US Elections 2016

[Hiro Protagonist]

 

Trump talking about acting the same as ISIS and people hooting. Wow.

Source?

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-isis_us_56e23759e4b0b25c918174a3

[Hurlshort]

 

Trump talking about acting the same as ISIS and people hooting. Wow.

Source?

 

 

[Hiro Protagonist]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CP9dg38cAI

[Malcador]

 

 

Trump talking about acting the same as ISIS and people hooting. Wow.

Source?

Debate last night. Was on about how the rules the US plays by are stupid because ISIS doesn't. Meshback crowd cheered.

[Meshugger]

 

 

Trump talking about acting the same as ISIS and people hooting. Wow.

Source?

Debate last night. Was on about how the rules the US plays by are stupid because ISIS doesn't. Meshback crowd cheered.

 

 

He's just taking notes from the soviets.

 

https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/how-to-deal-with-hostage-takers-soviet-lessons/

 

 

Perfilyev then met up with Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Fadlallah, then spiritual leader of Lebanese Shiites and told him: "A great power cannot wait forever. From waiting and observing, it can proceed to serious action with unpredictable consequences". Met with silence from Fadlallah, the KGB station chief spoke bluntly:

 

We aren't only talking about people in Beirut. I'm talking about Tehran and Qom [shiite holy city and the residence of Ayatollah Khomeini], which is not that far from Russia's borders. Yes, Qom is very close to us and a mistake in the launch of a missile could always happen. A technical error, some kind of breakdown. They write about it all the time. And God or Allah forbid if this happens with a live, armed missile.

 

 

But the ominous threat against one of the holy cities of Shiism was only one prong in the Soviet strategy. According to Benny Morris, who was Jerusalem Post's diplomatic correspondent at that time and later became famous as a brilliant historian, in tandem with the threats, the Soviets took sharper action:

 

[T]he KGB kidnapped a man they knew to be a close relative of a prominent Hezbollah leader. They then castrated him and sent the severed organs to the Hezbollah official, before dispatching the unfortunate kinsman with a bullet in the brain.

In addition to presenting him with this grisly proof of their seriousness, the KGB    operatives also advised the Hezbollah leader that they knew the indentities of other close relatives of his, and that he could expect more such packages if the three Soviet diplomats were not freed immediately.

[Malcador]

Sounded familiar. Doesn't really change it being any less stupid in the ISIS context.

[Meshugger]

I think it is just the same old posturing BS to attract the industry of the offended and get more exposure; no one knows what he really wants to, or can do, on a micromanagement level.

 

If he becomes the nomine, i think that he will suddenly only talk policy....well most of the time. With an ego big like that, he simply cannot help himself sometimes as he checks the "feel" of the audience.

[Elerond]

So be established rules of this thread and its previous incarnations Trump is communist (as it was established that anybody that in any form saw anything that Soviets did as good thing is communist). 

 

So there are now two communists, traitor, religious fanatic and sleazy pretty boy and one who nobody cares running for president. I would say it don't look that good for future

 

 

 

[Drowsy Emperor]

Of course its posturing, although he's probably overplaying his hand at this point. From a voter perspective there is credible sounding bull**** (like the mexico-us border, banning muslim immigration) and then there is just pure bull**** (like this).

 

Regardless, disregard for civilians and militarism has always been a tenet of US policy. When the US bombing of Yugoslavia was shown to be utterly inefficient in stopping the Yugoslav army (which decimated a NATO backed Albanian invasion of Kosovo even though they had constant NATO air support), US simply switched to civilian targets and terror bombing and proceeded to hit every piece of public infrastructure that could be "used" by the military. This included bridges, hospitals, schools, power plants and even the state media building in the capital, almost 200 kilometers from where the army was operating. Naturally this resulted in many more civilian casualties than military ones (at least 3:1 ratio).  It was this and the threat of a carpet bombing of Belgrade (city of 2 million people), by that piece of **** Martti Ahtisaari (nobel peace prize winner!), and its implied massive civilian casualties that led to Milosevic giving up.

