The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

Don't forget that Japan was forced to unconditionally surrender to end WWII. They formally signed the papers aboard one of our battleships shortly after the Hiroshima/Nagasaki attacks.

Japan was already on the verge of collapse -before- the bombs got dropped.
Did Japanese ideology die on Missouri as well?

[Ian-S]

What would be the point of deliberately losing?

Well if he's been working for the Clintons all along (a few areas of the Internet believe this), then winning wouldn't be part of the plan.

[Coco Pops]

LOL "Bad Obama"


gets out pens and paper.

Movie idea.

"Bad President"

[Womble]

Have the Russians declared victory?
Is ISIS gone?

You don't need to declare victory, you need to achieve it and then you might as well not proclaim it at all. The Russians have certainly turned the tide of the war, wouldn't you say?

Wars for land and resources have been won, Wars of ideology?
Crusades - fail
Inquisition - fail
Final solution - fail
Sunni Vs ****e -fail

Every war was fought for land and resources in one way or another, and every war was for ideology.

The Crusades were not in any sense a fail. People simply forget that the Crusades weren't a single war but a multitude of separate wars over a time span of 400 years. Most of these wars were tremendously successful. Spain was reconquered, for one. Christian control over the Mediterranian Sea was established and maintained ever since, leading to the rise of seafaring powers like Venice and the Republic of Ragusa. The Turks' westward expansion was halted. Even when talking about the Crusader states in the Levant, one should not forget that the majority of them survived for over a century - longer than the majority of modern states have existed on world map. The Kingdom of Cyprus, in particular, continued to exist for 300 years.

The Inquisition... was not a war.

"Final solution"... was not a war. It was something the Nazis attempted during World War II - a great example of definitively concluded wars, you just need to look at the Allies's side and not, bizarrely, at the Nazis' side.

The Sunni vs. Shia conflict... was not a war but a series of local conflicts over some 1400 years. Drawing some sort of unifying conclusions about it is rather ill-advised.

[Womble]

What would be the point of deliberately losing?

Think of it this way: Trump wanted to enter the race and win. He may be starting to realize that being a President is not actually a reality show about an all-powerful man ruling the world by decree. He wants to win but not to govern, so he may get far enough ahead to proclaim a win, then quit.

[Womble]

Reporter loses cool over State Department weasel-wording over Clinton Foundation ties.

[Womble]

Japan was already on the verge of collapse -before- the bombs got dropped.
Did Japanese ideology die on Missouri as well?

In most ways, yes. The Empire was dissolved, Shinto was terminated as a state religion, divinity of the Emperor was denied, Sh?wa nationalism went into quick decline.

[Gatefan1976]

You don't need to declare victory, you need to achieve it and then you might as well not proclaim it at all. The Russians have certainly turned the tide of the war, wouldn't you say?

No, I would not. ISIS has not surrendered, nor stopped performing terrorist acts. They just outsource them more.

Every war was fought for land and resources in one way or another, and every war was for ideology.

Wrong.
So dreadfully wrong.

The Crusades were not in any sense a fail. People simply forget that the Crusades weren't a single war but a multitude of separate wars over a time span of 400 years. Most of these wars were tremendously successful. Spain was reconquered, for one. Christian control over the Mediterranian Sea was established and maintained ever since, leading to the rise of seafaring powers like Venice and the Republic of Ragusa. The Turks' westward expansion was halted. Even when talking about the Crusader states in the Levant, one should not forget that the majority of them survived for over a century - longer than the majority of modern states have existed on world map. The Kingdom of Cyprus, in particular, continued to exist for 300 years.

Did they wipe out Islam? That -was- their stated goal, to destroy the infidel.
FAIL.

The Inquisition... was not a war.

Ideologically, it was.

"Final solution"... was not a war. It was something the Nazis attempted during World War II - a great example of definitively concluded wars, you just need to look at the Allies's side and not, bizarrely, at the Nazis' side.

The very existence of the nation you now call home would make it a fail. As for the Allies, I believe they are still granting Israel money in the form of military aid are they not?
If you somehow mean that WW2 was ended definitively, yes, it was. The existence of Japanese ideology and the neo-Nazi movement however proves that the ideologies involved did not end with the war.

The Sunni vs. Shia conflict... was not a war but a series of local conflicts over some 1400 years. Drawing some sort of unifying conclusions about it is rather ill-advised.

[/quote]
Not a war, "just a series of conflicts"??
<snipped> is a war but a series of conflicts??
It wasn't the "Hundred year series of conflicts with a lot of dead people on both sides", was it?

