Another Surge In A-Stan

[Ken King]

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:

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


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.

No argument about it, it isn't a new conflict and the AUMF is still valid.

As to the President's previous position he covered that during his speech last evening, to paraphrase he said - Arm-chair quarterbacking ain't nothing like being in the game. His position has changed, though I am sure he would like to find a way to get us the Hell out of there, but now realizes it ain't that simple.

The goal, from what I got from his speech, is to prevent the mess in Afghanistan from looking like the mess after the 2011 withdrawal from Iraq, to maintain a presence until such time as the Afghans can govern themselves effectively, in the process we are going to be killing terrorists. Giving our "war fighters" the ability (and localized authority) to conduct war as necessary to eradicate those that want to make war even if it means going in to Pakistan.

 

[vraiblonde]

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

Here's where you're going astray. "Muslims" are not our enemy; terrorists are our enemy. I thought Trump was quite clear about that last night, as he's been clear about it for the last year. We have a real military with real toys and cool stuff. Carpet bombing a whole country and "turning it into glass" isn't going to happen. I can't believe you're having a debate about this with Gurps. You know he doesn't decide these things, right?

And that old meme about how "we" created ISIS - yawn yawn yawn. They don't own the world, they just want to. Our existence pisses them off, but saying that it's our fault we exist, and therefore piss them off, is hugely flawed. If you want us to stop existing so they'll stop being pissed, you go first, pal.

 

[itsbob]

I agree with Trump that we shouldn't Nation Build, I also agree with Trump that we made a YUUUUGE BIG mistake in Iraq..

We need to treat all those countries like we did German after WWII.. Have success in an area of the country then send in an occupying force to secure it.. take the further out.. occupy it..

We should have a HUGE force there for many years to come.. but after just a few short years it will be a much more peaceful force reacting to local incursions and not taking back entire states or cities.

The Middle East should be dotted with massive US bases, but allow the country to self govern.

It's what we should have done in Iraq.. By now we'd have dependents there with their soldier husbands and wives.. We'd be having tourists travel there, and military families vacationing there. American families would being raised there like they are around the world in other countries where it's worked.

Charge the host country the cost of us being there..

Don't go fight a war, sacrifice American lives, then turn around and abandon it, making all the sacrifices worthless.

 

[Gilligan]

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

A "rhetorical" vote? He was pretty specific...

"And to my colleagues in Congress, you will own a "no" vote," Graham said.

Seems an odd way to portray opposition if there is nothing to actually vote on.

 

[Wishbone]

The Middle East should be dotted with massive US bases, but allow the country to self govern.

It's what we should have done in Iraq.. By now we'd have dependents there with their soldier husbands and wives.. We'd be having tourists travel there, and military families vacationing there. American families would being raised there like they are around the world in other countries where it's worked.

Charge the host country the cost of us being there..

Don't go fight a war, sacrifice American lives, then turn around and abandon it, making all the sacrifices worthless.

In the model of the Roman Republic/Empire?

That would be a hard sell.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

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?

9/11 was a horrible tragedy, but was arguably preventable. Our intelligence agencies knew about them.

How on earth have places like Switzerland survived all this time?! Yes, we should ignore threats unless they are credible. We have all these agencies gobbling up taxpayer money like hungry hungry hippos and what do we get? What have they stopped? A handful of things? What'd they miss? What'd the TSA miss?

Freedom is dangerous, but I'm not one to want to give up my privacy for a bit of security just so the US govt. can pick and choose their terror groups to train. Just so we can bomb and kill innocent people.

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?




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

1). I'm sure it's high. And I don't want to disrespect those lives lost orthose displaced due to ISIS (only to be told, "go #### yourself" if they try looking for a new home). I just think it's going to spiral even more. It already has, and will continue to do so because no one is willing to step up and say, "what's the goal here?".

2). While technology has certainly made it safer for American troops, that's a very narrow view on this "war". Americans aren't the only ones losing lives. This "war" has killed about 1.3 million people (and that report is from 2015). This war affects many more people than just Americans.

3). I just don't understand how you can say it's money well spent. Just like the war on drugs, we've spent a metric #### ton of money to achieve no measureable goal while affecting the lives of innocent people.

4). that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that everytime we bomb them, it's easier for them to recruit. The ones that hate us won't change. We should be worried about those that may be on the fence, then change their mind when their family dies in an errant US airstrike.

Um, Congress gave authorization for Johnson to move forward with what he pleased in Vietnam. That's how it's supposed to work. Two ships fired upon in the Gulf of Tonkin, President asks Congress, Congress says go for it. Of course, this was after troops had already been there, "advising", but it was that resolution passed by Congress that gave Johnson the authority to bomb the #### out of them for 2.5 years.

