The Next President is...

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

I'll at least speak for me and say that I thought at the time that killing Soleimani in the manner in which we did was extremely dangerous and could have very easily sparked a larger conflict with Iran. Hell, I think that's what people like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo explicitly wanted! Even the folks that presented his assassination as an option felt that it was extreme and very unlikely to be selected...lesson learned, be careful what COAs you present to the Boss when trying to bracket the decision you'd like him/her to make!

Knowing  now that Iran's response would be quite docile, I'm glad Soleimani's dead; he was a very malign actor that no one outside of Iran & their allies was a fan of. Would piss on his grave if given the opportunity.

So good job to the Admin I guess 🤷‍♂️ I feel like they pulled a Will Ferrell in the debate in Old School, i.e. totally unprepared, no plan, no way to mitigate downsides of a loss, etc., but I mean a W is a W even if I'm still not a fan of the "process" used to achieve this outcome.

To your main point @Danger41, if the Russians were offering bounties to extremists on U.S. service members and anyone in the Admin knew about it, and we've yet to officially say anything or complain or sanction or anything...that's a serious lack of leadership and a betrayal of what it means when each of us puts our lives on the line for this country IMHO.

That being said, it seems like there are still details that need to come out and I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt and let the Admin issue some kind of statement on the story one way or the other.

We dont have a lot of moral high ground on this though considering we did the same thing times 1000X in the 1980s. 

[brickhistory]

Hmmm, unfortunately US troops have been in Afghanistan under now three US presidents.

I'm betting that if Ivan is supporting the Taliban, as we did the muhjadin (sp?), it's not a recent phenomena.  But only "orange man bad" and has to make a statement or he's Putin's puppet.  A very convenient demand it would seem.

 

I also remind the audience that the previous president ordered the extrajudicial killing via Hellfire of an American citizen and his 16 yr old son and was praised for it by those same voices clamoring for Trump to denounce the Russians. (Again, I'm not sorry that bastard is dead, but the precedent can and will be misused in the future)

[nsplayr]

30 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Hmmm, unfortunately US troops have been in Afghanistan under now three US presidents.

I'm betting that if Ivan is supporting the Taliban, as we did the muhjadin (sp?), it's not a recent phenomena.  But only "orange man bad" and has to make a statement or he's Putin's puppet.  A very convenient demand it would seem.

 

I also remind the audience that the previous president ordered the extrajudicial killing via Hellfire of an American citizen and his 16 yr old son and was praised for it by those same voices clamoring for Trump to denounce the Russians. (Again, I'm not sorry that bastard is dead, but the precedent can and will be misused in the future)

If there was a specific intel report that said, "Putin is paying extremists to kill US troops in Afghanistan," would you not have wanted President Obama or President Bush to make a statement denouncing it and take some kind of action to push back on Russian aggression? This really isn't a case of "orange man bad" and wanting him to do something different...I want par for the course. We're not going to invade Moscow over it but I expect there so be something done no matter who's in the seat.

I fully supported killing Awlaki and it's unfortunate that his son was there but his son wasn't the target.

I do agree that assassinating a high-ranking official of a sovereign country that we're not at war with is a bad precedent, although as @FLEA points out it's one we've violated many times before. Even if Soleimani was bad, and he was very bad, it's just fundamentally different than an AQ or ISIS leader.

[ctf151]

3 hours ago, FLEA said:

We dont have a lot of moral high ground on this though considering we did the same thing times 1000X in the 1980s. 

Reminder, for those unaware: 

[Clark Griswold]

13 hours ago, Prozac said:

Fair enough Clark, but while you make a valid point about laying the blame for fascism/world conflict on the Western allies, the fact remains that we willingly vacated our seat at the table. When you do that, you don’t get to have a say in the conversation anymore. I see a similar trend recently. We’ve removed ourselves from international conversations about climate change, Iranian disarmament, and coronavirus response amongst others. We’ve pulled out of long-standing arms treaties, and we’re beginning to treat old allies more like adversaries. Not saying we might not have valid reasons for all of these things, but I’m afraid that the “I’m taking my ball and going home” attitude means we’re giving up on American influence all around the world. I also think we’ve simultaneously de emphasized “soft power”. I agree that it’s prohibitively expensive and morally problematic to deal with all the world’s problems With the American military. Yet the military budget continues to increase, while the state department’s is slashed. Less American engagement in the world is antithetical to American exceptionalism. Continued American influence doesn’t always have to be prohibitively expensive. We need to start being more creative in how we engage. 

Cool - I would say I agree being at the party is great but so is also knowing when to leave the party.

