Politics Thread: Edge of Seventeen

[Guard Dog]

Hillary Clinton, not on ballot, is star of GOP midterm plan

You go with what you know

[HoonDing]

Why are conservatives so afraid?

[Guard Dog]

Why are conservatives so afraid?

All who have power fear to lose it my young apprentice.

[Gromnir]

McMaster and Commander, by Patrick Radden Keefe

 

For those inclined to read editorial pieces in the New Yorker chronicling McMaster's tenure as National Security Adviser, if you had to burn one of your three free pieces a month on one article make it this one (no recreation here, due to copyright and length).

 

am gonna take this opportunity to be small and observe how we so called it.

 

https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/81056-agiels-all-things-military/?p=1890212

 

edit:  https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/96601-politics-thread-edge-of-seventeen/?p=1992249

 

includes the angry mcmaster atlantic council speech referenced in the new yorker article.  is worth reading/viewing if for no other reason than it is the unvarnished perspective of an outgoing national security adviser who gots nothing to lose by speaking true. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps the atlantic council video were expanded sometime following Gromnir posting of the link.  for those who do wish to watch general mcmaster comments, you can skip ahead to 1:11:00.

Edited April 24, 2018 by Gromnir

[Ben No.3]

 

Ah, yes. The obligatory deluded small business owner who dreams of becoming the next Amancio Ortega.

I don't dream I make my dreams come true. I don't dream of being someone else nor I envy someone else success.

 

If I truly contributed nothing to society, it would be different, numb nuts.

And what do you contribute? If I remember correctly you are on welfare and uneducated. I may confuse you with someone else though.

 

The catch is that work or not, you are forced to pay taxes.

So only working people should pay taxes and unemployed collecting welfare? Great idea, doesn't work.

People decide the taxes are to high and it's more profitable to collect welfare -> more people on welfare -> taxes rises -> People decide the taxes are to high and it's more profitable to collect welfare and so on.

At some point country collapses or becomes tyranny.

 

Then one day you are out of work through no fault of your own, tough luck!

Logical fallacy, if you are good worker you would not loose a job, and if it was really, really not your fault you would get a new one the second you became available on the market. Some half year ago one of my competitors filed for bankruptcy I was on the phone the second I found out hiring his employees. All of the workers got a new jobs before they had their release papers signed.

 

No "free money" for you, even though you've been supporting the racket for years.

You only get what you paid for. If there wasn't a tax that funded the money for when you are unemployed then no money for you.

 

F you, pull yourself up by the bootstraps and stop demanding handouts!

No need to be rude. But yeah, stop demanding handouts.

More handouts -> More taxes -> Less jobs -> More handouts etc.

 

You're right on one point, though. I can't do what politicians do. I actually have principles—and if I didn't I'd be moving drugs. Gotta have some self-respect.

Haven't seen neither principles nor self-respect from you, ever. No self-respecting person would we asking for handouts.

 

PS. they finally let you off probation sweetie? Hmm. See, I don't approve of censorship, but dummies like you give ammunition to pro-censorship dummies...

No, still mods need to aprove my every post. Extra work for them, but Volenti non fit iniuria.

the unemployed, uneducated guy, that’d be me. Didn’t even finish school.

 

However, if I were you, I wouldn’t point out logical fallacies and put the sentence „I don’t dream I make my dreams come true“ in the same post.

[Gfted1]

Russia to supply Syria "new missile defense systems".

 

Seems like a waste of money considering the "old system" had a 69% kill rate in the most resent attack (:winkyface:). Will be interesting to watch Israel blow them up though.

[Guard Dog]

No missile system is immune to being overwhelmed. 

 

To paraphrase Sebastian Junger, a Tomahawk Missile costs $1.4M. They are fired by a guy who couldn't earn that much in 20 years at people who couldn't earn that much in a lifetime. We used 59 of them. That's just like watching $83M that Americans worked hard to earn fly across the ocean and explode. All to punish one group of villains fighting another group of villains every one of which would happily murder those Americans. That $83M would have been better spent buying arms for both sides and hope they all kill each other off. Or better yet don't use the money you steal from me at gunpoint to go kill people I have no beef with. 

 

But that's just me.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Guard Dog

[Gfted1]

It would be awesome if we could blow stuff up with the power of our minds and love for freedom, but until that day, weapons are expensive.

 

My actual point was that it seems wasteful to pay up for the new model when the old, cheaper, model was wildly effective (:winkyface:).

[smjjames]

Russia to supply Syria "new missile defense systems".

 

Seems like a waste of money considering the "old system" had a 69% kill rate in the most resent attack (:winkyface:). Will be interesting to watch Israel blow them up though.

 

No missile system is immune to being overwhelmed. 

