Page 1421 of 1421 FirstFirst ... 4219211321137114111418141914201421
Results 28,401 to 28,416 of 28416
  1. #28401
    Lieutenant General thekillman's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2007
    Location
    My Throne in Heaven
    Posts
    18,659

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Coco Pops View Post
    I don't understand Russia's endgame.

    Why prop up someone like Assad?
    It's not about Assad or Syria. Russia wants to show that it'll defend it's allies to the death, while showing the West will throw anyone before the lions if it's inconvenient. Any former Soviet state, the entire east block, is what he's looking to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coco Pops View Post
    So hang on if the USA attacks Syria Russia gets angry.

    But if we tell Russia they move all the nice toys out of the way so that nothing gets damaged.

    The whole thing is fishy.

    Oh and Russia blames the UK for the chemical attack.

    Fishy
    It's just diplomacy. Trump shoots missile so it looks like he condemns gas attacks. he tells Russia so he hits nothing important (and so can neither frustrate their mission, nor escalate a war). To those that care, Trump looks good. To those that care, Russia looks good. Nothing really changes. Assad showed that he can do whatever he wants in his own country. Everyone wins, except Syrians of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by SGalisa View Post
    I also read elsewhere on another discussion site about this that people were saying this looks more like theatrics just to remove some stuff that was already unwanted out of the way... but the other "actors" in the picture didn't want to do the dirty deed (by spending their money to do it, instead).
    Do you really think that if Russia or Assad wants something out of the way, they'll inform the West about it? Russia can do whatever it wants in Syria, it has the air superiority.

    Assad showed to his rebels that he can get away with everything. Bullets is one thing, but nothing is as terror-inducing as gas attacks. Russia showed it backs assad all the way. Trump shows strongman theatrics. Signalling the attack means it neither achieves nor frustrates anything.

    Remember the last time he ordered a strike, it hit almost nothing of importance? yea.
    Last edited by thekillman; April 16th, 2018 at 12:51 AM.

  2. #28402
    General Falcon Horus's Avatar
    Member Since
    May 2004
    Location
    Atlantis
    Posts
    31,332

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    Was gonna make a reply to some quotes, but TheKillman pretty much covered it.
    The Tale of Heightmeyer's Lemming by Falcon Horus
    http://forum.gateworld.net/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=1201&dateline=1311771170
    icon & signature by Falcon Horus || The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research || Pharaoh Hamenthotep @ Patreon

  3. #28403
    Lieutenant General thekillman's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2007
    Location
    My Throne in Heaven
    Posts
    18,659

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Falcon Horus View Post
    Was gonna make a reply to some quotes, but TheKillman pretty much covered it.
    Thanks.

    But yea, Trump's attitude to Russia didn't change. Russia's intention and Assad's intention didn't change.

  4. #28404
    Colonel
    Member Since
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Travelling the river Iss
    Posts
    6,992

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    So what happens if Trump goes off script and attacks something he shouldn't?

  5. #28405
    Major General LtColCarter's Avatar
    Member Since
    May 2004
    Location
    Mesquite, TX
    Posts
    13,911

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Coco Pops View Post
    So what happens if Trump goes off script and attacks something he shouldn't?
    I pray we don't have to find out...

  6. #28406

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    He'll claim it never happened and blame someone someone else
    Quote Originally Posted by aretood2 View Post
    Jelgate is right

  7. #28407
    Major General LtColCarter's Avatar
    Member Since
    May 2004
    Location
    Mesquite, TX
    Posts
    13,911

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by jelgate View Post
    He'll claim it never happened and blame someone someone else
    Yes...Mango Mussolini is quite adept at attempting to device and misdirect. Only thing is...he's not that good at it and ALWAYS gets caught.

  8. #28408
    Lieutenant General thekillman's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2007
    Location
    My Throne in Heaven
    Posts
    18,659

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Coco Pops View Post
    So what happens if Trump goes off script and attacks something he shouldn't?
    I don't think he gets to choose what to attack, nor do i think he really cares about what gets attacked. It's what generals are for.

  9. #28409
    Captain
    Member Since
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,337

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Coco Pops View Post
    I don't understand Russia's endgame.

    Why prop up someone like Assad?
    Simply put, Russia is establishing itself as a superpower equal or stronger than the USA, and it's doing it the only way it knows how.

    Russia doesn't have the economy to play in the USA or China's league, but it does have the military power. So that is the only way they can make a play for big league status. Obama screwed up tremendously on all things Syria - first by refusing to back the moderate rebel factions and spinning Assad as a reasonable man willing to make compromises, then by drawing a line in the sand over Assad's chemical warfare only to prove that he would not put his military where his mouth was. He didn't even have the excuse of fearing open conflict with Russia at the time because Russia didn't have boots on the ground in Syria.

    So with Obama's help, Russia edged the USA off the Syrian war theater with the faux-compromise of disarming Syria of chemical weapons (does anyone remember that Assad wasn't supposed to have any since 2015?), then moved in the troops at Assad's invitation and 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.

    I don't believe that the Russians would risk open conflict with a USA administration that showed genuine willingness to stare them down, because up until now, every time they were met with armed response they did not fire back but rather responded "asymmetrically" through economic or diplomatic means of retaliation. They did not risk open conflict with Turkey, a far lesser power, when a Russian warplane was shot down. They do not stop Israeli air raids on Syrian military bases and their weapons supplies to Hezbollah. If the USA was determined to hit Syria hard, Russia would not have stood in the way. The fear of World war III is mainly in the mind of fearful politicos.
    If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.- Abba Eban.