 

Ergo, Trump isn't saying anything new - this has already been done, several times over, its just that the portrayal of it was sanitized in the media and wasn't nearly as frankly expressed as he's saying it. 

Edited March 11, 2016 by Drowsy Emperor

[Elerond]

I find it bit strange that threats of carpet bombing by Ahtisaari would had made Milosevic give up. As Ahtisaari didn't any power to back up such threats and Milosevic would had now that. But maybe he forwarded NATO's threat hard to say, what happens in such closed door negotiations.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Elerond

[Drowsy Emperor]

I find it bit strange that threats of carpet bombing by Ahtisaari would had made Milosevic give up. As Ahtisaari didn't any power to back up such threats and Milosevic would had now that. But maybe he relied NATO's threat hard to say, what happens in such closed door negotiations.

 

Ahtisaari naturally made the threat on NATO instruction being no more than another pawn in the process. Milosevic, like most politicians, had a history of failing to follow through and understood very little of warfare and foreign policy. On the other hand, at the time and in his position, with absolutely no one to counterbalance NATO (specifically Russia) - the threat could easily be interpreted as genuine. Weighting the potential of hundreds of thousands of casualties with the possibility that its all a bluff is a decision that few men would find easy to make.

 

Frankly, he had little reason to give up otherwise. The army was intact, the damage to the infrastructure was already done. NATO was in a position that they had to invade to realize their goals - something that was not acceptable in Washington. So this threat was a last ditch attempt to maximize the effectiveness of the bombing. And he caved in.

[Malcador]

NATO and US trying to sell the carpet bombing of Belgrade would be really, really weird. In the age of smart weapons, not much of a need for Linebacker III.

[Elerond]

 

I find it bit strange that threats of carpet bombing by Ahtisaari would had made Milosevic give up. As Ahtisaari didn't any power to back up such threats and Milosevic would had now that. But maybe he relied NATO's threat hard to say, what happens in such closed door negotiations.

 

Ahtisaari naturally made the threat on NATO instruction being no more than another pawn in the process. Milosevic, like most politicians, had a history of failing to follow through and understood very little of warfare and foreign policy. On the other hand, at the time and in his position, with absolutely no one to counterbalance NATO (specifically Russia) - the threat could easily be interpreted as genuine. Weighting the potential of hundreds of thousands of casualties with the possibility that its all a bluff is a decision that few men would find easy to make.

 

Frankly, he had little reason to give up otherwise. The army was intact, the damage to the infrastructure was already done. NATO was in a position that they had to invade to realize their goals - something that was not acceptable in Washington. So this threat was a last ditch attempt to maximize the effectiveness of the bombing. And he caved in.

 

 

One thing that I find strange in Ljubisa Ristic claim that Ahtisaari threatened Milosevic is that said threat happened in meeting where he was to present the NATO/Russian proposition for Milosevic. So anything presented there was result of negotiations between NATO and Russia, although Ahtisaari was mediator in those negotiations. And of course Ahtisaari is cold war era politician who is willing to use hardball tactics to get results.

[Drowsy Emperor]

NATO and US trying to sell the carpet bombing of Belgrade would be really, really weird. In the age of smart weapons, not much of a need for Linebacker III.

 

It was different in the 90's. The post-cold war triumphalism and power vacuum left no checks on NATO. Anyway, the media could shape it in any way they like - you wouldn't even know the carpet bombing was going on if it was framed in a particular way.

 

 

 

I find it bit strange that threats of carpet bombing by Ahtisaari would had made Milosevic give up. As Ahtisaari didn't any power to back up such threats and Milosevic would had now that. But maybe he relied NATO's threat hard to say, what happens in such closed door negotiations.

