Jump to content
Ansem

General US Politics

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Excellen Browning said:

Are you willfully ignorant of the last 100-120 years of history between Turks and Kurds?

I'll willfully admit my ignorance on the topic of Kurds. My first exposure was the character Sniper Wolf from Metal Gear Solid. But I don't take much stock in that game's application of real world politics since they also irresponsibly used Gulf War Syndrome as part of its in-universe science fiction. I can't prove Gulf War Syndrome wasn't a real thing, but in 1997 it was very much mired in conspiracy theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the Emoluments Clause needs a new name. Pass a Constitutional amendment to rename it the "No Getting Rich While Working, Politicians! Law". The term by itself is hard for Americans to grasp.

 

1 minute ago, Glennstavos said:

I'll willfully admit my ignorance on the topic of Kurds.

It's a lot of bad blood and conflict between the two groups. Turkey wanting to culturally if not physically eradicate all that is Kurdish. I think they might actually ban use of the letter "x" in names in Turkey, because Kurdish names frequently use it in when rendered in the Western alphabet.

Turkey also carried out the Armenian Genocide during World War I. And to this day the country denies it and sends out representatives to continue denying it. Although the ever-vigilant modern world would keep the Turks from denying a "Kurdish Genocide", and instead they'd just say "Okay, we did it. So what's it to everybody else?".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

And if Congress was worth a damn that in-and-of-itself would have been grounds for Articles of Impeachment. Violating that constitutional mandate every single day since he took office, and openly using public office for private gain.  

If Trumps gets voted out, I hope the moderate Republicans are more willing to support Democrats then to bring him to justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Glennstavos said:

I'll willfully admit my ignorance on the topic of Kurds. My first exposure was the character Sniper Wolf from Metal Gear Solid. But I don't take much stock in that game's application of real world politics since they also irresponsibly used Gulf War Syndrome as part of its in-universe science fiction. I can't prove Gulf War Syndrome wasn't a real thing, but in 1997 it was very much mired in conspiracy theories.

... holy shit, man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shep Smith is out at Fox News. 2 days after Barr met with Rupert Murdoch.

8 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Maybe the Emoluments Clause needs a new name. Pass a Constitutional amendment to rename it the "No Getting Rich While Working, Politicians! Law". The term by itself is hard for Americans to grasp.

The name is not the issue. It's the Republicans. Just the other day, Newt Gingrich said the impeachment inquiry is unconstitutional. The man led an impeachment effort against Clinton in the late 90s when he was speaker of the house.

Republicans know what they're doing. They just don't care so long as they can hold on to or obtain more power. The Merrick Garland fiasco being one of their long term ploys. They're willing to turn the country to a dictatorship so long as that dictator is one of their own. They may as well have said by now "Democracy? Fuck that, my team can't win anymore if we play fair after all the liberal indoctrination that has occurred over the years".

The sad part is that the Democrats have the power but they're took weak. They should've jailed several people for defying subpoenas by now, just as Republicans would've.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2019 at 11:47 AM, Icelerate said:

Well the US did arm the Kurds with a lot of weaponry so it's not like they are totally defenseless. I think it is totally understandable that Trump doesn't want to risk a military confrontation with Turkey. 

Turkey being way more powerful doesn't necessarily mean the SDF can't defend itself. The Houthis have been able to defend against the Saudis and the Taliban are doing just fine despite massive airstrikes. 

To be honest, it wouldn't be a "military confrontation" with Turkey, which is part of the reason why people are mad.

Turkey would never openly attack or even "confront" US troops. As we've already agreed, Turkey is a US ally, and they won't do anything to jeopardize that.

Really, all the US needs to do is just keep its troops in front of the Kurds, and the problem is immediately solved. This is what makes people mad, because even though the US is within their rights to withdraw troops, for the price of just keeping 100 soldiers garrisoned with the Kurds, a full-scale war can be prevented, which most people see as being worth it (myself included).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, dragonlordsd said:

Really, all the US needs to do is just keep its troops in front of the Kurds, and the problem is immediately solved. This is what makes people mad, because even though the US is within their rights to withdraw troops, for the price of just keeping 100 soldiers garrisoned with the Kurds, a full-scale war can be prevented, which most people see as being worth it (myself included).

1000 troops, which the US had in Syria, is not enough to prevent a Turkish invasion. Turkey would just go around the US troops much like the Syrian troops went around the Turkish observation post near Morek in Northern Hama when they captured Khan Sheikhoun and surrounding areas. 