Agree on better use of soft power and not every problem is a nail requiring a hammer, perfect example being Venezuela.  Maduro is an a-hole, his cronies are a-holes and they do a-hole things, but they do them in their country for the most part, they do not pose a threat to us but are a nuisance therefore don't think they are a nail to be hammered.  Staying out militarily but engaging diplomatically, informational and in targeted assistance to supportable opposition factions to them is the winning COA, which we seem to be doing, let's repeat more of this. 

[FLEA]

On 6/27/2020 at 4:29 PM, Prozac said:

Fair enough Clark, but while you make a valid point about laying the blame for fascism/world conflict on the Western allies, the fact remains that we willingly vacated our seat at the table. When you do that, you don’t get to have a say in the conversation anymore. I see a similar trend recently. We’ve removed ourselves from international conversations about climate change, Iranian disarmament, and coronavirus response amongst others. We’ve pulled out of long-standing arms treaties, and we’re beginning to treat old allies more like adversaries. Not saying we might not have valid reasons for all of these things, but I’m afraid that the “I’m taking my ball and going home” attitude means we’re giving up on American influence all around the world. I also think we’ve simultaneously de emphasized “soft power”. I agree that it’s prohibitively expensive and morally problematic to deal with all the world’s problems With the American military. Yet the military budget continues to increase, while the state department’s is slashed. Less American engagement in the world is antithetical to American exceptionalism. Continued American influence doesn’t always have to be prohibitively expensive. We need to start being more creative in how we engage. 

Prozac your post reminded me of a book I recently finished. If you get the time check it out. It's called Super Power: Three Choices for Americans by Ian Brenner. It's a non partisan discussion about why our foreign policy strategies are failing us right now. In short, the author outlines 3 schools of thought on FP.

The strategy I subscribe to and I think more and more Americans are subscribing to is the best way to garner world influence is to put our own house in order and be a stalwart example of a moral state. But there are faults with this approach and the author does talk about it.

The two other strategies are Moneyball and Indespensible America, which focus on calculated advantages or using force to project American values/morals on the rest of the world. The whole point of the book isn't to suede people one way or the other but to present the 3 approaches and get people to pick one because for 30 years we've been trying to do all of them and we are finding out that is impossible. 

 

[Prozac]

Thanks FLEA. Assuming you meant to say Ian Bremmer (vice Brenner). I’ve read some of his work and tend to respect his positions even if I may not agree with all of them. I’ll look into his book. 

[FLEA]

9 hours ago, Prozac said:

Thanks FLEA. Assuming you meant to say Ian Bremmer (vice Brenner). I’ve read some of his work and tend to respect his positions even if I may not agree with all of them. I’ll look into his book. 

I did. Sorry didn't have the book in front of me. Its just what you said made me realise we fall into completely different schools (in the book you do a quiz at the beggining to determine your closest school of thought) so we are unlikely to find agreement on some of these issues. 

[brickhistory]

If Trump wins the election, the violence on that night and for several nights after will make the recent riots look like a high school pep rally.  The cities will light up.

If Biden wins, the internets will light up.

Quite a difference.

I hope state and city leaders are looking ahead and drawing up plans to protect life and property.  This is an easy one to see coming (no sts).

[dream big]

17 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

If Trump wins the election, the violence on that night and for several nights after will make the recent riots look like a high school pep rally.  The cities will light up.

If Biden wins, the internets will light up.

Quite a difference.

I hope state and city leaders are looking ahead and drawing up plans to protect life and property.  This is an easy one to see coming (no sts).

There will be riots regardless of the outcome.  Might be a good time to buy stock in pepper spray. 
 

Maybe this thing will come back? 
 

[brickhistory]

If by "pepper spray," you mean jacketed hollow points, I agree.

[nsplayr]

Hey guys, friendly reminder that we shouldn't fantasize about killing our fellow citizens over political differences! I know Hamilton just came out on Disney + and ole Alexander and Aaron did have a famous duel, but let's not shoot each other regardless of what happens this November.

[brickhistory]

If I am protecting my property or my family, it's no longer political.

I also don't plan to be downtown anywhere that night.

Might I suggest you give your advice to the rioters either now or, probably, then?

I don't fantasize it nor do I want it to happen.  Simply prepared and I reject completely your insinuation.  Mr. Manbun Antifa guy doesn't want to get shot, don't come on my property or try to make an impromptu checkpoint on a city street where I am trapped and unable to escape.

