Holy Shit

[KUGRDON]

3 minutes ago, Scscsc89 said:

 

You recall incorrectly then.  I have always been open that the US should do what it can to help civilians & refugees as part of international peacekeeping efforts.  However, in most of the places in the middle east, the choices are tough & I would always lean AGAINST going it alone or sending in US Troops without clear objectives.   In other words, when in doubt, stay out.

I agree with most of that and have to say that our military action over the last 8 years in Afghanistan, and Libya and Our encouragement of Civil War in Syria did not have clear objectives, or strategy and tactics to achieve and preserve any objectives.  You could add, and I would have to agree, that the earlier action in Iraq had similar problems.

The point being that the problems we face continue to be in 1) failure to plan, commit sufficient resources to victory and follow through where military intervention is deemed to be necessary and 2) encouraging military action by others when we are not committed to the same. Both have been equally disastrous.  

Sometimes the cost benefit analysis leads to a conclusion that intervention is necessary and beneficial and sometimes it doesn't.  Those who determine whether or not military action is advisable or not based on ideology rather than cost benefit analysis are fools who cause needless loss of lives.

[Scscsc89]

The problem is that usually the answer isn't just military & we have a disastrous record of wanting to do any more than bomb the shit out of a place (such as accepting refugees). 

 

It may be selfish or uncaring but sometimes we should just stat out of things that aren't our fight, where we don't have the commitment to be involved.  ISIS may a problem but are we making it a bigger threat by getting involved?

[KUGRDON]

1 minute ago, Scscsc89 said:

The problem is that usually the answer isn't just military & we have a disastrous record of wanting to do any more than bomb the shit out of a place. 

 

It may be selfish or uncaring but sometimes we should just stat out of things that aren't our fight.  ISIS is a problem but are we making it a bigger threat by getting involved?

Or could have it been largely avoided by a residual force being present in Iraq.  

Sometimes the answer is military, most times it is not. I happen to think that if we had left a residual force in Iraq, not engaged in regime change in Libya, not encouraged the Civil War in Syria and not escalated the war in Afghanistan (but limited our actions to anti-insurgency as recommended by Biden) we would be in a much better position and hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved.

[Scscsc89]

5 minutes ago, KUGRDON said:

Or could have it been largely avoided by a residual force being present in Iraq.  

 

 

A)  you have no proof of this -- it could've easily done the opposite

b ) it had no support from anywhere politically

c) it goes against the clear objective  mantra you agreed to above

[Scscsc89]

To most military advisors, everything looks like a nail.

[KUGRDON]

16 minutes ago, Scscsc89 said:

 

A)  you have no proof of this -- it could've easily done the opposite

b ) it had no support from anywhere politically

c) it goes against the clear objective  mantra you agreed to above

Clear objective, preserve the military gains and stability while exerting diplomatic leverage against the government of Iraq.  Obama withdrew militarily and diplomatically.  While we disagree, this may have been the most rational discussion we had on the topic therefore this is a good place for me to quit.  I am left to consider why are you do not criticize military action in Afghanistan and Libya and the encouragement of civil war in Syria  and having witnessed the absolute failure of our Syrian policy you are so unwilling to consider whether a residual force may have avoided the failure.  As for political support: When a leader makes a decision it's up to him to rally political support rather than fail to lead because of political opposition.

[KUGRDON]

Some good news:

 

[glduck]

it was probably that delicious chocolate cake they enjoyed as trump was bombing... you know, some country. iraq, i believe the donald said.

[All Hail]

3 hours ago, glduck said:

could be a nice cue to stop watching msnbc. nobody else does.

This is one of the difference between liberals and conservatives.  Liberals ignore the vast majority of their own extremists and don't tune into MSNBC.  Conservatives have never met a pundit they didn't absolutely worship that has ever done a segment on Fox News.  

[KUGRDON]

10 minutes ago, All Hail said:

This is one of the difference between liberals and conservatives.  Liberals ignore the vast majority of their own extremists and don't tune into MSNBC.  Conservatives have never met a pundit they didn't absolutely worship that has ever done a segment on Fox News.  

With me that's absolutely wrong. The only program I watch on Fox news Chris Wallace on Sunday mornings.

[Orange]

On 4/13/2017 at 4:53 PM, KUGRDON said:

To be fair, MSNBC went ape shit with BREAKING NEWS and I sort of reacted.  

Yes, we're aware of your credibility issues.

[Orange]

On 4/14/2017 at 3:15 PM, KUGRDON said:

With me that's absolutely wrong. The only program I watch on Fox news Chris Wallace on Sunday mornings.

 

And that's a small thing?  Sunday Morning is probably THE morning for comprehensive news coverage among all networks.  Face the Nation, Meet the Press, This Week -- ALL are infinitely more reliable, objective, and professional than Chris Wallace on Sunday mornings.