 

On 10/11/2019 at 11:53 AM, Etrurian emperor said:

 It is good that Turkey did hold military operations against IS(something Europe hardly seemed to do) but that doesn't mean their invasion and annexation of Kurdish lands is justified. Apparently Erdogan wants to settle these Kurdish lands with Arab refugee's which falls under some definition of ethnic cleansing. 

Wasn't arguing about whether Turkey is justified or not but whether it makes sense for Trump to withdraw or not. I remember him campaigning on ending US involvement in various wars so is Trump supposed to break his promises now? 

 

On 10/11/2019 at 12:13 PM, Excellen Browning said:

Are you willfully ignorant of the last 100-120 years of history between Turks and Kurds?

Haven't read up on their history but I know that the two have a bad blood as some Kurds want an independent state within Turkey. But what does that have to do with the US? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Icelerate said:

Haven't read up on their history but I know that the two have a bad blood as some Kurds want an independent state within Turkey. But what does that have to do with the US? 

 

On 10/11/2019 at 6:47 PM, Interdimensional Observer said:

It's a lot of bad blood and conflict between the two groups. Turkey wanting to culturally if not physically eradicate all that is Kurdish. I think they might actually ban use of the letter "x" in names in Turkey, because Kurdish names frequently use it in when rendered in the Western alphabet.

Turkey also carried out the Armenian Genocide during World War I. And to this day the country denies it and sends out representatives to continue denying it. Although the ever-vigilant modern world would keep the Turks from denying a "Kurdish Genocide", and instead they'd just say "Okay, we did it. So what's it to everybody else?".

As a side note to the Armenian Genocide, it was a more general massacring of non-Turks living in the Ottoman empire. This included Anatolian Greeks, Kurds and Syrians, just to name a few.

 

And if you think having a group of people being murdered to the last is okay, or at least not your business, I don't know what to tell you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Icelerate said:

Wasn't arguing about whether Turkey is justified or not but whether it makes sense for Trump to withdraw or not. I remember him campaigning on ending US involvement in various wars so is Trump supposed to break his promises now? 

If Trump has no way to withdraw responsibly then yes, he should break that promise. What's one more broken promise when his base forgives him everything anyway. At this moment it doesn't make much sense to withdraw. Withdrawing now means that American's allies will be slaughtered, ISIS prisoners will be escaping giving them a chance to rise again or travel to Europe to start committing terrorist attacks against America's allies, America's enemies are strengthened and every potential new ally will now know that doing America's dirty work will just lead to them getting betrayed by America later down the line. Who's going to fight the new ISIS for us after seeing America let the Kurds get slaughtered? 

Its a decisions with no positive aspects to it. Even if Trump cynically ''brought the troops home'' just to boost his campaign then he's doing it in a way that ensures there will be a tremendous amount of blood on his hand and also sets the stage for a return to the Middle East when ISIS inevitably rises again. Its likely the most foolish American foreign policy decisions since Bush's invasions and its done without America gaining anything out of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump breaks his promises all the time.  What happened to the wall that Mexico was supposed to pay for?  Guess he'll steal 3+ billion from military to build it instead.  He also made the bold statement "I will end all crime" well that is an impossible promise but anyways don't believe anything this piece of trash says or promises.  The party loyalists and single issue voters come in all types, the pro Trump Maga crowd are morons, racist, or both.  I guess this pull out of Kurds which looks stupid on all levels he can sell to that hardcore crowd cause they are gullible enough to believe anything he says, but the other Republicans, and of course independents/democrats aren't going to buy his BS so it is a move that hurts him I think.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can somebody let me know if there's ever an edited cut of last night's debate, but excluding everything except for the candidates' various anecdotes of things they seen and heard from red blooded Americans and/or their parents? I could use a few pointers on how to angrily remember happy memories to get away from a tricky question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Its a decisions with no positive aspects to it. Even if Trump cynically ''brought the troops home'' just to boost his campaign then he's doing it in a way that ensures there will be a tremendous amount of blood on his hand and also sets the stage for a return to the Middle East when ISIS inevitably rises again. Its likely the most foolish American foreign policy decisions since Bush's invasions and its done without America gaining anything out of it. 