[nsplayr]

Yes, let's all not hurt each other. Let's not burn, let's not loot, let's not shoot, let's fucking try to come together and face the big challenges laid at our feet at this moment. Feel free to forward to any of your friends who plan on rioting - I don't know anyone who is.

[Erthwerm]

12 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Mr. Manbun Antifa guy doesn't want to get shot, don't come on my property or try to make an impromptu checkpoint on a city street where I am trapped and unable to escape.

That's called playing a stupid game and winning a stupid prize. 

I'm not a violent person, but my time in the infantry has made me tactically and technically proficient as far as moving, shooting, and communicating is concerned. If somebody starts smacking my car with a bike lock and threatening to kill me, it is not going to end well for that person. 

 

Edit: this is assuming that all my attempts to deescalate have failed. 

Edited July 7, 2020 by Erthwerm
clarity

[brickhistory]

4 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Yes, let's all not hurt each other. Let's not burn, let's not loot, let's not shoot, let's fucking try to come together and face the big challenges laid at our feet at this moment. Feel free to forward to any of your friends who plan on rioting - I don't know anyone who is.

Yet you chose to admonish those most likely to not start trouble or violence, simple meet it without flinching if required.

[nsplayr]

22 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Yet you chose to admonish those most likely to not start trouble or violence, simple meet it without flinching if required.

If you know of anyone on these board who supports looting and burning let me know, I'd love to admonish them. Trust me, stupid anarchists are not people I support.

I replied to you because it was the only post I saw that seemed to raise the idea of further violence. By all means defend you and yours...but let's all take a step back and try to de-escalate rather than further inflame.

[brickhistory]

I, again, reject your insinuation.

And add to it a rejection of your moral equivalence of those who are rioting, looting, killing with those who object to such behavior.

I didn't "step" forward so I have no need to "step back."

Nor will I kneel.

I get what you are saying, I think.

I simply object to be placed in the same category as those ripping our country apart.  

[bfargin]

10 hours ago, dream big said:

There will be riots regardless of the outcome.  Might be a good time to buy stock in pepper spray. 
 

Maybe this thing will come back? 

If so, it will be leftist for both occasions. I can't imagine any conservative rioting. Now as Brick said, if they come for us we'll stand firm and kick their teeth in, but we won't riot because it's not in our DNA.

[AirGuardianC141747]

None of the below pertains to responsible/peaceful protesting.

May it never come to the worst case scenario. I do pray that it will not. But when pushed far enough it’s obvious where the buck will stop and God favors the prepared: “violence begets violence” Not in reference to the MLK speech in any way. It was Col Jeff Cooper regarding his response to a reporter  “It is my earnest endeavor to see that it does.” That’s how it’s done and that’s why militaries exist for the most part (fewer rampant cases of “countries needing breathing room.”)

I pray we do not reach the final stage of failed deescalation and like countries/children need to be spanked it seems adults/domestic enemies/terrorists may require the same. Everyone here locks your doors home/car, take precautions on a daily basis. We do not live in a utopia. Evil exists and it is your duty to protect the sheep as Sheepdogs of our society. “Trust in God, but keep your powder dry” - Civil War.

Edited July 7, 2020 by AirGuardianC141747

[Negatory]

Just remember y’all (I know, that’s cultural appropriation), if we’ve learned anything from this thread it’s that “libruls” have bad DNA that predisposes them to rioting (and man buns I guess?), and that when you are figuring out how to deal with someone who has a different opinion than you, you should get your guidance from the rootin tootin time of the civil war.

got it

[AirGuardianC141747]

I seek to understand, than to be understood. Arguing is one thing/ or lively banter if you will, but to encroach upon ones land, freedoms and endangering family, friends and loved ones to oppress or depress others into your way of thinking, propaganda and eventually tyranny. History is trying to be erased, it will be repeated. “Got it!” No, I don’t believe for one second you do. That’s your right provided by thousands upon thousands before us.

 

[bfargin]

14 hours ago, brawnie said:

Just remember y’all (I know, that’s cultural appropriation), if we’ve learned anything from this thread it’s that “libruls” have bad DNA that predisposes them to rioting (and man buns I guess?), and that when you are figuring out how to deal with someone who has a different opinion than you, you should get your guidance from the rootin tootin time of the civil war.

got it

Leftist not liberals

[brickhistory]

Man, this thing just won't die (and I'm not talking about Hillary's political career, for once...):

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/u-s-judge-hearing-flynn-case-asks-appeals-court-to-reconsider-dismissal/ar-BB16xVSM?ocid=spartan-ntp-feeds

 

[Negatory]

Discuss. Rabble rabble constitution rabble rabble.

 

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1288818160389558273?s=20