By Wotan's Ravens man, I -specifically- stated Ideological war, and all you have done is try to compare wars for land and to -stop- the spread of an ideology "sometimes". Yet Every SINGLE ideology still exists -today-. They have not been "defeated", they have -at best- been put into "silent running". ISIS could loose every bit of land it claims -right now-, and it will not stop madmen doing acts "in their name", anymore than Secularism has stopped Christianity doing things in Gods name.

[garhkal]

Reporter loses cool over State Department weasel-wording over Clinton Foundation ties.

YEESH.. They can't even answer a question without dancing all around it..

[garhkal]

Even though its a novel, have a gander at the blurb from it.. Wrote by Steven Coonts.. Called Libertys last stand

President Barry Soetoro, the villain of bestseller Coonts's provocative thriller, is due to leave office in five months when he uses a convenient terrorist attack to declare martial law, adjourn Congress, suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and become the dictator of the United States. He fires CIA director Jake Grafton (last seen in 2013's Pirate Alley) and throws him in a federal detention center in West Virginia along with hundreds of conservative politicians and political commentators. Grafton's ex-CIA pal, Tommy Carmellini (also last seen in Pirate Alley), decides he's going to bust his old boss out of jail. Meanwhile, Texas secedes from the union and begins seizing U.S. military bases. Soetoro's opponents have a long list of gripes: he's a "self-proclaimed black messiah," "Soetorocare" is a disaster, and EPA regulations are "designed to save the climate at the expense of the working men and women of Texas." Coonts's excellent action scenes, which shift between Tommy's jailbreak scheme and the civil war with Texas, grind to a halt as characters stop to give fervent speeches about freedom.

[Gatefan1976]

Read "The Dead Zone" By Stephen King.

[thekillman]

It's fascinating really, this logic. I'm trying to project it back in time and can't help but wonder how any of the wars in human history have ever been won. What was different back then that wars actually got conclusions?

Considering the US, Russia and Turkey can't agree on who's exactly a terrorist in Syria, do you really think it will come to a resolution if we move in the troops? It'll only worsen things.

Of course, our situation could change drastically if we agreed with the other parties, bombed the rebels and the kurds into oblivion and helped back Assad into power. The situation would be resolved really fast. It would also betray almost everything we stand for and backstab a bunch of allies.

Other options would be to actively declare war on Syria, which would antagonize russia or actively empower the Kurds which would antagonize Turkey. None of them are appealing which is why we're in this situation.

To answer your question, wars in the past were won with murder. A lot of it. Dead people can't object. If we murdered everyone in Syria until they purely agreed with one party, it would be solved. But then we're at war with a bunch of other nations with a whole lot more sting than a couple of bombs, knives and a truck.

Which, again, is why we're in this situation.

It wasn't the "Hundred year series of conflicts with a lot of dead people on both sides", was it?

Ironic, but the hundred years war was more "a series of wars over a hundred years". Same goes for the Eighty Years War. Wars rarely lasted THAT long, and compared to some modern wars, "series of conflicts" may have been more appropriate for some wars.

[Gatefan1976]

Ironic, but the hundred years war was more "a series of wars over a hundred years". Same goes for the Eighty Years War. Wars rarely lasted THAT long, and compared to some modern wars, "series of conflicts" may have been more appropriate for some wars.

Forgive me some exaggeration on the point

[garhkal]

Read "The Dead Zone" By Stephen King.

I loved it. And for ME the film was a lot better than the book (only the 2nd of his novels where that imo was the case, the other being firestarter).

[mad_gater]

Considering the US, Russia and Turkey can't agree on who's exactly a terrorist in Syria, do you really think it will come to a resolution if we move in the troops? It'll only worsen things.

Of course, our situation could change drastically if we agreed with the other parties, bombed the rebels and the kurds into oblivion and helped back Assad into power. The situation would be resolved really fast. It would also betray almost everything we stand for and backstab a bunch of allies.

Other options would be to actively declare war on Syria, which would antagonize russia or actively empower the Kurds which would antagonize Turkey. None of them are appealing which is why we're in this situation.

To answer your question, wars in the past were won with murder. A lot of it. Dead people can't object. If we murdered everyone in Syria until they purely agreed with one party, it would be solved. But then we're at war with a bunch of other nations with a whole lot more sting than a couple of bombs, knives and a truck.

Which, again, is why we're in this situation.



Ironic, but the hundred years war was more "a series of wars over a hundred years". Same goes for the Eighty Years War. Wars rarely lasted THAT long, and compared to some modern wars, "series of conflicts" may have been more appropriate for some wars.

you do realize that there is a HUGE difference between killing in cold blood, i.e., killing merely for the sake of killing, and the just use of force in defense of oneself, others, property, and country, right?