The Political Discussion Thread

[thekillman]

Obama screwed up tremendously on all things Syria

Not sure how Obama could've sold your plan though. After the Afghanistan/Iraq/Libia fiasco and fresh off a major crisis, there weren't many willing to go for yet another trillion dollar adventure. Bush poisoned that chalice. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, and Syria was just being another Iraq.

disproved the great myths of Western leftist politics - that war as a means of advancing politics is over, that war doesn't solve anything and that military power cannot put down insurgencies. Russia has accomplished in Syria in under two years what the entire Western alliance failed to accomplish in Afghanistan and Iraq in over 15 years - apparently, if you hit hard enough and do not let your war effort get paralyzed by navel-gazing "humanitarian" inquisitors, military power produces indisputable results.

War hasn't accomplished anything for the west. I think that has proven to be quite right. Russia doesn't care about anything that isn't directly tied to it's oligarchy. If that's the price to pay for successful military intervention, i don't want to pay it.

Secondly, indiscriminate bombing by Russia (and others) is what's causing this massive population displacement in the first place. I know the US doesn't notice anything of that, but the EU does, and there's no way the US could sell such a plan to it's allies.

If anything, we made Russia even more bold in its actions by tip toeing around it.

They know that the string of failures regarding the Middle East have poisoned the chalice of war. People are tired of the lies and half-assed attempts coupled with huge costs, and no results. Well, no positive results. If screwing up the region counts as a result, then bush did a great job. Why'd you think Obama couldn't warm up an ally for another intervention?

I mean...did anyone not learn anything from Chamberlain's "peace in our time"?

Well, the last time a country tried the patience of war-weary western countries, it led to WWII. Can't play a game of chicken without being prepared to face the consequences.

[Womble]

Not sure how Obama could've sold your plan though. After the Afghanistan/Iraq/Libia fiasco and fresh off a major crisis, there weren't many willing to go for yet another trillion dollar adventure. Bush poisoned that chalice. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, and Syria was just being another Iraq.

What do you mean "could've sold"? He sold everything else.

He DIDN'T want to sell it. Involvement in Syria had to be sold TO HIM for 3 years before he even authorized training Syrian rebels in Jordan in 2013. Crucial time was lost and the insurgent groups that were funded by the Islamic radicals made too many gains, edging everyone else out. It also gave Assad time to regroup.

Syria and Libya were decisions that had to have been taken at the same time, in 2011. Obama "led from behind" in Libya (as the popular phrase was back then) - he was dragged into Libya kicking and screaming by European allies for whom Libya was a close-to-home threat.

The worst thing was drawing a red line and then not following through when his bluff was called. When the USA President does that, he demolishes the credibility of his country and the entire Western block, which is exactly what happened. Obama and John Kerry's mad scrambling for an excuse to not make good on their own promises paved the way for Russia's rise and the West's geopolitical decline on global scale.

War hasn't accomplished anything for the west. I think that has proven to be quite right. Russia doesn't care about anything that isn't directly tied to it's oligarchy. If that's the price to pay for successful military intervention, i don't want to pay it.

Don't mix unrelated stuff into this. Russia's corruption has nothing to do with it's military effectiveness; if anything, it hinders it.

War hasn't accomplished anything for the West because you don't go into war because of the preoccupation with the process over the result. Wars are fought in order to be won; everything else is secondary. You don't go to war in order to get out by year X; you don't go to war in order to not cause civilian casualties under any circumstances; you don't go to war to negotiate and make a deal, you don't go to war for virtue signalling. You go to war to accomplish clearly defined goals; how you fight cannot be more important than why you fight, or you lose.

Secondly, indiscriminate bombing by Russia (and others) is what's causing this massive population displacement in the first place. I know the US doesn't notice anything of that, but the EU does, and there's no way the US could sell such a plan to it's allies.

Rubbish. Mass migration from Syria well precedes the direct Russian involvement. Russia had contributed to it, yes, but Assad and ISIS caused it.

They know that the string of failures regarding the Middle East have poisoned the chalice of war. People are tired of the lies and half-assed attempts coupled with huge costs, and no results. Well, no positive results. If screwing up the region counts as a result, then bush did a great job. Why'd you think Obama couldn't warm up an ally for another intervention?

Again, it's not that he couldn't warm them up, they couldn't warm HIM up. The French were on board with Syria intervention in 2013, it's Obama who was not.