 

To paraphrase Sebastian Junger, a Tomahawk Missile costs $1.4M. They are fired by a guy who couldn't earn that much in 20 years at people who couldn't earn that much in a lifetime. We used 59 of them. That's just like watching $83M that Americans worked hard to earn fly across the ocean and explode. All to punish one group of villains fighting another group of villains every one of which would happily murder those Americans. That $83M would have been better spent buying arms for both sides and hope they all kill each other off. Or better yet don't use the money you steal from me at gunpoint to go kill people I have beef with. 

 

But that's just me.

 

The 69% hit rate is what they claim anyway, and besides, if you saturate the area with missiles (100+ total from US, UK, and France), you're bound to hit some.

 

 

 

It would be awesome if we could blow stuff up with the power of our minds and love for freedom, but until that day, weapons are expensive.

 

My actual point was that it seems wasteful to pay up for the new model when the old, cheaper, model was wildly effective (:winkyface:).

 

Yep, if they claim that the old system was so effective, then why are they replacing it?

Edited April 25, 2018 by smjjames

[Guard Dog]

It would be awesome if we could blow stuff up with the power of our minds and love for freedom, but until that day, weapons are expensive.

 

My actual point was that it seems wasteful to pay up for the new model when the old, cheaper, model was wildly effective (:winkyface:).

I have a better idea, wash our hands of the whole mess and let it go. They are going to kill each other no matter what we do. I say we just get out of their way and let them. Of course one of the big reasons this is all happening was we thought the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Another sterling example of the importance just leaving things well enough alone. What is broken by intervention can't be fixed by intervention. Maybe someday we'll figure that out.

[Agiel]

I'm not so sure that any variant of SA-10/SA-20 would be so decisively better than an SA-17 against another cruise missile attack, since the extendable mast means at most an additional 8nm extra coverage against something flying even 200ft above the deck that for the cost more SA-17s/22s would do them more good.

 

There's also the fact that simply looking at a relief map of Syria and Lebanon and the location of most of Syria's air defence systems one can come to the conclusion that it's a cruise missile/low-level attack planner's wet dream and an IADS nightmare. This explains how Israel was able to perform open-heart surgery on Syria's IADS network back in 1982 and them largely having its way since 2011.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Agiel

[Gfted1]

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities." - GW

 

 

I don't think that really works anymore.

[Guard Dog]

 

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities." - GW

 

 

I don't think that really works anymore.

 

I disagree... to a point. If we followed his advice to the letter there would be no NATO or UN today. Their actual value is debatable but it's fair to say their existence is a net positive. But nothing in Syria or Iraq involves NATO. Nor does it implicate Israel so our joint defense agreement with them does not compel us to get involved. In other words, this is not our problem and we shouldn't make it ours.

 

And to tell you the truth this North Korea business isn't really our problem either. Our security guarantees with the RoK involve defending them from attacks. They haven't been attacked. Even the preemptive measures we have offered they don't seem to want.

[Zoraptor]

Russia to supply Syria "new missile defense systems".

 

Almost certainly has supplied them already given 500+ tons of freight has come into Hmeimem/ Tartus over the past few days. S300 isn't meant for defence against cruise missiles though they can do it, they're for shooting down planes and will replace the ancient S200s which had (even under the Russian/ Syrian scenario) exactly a zero percent success rate against cruise missiles- but somewhat better recent success against Israeli F16s. They're also not fixed but mobile, unlike the old S200s, so a lot harder to hit while hiding behind Qalamoun* since you can drive them off. As for risk, Avigdor Lieberman threatening to blow up Russian manned SAMs if it happens shows how seriously Israel takes it, even if Lieberman is basically Israel's Zhironovsky/ Trump.

 

*If Russia really wants to mess with Israel specifically they'd give the systems to Lebanon, not Syria, since most Israeli airstrikes are launched from there.

 

The Syrian systems with the theoretical high success rate (~90%) against CMs were pantsirs, which are about as modern as you get SAM wise.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

No missile system is immune to being overwhelmed. 

 

To paraphrase Sebastian Junger, a Tomahawk Missile costs $1.4M. They are fired by a guy who couldn't earn that much in 20 years at people who couldn't earn that much in a lifetime. We used 59 of them. That's just like watching $83M that Americans worked hard to earn fly across the ocean and explode. All to punish one group of villains fighting another group of villains every one of which would happily murder those Americans. That $83M would have been better spent buying arms for both sides and hope they all kill each other off. Or better yet don't use the money you steal from me at gunpoint to go kill people I have no beef with. 

 

But that's just me.

It should be noted that estimates to replace all the pipes in Flint would come in at $55M. They blew more than the cost to fix a dangerous public health issue to posture in global politics without doing anything to significantly affect the tide of the conflict. But at least Trump looks tough against "Animal Assad".

