Republican Presidential Debate

[Namutree]

Resolve is important. It is why the US has 'lost' its share of wars despite usually inflicting way more casualties on the enemy than they suffer. See Vietnam. Or heck any of the more recent wars.If anything, the US Army is handicapped by the very people they are 'protecting'. The US suffers one casualty - even if the enemy suffers 1000 - the call for retreat is made. WTF Don't people know what happens in war?

\

So, yes, ultimately, the US Army is 'weak'. Weak willed. Because their bosses are weak.

I agree with this, but there's nothing can be done about this issue by policy (not that I would want to). 

[Guard Dog]

Following WW2 the strategy of the US concerning the military is to have the capability of fighting two major wars in two different places simultaneously. Speaking from my own experience all of our training was for large unit actions against enemies of equal strength. Basically we were practicing to fight the Soviets and the Chinese. The world has changed quite a bit since then. It is a much smaller and more interconnected place with nations far more reliant on commerce with each other. This makes the probability of a large scale, multinational war much lower. In the 1990's following the collapse of the USSR and the elimination of what we perceived as the greatest threat to our survival the US began reducing the size of the military significantly. It is certainly not capable of fighting two major wars simultaneously now so from that perspective it is weaker now than it once was. All comparisons are relative.

 

Not that Obama had anything to do with that. He has reduced defense spending since he has been in office but the large scale reductions were completed while he was still teaching law not making it. 

 

As far as where we rank in the world now in terms of numbers we are not first, or even second. As far as capability and the ability to "project power" we are first and second is not close. We are spending more on defense than the next ten nations combined (exempting Russia) and seven of those are allies. As long as the military is used as a tool to enhance US influence abroad it will have to remain as large. Unfortunately due to bad management over the last 20 years we no longer have our biggest stick; economic power.

 

Diplomacy is meaningless without enforcement. That is why this whole Iran deal is nothing more than a steaming pile of monkey poop. If (when) they violate the treaty there is no enforcement militarily and the US cannot hurt them economically without the cooperation of other nations eager to do business there and we lack the economic strength to dissuade them from doing so. That is why nations like Iran should be destroyed utterly or left alone. These limp-wristed half measures just make us look weak when they do as they please and no one can stop them. 

[BruceVC]

Resolve is important. It is why the US has 'lost' its share of wars despite usually inflicting way more casualties on the enemy than they suffer. See Vietnam. Or heck any of the more recent wars.If anything, the US Army is handicapped by the very people they are 'protecting'. The US suffers one casualty - even if the enemy suffers 1000 - the call for retreat is made. WTF Don't people know what happens in war?

\

So, yes, ultimately, the US Army is 'weak'. Weak willed. Because their bosses are weak.

 

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 " ?

Following WW2 the strategy of the US concerning the military is to have the capability of fighting two major wars in two different places simultaneously. Speaking from my own experience all of our training was for large unit actions against enemies of equal strength. Basically we were practicing to fight the Soviets and the Chinese. The world has changed quite a bit since then. It is a much smaller and more interconnected place with nations far more reliant on commerce with each other. This makes the probability of a large scale, multinational war much lower. In the 1990's following the collapse of the USSR and the elimination of what we perceived as the greatest threat to our survival the US began reducing the size of the military significantly. It is certainly not capable of fighting two major wars simultaneously now so from that perspective it is weaker now than it once was. All comparisons are relative.

 

Not that Obama had anything to do with that. He has reduced defense spending since he has been in office but the large scale reductions were completed while he was still teaching law not making it. 

 

As far as where we rank in the world now in terms of numbers we are not first, or even second. As far as capability and the ability to "project power" we are first and second is not close. We are spending more on defense than the next ten nations combined (exempting Russia) and seven of those are allies. As long as the military is used as a tool to enhance US influence abroad it will have to remain as large. Unfortunately due to bad management over the last 20 years we no longer have our biggest stick; economic power.

 

Diplomacy is meaningless without enforcement. That is why this whole Iran deal is nothing more than a steaming pile of monkey poop. If (when) they violate the treaty there is no enforcement militarily and the US cannot hurt them economically without the cooperation of other nations eager to do business there and we lack the economic strength to dissuade them from doing so. That is why nations like Iran should be destroyed utterly or left alone. These limp-wristed half measures just make us look weak when they do as they please and no one can stop them. 

