic. How do you defeat that? How do you defeat an enemy created by defeating others? How do you defeat something that grows with each attack against them? When has terrorism ever been defeated?

We've spent over a trillion dollars fighting this "war" to what end? What has been accomplished other than good business for Raytheon? We step into these countries and bomb the piss out of them. In some cases, innocent families get killed. It's much easier for something like ISIS to recruit when all they have to do is build off the resentment we caused in the first place. It's not hard to convince someone foreigners are bad when the foreigners are bombing their country. We also go into these countries and say "we guys need a new leader. One that aligns with our line of thought", then kick out/kill the leader. That destabilizes the region, allowing groups to pop up (i.e. ISIS). Hussein was a criminal and horrible dictator, but Iraq wasn't exactly a terrorist haven when he was in power. When did it go to ####? When we got him. Libya wasn't a great place under Qaddafi, but today is arguably worse after we facilitated that regime change. Syria is obviously not working out so well either with the US trying to kick him out of power.

We have ignored international law and invaded a country that was not an imminenet threat to the US. We set the precent of invading countries without justification. As Richard Haas (President of the Council on Freign Affairs) said, the war in A-Stan started as a necessity. We have intrests there. But that has since morphed into something else. Just as the war in Iraw. They are wars of choice.

 

[Gilligan]

Trump didn't offer to go to Congress to seek authorization, so I'm not sure what vote Graham is talking about.
.

He was quite specifically talking about a vote on what Trump just announced. Maybe he only assumed there would be one?..beats me.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

It depends on how you define "winning". Like the "war on poverty" and the "war on drugs" and the "war on racism" - you're right, we are never going to completely eradicate it. What we can do, however, is keep a lid on it and keep it from getting worse and taking over the country.



Congress is not qualified to design military strategy. Very few of them have even served in the military and they don't know #### about it. They know politics and that's pretty much it. Well, we can see from recent wars how it works when you allow politics to dictate the military. Congress needs to stay in its lane and let our military leaders do their job.

"Keep a lid on it", at what cost? How many American service men and women have to be killed? How much money needs to be spent? How many more enemies do we need?

That's not Congress' job, to design military strategy. It's their job to say "yea, we'll pay for this". It's their job to ask if it's a good idea. Recent wars were started because the President has the sole ability to authorize military force, not because Congress had a role (or lack thereof).

Nothing in history points to Congress not allowing the military to do what they do best.

 

[Wishbone]

You still didn't answer the question.

So... What alternative do you propose?

Acquiesce?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

He was quite specifically talking about a vote on what Trump just announced. Maybe he only assumed there would be one?..beats me.

He was talking about members of Congress that may criticize his plan. Not an actual vote.

"And to my colleagues in Congress, you will own a "no" vote," Graham said. "The next 9/11 will be your fault, not President Trump's fault, if you shoot down this plan because this is a solid plan.

 

[GURPS]

BZZZT. Their terrorist networks are our problem, too. They are a global problem.

You cannot win a Guerilla War .... well no one has the balls to do what it takes


the last country that was winning a guerilla war was the Brits against the Boers
they did it by stripping they country side of civilians supporting the Dutch Fighters and putting them in camps

which, as you can imagine was widely unpopular back home

and once you start massacring Muslims Wholesale the entire Middle East will rise up ...
[I don't care I'd gas them as well - and end this day infestation for another 1000 yrs]

 

[Chris0nllyn]

You still didn't answer the question.

So... What alternative do you propose?

Acquiesce?

I proposed we follow the Constitution. Have a sound defense and stop sticking our nose in global issues, while we have enough here at home.

Do you think what we've been doing for 16 years has been working?

 

[stgislander]

So, what? They're going to nuke us if we don't give them money?

That's bull####. I'd nuke them just for trying to shake us down.

Nooooo silly rabbit. We give them money to keep their military armed up and the nukes out of the radicals hands.

 

[vraiblonde]

Nooooo silly rabbit. We give them money to keep their military armed up and the nukes out of the radicals hands.

OIC

 

[vraiblonde]

Do you think what we've been doing for 16 years has been working?

No, which is why Trump wants to do something else.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

You cannot win a Guerilla War .... well no one has the balls to do what it takes


the last country that was winning a guerilla war was the Brits against the Boers
they did it by stripping they country side of civilians supporting the Dutch Fighters and putting them in camps

which, as you can imagine was widely unpopular back home

and once you start massacring Muslims Wholesale the entire Middle East will rise up ...
[I don't care I'd gas them as well - and end this day infestation for another 1000 yrs]

Do you gas/nuke/bomb southeast Asia also? Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia? Parts of Africa that have a large Muslim population? Bangladesh?

These are all places outside of the typical middle east that have large portions of Muslims. I understand it's cool and easy to say "hehe, let's nuke em all", "turn it into glass", etc. but if the current way we've been doing things has created ISIS, what do you think will happen across the globe when you do that? You even admit, it'll be a "massacre" because even you know there are many innocent men, women, and children in that region, and that others will "rise up" if we did so.

 

[Wishbone]

I proposed we follow the Constitution. Have a sound defense and stop sticking our nose in global issues, while we have enough here at home.

Do you think what we've been doing for 16 years has been working?

Ignore outside threats... They eventually come to your door.

How did that work out on 9/11?

I'm all for getting out of foreign entanglements, however we have terrorism here at home and in every nation in alliance.

Would you like to ignore them as well?

 

[vraiblonde]

"Keep a lid on it", at what cost? How many American service men and women have to be killed? How much money needs to be spent? How many more enemies do we need?

1) What are the cost of human lives taken by the Taliban and ISIS?
2) In our modern post Vietnam wars, Americans have very few casualties. More people in this country die from texting while driving than in combat.
3) As much as it takes. It's money well spent.
4) They're already our enemies. What, you think now they'll *really* be our enemies? Because they were just playing before?

Nothing in history points to Congress not allowing the military to do what they do best.

Um, you better bone up on your military history. Start with Vietnam and work your way forward.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

No, which is why Trump wants to do something else.

Such as? What's different?

He wants to send (an estimated) 4,000 more troops. So that'd be about 39,000 troops and contractors. In the height of the conflict we had close to 200,000 troops and contractors (there were about 100,000 troops) there between mid-2010 and mid-2012. What did those extra troops accomplish?

I know you'll say that Trump isn't letting out any military info for the enemy, thus you don't know what he'll do. I'm just asking what can be done now, that hasn't worked since 2001.

 

[Wishbone]

Um, you better bone up on your military history. Start with Vietnam and work your way forward.

Actually, we started screwing that pooch in Korea.

And we're still paying for not letting them finish that.

Hindsight being 20/20 and all... imagine no "Nuclear North Korea or China"