The cynic in me thinks that it's out of spite - so if he's booted out of office, he'll leave his successor in a giant pickle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2019 at 10:36 PM, Icelerate said:

1000 troops, which the US had in Syria, is not enough to prevent a Turkish invasion. Turkey would just go around the US troops much like the Syrian troops went around the Turkish observation post near Morek in Northern Hama when they captured Khan Sheikhoun and surrounding areas. 

I'm... not clear if you're intentionally misunderstanding what I'm saying, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt to try to explain again.

The purpose of keeping the troops in Syria was not so that the US troops would fight against soldiers from Turkey, nor was it to defend against Syria. The purpose of the US troops was so that Turkey would not attack the Kurds, as that would involve attacking the US troops as well.

Turkey cannot simply "go around" the US troops, the troops were actively garrisoned with the Kurdish forces.

There are a few things you seem to be not grasping about this situation:

1. Turkey is not invading Syria, they are attacking the Kurds. Turkey does not intend to occupy the country of Syria, nor do they intend to engage in the mess that is currently going on there.

2. Leaving the US troops that were withdrawn where they were would not have meant involving them in combat. There is no outcome of this situation which would involve an active engagement between the US and any of the parties involved.

3. Trump's promise, as you pointed out, was about US involvement in wars, which the troops in question were not engaged in.

The US has many, many troops deployed that are not actively involved in conflict but are purely there for the purposes of either keeping the peace or furthering US interests. Withdrawing them would be extremely foolish. I don't think that needs further explanation, but please let me know if you think otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2019 at 8:40 AM, dragonlordsd said:

Really, all the US needs to do is just keep its troops in front of the Kurds, and the problem is immediately solved. This is what makes people mad, because even though the US is within their rights to withdraw troops, for the price of just keeping 100 soldiers garrisoned with the Kurds, a full-scale war can be prevented, which most people see as being worth it (myself included).

So just to confirm what your expectations are, I want to ask questions on logistics.

For how long do we have to stay there? Plus what if after every attempt to get them to hold peace talks, they refuse adamantly and want us to leave so they can start fighting? What then? We stay? Indefinitely? What about those soldiers and their families? Do we just keep rotating shifts in half a year blocks so everyone can be picked for desk duty? Keep in mind our tax money is going towards keeping them there with all the costs it inflicts. 

On 10/16/2019 at 4:06 AM, Excellen Browning said:

And if you think having a group of people being murdered to the last is okay, or at least not your business, I don't know what to tell you. 

This logic sounds to me of the type where someone says something taking the moral high ground in a arrogant looking down your nose kinda way. Like as if your better.

So let me ask, if watching people be slaughtered is bad why don't we stick soldiers everywhere? I mean forget asking what's in it for us. Let's just spend man power, resources, time, and more for no gains what so ever. I get that we have history with both Turkey and the Kurds but it isn't our business to stick up for people all the time. It creates a precedent that anyone can ask us to to protect them simply cause it's the morally right thing to do. But what if we end up protecting the wrong people? What if they end up using us and we end up the short end of the stick? All is well since we did the morally good thing right? What happens when we can't protect someone that actually matters or really needs us? Let me change direction, when do we stop protecting everyone? Who don't we protect, enemies like Russians and Chinese citizens? But what about the Hong Kong group? If you want to exhaust yourself for everyone else's sake, by all means knock yourself out, but don't drag everyone else down with you. 

By your logic since it is the morally right thing to do, do you just help people in your neighborhood? Regardless of what it costs? Do you do this indefinitely and indiscriminately for everyone? I mean it isn't your business to help everyone but you refuted that logic with this instance of saying we need to keep our troops their to protect them. Regardless if you get anything out of it, you must help everyone right? 

23 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

Can somebody let me know if there's ever an edited cut of last night's debate, but excluding everything except for the candidates' various anecdotes of things they seen and heard from red blooded Americans and/or their parents? I could use a few pointers on how to angrily remember happy memories to get away from a tricky question.

I so thought this too. I'm glad I wasn't the only one who noticed they kept coming up with stories to tell. It's like almost every question at least 3 to 5 of them came up with stories of their past on how they can relate to us as an average citizen or conjured some story about imagining a struggling person and how they intend to help. I heard broad vague ideas with none of them saying "hey, if you want more info, check out my blue print of a plan on www(dot)something(dot)com so you can see exactly how and in what steps I'll take to fix so and so problem". They all sound like they were making fake promises and empty platitudes. None of them sound like they have a clue on how to fix some issues. These last 4 debates have been pretty disappointing. I'm just glad we got some ex service members up there. I really can't decide between Joe Biden, Tulsi Gabbard, or Pete Buttigieg. If only they could hold a mock debate with some of them against Trump now so we can actually see how they fair. It's a shame we have to wait till more of them get weeded out. 