Well, the last time a country tried the patience of war-weary western countries, it led to WWII. Can't play a game of chicken without being prepared to face the consequences.

May I remind you that Germany conquered nearly all of war-weary Europe within weeks per country during World War II, and was only eventually beaten by a trio of countries in which:

One - USSR - signed a peace treaty with Hitler to carve up Europe between them, then was attacked anyway but was too large to quickly conquer.

Another - Britain - took its promises seriously enough to involve itself into a multi-year devastating conflict to defend a faraway East European ally. They did not have to do it; Poland's other ally, France, chose not to.

And the third one - USA - was not subject to war weariness and chose to throw itself into a war which was an ocean away and which it could well have sat out.

[Annoyed]

And the third one - USA - was not subject to war weariness and chose to throw itself into a war which was an ocean away and which it could well have sat out.

Once Japan attacked Pearl, our entry was locked in. There is no way we could have or should have stayed out after that.

And we were involved before that, but in a non-military capacity, providing arms and supplies to Britain and other allies. And that was a good thing. There is no way that Britain could have held out against Germany if we hadn't.

[mad_gater]

What do you mean "could've sold"? He sold everything else.

He DIDN'T want to sell it. Involvement in Syria had to be sold TO HIM for 3 years before he even authorized training Syrian rebels in Jordan in 2013. Crucial time was lost and the insurgent groups that were funded by the Islamic radicals made too many gains, edging everyone else out. It also gave Assad time to regroup.

Syria and Libya were decisions that had to have been taken at the same time, in 2011. Obama "led from behind" in Libya (as the popular phrase was back then) - he was dragged into Libya kicking and screaming by European allies for whom Libya was a close-to-home threat.

The worst thing was drawing a red line and then not following through when his bluff was called. When the USA President does that, he demolishes the credibility of his country and the entire Western block, which is exactly what happened. Obama and John Kerry's mad scrambling for an excuse to not make good on their own promises paved the way for Russia's rise and the West's geopolitical decline on global scale.


Don't mix unrelated stuff into this. Russia's corruption has nothing to do with it's military effectiveness; if anything, it hinders it.

War hasn't accomplished anything for the West because you don't go into war because of the preoccupation with the process over the result. Wars are fought in order to be won; everything else is secondary. You don't go to war in order to get out by year X; you don't go to war in order to not cause civilian casualties under any circumstances; you don't go to war to negotiate and make a deal, you don't go to war for virtue signalling. You go to war to accomplish clearly defined goals; how you fight cannot be more important than why you fight, or you lose.


Rubbish. Mass migration from Syria well precedes the direct Russian involvement. Russia had contributed to it, yes, but Assad and ISIS caused it.


Again, it's not that he couldn't warm them up, they couldn't warm HIM up. The French were on board with Syria intervention in 2013, it's Obama who was not.


May I remind you that Germany conquered nearly all of war-weary Europe within weeks per country during World War II, and was only eventually beaten by a trio of countries in which:

One - USSR - signed a peace treaty with Hitler to carve up Europe between them, then was attacked anyway but was too large to quickly conquer.

Another - Britain - took its promises seriously enough to involve itself into a multi-year devastating conflict to defend a faraway East European ally. They did not have to do it; Poland's other ally, France, chose not to.

And the third one - USA - was not subject to war weariness and chose to throw itself into a war which was an ocean away and which it could well have sat out.

in addition to the sheer size of the USSR, there's also the fact that the USSR gets so cold that the fuel lines would frequently freeze solid, which led to the very risky maneuver some of their drivers would try involving lighting fires under their tanks to unfreeze the fuel lines, and also so cold that the German soldiers themselves often literally froze to death at their posts

kinda hard to mount an offensive in a country that gets so cold that you can't get your vehicles started and your soldiers are literally freezing to death

[Womble]

in addition to the sheer size of the USSR, there's also the fact that the USSR gets so cold that the fuel lines would frequently freeze solid, which led to the very risky maneuver some of their drivers would try involving lighting fires under their tanks to unfreeze the fuel lines, and also so cold that the German soldiers themselves often literally froze to death at their posts

kinda hard to mount an offensive in a country that gets so cold that you can't get your vehicles started and your soldiers are literally freezing to death

I am guessing the Russians were having a tropical summer and their tanks ran flawlessly?