[KUGRDON]

17 minutes ago, Orange said:

 

And that's a small thing?  Sunday Morning is probably THE morning for comprehensive news coverage among all networks.  Face the Nation, Meet the Press, This Week -- ALL are infinitely more reliable, objective, and professional than Chris Wallace on Sunday mornings.

 I do not agree with you that any of the other shows are more credible than Chris Wallace and I watch all of them except face the nation.  I am unable to record more than three shows at once so I eliminate FTN.  I watch Brian Stelter on reliable sources and he is a leftist, I watch Fareed, leftist,  George who was a staffer for the Clintons, and Chris Todd Who appears to be as centrist as Wallace, Jake Tapper whose tweets reflect that he is a leftist. . .

it is fascinating to read the Twitter accounts of "Journalists."  The posts, likes and retweets are very informative.

[Orange]

36 minutes ago, KUGRDON said:

 I do not agree with you that any of the other shows are more credible than Chris Wallace and I watch all of them except face the nation.  I am unable to record more than three shows at once so I eliminate FTN.  I watch Brian Stelter on reliable sources and he is a leftist, I watch Fareed, leftist,  George who was a staffer for the Clintons, and Chris Todd Who appears to be as centrist as Wallace, Jake Tapper whose tweets reflect that he is a leftist. . .

it is fascinating to read the Twitter accounts of "Journalists."  The posts, likes and retweets are very informative.

Your definition of "leftist" is absolutely asinine.  Just because, for example, Tapper recognizes the VERY unique nature of Trump's insidious ineptitude, greed, dishonesty, lack of ethics, and ignorance doesn't make him a leftist.  Even the Daily Caller agrees:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/03/with-the-presidential-debate-approaching-jake-tapper-reveals-his-party-affiliation/

 

Fareed Zakaria, after Trump bombed Syria, said "He just became president".  THAT'S a leftist?  Come the fuck on.

[KUGRDON]

None of these folks had to wait for Trump to reveal their ideology.  As for the Fareed statement you referred to, most neocons supported Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan and regime change in Libya. It didn't make them progressives or centrists.  Most of those in national security related positions in the Obama Administration supported Tromp's strike on Syria (and lamented Obama's failure to do so), it doesn't make them neo-cons or centrists.

[Orange]

30 minutes ago, KUGRDON said:

None of these folks had to wait for Trump to reveal their ideology.  As for the Fareed statement you referred to, most neocons supported Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan and regime change in Libya. It didn't make them progressives or centrists.  Most of those in national security related positions in the Obama Administration supported Tromp's strike on Syria (and lamented Obama's failure to do so), it doesn't make them neo-cons or centrists.

And it sure as shit doesn't make them "leftists" if they supported EITHER president striking in Syria.  I've proven to you that one of the most right-leaning rags available "Daily Caller" disagrees on Tapper, and Zakaria is at best a moderate Democrat.  Yet you refer to them as "leftists".  You're a warped ideologue.

[KUGRDON]

24 minutes ago, Orange said:

And it sure as shit doesn't make them "leftists" if they supported EITHER president striking in Syria.  I've proven to you that one of the most right-leaning rags available "Daily Caller" disagrees on Tapper, and Zakaria is at best a moderate Democrat.  Yet you refer to them as "leftists".  You're a warped ideologue.

Being slightly to the right of you does not make one a centrist or moderate anything.  LOL. Anybody who believes anything from daily caller or tucker is an idiot.

[Orange]

9 minutes ago, KUGRDON said:

Being slightly to the right of you does not make one a centrist or moderate anything.  LOL. Anybody who believes anything from daily caller or tucker is an idiot.

I don't trust the Daily Caller, I just trust them to BE THE DAILY CALLER, which is to say, they'll identify anyone who doesn't believe in the forced traincar shipment of the poor to capitalist camps as a "liberal."  I don't think you realize just how far right you are in the pantheon of even American politics (to say nothing of the rest of the western world, which believes in universal health care, free college, active implementation of policies to combat climate change, non-interventionist foreign policy, euthanasia and abortion on demand, etc.)

[KUGRDON]

And I believe in universal healthcare funded with a broad-based and progressive tax on income, adequately funded free college, active implementation of policies which in fact combat climate change, and non-interventionist foreign-policy.   Moreover, I also think euthanasia and abortion should be legal in limited circumstances. I don't think you know where the center is.

[Orange]

20 minutes ago, KUGRDON said:

And I believe in universal healthcare funded with a broad-based and progressive tax on income, adequately funded free college, active implementation of policies which in fact combat climate change, and non-interventionist foreign-policy.   Moreover, I also think euthanasia and abortion should be legal in limited circumstances. I don't think you know where the center is.

"Broad-based" is code for taxing the poor/working class more.  "Adequately funded" college is a loaded statement.  We already spend WAYYYY too much money as a country to not fund free college.  You're being vague on your climate change position. I'm pretty sure you oppose the most effective measures: cap and trade and a carbon tax.  Your "limited circumstances" for abortion and euthanasia also put you squarely in the Mitt Romney circle of making women baby slaves.