Trump's Valor

[fash]

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

http://youtu.be/M3CiPKueqo8

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Faux libertarians like Johnson are a far cry worse than a Trump though. Vote Johnson for rapefugee.

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.

Changing the rules of engagement and laws of war is exactly what Trump proposed in the video (and elsewhere). You currently can't seize oil fields under the Geneva Convention.

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

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.

A trillion dollars in oil is something.

Oil smuggling is the big source of revenue for ISIS. The US has refrained from targeting oil facilities since many civilians in the area rely on ISIS oil. Russia and France (and maybe US now?) have begun targeting oil facilities/transports in the last half year in order to cut off that revenue. Entirely seizing the oil fields would have a greater impact on ISIS's revenue.

Its effectiveness depends on how many troops are required. Elsewhere, I recall Trump saying he'd seize the oil with a few troops. If intelligence indicates that's possible, seizing may be an effective tactic.

[Lune]

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

Faux libertarians like Johnson are a far cry worse than a Trump though. Vote Johnson for rapefugee.



Changing the rules of engagement and laws of war is exactly what Trump proposed in the video (and elsewhere). You currently can't seize oil fields under the Geneva Convention.

Again, the DoD (and the general public) is not going comply with Trump ordering them to commit warcrimes (and that's assuming he isn't just talking out of his ass). The alt-right window-licking 4channers that inhabit this forum might find it tasteful to kill ISIS's families, but the international community does not.

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

A trillion dollars in oil is something.

Oil smuggling is the big source of revenue for ISIS. The US has refrained from targeting oil facilities since many civilians in the area rely on ISIS oil. Russia and France (and maybe US now?) have begun targeting oil facilities/transports in the last half year in order to cut off that revenue. Entirely seizing the oil fields would have a greater impact on ISIS's revenue.

Its effectiveness depends on how many troops are required. Elsewhere, I recall Trump saying he'd seize the oil with a few troops. If intelligence indicates that's possible, seizing may be an effective tactic.

Syria does not have even close to a trillion dollars in oil reserves. Syria has 2.5 billion barrels of proven oil reserves (not all of which is controlled by ISIS). The current price of oil is around $40 a barrel, which comes out to $100 billion. To put that in perspective, the Iraq war has cost $1.7 trillion. Even if you assume Trump "makes some smart deals" and a war with ISIS only costs 1/10 what Iraq cost, which is unrealistic, it's still a stupid and unprofitable idea. If we plunder all their oil quickly to minimize the cost of the war, we flood the market with oil and the price plunges-- we're one of the world's leading oil producers, and that would be devastating.

Occupying their oil fields is a fucking stupid idea. Iraqi insurgents, Taliban, and the Vietcong didn't have access to oil revenue and they were still able to conduct costly insurgencies.

[Raev]

Yeah I don't understand how anyone could think that occupying the Middle East could possibly be a good idea. The only way that would work is if we literally killed every Arab man, woman, and child we found on sight. I don't think anyone is seriously considering that.

A far better plan would be to quarantine the Muslim disease in Arabia and give huge tax incentives to renewable energy use (not production, which just leads to idiot corruption/theft like Solyndra) until we are no longer dependent on their oil, at which point the Muslim world can fade back into the 8th century irrelevance that they enjoyed until recently.

[big_ole_jpn]

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

Iraqi insurgents, Taliban, and the Vietcong didn't have access to oil revenue and they were still able to conduct costly insurgencies.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Trungep99]

All you trump supporters are nuts for trusting this guy. Lack of government experience, , and a career of taking advantage of other citizens.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Trungep99 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

All you trump supporters are nuts for trusting this guy. Lack of government experience, , and a career of taking advantage of other citizens.

I addressed this the other day Trunge. It has nothing to do with trust:

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

I look at it more like this,

Trump says he's selling bologna sandwiches. He hasn't sold any sandwiches before, but in the past has expressed a particular fondness for vegemite sandwiches. Sone people suspect he doesn't really plan to offer any bologna sandwiches if elected and will instead offer the same faux-vegemite sandwiches shilled by his 'opponent'.

Hillary markets her Vegemite sandwiches as Nutella sandwiches. Everyone knows their not Nutella and they smell like shit for some reason.

Game theory urges me to take my chances with the bologna sandwich. It may be great. It may even have a tomato. If it is not, or if it turns out Trump does end up only offering vegemite or even faux vegemite sandwiches, then I am no worse off than I would have been going with Hillary's shit sandwich. And, there is a chance that in the process, Trump's foray into sandwichdom may make some waves and lead to better sandwiches in the future. With Hillary, we can be assured that accepting her offering only strengthens the resolve of shit-sandwich manufacturers and we can expect more indefinitely.

[Tecmos Deception]

Originally Posted by Trungep99 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

and a career of taking advantage of other citizens.

Sounds like he has plenty of experience with how to be a politician.

[Lune]

Trump doesn't believe sandwich mold exists even though it's a consensus among the entire scientific and academic community that it, in fact, does. Trump is willing to accept scientific consensus for other important things like how to manage cholesterol, treat cancer, or run a business/economy. But in the case of sandwich mold, an entire party has special interests pulling the strings and he bends over to comply. He proposes that we don't bother putting sandwiches in the fridge because sandwich mold isn't real and if we put our sandwiches in the fridge we won't be able to compete with China, which doesn't have fridges.

[maskedmelon]

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

Trump doesn't believe sandwich mold exists even though it's a consensus among the entire scientific and academic community that it, in fact, does. Trump is willing to accept scientific consensus for other important things like how to manage cholesterol, treat cancer, or run a business/economy. But in the case of sandwich mold, an entire party has special interests pulling the strings and he bends over to comply. He proposes that we don't bother putting sandwiches in the fridge because sandwich mold isn't real and if we put our sandwiches in the fridge we won't be able to compete with China, which doesn't have fridges.

Very high quality post and excellent analogy. I think I still might prefer a moldy, shit-free sandwich over the shit sandwich though :/ However, as I have indicated, Trump sandwiches run the very real chance of being both shitty and moldy :/


Nevertheless, it is important to note that while I do not care to have shit or sand in my sandwiches, nor do I care for the ilicit practices or adverse conditions giving rise to such a nefarious malady as is sandwich mold, I worry little of sandwich mold itself.

Sandwich mold's most pronounce effects are associated with long term exposure. Since there will be no young melons to worry about and populations most severely affected are likely those whom will suffer disproportionately due to the forthcoming age of automation anyway, I am at worst indifferent to sandwich mold and at best mildly hopeful. ^^

[Raev]

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

Trump doesn't believe sandwich mold exists even though it's a consensus among the entire scientific and academic community that it, in fact, does. Trump is willing to accept scientific consensus for other important things like how to manage cholesterol, treat cancer, or run a business/economy. But in the case of sandwich mold, an entire party has special interests pulling the strings and he bends over to comply. He proposes that we don't bother putting sandwiches in the fridge because sandwich mold isn't real and if we put our sandwiches in the fridge we won't be able to compete with China, which doesn't have fridges.

Even if we assume for the sake of argument that anthropogenic global warming is a 100% certainty (and I still think it's unbelievably stupid to trust a group of people who say they can simulate a chaotic system, regardless of how many PhDs they give themselves), so what?

Do you seriously think world leaders will agree to make real cuts in CO2 production when the global economy is even now melting down under a mountain of debt? And even if by some miracle emissions were slashed 25%, how much of an effect do you really think it will have?

Conclusion: if AGW is real, it's baked into the cake already regardless of what Trump, Hillary, or anyone else tries to do.