BruceVC

That guy was a complete moron. He was impressively stupid. I'm sorry but how can Trump allow someone to say " Obama is a Muslim " and not correct them? Apart from the factual inaccuracy the insinuation is that somehow its bad to be a Muslim...or that all Muslims want to kill Americans? Come on guys....do we really need to have that type ignorance in the USA during what is suppose to be reasonable political debate ?

Oh wait I mustn't underestimate Scotland from our pool....then I'm confident that we will get through and then it will be between the Scotland and USA

So if you are going back to the Vietnam war then are you suggesting the USA has been "weak " for 40 years? Also what recent wars has the USA been defeated in? They went into Afghanistan to kill Bin Laden and to reduce the operating capability of AL-Qaeda..they have done this. Do you expect them to stay in Afghanistan for decades? Iraq was a mistake ....we all know this. So how is the USA withdrawing there troops in 2011 a mistake And finally what bosses exactly are weak, I assume you mean the US presidents. Do you mean Obama...Bush...Clinton? And can you give concrete examples of how the US presidents have been weak ? So for example should Obama have just ignored the Iranian nuclear talks and did what Netanyahu wanted by bombing Iran...is that your idea of showing "American strength " ? Interesting post, makes a lot of sense. I just have a few questions about the last paragraph. Can you give examples of how the USA isn't interested in enforcement . Because the only possible outcome outside of these Iranian negotiations would have been military airstrikes by the USA. Is that what you are suggesting....that the US should have used the military option. I always thought you were against US intervention in places like the ME unless the interests of the US were truly threatened? And as you correctly stated the sanctions against Iran were only this effective because you had consensus from the likes of Russia and China. And both these countries were at a point where if the current Iranian negotiations had failed they might have either pulled out of enforcing sanctions or looked for there own solution to deal with the Iranian problem...and I really can't imagine either the Russians or Chinese effectively being able to get Iran to change its mind from developing nuclear technology ? http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/iran-talks-show-why-west-still-needs-russia/511756.html

I remember you had interest in Rugby seven, didn't you go support them in Vegas? And yes you will find the full Rugby games much more entertaining and intense. I'm glad you are going to watch them, you won't be disappointed And yes you right NZ, like South Africa, has a very good pool draw and will definitely get through. Also remember two teams from each pool get through Pool A is the hardest by far. Australia, England and Wales...I predict Wales and Australia

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/ It started yesterday, we love our Rugby in South Africa..well most of us do Anyone planning on watching? South Africa is in a good pool....I predict us and the USA will get through http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/pools

Thats what I thought, I can see you know what you are talking about You debate from a point of fact and historical context and its refreshing to read your comments

I doubt that it's based on any serious calculation. There is a willingness among likely GOP primary voters to believe that the current administration has greatly weakened the US's military capabilities. The play for a candidate like Carson is to stoke that concern so that he can offer his leadership/policies as a solution. Yes anyone who thinks the USA military is weak or ineffective is either uninformed or is just making comments in the interests of political expediency, I have always found this type of political rhetoric irresponsible because I can guarantee you there are people in the USA who genuinely think the USA military is " weak "

