The All Things Political Thread (The World and US Reunited)

[BruceVC]

45 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

Also, China correctly calls ww2 the "First Antifascist War" because Japan, Italy, and Germany were indeed fascist, so you're accusation of China locking up Antifa holds no water, because they are a Socialist government.

 

Oh no it absolutely holds water, the CCP doesn't allow anti-government protest or any protest for that matter 

So we could absolutely arrest ANTIFA protesters without evidence or trial if the USA became like China

If you disagree post some links where the CCP has allowed violent protests to continue for months  in any city in China ?Prove me wrong as I genuinely want to read about it ?

[ComradeYellow]

44 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

The US government is not a fascist government and the objectives of BLM and ANTIFA dont target real fascism. ANTIFA nowadays claims to believe violence is acceptable to target violence by white supremacists and right wingers. These groups dont control the USA because the USA is a Constitutional Democracy 

"Constitutional Democracy" haha right a country where corporate interests dictate global policy is very "constitutional" and "democratic"

And yes, ANTIFA and fascists battled it out on the streets in Germany before Hitler even came to power, and modern white supremecists and right wingers here in the U.S.A. are the closest thing to that so it doesn't have to be an identical parallel but a rhythmic one, we seem to be approaching something similar to that as right wing groups are mobilizing all across the U.S.A.  So if a group comes along on a whim and decides to battle them on the streets, all the power to them!

You almost sound like you're strawmanning and nitpicking rather than seeing the big picture.

[ComradeYellow]

36 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Oh no it absolutely holds water, the CCP doesn't allow anti-government protest or any protest for that matter 

So we could absolutely arrest ANTIFA protesters without evidence or trial if the USA became like China

If you disagree post some links where the CCP has allowed violent protests to continue for months  in any city in China ?Prove me wrong as I genuinely want to read about it ?

There's been plenty of protests and strikes in the CCP all through it's tenure, some of them were ridiculous and harmful, some of them led the way to reforms and change.

The U.S. on the other hand, protesting against government actions since the 1960's hasn't changed diddly squat, far easier to blame the flaws in the system on "The other Party" that's virtually identical.

We've changed culturally since the 1960's but not governmentally.  Post ww2 policy is still intact, and Biden is like a perfect fossil and solid representation of a declining and failing trajectory.

Western countries simply aren't ready to accept China's growing role in the world, they're not mentally prepared for it, as Sinologist Kerry Borwn of King's college, London has said.

[BruceVC]

17 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

There's been plenty of protests and strikes in the CCP all through it's tenure, some of them were ridiculous and harmful, some of them led the way to reforms and change.

The U.S. on the other hand, protesting against government actions since the 1960's hasn't changed diddly squat, far easier to blame the flaws in the system on "The other Party" that's virtually identical.

We've changed culturally since the 1960's but not governmentally.  Post ww2 policy is still intact, and Biden is like a perfect fossil and solid representation of a declining and failing trajectory.

Western countries simply aren't ready to accept China's growing role in the world, they're not mentally prepared for it, as Sinologist Kerry Borwn of King's college, London has said.

Our opinions are just words on any forum and dont translate to veracity

Post links of all the violent  protests the CCP has allowed to continue for months in China, if you cannot even support your own view with facts you undermine your own argument. Did you do debating at school, this is something you learn about how to make a convincing point in any debate 

[Guard Dog]

For the second time in less than a week I find myself giving the Biden Admin the slow clap: Pentagon Confirms Biden’s New Restrictions on Drone Strikes, Commando Raids

[Darkpriest]

@Guard Dog and how do you feel about topics like this?

https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/feds-most-convenient-lie-cpi-charade

[BruceVC]

31 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

For the second time in less than a week I find myself giving the Biden Admin the slow clap: Pentagon Confirms Biden’s New Restrictions on Drone Strikes, Commando Raids

I see this as a bad but well meaning military decision 

I support both necessary drone strikes and Commando raids because it avoids boots on the ground in real conflict areas like dealing with the Taliban in Pakistan who cross the border to Afghanistan to kill  US and other coalition soldiers  and then run back like cowards across the border thinking they can find sanctuary in Pakistan. Im not sure what you think is a reasonable alternative in this actual example ?