I'd be more than happy to discuss any particular thing you believe Congress did that didn't allow the military to fight, but you simply saying "look it up", doesn't do much good.

 

[Wishbone]

9/11 was a horrible tragedy, but was arguably preventable. Our intelligence agencies knew about them.

How on earth have places like Switzerland survived all this time?! Yes, we should ignore threats unless they are credible. We have all these agencies gobbling up taxpayer money like hungry hungry hippos and what do we get? What have they stopped? A handful of things? What'd they miss? What'd the TSA miss?

Freedom is dangerous, but I'm not one to want to give up my privacy for a bit of security just so the US govt. can pick and choose their terror groups to train. Just so we can bomb and kill innocent people.

First, Switzerland is not a valid example. Its where all of them funnel money. Of course they're not going to attack it.

As far as freedom being dangerous, it's true, and a nice T-Shirt, but it's also not an excuse to waive all possible effort.

Let go of the "Bomb and Kill innocent people" ####. It's another subversive punch line. We don't attack the innocent, but in fighting others there is collateral damage. Unavoidable and some instances result in FF incidents.

I may not be happy about how thin we've been spread in recent decades, but I'm not ready to throw in the towel and bend over as you suggest.

 

[vraiblonde]

Freedom is dangerous, but I'm not one to want to give up my privacy for a bit of security just so the US govt. can pick and choose their terror groups to train.

And I'm not willing to give up my security for your silly "privacy". So now what?

 

[GURPS]

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

...... and that others will "rise up" if we did so.

What Others :shrug:

Thanks for pointing out countries I missed ....
Everything Else is Mitigation - how much terrorism are you willing to tolerate :shrug:

Its the ONLY way to WIN a Guerrilla WAR - Genocide they are not afraid to mass murder westerners why should be falter at the same response
That includes Muslims in the US. - Get Off My Lawn.


only 70 yrs ago, we fought a total war in Europe and The Pacific ....

 

[GURPS]

.... to maintain a presence until such time as the Afghans can govern themselves effectively ....

They are effectively Tribal or Clannish add on top that 7th Century Islamic laws ... it is a #### show that will never evolve

 

[Wishbone]

Everything Else is Mitigation - how much terrorism are you willing to tolerate :shrug:

That is the one question they wont directly answer because they'd have to admit, every American would be expendable.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

No argument about it, it isn't a new conflict and the AUMF is still valid.

As to the President's previous position he covered that during his speech last evening, to paraphrase he said - Arm-chair quarterbacking ain't nothing like being in the game. His position has changed, though I am sure he would like to find a way to get us the Hell out of there, but now realizes it ain't that simple.

The goal, from what I got from his speech, is to prevent the mess in Afghanistan from looking like the mess after the 2011 withdrawal from Iraq, to maintain a presence until such time as the Afghans can govern themselves effectively, in the process we are going to be killing terrorists. Giving our "war fighters" the ability (and localized authority) to conduct war as necessary to eradicate those that want to make war even if it means going in to Pakistan.

I get that, but I don't see how that's any different from the first time we went in there (with much more troops). It's easy to say, "yea, we're going to get em", but nothing points to it being successful this time.

I mean, what caused the initial "mess" in A-Stan? What leads you to believe this time will be any different?

Here's where you're going astray. "Muslims" are not our enemy; terrorists are our enemy. I thought Trump was quite clear about that last night, as he's been clear about it for the last year. We have a real military with real toys and cool stuff. Carpet bombing a whole country and "turning it into glass" isn't going to happen. I can't believe you're having a debate about this with Gurps. You know he doesn't decide these things, right?

And that old meme about how "we" created ISIS - yawn yawn yawn. They don't own the world, they just want to. Our existence pisses them off, but saying that it's our fault we exist, and therefore piss them off, is hugely flawed. If you want us to stop existing so they'll stop being pissed, you go first, pal.

I'm not going astray. I was discussing GURPS' statement that Muslims would be mad is we started gassing people. It's what I've been saying all along. You kill innocent people, it's easier to recruit more terrorists.

I'm having a debate with multiple people here that don;t make these decisions. Should we, as Americans and voters, sit back and say "well, no sense in talking about this, we don't make the decisions."? That's silly.

You're discussing why they don't like us, not why/how they were founded. It's a very complex issue, but if your claim is that idea if "higely flawed", I'm curious why you think so.

A "rhetorical" vote? He was pretty specific...

Seems an odd way to portray opposition if there is nothing to actually vote on.

I understand he was specific in saying the word "vote", but there's nothing to vote on. He was basically saying that if anyone has a problem with it, you're at fault if anything happens again.

