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.

[Daywolf]

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.

And I'm suppose to defend Bush here? lol
See, 100% proved my point.
0boma carried Gulf War II longer than Bush, after running on how wrong it was and promises of getting out. That's only the tip of the iceberg, 0bama and the dems are HAWKS, to the bone.

Fun point: you brought up Vietnam, since that was LBJ. See, if it's a Rep then it's the Reps fault. But if Dem, its America's fault. That's some deep denial...

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.

qft

---
edit
I'll just add a reminder note here: Twice not voting for W, voted other. Never once supported nation building, I debated years with reps telling them it'll never work; it's a land of dictators, period.

The neocons in both parties do nothing but fight over who is going to do it, that's it.
Oh, so to not come off as a total hippie peacenik, I did support Gulf War I. Shouldn't have stopped there though, I didn't support sanctions at all. Iraq should have been smashed and a new dictator installed :P Clinton, the Germans and the French raped the country for 8 years.

[AgentEpilot]

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

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

I am looking so sternly at Germany and Sweden right now. I really think they screwed the pooch here.
(Not that they invaded, but the mass immigration and coddling, not letting it rot so to speak)

[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.