22 hours ago, eclipse said:

The cynic in me thinks that it's out of spite - so if he's booted out of office, he'll leave his successor in a giant pickle.

I thought this too. Like I thought he had this line of thinking at one point "Since everyone hates me and will harass me after I leave office, let me just put them in a really f**ked up position that way I can get even for all the stress they'll inflict on me later". I have no idea how long it'll take to undo some of the damage done now. I'm also hoping those Supreme Justices are taking those secret life extending potions and take caring of their health. They need to stay on the court. I don't trust the same statistics that told us Hillary would win for sure that are now telling us Trump will for sure lose. It's giving me anxiety waiting for next year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

So just to confirm what your expectations are, I want to ask questions on logistics.

For how long do we have to stay there? Plus what if after every attempt to get them to hold peace talks, they refuse adamantly and want us to leave so they can start fighting? What then? We stay? Indefinitely? What about those soldiers and their families? Do we just keep rotating shifts in half a year blocks so everyone can be picked for desk duty? Keep in mind our tax money is going towards keeping them there with all the costs it inflicts. 

I wish people in the media and political establishment asked these kind of questions about Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.

The US shouldn't even be in Syria to begin with, but about the only positive good they can have is protecting the Kurds indirectly. Withdrawing troops from that region only pretty much shows you the relationship between the US and Turkey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

So just to confirm what your expectations are, I want to ask questions on logistics.

For how long do we have to stay there? Plus what if after every attempt to get them to hold peace talks, they refuse adamantly and want us to leave so they can start fighting? What then? We stay? Indefinitely? What about those soldiers and their families? Do we just keep rotating shifts in half a year blocks so everyone can be picked for desk duty? Keep in mind our tax money is going towards keeping them there with all the costs it inflicts. 

This logic sounds to me of the type where someone says something taking the moral high ground in a arrogant looking down your nose kinda way. Like as if your better.

So let me ask, if watching people be slaughtered is bad why don't we stick soldiers everywhere? I mean forget asking what's in it for us. Let's just spend man power, resources, time, and more for no gains what so ever. I get that we have history with both Turkey and the Kurds but it isn't our business to stick up for people all the time. It creates a precedent that anyone can ask us to to protect them simply cause it's the morally right thing to do. But what if we end up protecting the wrong people? What if they end up using us and we end up the short end of the stick? All is well since we did the morally good thing right? What happens when we can't protect someone that actually matters or really needs us? Let me change direction, when do we stop protecting everyone? Who don't we protect, enemies like Russians and Chinese citizens? But what about the Hong Kong group? If you want to exhaust yourself for everyone else's sake, by all means knock yourself out, but don't drag everyone else down with you. 

Dude. We do this. All the time. Like, seriously, this is what our country does. Literally, our navy spends the majority of its resources patrolling unstable areas.

I mean, can you take a second to plan out your argument a bit? I honestly can't tell what your objection is.

I mean, your first question is "how long do we have to stay there?" Well, dude, we've maintained an active military base in the UK for 76 years, one in Germany for 42 years, one in FREAKING CUBA for 116 YEARS!!

So, in all seriousness, what's objectionable about maintaining one more base for another decade or so? Are you objecting to cost? Number of troops deployed? Why is having a military base in another country a bad thing?

That's the first thing I'd like you to answer. What exactly is objectionable about the garrison?

Second point:

You then go off on the "what if we're protecting the wrong people?" tangent. If you'd like, I can provide you with a thorough explanation of why they're the "right" people, why it's beneficial to protect that specific group, so let me know if you want that. But the basic summary of why we help people is NOT because "we're good people." We help them because they help us. That's what an alliance means. If we don't help our allies, they will not help us. On the other side, if we do help our allies, they will help us. I know this is basic stuff, but I just want to make sure we're clear on that.

So, my second question is: if someone is actively helping us, why would we want them to stop? If we are in a relationship where we get more out of them than we put in, why would we stop that?

Third point:

"By your logic since it is the morally right thing to do, do you just help people in your neighborhood?"

Uh, yeah. Do you not?

If you're wondering why your neighbors hate you, I think found the reason. Also, please never move into my neighborhood. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

So just to confirm what your expectations are, I want to ask questions on logistics.

For how long do we have to stay there? Plus what if after every attempt to get them to hold peace talks, they refuse adamantly and want us to leave so they can start fighting? What then? We stay? Indefinitely? What about those soldiers and their families? Do we just keep rotating shifts in half a year blocks so everyone can be picked for desk duty? Keep in mind our tax money is going towards keeping them there with all the costs it inflicts. 

This logic sounds to me of the type where someone says something taking the moral high ground in a arrogant looking down your nose kinda way. Like as if your better.

So let me ask, if watching people be slaughtered is bad why don't we stick soldiers everywhere? I mean forget asking what's in it for us. Let's just spend man power, resources, time, and more for no gains what so ever. I get that we have history with both Turkey and the Kurds but it isn't our business to stick up for people all the time. It creates a precedent that anyone can ask us to to protect them simply cause it's the morally right thing to do. But what if we end up protecting the wrong people? What if they end up using us and we end up the short end of the stick? All is well since we did the morally good thing right? What happens when we can't protect someone that actually matters or really needs us? Let me change direction, when do we stop protecting everyone? Who don't we protect, enemies like Russians and Chinese citizens? But what about the Hong Kong group? If you want to exhaust yourself for everyone else's sake, by all means knock yourself out, but don't drag everyone else down with you. 

By your logic since it is the morally right thing to do, do you just help people in your neighborhood? Regardless of what it costs? Do you do this indefinitely and indiscriminately for everyone? I mean it isn't your business to help everyone but you refuted that logic with this instance of saying we need to keep our troops their to protect them. Regardless if you get anything out of it, you must help everyone right? 

I so thought this too. I'm glad I wasn't the only one who noticed they kept coming up with stories to tell. It's like almost every question at least 3 to 5 of them came up with stories of their past on how they can relate to us as an average citizen or conjured some story about imagining a struggling person and how they intend to help. I heard broad vague ideas with none of them saying "hey, if you want more info, check out my blue print of a plan on www(dot)something(dot)com so you can see exactly how and in what steps I'll take to fix so and so problem". They all sound like they were making fake promises and empty platitudes. None of them sound like they have a clue on how to fix some issues. These last 4 debates have been pretty disappointing. I'm just glad we got some ex service members up there. I really can't decide between Joe Biden, Tulsi Gabbard, or Pete Buttigieg. If only they could hold a mock debate with some of them against Trump now so we can actually see how they fair. It's a shame we have to wait till more of them get weeded out. 

I thought this too. Like I thought he had this line of thinking at one point "Since everyone hates me and will harass me after I leave office, let me just put them in a really f**ked up position that way I can get even for all the stress they'll inflict on me later". I have no idea how long it'll take to undo some of the damage done now. I'm also hoping those Supreme Justices are taking those secret life extending potions and take caring of their health. They need to stay on the court. I don't trust the same statistics that told us Hillary would win for sure that are now telling us Trump will for sure lose. It's giving me anxiety waiting for next year. 

It's not a completely invalid argument, but you're taking it too far and you're trying to put words in my mouth. Is anyone here arguing that we have to go to any length to help the people around us? No, obviously not. Is anyone saying that it'd be some kind of permanent pain in the ass? No. Is anyone saying there can't be a diplomatic solution? The only conflicts since world war 2 that didn't end in a diplomatic solution were, roughly, the Soviet invasion of Hungary and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dragonlordsd said:

Dude. We do this. All the time. Like, seriously, this is what our country does. Literally, our navy spends the majority of its resources patrolling unstable areas.

I mean, can you take a second to plan out your argument a bit? I honestly can't tell what your objection is.

I mean, your first question is "how long do we have to stay there?" Well, dude, we've maintained an active military base in the UK for 76 years, one in Germany for 42 years, one in FREAKING CUBA for 116 YEARS!!

So, in all seriousness, what's objectionable about maintaining one more base for another decade or so? Are you objecting to cost? Number of troops deployed? Why is having a military base in another country a bad thing?

That's the first thing I'd like you to answer. What exactly is objectionable about the garrison?

Second point:

You then go off on the "what if we're protecting the wrong people?" tangent. If you'd like, I can provide you with a thorough explanation of why they're the "right" people, why it's beneficial to protect that specific group, so let me know if you want that. But the basic summary of why we help people is NOT because "we're good people." We help them because they help us. That's what an alliance means. If we don't help our allies, they will not help us. On the other side, if we do help our allies, they will help us. I know this is basic stuff, but I just want to make sure we're clear on that.

So, my second question is: if someone is actively helping us, why would we want them to stop? If we are in a relationship where we get more out of them than we put in, why would we stop that?

Third point:

"By your logic since it is the morally right thing to do, do you just help people in your neighborhood?"

Uh, yeah. Do you not?

If you're wondering why your neighbors hate you, I think found the reason. Also, please never move into my neighborhood. 

1) as for what or why I object is a matter of cost versus benefit. Do the benefits outweigh the cost. Putting aside being moral/ethical I could see us putting another base there if the benefits really do out weigh the cost. Now I'm not sure what all has to be factored in since I have no idea how many of the various angles this can be looked at from, but from a general outlook it seems like as if not only do some people in that part of the world not want us over there and keep telling us to stop making things worse, but aside from a few resources I have no idea why we keep getting ourselves tangled up in that area. I get it's a smart idea to have bases for strategic reasons in the event that fighting breaks out. But touching up on what you said about bases in other places, I'd like to point out that if I became some type of accountant or some person in charge of make my sure resources are being allocated properly and for good reasons, I'd seriously would have to do a massive amount of homework and history reading on why America is all over the place. I sometimes wonder what secret back door deals our country is making. But I feel like this topic is way too deep with a massive amount of implications to take into consideration for discussion. Suffice to say, this new conflict of Turkey and Kurd sound like another reason for us to keep spreading ourselves out in places that maybe we aren't even wanted in, let alone that are beneficial to us. But hey, I don't do know the bookwork looks like, I just know the main points being driven is that it's a ethical and moral issue on why we pulled out and everyone is upset President Trump made another decision not everyone agrees with.

2) I understand how alliances work. I don't need clarity on that or why that group needs our help. But is that relationship really as beneficial as you say? Is the choice we made to pull out as detrimental as it is being presented? I myself am pretty skeptical. If you present info (not that I'm asking for it though since I don't understand all the nuances that go into this type of thing) that beyond a shadow of doubt shows it is in our best interest to help, then by all means keep our soldiers there. I just wish our media was in the habit of presenting more info and telling us things in a way that's objective without me having to go dig it all up and come to my own interpretations on if it balances out on the ledger book. Seriously, it always trash talking and not enough info being given. I prefer sources of info that don't even mention party affiliation or say a person's name unless it's relevant to the info. It's pretty difficult to find that these days. 

3) no I don't help random strangers. That would be a great disservice to my community if I was like that and to our nation if people were more like that. How do you know you aren't helping enable people and bad habits? Do you not use any discretion what so ever at all in figuring out why people ask for help or what is going on? If your the type to blindly help others, then you are in fact a bad person. For all you know, you could be supporting and helping someone who has a bad habit that hurts others. Also what happens if you keep helping to the point were it isn't help anymore and now that person sees it as expected income or expected free service of some type. Then what happens when you stop helping? What if they demand you continue and claim your obligated since it's the morally right thing to do? What if you made that person dependent on you and they are no longer self sufficient? What happens if you have to leave or stop? Then they'll be screwed. By all means, go messing up other people's lives. I hope you aren't one of those altruistic people. Some experts in the psychology field say that's a mental disorder with serious life debilitating consequences. It spreads and hurts more than just the person who is altruistic. 

6 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

It's not a completely invalid argument, but you're taking it too far and you're trying to put words in my mouth. Is anyone here arguing that we have to go to any length to help the people around us? No, obviously not. Is anyone saying that it'd be some kind of permanent pain in the ass? No. Is anyone saying there can't be a diplomatic solution? The only conflicts since world war 2 that didn't end in a diplomatic solution were, roughly, the Soviet invasion of Hungary and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. 

Although I'd prefer diplomacy in any given circumstance, it sounds to me like this problem over there between those people isn't our business and if we keep butting in, we'll end up also getting caught in a conflict. As much as I want to help the Kurds, I'm not willing to spend American soldier lives to accomplish that goal. The impression I got so far is that, we can't stop them from fighting. It seems like they hate each other's guts and I don't want us getting between them and getting our people hurt too. That's my only concern and point in this discussion. If everything is going to be okay with us still trying to mediate between them, then fine. Im just worried about the lives of our soldiers. It seems so many people these days are quick to say "let's stick boots on ground over here, and over there, and in that spot, and in this spot" and not realize these guys face real danger and come back with PTSD and all kinds of other problems. (not implying your one. My bad if I keep making generalized statements that implicate you). I want more people to care about our selfless troops that go pretty far in taking care of our way of life. I just want us to really really really be absolutely 100% sure it's necessary. Our veterans barely get any attention and help back home, and we keep sending more troops to more areas. Troops are treated like tools, not people. And some of the people in this thread make that pretty clear with the way they refer to them. These guys and girls got names plus family and friend back home over here. I swear. It's like two different worlds. Civilians really just don't get it. I'll stop there cause I don't feel like going on and on about soldiers. I can tell when it's falling on deaf ears. If not deaf ones then unsympathetic ones who don't get it. 

Edited by Tediz64

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dumb reality about soldiers in the US is that the possibility of going to war is part of the job description that nobody lies about, or shuffles under the rug. And they still voluntarily sign up by the tens of thousands every year.

While the idea of protecting 'are troops' from going to war is commendable, war is their business and if they didn't know what they they were getting in to, that's on them. There's no excuse not to use your workforce for what it was recruited and trained to do, when the work needs doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

I get it's a smart idea to have bases for strategic reasons in the event that fighting breaks out. But touching up on what you said about bases in other places, I'd like to point out that if I became some type of accountant or some person in charge of make my sure resources are being allocated properly and for good reasons, I'd seriously would have to do a massive amount of homework and history reading on why America is all over the place.

21 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

But is that relationship really as beneficial as you say? Is the choice we made to pull out as detrimental as it is being presented?

Without bases, the logistics of projecting power would be far slower and much more expensive, as every time we need to respond to an emergency, we have to fly people/resources/assets/whatever from the homeland to the frontlines. While flying is pretty fast, it still takes time, and flying is super expensive. By having bases around the world before problems start, we can project power with much cheaper means such as via shipping instead of flying. When emergencies do happen, we are closer to the problem and can react quickly and immediately instead of waiting for stuff to fly over.

The cost of running those bases are also often shared by the hosts, either by sharing the cost of running the bases directly or in the form purchasing lots of American military hardware.

Pulling out abruptly was absolutely stupid. Sure, it is not going to negatively impact us immediately, but antagonizing and betraying our allies repeatedly is going to impact our reputation and standing. This is not just about the Kurds, this is also about how the EU/NATO, Japan, Australia, and other allies around the world sees us and treats us. If Trump does not have shit for brains and slapping tariffs against all our allies, the trade war with China would have been a lot easier.

21 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

Although I'd prefer diplomacy in any given circumstance, it sounds to me like this problem over there between those people isn't our business and if we keep butting in, we'll end up also getting caught in a conflict. As much as I want to help the Kurds, I'm not willing to spend American soldier lives to accomplish that goal. The impression I got so far is that, we can't stop them from fighting. It seems like they hate each other's guts and I don't want us getting between them and getting our people hurt too. That's my only concern and point in this discussion. If everything is going to be okay with us still trying to mediate between them, then fine. Im just worried about the lives of our soldiers. It seems so many people these days are quick to say "let's stick boots on ground over here, and over there, and in that spot, and in this spot" and not realize these guys face real danger and come back with PTSD and all kinds of other problems. (not implying your one. My bad if I keep making generalized statements that implicate you). I want more people to care about our selfless troops that go pretty far in taking care of our way of life. I just want us to really really really be absolutely 100% sure it's necessary. Our veterans barely get any attention and help back home, and we keep sending more troops to more areas. Troops are treated like tools, not people. And some of the people in this thread make that pretty clear with the way they refer to them. These guys and girls got names plus family and friend back home over here. I swear. It's like two different worlds. Civilians really just don't get it. I'll stop there cause I don't feel like going on and on about soldiers. I can tell when it's falling on deaf ears. If not deaf ones then unsympathetic ones who don't get it. 

In my opinion, I do not think putting our troops between Turkey and the Kurds is that risky. Despite how Turkey has been acting lately, they are still our allies and have been so for decades. Turkey at least deserves enough trust that they will not shoot our troops in the back. As for the Kurds, they are in no position to backstab us since Turkey is just right there across the border.

Edited by XRay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

The dumb reality about soldiers in the US is that the possibility of going to war is part of the job description that nobody lies about, or shuffles under the rug. And they still voluntarily sign up by the tens of thousands every year.

While the idea of protecting 'are troops' from going to war is commendable, war is their business and if they didn't know what they they were getting in to, that's on them. There's no excuse not to use your workforce for what it was recruited and trained to do, when the work needs doing.

I wonder if you'd be echoing the same statement if we had a mandatory law saying everyone needs to join the military and serve for at least a certain # of years. After all that logic sounds pretty fair. Want to enjoy this country? Then contribute to it, protect it, and show your patriotism. I wonder if you'd be quick to say we should deploy people and be ready to fight. There is a reason why draft dodgers exist. They don't actually care about their country plus are selfish and simply want to take and never give. I get that these days you volunteer to join and should know that is part of the job, but people take for granted how difficult that job is and think it's easy. Not everyone can be a soldier. Thousands don't make it past BCT and another few thousand can't cut it in AIT. The cost and penalty that is inflicted on soldiers is way greater than what we give them in return. Then when they finish and come back, they need to adapt to a civilian life and world. They have to be able to make ends meet out here after spending so much time with only a certain skill set needed to get by but now they need a new one since nobody can just stay in the military till they die. At some point they have to retire. Anyways, I think this is pointless to discuss. It seems they some people just see them as tools to use and are so happy to chunk them at problems like as if it's that simple. I wonder what would happen if soldiers started to go on strike and people started enlisting less how people would treat those who remain in the service. 

1 hour ago, XRay said:

Without bases, the logistics of projecting power would be far slower and much more expensive, as every time we need to respond to an emergency, we have to fly people/resources/assets/whatever from the homeland to the frontlines. While flying is pretty fast, it still takes time, and flying is super expensive. By having bases around the world before problems start, we can project power with much cheaper means such as via shipping instead of flying. When emergencies do happen, we are closer to the problem and can react quickly and immediately instead of waiting for stuff to fly over.

I get what you're saying, I really do, but I find it like an empty statement that isn't meant sincerely. I often enough hear candidates and the entire democratic party talking about slashing the military budget. (Well not all of them, but for sure the majority) So many people want to cut the price and make our soldiers live on the bare minimum while I see people buying and living an extravagant life style. It's like they want to reallocate the resources to themselves. So before anyone can make the statement about it being the practical solution, tactical decision, and/or the more wise investment, I also want to stop hearing people talking about cutting military spending. I get having a team of people in charge to make sure they aren't doing it frivolously and arbitrarily is necessary to prevent corruption as well as a host of other problems, but some of the proposals I seen are so unrealistic. It's crazy they'd even write it up and present it like as if they are seriously gonna put it to vote on the floor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Tediz64 said:

I get what you're saying, I really do, but I find it like an empty statement that isn't meant sincerely. I often enough hear candidates and the entire democratic party talking about slashing the military budget. (Well not all of them, but for sure the majority) So many people want to cut the price and make our soldiers live on the bare minimum while I see people buying and living an extravagant life style. It's like they want to reallocate the resources to themselves. So before anyone can make the statement about it being the practical solution, tactical decision, and/or the more wise investment, I also want to stop hearing people talking about cutting military spending. I get having a team of people in charge to make sure they aren't doing it frivolously and arbitrarily is necessary to prevent corruption as well as a host of other problems, but some of the proposals I seen are so unrealistic. It's crazy they'd even write it up and present it like as if they are seriously gonna put it to vote on the floor. 

Slashing spending and improving our soldier's lives are not mutually exclusive. And keeping bases and slashing spending are not mutually exclusive either. There are so many ways to slash spending such as reducing/limiting recruitment, make the defense industry more efficient, negotiate with our allies to share more of the security cost, etc. and none of that involves a pay cut for existing American soldiers.

I do agree that we could probably be more selective and limit the amount of bases we have, but we cannot just abandon frontline positions where shit is happening right now. It is one thing to close a base in Europe that is far from the frontlines, but it is unacceptable to just abandon our positions in the middle of warzone where we are needed to keep the peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

I wonder if you'd be echoing the same statement if we had a mandatory law saying everyone needs to join the military and serve for at least a certain # of years. After all that logic sounds pretty fair.

Even conscript armies have a professional core, but that's probably pedantic. No, I probably wouldn't send conscripts to fight this kind of fight, but then this is just a boring counterfactual, and not at all relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...