So there are several things I don't agree with or maybe you are just unaware of them So Western intervention in the ME has primarily been about two main reasons, to ensure security around oil and the humanitarian precedent You cannot ignore either of these points for different reasons. Lets be clear when the West gets involved in the ME and various conflicts in the region it is now patently obvious that the outcome won't be a Western style system of Democracy. This outcome is a good thing by the way as Western countries offer there citizens the best quality of life...so this isn't about the superiority of Western ideology as its basically been proven in the last 200 years that Western governments and what they believe in are the most effective governments in the world. The ME needs to follow its own system of Democracy and yes there is still work to be done but end of the day the overall objective is to uplift the quality of life of the citizens of the various countries in the ME and make there governments and rulers more accountable. This should be a universal goal that we should all support Now back to intervention in the ME and the justification for it from a Western perspective. Oil....of course the supply and security of the oil use to be paramount to the growth and sustainability of the economies of all countries in the world. And since the majority of oil comes from the ME and the rate of oil production is controlled by OPEC anything that could disrupt this oil supply would be more than enough reason to justify intervention in the ME. So don't assume people really believe that " getting involved in the ME is about helping the Arabs achieve there full potential " ....of course thats not the only reason. The economic impact of having the global oil supply disrupted would be disastrous for the whole world. I would expect the world to intervene on some levels to ensure stability of the region....this is obvious But things have now changed as far as the oil supply is concerned. The USA is now the worlds biggest producer of oil this has fundamentally changed the urgency of when the West will intervene in the ME http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/04/amy-klobuchar/klobuchar-says-us-worlds-no-1-oil-producer/ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-04/u-s-seen-as-biggest-oil-producer-after-overtaking-saudi So now intervention is also about the humanitarian reason, for example the USA only started the recent airstrikes against ISIS because ISIS were going to basically massacre the Yazidi's who were trapped on Mount Sinjar https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/yazidis-still-reported-trapped-on-mountain-in-northern-iraq-despite-us-assessment/2014/08/14/d85337fb-c5d2-4b82-b53a-410467e0db90_story.html So I don't support this view that the West " should just stay out of the ME" as I have mentioned two reasons, oil security and human rights, that do justify Western involvement in some of the ME conflicts. This cannot just be ignored

And let me guess...you are well informed and know exactly what will ensure peace in the ME and address the issue of ISIS? Since you are criticizing my views I am interested in what you suggest is the solution to deal with ISIS and the various conflicts, like Syrian civil war, that have been created since the Arab Spring swept through the ME?

Well, as long as it's not a problem for the US it's cool, the thinking is going I assume, heh. Guys come on, you can't possibly blame the USA for training people who later become there enemies. As far as Islamic extremism is concerned it is this fractured and nebulous movement that often fights within itself. Its not like Islamic extremism is this monolithic group of people who all have the same motives So in other words you cannot predict if some people who are trained by the USA later turn against them, thats just a reality of this type of conflict Look at the training of the Mujaheddin by the CIA in Afghanistan ....look how that turned out Its got nothing to do with ignorance It actually has a lot to do with ignorance.... Ignorance to the cultural development in that region in the last 4 thousands of years. If they would know and understand that, they would never used non-ruling parties as tools in their proxy wars... even when using the ruling parties, they should first know what is holding them at their power... because as we see Sauds officially being friends to US while at the same time there are a lot of people in that family supporting islamic extremists... And looking that Sauds are basically a modern theocracy, it is not a surprise to anyone who has a basic grasp at the reality there. Again, meddling in none of your affairs just makes things worse... and why? to secure natural resources and poke at Russia/Soviet Union. No thats just not true, the USA has trained groups of people in the ME that have definitely aided them in various ways and conflicts ..its not meddling and is in fact prudent The Kurds have been a success story of Western training http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/240120152 The reality is its easier in many ways to train people who will do the hand to hand fighting in a conflict like Syria than to send your own troops. Of course the Syrian conflict and the various training programs have been wracked with issues and logistical problems...I am not in denial about that. But that doesn't mean that any suggestions to train various groups in the ME to fight Islamic extremism is a bad idea. But I am well aware of the issues around training in Syria and so are the USA http://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/08/06/rebels-vanish-syria-starr-dnt-tsr.cnn http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/18/politics/syrian-rebels-pentagon-training-isis/

I'm flying to the coast in few hours to see my family and coming back on Sunday. I have taken leave for today and I am looking forward to a few days of fun in the sun and spending time just relaxing I have never ever shown you guys what Durban looks like, its a coastal town and has many cool restaurants and bars right on the beach. Here are some images that someone else has taken and I think they do an accurate job of covering what Durban is like http://www.canstockphoto.com/images-photos/durban.html

Wow this has been a very interesting post, Varana how come you know so much about this part of history? Its very fascinating Well, there's a thing called a book.... A book.... Yes of course he could have just picked up a book and read all about this just for this debate but his knowledge seems to be more comprehensive and detailed. It seems to me its more of a hobby ?

Well, as long as it's not a problem for the US it's cool, the thinking is going I assume, heh. Guys come on, you can't possibly blame the USA for training people who later become there enemies. As far as Islamic extremism is concerned it is this fractured and nebulous movement that often fights within itself. Its not like Islamic extremism is this monolithic group of people who all have the same motives So in other words you cannot predict if some people who are trained by the USA later turn against them, thats just a reality of this type of conflict Look at the training of the Mujaheddin by the CIA in Afghanistan ....look how that turned out Its got nothing to do with ignorance

Wow this has been a very interesting post, Varana how come you know so much about this part of history? Its very fascinating

Yeah it has been very dramatic hasn't it

This post smacks of profound sarcasm....I just don't believe you, sorry

In the US Marines "Brigade" is a fluid term. Usually a brigade is a combination of different units from different groups to do a specific thing. The force breakdown of the Marines is 3 Infantry/Armor Regiments active with 1 reserve. 3 Force Service Support Groups with 1 reserve, 3 Marine Air Wings with 1 reserve. I think the total muster of the Corps is around 200K. But GD don't you think what Carly Fiorina is suggesting..50 Marine Brigades is preposterous ?

I was impressed by several people on things they said even though I don't necessarily agree with everything they say ...like Rand Paul and he was unequivocal that the USA needs to stay out of the ME completely as far as " boots on the ground " is concerned. Airstrikes and aiding real Western allies...like the Kurds is fine Rubio seems to have a good grasp of global events And you could see the tension, which was humorous, between Trump and Carly Fiorina. But damn many of these Republicans want to make the USA military much greater...as in much much more investment. Isn't the US military already by far the most effective and well resourced military in the world. And they think the current military is ineffectual They talk about having 50 Marine Brigades !!!! 50 ...I believe there are 9-12 at the moment ?

Ronald Reagan was an actor and a great president, just a side note. Well being politician nowadays doesn't guarantee you can be a successful politician or president. Some would even say that it will guarantee a failure. Sadly we don't have politicians anymore, mostly we have popularity polls wh***s and flags in the wind. So if people cannot count on politicians they turn to other people. Successful people with strong leadership capabilities, strong beliefs that tell people the truth straight instead of politically correct gibberish that doesn't mean anything. And Trump have it all. Trump says more in one minute debate time than any given politician in two hour speech. People are more likely to believe a construction businessman to build a wall than a politician who says he can help. You raise some interesting points but you are overlooking something very fundamental,...you can count on some politicians. You can count on the Democrats...you can count on Hilary Clinton

The west ****ed themselves royally with this and Russia will not play ball anymore when it comes to Syria. I haven't seen the debate, but anyone willing to go mushroom-cloud-mother****er on ISIS (and delivers) have my support. They signed out their right to existence a long time ago. Nah, I don't buy the point that the " reasonable Russians really tried to ensure peace in Syria and were ignored by the intransigent West " Lets go back to the beginning of the Syrian conflict ..the Russians and Chinese vetoed military action. As I have said numerous times this lack of military action has lead to the Syrian civil war being protracted for years. Thats on Russia and China Also you do realize the Russians have become much more active in Syria militarily in the last month or two. So they are sending military resources to help Assad against ISIS http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/09/14/analysis-russia-takes-gamble-in-syria-ramping-up-military-involvement-in-civil/ They have also asked the West to assist them in a military coalition basically aiding Assad as he is the " lesser of two evils" compared to ISIS The Russians don't want to commit to Syria by themselves as they have serious economic pressures on them but I can't see the West suddenly helping Assad....even though he is the lesser of the two evils

Yeah that's my view around Trump and his foreign policy experience, remember he has never been a politician before. He really lacks an understanding of diplomacy and rather he seems in contempt of the concept of quiet diplomacy....and of course that concerns me immensely The USA basically had 8 years of that under Bush ...and I don't think it worked out that well overall

Looks like we got ourselves a robot-lover over here fellas! "Robot-lover "

What I find interesting about Trump is he keeps using his credentials as a successful Capitalist as a reason that people should vote for him So he will something like " no building a wall to keep out illegal immigrants isn't hard, I have built massive 100 story buildings..now that's hard " Or " defeating ISIS won't be an issue...I am have proven track record at winning many law suits " So its like he is assuming being a prominent businessman means you can be a successful politician or president ....and its not the same....its really not the same

This is the exact anti-German sentiment that worries me...its not based on fact or an objective analysis of the reality of the current role and motives of Germany

Very funny