Trump's Valor

[Tecmos Deception]

http://youtu.be/M3CiPKueqo8

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

[R Flair]

Im confused, are you opposed to the US going after Isis or taking the oil while we do it?

I'm for both.

[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.

[Raev]

Under Obama (D-IL), the US created ISIS in order to help our 'ally' Saudi Arabia, whose government funded and organized 9/11, overthrow Assad and replace him with a Syrian government that would allow the Saudis to build a pipeline to Europe and deny Iran the same. This resulted in lots of people dead, the destruction of most of Syria, and the entire European migrant crisis. Let's also not forget Ukraine (same strategy, same result).

It's amazing how bipartisan our government can be when it comes to Third World governments.

P.S. I checked the vote. Summing the House and Senate, about 50% of Democrats voted for war vs 95% of Republicans. It's so sad that Byrd's resolution was denied [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Nihilist_santa]

This is more than just Iraq though. General Wesley Clark laid it out pretty well they planned to take out 7 countries in what they thought would only take 5 years. All for the reasons Raev outlined above. Clark makes it seem much more bumbling and innocent than the reality of things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

[Tecmos Deception]

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 or taking the oil while we do it?

I'm for both.

It's just some poor folks kids in exchange for oil and a safer world, right? So simple.