If it seems odd, remembere that Graham said it.

 

[GURPS]

That is the one question they wont directly answer because they'd have to admit, every American would be expendable.

Radical Islam isn't going anywhere ... and Muslim that doesn't actively not stand against it

- and not some;

Taqiyya has also been politically legitimised, particularly among Twelver Shias, in order to maintain unity among Muslims and fraternity among the Shia clerics. Yarden Mariuma writes: "Taqiyya is an Islamic juridical term whose shifting meaning relates to when a Muslim is allowed, under Sharia law, to lie.

that CAIR and others Practice, is complicit in the deaths of all attacked by Islamist's.

 

[GURPS]

I'm not going astray. I was discussing GURPS' statement that Muslims would be mad is we started gassing people.

well regardless they are not going to state liking us or tolerating westerners .... that cat got out of the bag in the 90's

Radicalized Islamist's are here to stay

 

[Chris0nllyn]

First, Switzerland is not a valid example. Its where all of them funnel money. Of course they're not going to attack it.

As far as freedom being dangerous, it's true, and a nice T-Shirt, but it's also not an excuse to waive all possible effort.

Let go of the "Bomb and Kill innocent people" ####. It's another subversive punch line. We don't attack the innocent, but in fighting others there is collateral damage. Unavoidable and some instances result in FF incidents.

I may not be happy about how thin we've been spread in recent decades, but I'm not ready to throw in the towel and bend over as you suggest.

Switzerland is an example of a country that has their own defense, but doesn't stick their noses in global conflicts. Seems to be working out for them.

No one is suggesting "waiving all possible effort", but does the US need to be giving the most effort?

Again, no one is suggesting we attack the innocent, just pointing out that carte blanche bombing raids are likely going to kill innocent people. The more that happens, the easier to recruit more insurgents. Yes, innocent people die in war (even if it's one we create).

I don;t like losing either. So what's the goal? What would you consider to be a tangible victory against a mindset?

And I'm not willing to give up my security for your silly "privacy". So now what?

Nothing. We're getting what you believe to be the right course of action. Silly me for expecting some privacy in this country.

how much terrorism are you willing to tolerate :shrug:

None. One does not have to tolerate it to understand the perils of the war we've waged for over a decade and a half (with no end in sight). I don't have to tolerate terrorism to understand this "war" cannot be won.

You admitted we can't. So what do we do? What is winning? Simply having a military presense?

 

[vraiblonde]

Nothing. We're getting what you believe to be the right course of action. Silly me for expecting some privacy in this country.

I don't know what ever made you think you had "privacy" in this or any country. Seriously, what privacy are you talking about?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

well regardless they are not going to state liking us or tolerating westerners .... that cat got out of the bag in the 90's

Radicalized Islamist's are here to stay

I could care less who "likes" us. I don't expect the whole world to hold their collective hand and since campfire songs.

If they're here to stay, should we expect more security? God forbid something happens with another plane. Would you be okay with individual strip searches? Road blocks? Citizen checks?

We watched our privacy rights (regardless of how much you care about them) errode away due to terrorism. Is that winning? Govt. gets more power, one terrorist group goes silent while another pops up, and we get the shaft?

At what point do we, as Americans, with (perceived) rights , ask ourselves why we're being treated as suspects. Why we must live in fear. Isn;t that sort of them winning? Allowing us to be so fearful that we re-shape what made this country fgreat in the first place?

 

[Wishbone]

What would you consider to be a tangible victory against a mindset?

The only victory that would bring "Actual" tangible peace would be if you could only find a muslim in the encyclopedia.

It may not be sensitive or popular but it is accurate. Wherever that religion resides violence rises and spreads.

 

[vraiblonde]

I could care less who "likes" us. I don't expect the whole world to hold their collective hand and since campfire songs.

No, but I do think it's reasonable to insist that they don't blow us up and kill us.

I don't live in fear. I have never been strip searched at a checkpoint. I have never had my door kicked in by government thugs. Have you? Please enumerate what rights you personally have had violated in the name of security. Be specific. I'm guessing, judging by your hysterical language, that you get strip searched on a daily basis when the jackboots kick in your door, and that you can't even drive to work without being stopped and searched, amirite?

So tell us about it. Make me feel your outrage.

 

[Gilligan]

Switzerland is an example of a country that has their own defense, but doesn't stick their noses in global conflicts. Seems to be working out for them.

Switzerland is an example of a teeny tiny country (8.5 million people) with remarkable natural barriers, a defense force to be reckoned with, and a knack for becoming banker to the world a long time ago. So they have nothing anyone really wants to take and they provide banking services that historically everyone wants to keep around.

So explain how the US could/would/should "act like Switzerland:".