 

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

[BruceVC]

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80nRYrD5pyk

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 ?

[Zoraptor]

Diplomacy is meaningless without enforcement. That is why this whole Iran deal is nothing more than a steaming pile of monkey poop. If (when) they violate the treaty there is no enforcement militarily and the US cannot hurt them economically without the cooperation of other nations eager to do business there and we lack the economic strength to dissuade them from doing so. That is why nations like Iran should be destroyed utterly or left alone. These limp-wristed half measures just make us look weak when they do as they please and no one can stop them. 

 

The US can reimplement the UN sanctions very easily, as there has to be universal agreement to keep them lifted if a complaint is made rather than to reimplement them- effectively there's a veto on keeping the sanctions lifted where if anyone objects they automatically reoccur. Of course, Iran then wouldn't consider themselves to be subject to the agreement either, but the option is there.

 

There was never any prospect at all of getting any military action formally approved in the agreement- or at the UN itself- and the only option there was simply not to have an agreement at all or act unilaterally, which always remains an option. Choosing something that according to the experts gives 15 years of security over yet another bout of middle eastern anthill kicking is definitely preferable.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Zoraptor

[Namutree]

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80nRYrD5pyk

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 ?

 

If Trump had corrected him:

 

A) It could become a nasty exchange. This is not a reasonable person; he won't change his mind, but rather throw a fit. Not good.

 

B) It could turn off some of his nutty supporters.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80nRYrD5pyk

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 ?

 

If Trump had corrected him:

 

A) It could become a nasty exchange. This is not a reasonable person; he won't change his mind, but rather throw a fit. Not good.

 

B) It could turn off some of his nutty supporters.

 

Mccain was able to do it? For me this is about integrity and the fact that Trump seems fine with people believing Obama is a Muslim who wants to destroy the USA

 

[Namutree]

Mccain was able to do it? For me this is about integrity and the fact that Trump seems fine with people believing Obama is a Muslim who wants to destroy the USA

 

 

 

McCain lost, remember?

[Guard Dog]

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

 

Oh I am certainly opposed to any US Military involvement in anything east of Bermuda or west of the Aleutians barring an immediate threat to US security. Asia is Asia's problem IMO. The worrisome thing is that the nations who want to do business with Iran do not want them to have nuclear weapons but are not interested in stopping them either. There is an expectation that if Iran was a nuclear power it would behave as responsibly as the others have so far. I don't know that that is realistic given all their ties to terrorism of the apocalyptic bent of the mullahs that rule that country.

 

But we are going OT here.

[BruceVC]

 

Mccain was able to do it? For me this is about integrity and the fact that Trump seems fine with people believing Obama is a Muslim who wants to destroy the USA

 

 

 

 

McCain lost, remember?

 

 I thought you may say that....

 

And do you think that pandering to people who think that Obama is a "  Muslim non-citizen  of the USA " will help Trump win?

[Guard Dog]

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80nRYrD5pyk

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 ?

 

It wasn't a political debate it was a rally. Hyperbole is common enough in a forum like that. And if Obama is a muslim so what? He doesn't appear to be a very devout one. Personally I don't think he believe in much of anything.

 

Keith Ellison the congressman from Minnesota is a muslim and by all accounts somewhat anti-American but to my knowledge he hasn't blown anything up.

 

I am a Christian but I don't need my political leaders to be of the same faith as me. All I ask from them is that they be competent, respect the US constitution and the limits of their position, respect MY liberty and freedom, and zealously defend those things. If an atheist meets those requirements they would get my vote.

 

As far as my faith goes the only soul God will ask me to account for is my own.

[Enoch]

I'll differ at least a little on GD's point about the U.S.'s declining economic power.  In a certain sense, so long as the USD is the reserve currency of choice, America is pretty much kicking the rest of the world's ass.  That's why nobody really cares about the size of the debt or deficit when they buy Treasuries.  This enables a lot of really useful policy options that aren't open to any other country on the planet. 