These types of military strategies reduce the real loss of lives. At least the article says  "drone strikes and commando raids in some conflict zones "....so the operative is " some " 

[Gorth]

1 minute ago, BruceVC said:

I see this as a bad but well meaning military decision 

I support both necessary drone strikes and Commando raids because it avoids boots on the ground in real conflict areas like dealing with the Taliban in Pakistan who cross the border to Afghanistan to kill  US and other coalition soldiers  and then run back like cowards across the border thinking they can find sanctuary in Pakistan. Im not sure what you think is a reasonable alternative in this actual example ?

These types of military strategies reduce the real loss of lives. At least the article says  "drone strikes and commando raids in some conflict zones "....so the operative is " some " 

Did you read the article?

Just curious, as it wasn't a prohibition, it was a tighter control with what will be allowed when. Rather than any gung-ho trigger happy general killing whoever looked at him the wrong way.

[Gfted1]

10 minutes ago, Gorth said:

Rather than any gung-ho trigger happy general killing whoever looked at him the wrong way.

Can you link an example of this occurance?

[BruceVC]

11 minutes ago, Gorth said:

Did you read the article?

Just curious, as it wasn't a prohibition, it was a tighter control with what will be allowed when. Rather than any gung-ho trigger happy general killing whoever looked at him the wrong way.

Yes I read the article and quoted from it, did you read my post ?

[Gorth]

9 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Can you link an example of this occurance?

Didn't say it happened, it's a measure to prevent it from happening. The final word should belong to the president in things like for example the execution of foreign nationals. Currently it seems to be unclear whose decision it is.

Edit: Because the previous president seems to think it was too much decision making "restoring the kind of White House control over that decision-making process that President Donald Trump attempted to dismantle. "

[Gorth]

6 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Yes I read the article and quoted from it, did you read my post ?

Yes. Which is why I asked. It seems like you missed the point of the quoted article.

[Malcador]

21 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

I see this as a bad but well meaning military decision 

I support both necessary drone strikes and Commando raids because it avoids boots on the ground in real conflict areas like dealing with the Taliban in Pakistan who cross the border to Afghanistan to kill  US and other coalition soldiers  and then run back like cowards across the border thinking they can find sanctuary in Pakistan. Im not sure what you think is a reasonable alternative in this actual example ?

These types of military strategies reduce the real loss of lives. At least the article says  "drone strikes and commando raids in some conflict zones "....so the operative is " some " 

How does this decision affect any of this though ? Sounds like more civilian control of military which isn't a bad thing.

[Gfted1]

5 minutes ago, Gorth said:

Didn't say it happened, it's a measure to prevent it from happening.

An added layer of oversight to prevent what has never happened before? Ok, I guess that could be helpful. TBH, I dont know the process for ordering drone strikes, but I think it would literally take someone (General level?) going completely rogue, somehow seizing control of a drone (that is often being operated from across continents) and then executing a foreign national. Not impossible, but you are more likely to be killed by a falling cow imo.

7 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Sounds like more civilian control of military which isn't a bad thing.

That sounds scary to me.

[BruceVC]

Just now, Gorth said:

Yes. Which is why I asked. It seems like you missed the point of the quoted article.

Okay, let me explain in more detail because I understand the various military conflicts the US are involved and how they involved can be complex and this creates additional confusion around the legitimacy of  valid strategies like drone strikes 

The article states "Kirby said the action was part of a broader review by the new administration into the legal and policy frameworks that govern when and how these missions take place outside of parts of the world such as Yemen or Somalia that are clearly defined war zones, like Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan "

Also 

" "areas of active hostilities" – in an attempt to standardize the semi-legal policies governing U.S. troops operating in conflict zones where war had not been declared formally " 

So Pakistan is not considered a formal conflict zone and therefore drone strikes and Commando raids need additional authorization. But as I mentioned the Western border of Pakistan and an area  known as the Swart Valley is not controlled by the Pakistan government and tribes hold sway. Some of these tribes give the Taliban sanctuary and the Taliban  cross into Afghanistan to continue to prolong the war and commit acts of violence. So drone strikes are necessary even though Pakistan is not an active conflict zone, now this will be harder to initiate and make the war effort harder for the US and its allies. And I can give you similar examples in places like Yemen and Somalia 

https://indianexpress.com/article/pakistan/taliban-bomber-kills-11-soldiers-in-pakistans-swat-valley-5050995/

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2014/10/7/us-drone-strikes-taliban-camp-in-pakistan

 

[BruceVC]

16 minutes ago, Malcador said:

How does this decision affect any of this though ? Sounds like more civilian control of military which isn't a bad thing.

 

8 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

 

That sounds scary to me.

Malc, wanting citizens of a country to somehow control the decisions of the military  is a very bad idea and as Gfted1 said it really scares me 

[Gorth]

3 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

 

Malc, wanting citizens of a country to somehow control the decisions of the military  is a very bad idea and as Gfted1 said it really scares me 

Correct me it I'm wrong, but in the US, isn't the president also commander in chief of the armed forces? Why shouldn't it be his call?

Edit: Ah yes, I just remembered. He is democratically elected and democracy sucks according to you when it isn't doing what you want it to and is best either disposed of or suspended until they do the "right thing" again.

[Malcador]

What is scary about civilian oversight of the military, though ?  As for the Pakistan example, I think they'd still go with the drone strikes all that changes is they need to check it with others. 

[BruceVC]

3 minutes ago, Gorth said:

Correct me it I'm wrong, but in the US, isn't the president also commander in chief of the armed forces? Why shouldn't it be his call?

Edit: Ah yes, I just remembered. He is democratically elected and democracy sucks according to you when it isn't doing what you want it to and is best either disposed of or suspended until the do the "right thing" again.

No thats missing the point completely. In a military conflict you leave the military decisions to experts and that is the military leaders and generals. If the generals and military intelligence decide to do a drone strike in a non-conflict area we should trust their is a valid reason because of the nebulous nature of how some these conflicts exist

If the Taliban and other Islamic extremist groups were engaged in conventional warfare their would be no need for drone strikes but thats not the nature of how they conduct themselves

And I will just ignore the second paragraph because that is not what I have tried to explain at all  

[BruceVC]

4 minutes ago, Malcador said:

What is scary about civilian oversight of the military, though ?  As for the Pakistan example, I think they'd still go with the drone strikes all that changes is they need to check it with others. 

Its concerning because most civilians are not trained in military strategy so they have no institutional experience in warfare and the nature of warfare especially with  dealing with Islamic extremist groups like AQ, ISIS or the Taliban 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I didn't think "restrictions on drone strikes and commando raids" would be controversial, but here we are.

[Malcador]

27 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Its concerning because most civilians are not trained in military strategy so they have no institutional experience in warfare and the nature of warfare especially with  dealing with Islamic extremist groups like AQ, ISIS or the Taliban 

It's not that dramatic an increase in control, though.  Have to think the Pentagon doing things the civilian leadership was not involved in or is even aware of is a bad idea going forward, as well.

 

22 minutes ago, KaineParker said:

I didn't think "restrictions on drone strikes and commando raids" would be controversial, but here we are.

Is why you lost 'nam!

Edited March 10, 2021 by Malcador

[BruceVC]

13 minutes ago, Malcador said:

It's not that dramatic an increase in control, though.  Have to think the Pentagon doing things the civilian leadership was not involved in or is even aware of is a bad idea going forward, as well.

Yes, I am not suggesting their should be no civilian oversight across all military matters  but it becomes complicated because when do you bring in civilian oversight when it comes to strategies like drone strikes in non-conflict areas? And which civilians because most civilians  wont agree their is a valid reason for the examples I mentioned like the Swart Valley in Pakistan

Yet their are known Taliban camps in this area which still actively kill Afghanistan citizens and US soldiers. So lets say for example you have input, would you support Drone strikes against these camps? Its unfair to expect civilians to decide military actions unless they understand the nature of the conflict 

[213374U]

19 minutes ago, KaineParker said:

I didn't think "restrictions on drone strikes and commando raids" would be controversial, but here we are.

And I bet you also thought that the military being subordinate to civilian authority was like, democracy 101.

Heh, sucker.

also, ITT: financial types wax clausewitzian on "the nature of war" lmao

[Malcador]

3 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Yes, I am not suggesting their should be no civilian oversight across all military matters  but it becomes complicated because when do you bring in civilian oversight when it comes to strategies like drone strikes in non-conflict areas? And which civilians because most civilians  wont agree their is a valid reason for the examples I mentioned like the Swart Valley in Pakistan

Yet their are known Taliban camps in this area which still actively kill Afghanistan citizens and US soldiers. So lets say for example you have input, would you support Drone strikes against these camps? Its unfair to expect civilians to decide military actions unless they understand the nature of the conflict 

Always bring in oversight, surely the Pentagon can raise a persuasive case for a strike if it's actually needed and is based on reliable data.  US civilians like to kill **** as much as the uniformed services, anyway.  It's a bit much to complain you need to notify and/or justify w.r.t your actions.