 

Ahtisaari naturally made the threat on NATO instruction being no more than another pawn in the process. Milosevic, like most politicians, had a history of failing to follow through and understood very little of warfare and foreign policy. On the other hand, at the time and in his position, with absolutely no one to counterbalance NATO (specifically Russia) - the threat could easily be interpreted as genuine. Weighting the potential of hundreds of thousands of casualties with the possibility that its all a bluff is a decision that few men would find easy to make.

 

Frankly, he had little reason to give up otherwise. The army was intact, the damage to the infrastructure was already done. NATO was in a position that they had to invade to realize their goals - something that was not acceptable in Washington. So this threat was a last ditch attempt to maximize the effectiveness of the bombing. And he caved in.

 

 

One thing that I find strange in Ljubisa Ristic claim that Ahtisaari threatened Milosevic is that said threat happened in meeting where he was to present the NATO/Russian proposition for Milosevic. So anything presented there was result of negotiations between NATO and Russia, although Ahtisaari was mediator in those negotiations. And of course Ahtisaari is cold war era politician who is willing to use hardball tactics to get results.

 

 

Yeah, but the Russians were not really backing Milosevic in any significant way due to the internal turmoil in Russia, so their input is less important than it may seem. It was not the first time they'd pressure Milosevic just to get it all "over with". The Russian government of the time was all about appeasing the west and not very decisive (the whole russian peacekeepers in Kosovo is an example of that). On the other hand Russian options were limited by the hostility of the countries surrounding Serbia so their position in the event of any military confrontation was untenable.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Drowsy Emperor

[Zoraptor]

The 'soviet retaliation' story is probably apocryphal. Its original sourcing is very suspect.

 

 

NATO and US trying to sell the carpet bombing of Belgrade would be really, really weird. In the age of smart weapons, not much of a need for Linebacker III.

 

Not all that difficult to sell, you just have to demonise the enemy enough, and most of your population simply will not believe it's happening because of cognitive dissonance. NATO was definitely having problems, their public casualty estimates for the Serbs were out by an order of magnitude and they kept on bombing dummy vehicles and the like, and their prestige required victory. As with Libya and as Syria would have been, they'd have simply upped the ante until they won in the knowledge that most people would regard them as the 'good guys' whatever they did.

 

That was the war in which Wesley Clark, NATO commander, tried to start WW3 by ordering British tankers to attack Russian paratroops, an order that (oh so very sensibly) got ignored. The NATO leadership was- objectively- pretty bonkers, far more so then even than now. Certainly Clark not making the Presidency was a bullet dodged, even GWB's foreign policy was less stupid than that abject and utter cretin's would likely have been.

[Malcador]

I still think that after the Gulf War people's view of bombing became all about accurate strikes rather than B-52s. Would be an interesting trick to demonise them to the point where just leveling Belgrade is a-okay to the average citizen at that point, kind of hard to keep that quiet.

 

For threats of that kind,I rather like Oakley threatening Aidid in Somalia (IIRC) - in that case, wouldn't be a problem as it was a portion of the city and no one cares for Somali dead.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Malcador

[Drowsy Emperor]

I personally feel it was a bluff, because destroying Belgrade makes no difference on the field - if anything, it makes it impossible to win without military intervention and occupation and that would have resulted in a lot of (politically unsustainable) casualties. But as I said, Milosevic was not one to follow through. 

[HoonDing]

[Rostere]

OK. I did some digging around, and apparently Tulsi Gabbard has also been one of the driving force (in HFAC) behind the US throwing their support behind the Kurds since 2014.
 

 

The Kurds have proven to be trusted, effective partners on the ground in Iraq and Syria, and they continue to bravely fight against and defeat ISIS. The partnership we have established with them, coordinating our air support with their boots on the ground, has proven time and again to be successful in defeating ISIS and retaking territory ISIS once held. Our meetings with Kurdish leaders over the past few days gave us a firsthand view of what's happening on the ground, the threats they face, and what is needed to continue to be successful against ISIS. While the Kurds continue to show optimism and commitment in their fight against ISIS, the need for heavy weapons to combat the bomb-laden trucks ISIS uses remains. The U.S. can and must do more to get the Peshmerga the heavy weapons and support they need to continue their success.