 

There have been challengers lately-- the Yen had its day in the sun; the creation of the Euro was a shot over precisely this bow; China has aspirations for its currency.  All of those movements have taken pretty huge kicks in the teeth lately.  Things ain't all sunny in Dollarville, but it still looks a hell of a lot more attractive than any of the other options. 

 

(Indeed, one useful way of looking at the world right now is that a second cold war is going on as we speak, and will likely continue going on for the next century.  It's being fought on the battlegrounds of reserve currencies and cyber-warfare.  In this view, Saddam Hussein's greatest sin wasn't invading his neighbors or financing terrorists or trying to make WMDs-- it was threatening to accept currencies other than the USD in international petroleum transactions.)

Edited September 19, 2015 by Enoch

[Hurlshort]

There is a surprising amount of people who think Obama is a Muslim.  It's like the plot of some crazy movie where Obama is going to laugh maniacally and roll out Shariah law across the land for those people.  Pretty funny stuff, but you can see why they are terrified I guess.  

[Namutree]

There is a surprising amount of people who think Obama is a Muslim.  It's like the plot of some crazy movie where Obama is going to laugh maniacally and roll out Shariah law across the land for those people.  Pretty funny stuff, but you can see why they are terrified I guess.  

It's even funnier when you realize what he really is. He's basically just an atheist who thinks religion can be useful for community cohesion so decided to become a, "Christian". Basically the near opposite of an insane Muslim religious fanatic.

 

Side note: I'm not saying that Muslims are crazy religious fanatics, but the people that think Obama is a Muslim often paint him as some kind of Islamist.

[BruceVC]

There is a surprising amount of people who think Obama is a Muslim.  It's like the plot of some crazy movie where Obama is going to laugh maniacally and roll out Shariah law across the land for those people.  Pretty funny stuff, but you can see why they are terrified I guess.  

"Obama is going to laugh maniacally and roll out Shariah law across the land "  

 

Can you imagine Obama going to  congress and saying " in the interests of unity and a progressive future for the USA Sharia law will now be rolled out ...starting in Texas "  

 

I wonder what  WOD would say about this  ...mmmmm  

[Namutree]

 

There is a surprising amount of people who think Obama is a Muslim.  It's like the plot of some crazy movie where Obama is going to laugh maniacally and roll out Shariah law across the land for those people.  Pretty funny stuff, but you can see why they are terrified I guess.  

"Obama is going to laugh maniacally and roll out Shariah law across the land "

 

Can you imagine Obama going to  congress and saying " in the interests of unity and a progressive future for the USA Sharia law will now be rolled out ...starting in Texas "  

 

I wonder what  WOD would say about this  ...mmmmm  

 

That doesn't sound like Obama. More like, "Starting today..... I uh, would just like to say that... Uhhh.... Sharia law is pretty good. So let's just... Let's just put in those laws and uh..... Stop using divisive man made law." That's what Muslim-Obama would sound like.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Namutree

[Guard Dog]

Obama has done a lot to make people believe nefarious things about him. Some of it has not been his fault. His childhood and early education could certainly be described as unconventional for a US politician. His administration had doubled down on the powers enabled by the Patriot Act. Wiretaps were increased almost 35% since 2009, they are openly collecting private emails and monitoring wireless devices now. This administration has sold a LOT of surplus military equipment to police forces that are becoming more heavy handed and looking much more like an army and much less like, well, police. During the ACA debate they had a website where you could report people speaking "incorrectly" about the ACA. They notified local police to pay special attention to Veterans and "Militia Groups" (code words for white republicans) as likely terrorist threats all while refusing to call acts of violence by actual Muslim terrorists terrorism. Oh and lest we forget his justice department, before being called down for it, asserted it would be perfectly ok for them to kill an American with a drone with no judicial oversight or due process.

 

Now granted there are different perspective to take on all of these facts and for the most part none of them advanced beyond words. But I do think there is one thing we can all agree that Barack Obama DOES believe. He does believe the power of the State over the people is absolute. To my thinking that, and that alone, is what makes him a terrible President.