The Germans kind of knew that Russian winter would screw things up, which is why they launched Operation Barbarossa in the middle of summer, June 22. The reason they failed to wrap up their offensive before winter was that Russia was too damn big. The German offensive was successful but it had to cover such huge territory, and that territory was so dense with forests and marshes and so poor with roads - that by November the German army was exhausted, their tanks in poor mechanical condition, their supply lines overstretched and their fuel and ammunition stocks depleted.

[mad_gater]

I am guessing the Russians were having a tropical summer and their tanks ran flawlessly?

The Germans kind of knew that Russian winter would screw things up, which is why they launched Operation Barbarossa in the middle of summer, June 22. The reason they failed to wrap up their offensive before winter was that Russia was too damn big. The German offensive was successful but it had to cover such huge territory, and that territory was so dense with forests and marshes and so poor with roads - that by November the German army was exhausted, their tanks in poor mechanical condition, their supply lines overstretched and their fuel and ammunition stocks depleted.

to the Russians average winter weather might very well indeed be a tropical summer

and yes the size of the country also played a part in their offensive breaking down

[Annoyed]

Several time, I've noted the positive long term benefits of Trump's tax reform plan for high tax states such as NY.
This is a rather nice article detailing this process. In short, it's going to FORCE high-spending, high tax states to stifle their tax and spend habits, which in the long run, will be beneficial to the residents of states who are forced to cut taxes or die.

So Long, California. Sayonara, New York

[VampyreWraith]

Several time, I've noted the positive long term benefits of Trump's tax reform plan for high tax states such as NY.
This is a rather nice article detailing this process. In short, it's going to FORCE high-spending, high tax states to stifle their tax and spend habits, which in the long run, will be beneficial to the residents of states who are forced to cut taxes or die.

So Long, California. Sayonara, New York

I couldn't read that article you linked to because the site wanted me to either subscribe or sign in to read the whole thing and I didn't feel like doing either, so I can't comment on your comments on the article, but I ran into this article today that mentions the one in the link in your post and it has a counter-argument to at least part of it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/taxe...ob-fb-enus-280

[Annoyed]

I couldn't read that article you linked to because the site wanted me to either subscribe or sign in to read the whole thing and I didn't feel like doing either, so I can't comment on your comments on the article, but I ran into this article today that mentions the one in the link in your post and it has a counter-argument to at least part of it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/taxe...ob-fb-enus-280

That is odd.. I do not subscribe to that site. However, the link to that site in the article you linked does work for me, anyway.

I presume you refer to:

He said that California, New York and New Jersey have been high-tax states for decades and they still have the highest per capita concentration of rich people in the country.

Until now, those taxpayers in high tax states have had those high taxes partially subsidized by deducting them from the fed taxes. That is what has gone away, and will provide more incentive to leave greedy states.

[Coco Pops]

Is the President scared of a little Press dinner?

2 years in a row he's avoided going to that event and now rants that it is a bunch of phoney baloney.

Wasn't it being in the media that made him famous? Yet there is this rather irrational hatred of the media on display but then that's for his voter base who are probably as smart as cinder blocks.

[Annoyed]

Is the President scared of a little Press dinner?

2 years in a row he's avoided going to that event and now rants that it is a bunch of phoney baloney.

Wasn't it being in the media that made him famous? Yet there is this rather irrational hatred of the media on display but then that's for his voter base who are probably as smart as cinder blocks.

Well, considering how hostile the majority of the media is and has been to his candidacy, his agenda, his administration and every other aspect since he announced his run for office, I can't blame him for telling them to take a hike. They have more than earned his scorn.

[jelgate]

Trump just doesn't like how the media calls him out on his lies

[Annoyed]

However, they didn't seem interested in calling out the former sorry excuse for a president on his lines.. You know, whoppers like "If you like your doctor/current healthplan/etc, you can keep them", or that the ACA would lower health care costs and make it more affordable. Those are just two of the more well known ones. There are many others. But the media didn't seem interested in calling him out, did they?

[jelgate]

I can finally finish that scarecrow with all the straw Annoyed gave me

[Coco Pops]

Sorry the current president is very thin skinned and can't take criticism at all.....

Remember that press dinner when Obama brought out his birth certificate? Wasn't it a certain person that started this movement saying he wasn't an American and then when shown the proof his face looked like he was ready to explode because he's so thin skinned?

Do explain..

Because of that act we are here with this sorry excuse for a President.