 
Notice that not only does she mention the Iraqi Kurds, but also the Syrian Kurds. Very interesting indeed. I hope she will be a bigger part of the Sanders campaign. Here's another article about her struggle to stop the US from supporting the terrorists they claim to be fighting against.
 

Trump talking about acting the same as ISIS and people hooting. Wow.

 
But the tragic fact with regards to this is that the US already acts like terrorists in many ways. Through the drone program, people are killed from the air with little or no thought to civilian casualties, and sometimes targets are chosen just based on metadata. When Trump says it apparently it is a shock, but when Obama does it we get no headlines.
 
You have got to think about this. It's the equivalent of ISIS chopping people's heads off because they follow Bill Kristol on Twitter or because they parked their cars outside the Pentagon. We would undoubtedly call that terrorism. But through the drone program, the US has set the bar for what is OK. This means also that the US has to accept that things such as the murder of Lee Rigby and the Fort Hood shooting are legitimate forms of warfare, or in general the killing of non-combatants because of military ties (also, with disregard for civilian casualties).
 

Of course its posturing, although he's probably overplaying his hand at this point. From a voter perspective there is credible sounding bull**** (like the mexico-us border, banning muslim immigration) and then there is just pure bull**** (like this).
 
Regardless, disregard for civilians and militarism has always been a tenet of US policy. When the US bombing of Yugoslavia was shown to be utterly inefficient in stopping the Yugoslav army (which decimated a NATO backed Albanian invasion of Kosovo even though they had constant NATO air support), US simply switched to civilian targets and terror bombing and proceeded to hit every piece of public infrastructure that could be "used" by the military. This included bridges, hospitals, schools, power plants and even the state media building in the capital, almost 200 kilometers from where the army was operating. Naturally this resulted in many more civilian casualties than military ones (at least 3:1 ratio).  It was this and the threat of a carpet bombing of Belgrade (city of 2 million people), by that piece of **** Martti Ahtisaari (nobel peace prize winner!), and its implied massive civilian casualties that led to Milosevic giving up.
 
Ergo, Trump isn't saying anything new - this has already been done, several times over, its just that the portrayal of it was sanitized in the media and wasn't nearly as frankly expressed as he's saying it.

 
The terror bombing of Gaza comes to mind. There are people out there who believe that was about "smart" targeting of dastardly Hamas rocketeers conveniently shooting from hospitals, schools, power plants and other pieces of important civilian infrastructure. Despite there being literally no eyewitness evidence of this at all.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

17 year olds can now ote in Ohio primary

[Wrath of Dagon]

https://twitter.com/instapundit/status/708474426333986817

[Rostere]

BTW, have you guys thought about this:

 

 

A lot of the polls have been way off. In fact, if the rest of the polls are as off as these, Sanders might be closer to clinching the nomination than commonly thought. He might not even need the FBI.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

BTW, have you guys thought about this:

 

 

A lot of the polls have been way off. In fact, if the rest of the polls are as off as these, Sanders might be closer to clinching the nomination than commonly thought. He might not even need the FBI.

I've thought about it, and am wondering how dirty Hillary will play now that he's perceived as more of a threat.

[Volourn]

"behind the US throwing their support behind the Kurds since 2014."

 

The US has been doing that for decades. 2014. L0L 

[Rostere]

"behind the US throwing their support behind the Kurds since 2014."

 

The US has been doing that for decades. 2014. L0L 

 

I meant that's when I could trace her support to.

 

And besides, it's very flimsy support if you're standing by while someone is subjected to genocide. The US did not start seriously supporting the Kurds until somewhere in the Kobane crisis, which started in late 2014.