[Wrath of Dagon]

There is a surprising amount of people who think Obama is a Muslim.  It's like the plot of some crazy movie where Obama is going to laugh maniacally and roll out Shariah law across the land for those people.  Pretty funny stuff, but you can see why they are terrified I guess.  

May have something to do with his viewing the job of the President as being "Defender of the Prophet", while never having a good thing to say about Christianity, you clingers to God and guns. Also Trump is right, he has no obligation to defend Obola, whether it's one of his supporters or not. Edit: And btw, after watching the video the question wasn't even about Obola, it was about terrorist training camps which we do have in the country, so Trump would have to parse and respond to every word, which isn't reasonable to expect regardless. Edited September 19, 2015 by Wrath of Dagon

[Namutree]

Also Trump is right, he has no obligation to defend Obola, whether it's one of his supporters or not. Edit: And btw, after watching the video the question wasn't even about Obola, it was about terrorist training camps which we do have in the country, so Trump would have to parse and respond to every word, which isn't reasonable to expect regardless.

 

Agreed.

[Ineth]

Republican candidates with the necessary disposition/charm/self-discipline/integrity to not be an embarrassment as president:

1. Carly Fiorina
2. Marco Rubio

Republican candidates whose politics are not mostly evil:

1. Rand Paul

Too bad there's no overlap between those two lists.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Ineth

[BruceVC]

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/19/politics/donald-trump-muslims-controversy/

 

Guys as you can see this incident about that guy saying Obama was  a Muslim is now on CNN International....its not just me that is concerned. The Democrats have highlighted this is a display of bigotry

 

All the issues I had with it have been echoed by others. I heard Trumps response and he did make two points I have to say were valid to me 

 

• Would Obama defend him at a rally if someone criticized him or used hyperbole
• If he had stopped the guy he would be accused of " interfering in free speech " 

[Namutree]

 

 

All the issues I had with it have been echoed by others. I heard Trumps response and he did make two points I have to say were valid to me 

 

• Would Obama defend him at a rally if someone criticized him or used hyperbole

 

If I know Obama he probably would. Obama's like that; he knows how to play the good guy.

Edited September 20, 2015 by Namutree

[Guard Dog]

Barack Obama didn't disavow his Missouri campaign ad that if Mitt Romney won more black churches would burn. He didn't disavow the ad in Arizona that Hispanics should support him because he would "punish their enemies" while referring to the state trying to stop criminals from crossing the border. He didn't disavow his California campaign staffer Karen Bass for saying John McCain wanted to bring back slavery or Whoopi Goldberg for repeating that idiotic statement on the air to McCain's face. 

 

Racism is only what the democrats say it is. And it only exists when you say something against them apparently.

 

So no Trump, nor any of the others is in any way obligated to defend Obama, his administration, or anyone else even when the comments are stupid and false.

[Namutree]

Barack Obama didn't disavow his Missouri campaign ad that if Mitt Romney won more black churches would burn. He didn't disavow the ad in Arizona that Hispanics should support him because he would "punish their enemies" while referring to the state trying to stop criminals from crossing the border. He didn't disavow his California campaign staffer Karen Bass for saying John McCain wanted to bring back slavery or Whoopi Goldberg for repeating that idiotic statement on the air to McCain's face. 

 

Racism is only what the democrats say it is. And it only exists when you say something against them apparently.

 

So no Trump, nor any of the others is in any way obligated to defend Obama, his administration, or anyone else even when the comments are stupid and false.

True, and I agree that Trump has no obligation to defend Obama from some moron spouting nonsense. I'm just saying that if during a rally some one said equally stupid garbage about Trump Obama would defend to look good. Remember the 2008 election campaign when Obama mentioned McCain and the crowd boo'd. Obama said, "No no, we don't need that..." kept talking about the subject for about ten seconds then went, "Just need to vote.". Obama lets others do the attacking, but not in his presence. 

Edited September 20, 2015 by Namutree

[Hurlshort]

Yeah the whole outrage over Trump not saying anything is really just a smokescreen.  There are plenty of policy issues to nail him on instead.  

 

I do love the McCain response though.  It's clearly a different situation, given he is really face to face with that woman, but it shows what a stand up guy he is.  He had my vote until he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate.  What a terrible turn that was.