  10. #28410
    Brigadier General aretood2's Avatar
    Member Since
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Contemplating the meaning of Logic
    Posts
    9,932

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Womble View Post
    Simply put, Russia is establishing itself as a superpower equal or stronger than the USA, and it's doing it the only way it knows how.

    Russia doesn't have the economy to play in the USA or China's league, but it does have the military power. So that is the only way they can make a play for big league status. Obama screwed up tremendously on all things Syria - first by refusing to back the moderate rebel factions and spinning Assad as a reasonable man willing to make compromises, then by drawing a line in the sand over Assad's chemical warfare only to prove that he would not put his military where his mouth was. He didn't even have the excuse of fearing open conflict with Russia at the time because Russia didn't have boots on the ground in Syria.

    So with Obama's help, Russia edged the USA off the Syrian war theater with the faux-compromise of disarming Syria of chemical weapons (does anyone remember that Assad wasn't supposed to have any since 2015?), then moved in the troops at Assad's invitation and 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.

    I don't believe that the Russians would risk open conflict with a USA administration that showed genuine willingness to stare them down, because up until now, every time they were met with armed response they did not fire back but rather responded "asymmetrically" through economic or diplomatic means of retaliation. They did not risk open conflict with Turkey, a far lesser power, when a Russian warplane was shot down. They do not stop Israeli air raids on Syrian military bases and their weapons supplies to Hezbollah. If the USA was determined to hit Syria hard, Russia would not have stood in the way. The fear of World war III is mainly in the mind of fearful politicos.
    If anything, we made Russia even more bold in its actions by tip toeing around it. The last strike should have gone after more military targets as a punitive measure and that's what it lacked, punitive measures. It was just a reaction that would only qualify as a mild annoyance and minor setback for Assad. Now they are more willing to play brinkmanship than before, each instance of cowardice actually brings conflict closer. I mean...did anyone not learn anything from Chamberlain's "peace in our time"?

  11. #28411
    Colonel
    Member Since
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Travelling the river Iss
    Posts
    6,992

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    Hey guys Nikki has game.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...t-get-confused


    Do you think she'll be the next one fired?

  12. #28412
    Colonel
    Member Since
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Travelling the river Iss
    Posts
    6,992

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Womble View Post
    Simply put, Russia is establishing itself as a superpower equal or stronger than the USA, and it's doing it the only way it knows how.

    Russia doesn't have the economy to play in the USA or China's league, but it does have the military power. So that is the only way they can make a play for big league status. Obama screwed up tremendously on all things Syria - first by refusing to back the moderate rebel factions and spinning Assad as a reasonable man willing to make compromises, then by drawing a line in the sand over Assad's chemical warfare only to prove that he would not put his military where his mouth was. He didn't even have the excuse of fearing open conflict with Russia at the time because Russia didn't have boots on the ground in Syria.

    So with Obama's help, Russia edged the USA off the Syrian war theater with the faux-compromise of disarming Syria of chemical weapons (does anyone remember that Assad wasn't supposed to have any since 2015?), then moved in the troops at Assad's invitation and 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.

    I don't believe that the Russians would risk open conflict with a USA administration that showed genuine willingness to stare them down, because up until now, every time they were met with armed response they did not fire back but rather responded "asymmetrically" through economic or diplomatic means of retaliation. They did not risk open conflict with Turkey, a far lesser power, when a Russian warplane was shot down. They do not stop Israeli air raids on Syrian military bases and their weapons supplies to Hezbollah. If the USA was determined to hit Syria hard, Russia would not have stood in the way. The fear of World war III is mainly in the mind of fearful politicos.


    Russia is playing the long game.

  13. #28413
    Lieutenant General thekillman's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2007
    Location
    My Throne in Heaven
    Posts
    18,659

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Womble View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Womble View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by aretood2 View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by aretood2 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by thekillman; April 18th, 2018 at 10:06 PM.

  14. #28414
    Captain
    Member Since
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,337

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by thekillman View Post
    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.
    If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.- Abba Eban.

  15. #28415
    Major Annoyed's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 2014
    Location
    The People's Republic of New York
    Posts
    2,055

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Womble View Post
    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.
    "It may seem pointless but small talk is a vital dating skill. It helps to establish a rapport with your companion."
    - Starship Voyager's Holographic Doctor
    "Perhaps there's something to be said for assimilation after all."
    - Former Borg Seven of Nine

  16. #28416
    Colonel mad_gater's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    Posts
    6,759

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Womble View Post
    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

Tags for this Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3363
    Last Post: March 5th, 2008, 10:02 AM
  2. Political Discussion: The proper place of the Law
    By uknesvuinng in forum Off-Topic Chatter
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 28th, 2007, 11:37 AM
  3. The WW2 Discussion Thread
    By the_dark_light in forum Off-Topic Chatter
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: July 20th, 2007, 12:12 AM
  4. X-Men III Discussion Thread
    By twiggy in forum Marvel Universe (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)
    Replies: 138
    Last Post: October 6th, 2006, 10:12 PM
  5. Replies: 38
    Last Post: August 25th, 2004, 08:56 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •