Trump's Valor

[Lune]

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Im confused, are you opposed to the US going after Isis

Please explain to me how you would propose we "go after isis"?

Do we just invade and flood Syria with American troops? What happens when they put away their black flags and towels and start planting IED's as 'civilians'? How would it be any different than Iraq, Vietnam, or Afghanistan when, over 10 years and hundreds of billions of dollars later, we'd have accomplished nothing and probably just made things worse?

You cannot "win" a counter-insurgency occupation under the current rules of engagement. People who support deploying American troops against ISIS are fucking retarded.

The only way to win the war against Islam without systematically exterminating Muslims is to:

1. Achieve energy independence from Arab oil.
2. Enact a policy of economic, cultural, and social containment where Islamic countries (or any country with a non-secular culture/constitution/government) aren't allowed to consort with the rest of the world, and certainly not allowed to immigrate unless extensively vetted.
3. Weather the inevitable terrorist attacks without flying off the handle and invading somewhere, which is exactly what they want. Retribution comes by persevering with #1 and #2, continuing to allow Western life to flourish and the Middle East to rot until they figure out how to get their own shit together.

The way you don't win a war against Islam is:

1. Hand-delivering valuable Western lives to their shithole countries where life is meaningless and suicide attacks are ubiquitous, and crippling our own domestic development by squandering hundreds of billions of dollars on nothing.

It was Bin Laden's plan and it's ISIS's goal.

[big_ole_jpn]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You cannot "win" a counter-insurgency occupation under the current rules of engagement. People who support deploying American troops against ISIS are fucking retarded.

In one sense you're not wrong, but Donald's been implying that we would in fact be operating under a different set of rules. Kill families and associates; openly loot the occupied area; torture and terror tactics to suppress the resistance.

I can understand not supporting this, or doubting that the political will exists to actually execute such activities, but in theory it's not nearly as bad for the country as diving into an unwinnable quagmire just to funnel taxpayer money into some defense contracting companies. Imperialism has been profitable before and I'm positive it could be again if carried out properly.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Please explain to me how you would propose we "go after isis"?

Do we just invade and flood Syria with American troops?

What happens when they put away their black flags and towels and start planting IED's as 'civilians'?

How would it be any different than Iraq, Vietnam, or Afghanistan when, over 10 years and hundreds of billions of dollars later, we'd have accomplished nothing and probably just made things worse?

You cannot "win" a counter-insurgency occupation under the current rules of engagement. People who support deploying American troops against ISIS are fucking retarded.

I'd go with not funding and arming isis in the first place. Odd you being a dem supporter and complaining about war now, which is what 0bama got elected on and just accelerated all the wars instead.

It's been the dems rattling the sword about boots on the ground in Syria (along with some rep neocons), and while supporting a proxy war vs. Russia. Even that's not good enough now, we are practically in the era of the Cuban missile crisis again, but reversed, we put them next to Russia blatantly breaking the treaty, and no dems take note. Where's code pink? Where's all the war protesters now? Oh yeah... it's not really an issue of war, but who gets to wage it, really [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'd go with not funding and arming isis in the first place. Odd you being a dem supporter and complaining about war now, which is what 0bama got elected on and just accelerated all the wars instead.

It's been the dems rattling the sword about boots on the ground in Syria (along with some rep neocons), and while supporting a proxy war vs. Russia. Even that's not good enough now, we are practically in the era of the Cuban missile crisis again, but reversed, we put them next to Russia blatantly breaking the treaty, and no dems take note. Where's code pink? Where's all the war protesters now? Oh yeah... it's not really an issue of war, but who gets to wage it, really [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The mean the wars Bush started?

Here's how the voting played out for the Iraq War resolution:
Republican: 215 Yes, 6 No
Democrat : 82 Yes, 126 No

You are beyond ignorant.

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The mean the wars Bush started?

Here's how the voting played out for the Iraq War resolution:
Republican: 215 Yes, 6 No
Democrat : 82 Yes, 126 No

You are beyond ignorant.

Now now Lune the senate was democrat led and they voted 77-22 in favor of the war.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Now now Lune the senate was democrat led and they voted 77-22 in favor of the war.

Shamelessly misrepresenting reality. The Senate consisted of 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 Independent.

Republican: 48 Yes, 1 No
Democrat: 29 Yes, 21 No

Combining the House and Senate, 111/258 Democrats (43%) voted Yes, 263/270 (97%) of Republicans voted Yes.

Look at all the alt rights desperately trying to make it look like 97% of Republicans didn't vote Yes on the Iraq blunder.

Anyway playing the blame game is pointlessly irrelevant in this thread, even if you believe Obama created ISIS. The relevant point is deploying troops to fight ISIS is just another blunder. And no, the DoD under Donald Trump is not going to commit atrocities and warcrimes like targeting families.

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Shamelessly misrepresenting reality. The Senate consisted of 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 Independent.

Republican: 48 Yes, 1 No
Democrat: 29 Yes, 21 No

Combining the House and Senate, 111/258 Democrats (43%) voted Yes, 263/270 (97%) of Republicans voted Yes.

Look at all the alt rights desperately trying to make it look like 97% of Republicans didn't vote Yes on the Iraq blunder.

Anyway playing the blame game is pointlessly irrelevant in this thread, even if you believe Obama created ISIS. The relevant point is deploying troops to fight ISIS is just another blunder. And no, the DoD under Donald Trump is not going to commit atrocities and warcrimes like targeting families.

I was merely pointing out it was a shared responsibility and also I went on to explain that this is a long term plan meant to be carried out regardless of who the establishment puts in there. That is why Trump is the wild card he doesn't seem to be supporting their plans he just wants to weaken and contain the terrorist. The establishment has been trying to run something like a controlled burn.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Anyway playing the blame game is pointlessly irrelevant in this thread, even if you believe Obama created ISIS. The relevant point is deploying troops to fight ISIS is just another blunder. And no, the DoD under Donald Trump is not going to commit atrocities and warcrimes like targeting families.

How is it a game? My point is both 0bama and Bush are screwed up. isis is just a reformation, but just the same group with a different name. They were around during Bush just as much as during 0bama. We're talking humans, not some abstract idea or movement.

I don't think you really understand what's going on, you are only listening to the commentaries of the mainstream media which is sold out to the liberals, a tool of the established order. You're still using last elections talking points like Bush vs. 0bama narrative junk, and the election before that. Do you know what actually happened within the repub party? what all the commotion and fighting was about? I mean even the dems had been building up their war chest to fight Jeb as everyone's obvious business as usual choice, or so they thought.

And it seemed like something the dems were almost going to go through too, a revolt against the established order. But in hindsight, especially with Bernie easily folding and what his wife said to him at the podium during all the boos (yeah someone cleaned that up so we could hear her words over the hot mic), it's looking like he was fully a plant to ensure Clinton's nomination. And something even the DNC didn't fathom.

The Clinton's had the metrics down from their political simulations (yes they do that) for what Bernie to say/promise to get enough of a following so that anyone truly sincere about pushing back against the established order wouldn't have a chance, then he hands it to Clinton, just like he did exactly. Well didn't totally come off as planned, the boos were not expected in their plan, their followers were not as gullible as they thought. But still managed the general result they wanted.

Bernie was the dems plant in a lot of ways as Cruz was for the reps, an inside man for Bush in his case. We're just hoping Trump isn't even another layer of the same onion, diabolically so. So far though he has seemed to check out as sincere, not linked to the establishment of the dems and reps (if you don't think that's an oligarchy you have way missed it btw). All there is is what's left for the imagination, like meeting with Kissinger etc, of which I like to think he let him know that if something happens to the Don, people have been left with instruction with who to go after and deal with [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Slathar]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How is it a game? My point is both 0bama and Bush are screwed up. isis is just a reformation, but just the same group with a different name. They were around during Bush just as much as during 0bama. We're talking humans, not some abstract idea or movement.

I don't think you really understand what's going on, you are only listening to the commentaries of the mainstream media which is sold out to the liberals, a tool of the established order. You're still using last elections talking points like Bush vs. 0bama narrative junk, and the election before that. Do you know what actually happened within the repub party? what all the commotion and fighting was about? I mean even the dems had been building up their war chest to fight Jeb as everyone's obvious business as usual choice, or so they thought.

And it seemed like something the dems were almost going to go through too, a revolt against the established order. But in hindsight, especially with Bernie easily folding and what his wife said to him at the podium during all the boos (yeah someone cleaned that up so we could hear her words over the hot mic), it's looking like he was fully a plant to ensure Clinton's nomination. And something even the DNC didn't fathom.

The Clinton's had the metrics down from their political simulations (yes they do that) for what Bernie to say/promise to get enough of a following so that anyone truly sincere about pushing back against the established order wouldn't have a chance, then he hands it to Clinton, just like he did exactly. Well didn't totally come off as planned, the boos were not expected in their plan, their followers were not as gullible as they thought. But still managed the general result they wanted.

Bernie was the dems plant in a lot of ways as Cruz was for the reps, an inside man for Bush in his case. We're just hoping Trump isn't even another layer of the same onion, diabolically so. So far though he has seemed to check out as sincere, not linked to the establishment of the dems and reps (if you don't think that's an oligarchy you have way missed it btw). All there is is what's left for the imagination, like meeting with Kissinger etc, of which I like to think he let him know that if something happens to the Don, people have been left with instruction with who to go after and deal with [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

lol dum

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How is it a game? My point is both 0bama and Bush are screwed up. isis is just a reformation, but just the same group with a different name. They were around during Bush just as much as during 0bama. We're talking humans, not some abstract idea or movement.

I don't think you really understand what's going on, you are only listening to the commentaries of the mainstream media which is sold out to the liberals, a tool of the established order. You're still using last elections talking points like Bush vs. 0bama narrative junk, and the election before that. Do you know what actually happened within the repub party? what all the commotion and fighting was about? I mean even the dems had been building up their war chest to fight Jeb as everyone's obvious business as usual choice, or so they thought.

And it seemed like something the dems were almost going to go through too, a revolt against the established order. But in hindsight, especially with Bernie easily folding and what his wife said to him at the podium during all the boos (yeah someone cleaned that up so we could hear her words over the hot mic), it's looking like he was fully a plant to ensure Clinton's nomination. And something even the DNC didn't fathom.

The Clinton's had the metrics down from their political simulations (yes they do that) for what Bernie to say/promise to get enough of a following so that anyone truly sincere about pushing back against the established order wouldn't have a chance, then he hands it to Clinton, just like he did exactly. Well didn't totally come off as planned, the boos were not expected in their plan, their followers were not as gullible as they thought. But still managed the general result they wanted.

Bernie was the dems plant in a lot of ways as Cruz was for the reps, an inside man for Bush in his case. We're just hoping Trump isn't even another layer of the same onion, diabolically so. So far though he has seemed to check out as sincere, not linked to the establishment of the dems and reps (if you don't think that's an oligarchy you have way missed it btw). All there is is what's left for the imagination, like meeting with Kissinger etc, of which I like to think he let him know that if something happens to the Don, people have been left with instruction with who to go after and deal with [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The government is clearly adding rainbows to our sprinkler systems to make us gay