[Guard Dog]

 

No missile system is immune to being overwhelmed. 

 

To paraphrase Sebastian Junger, a Tomahawk Missile costs $1.4M. They are fired by a guy who couldn't earn that much in 20 years at people who couldn't earn that much in a lifetime. We used 59 of them. That's just like watching $83M that Americans worked hard to earn fly across the ocean and explode. All to punish one group of villains fighting another group of villains every one of which would happily murder those Americans. That $83M would have been better spent buying arms for both sides and hope they all kill each other off. Or better yet don't use the money you steal from me at gunpoint to go kill people I have no beef with. 

 

But that's just me.

It should be noted that estimates to replace all the pipes in Flint would come in at $55M. They blew more than the cost to fix a dangerous public health issue to posture in global politics without doing anything to significantly affect the tide of the conflict. But at least Trump looks tough against "Animal Assad".

 

Ah-ha! Found it!

 

[Guard Dog]

In all seriousness that is not the Federal Government's problem. That is Michigan's problem. And they don't appear to be terribly motivated to fix it. 

[Orogun01]

In all seriousness that is not the Federal Government's problem. That is Michigan's problem. And they don't appear to be terribly motivated to fix it. 

Why the hell do we pay money to both governments then?

[HoonDing]

"I have a better idea, wash our hands of the whole mess and let it go."

 

b-b-but you started it

Edited April 26, 2018 by HoonDing

[Malcador]

So Jackson is no longer up for the VA job.

[Guard Dog]

"I have a better idea, wash our hands of the whole mess and let it go."

 

b-b-but you started it

Not exactly. Invading Iraq set a chain of events in motion that led to this. There were other factors along the way. You can't solve a problem by compounding the errors that created it. Fight fire with fire is popular saying but it's not logically sound reasoning. The middle east is brimming full with religious and ethnic factions that hate each each other for reasons the west will never comprehend. Left to their own devices they will do exactly what they are doing. Iraq, an artificial country from the get-go, was only held together at gunpoint. First the British, then Sidiqi, then a never-ending series of coups and revolutions until Hussien and the Baathists. George W Bush got it in his head that inside every Iraqi is a little American just waiting to get out and form an egalitarian republic in the heart of old Babylon. He was dead wrong. In the heart of every Iraqi is a Sunni, Shia, Kurd, etc. Who could be loyal to a country that has brutalized them for a half century? How could the Sunnis accept being a minority in a country controlled by people they helped brutalize? 

 

The invasion broke the ties that bound all this together. Bound in misery no doubt, bound all the same. If the Bush admin had any sense they would have broken up Iraq in three autonomous territories. But once again they failed to understand history and the region. Actually if they had any sense they would have left well enough alone.

 

So now Iraq, Syria, parts of Jordan, are all in civil war. No matter what side the US "helps" they are aiding and abetting enemies. Help Assad you help the Russians. Help the Shia in Iraq you help Iran. Help the various Syrian factions and you are helping either ISIS or Al Qaeda. As far as the humanitarian crisis goes, no matter which side "wins" there will be a mass killing at the end of all this. There is no favorable outcome. Even if there is an armed intervention just to force a peace that peace ends they day the intervening force leaves. Just look at Afghanistan. Next year children who were born while parents were serving in Afghanistan will begin to deploy to the same war their parents fought. None of them were alive to see 9/11 and they are going to fight a war that has gone on their whole lives. It's Orwellian. And the moment we leave, the government there will collapse and all of it will have been for nothing. Once the Taliban was outed we should have let the local warlords reestablish their fiefdoms and left them to it. 

 

I know only one truth, it's time for all this to end.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

In all seriousness that is not the Federal Government's problem. That is Michigan's problem. And they don't appear to be terribly motivated to fix it.

 

Seeing as inhabitants of Flint are mostly citizens of the US, it is much more the US federal government's problem than bombing Syria or giving Israel money.

 

In all seriousness that is not the Federal Government's problem. That is Michigan's problem. And they don't appear to be terribly motivated to fix it.

 

Why the hell do we pay money to both governments then?

To get spied on.

[Gromnir]

am thinking gd is aware how the geopolitical and global economic realities o' the world we live in makes the calculus o' when and to what degree the US is motivated to interfere in conflicts in the middle east or se asia or even europe is more complex than he suggests.  $83mil is a great deal of money, but is relative small compared to hundreds of millions and even billions o' dollars at stake.

 

am actual not favorable regarding the recent missile strike, but not for reasons most common stated.  the US already rubbed russia and syria's nose in their puddle-making last year with a missile strike accompanied by an hour warning-- syrians and russians sat impotent waiting for the missiles to arrive. were a powerful message.  been there. done that. so this time the US let the syrians and russians know how additional chemical weapon usage will be met with more of the same?  am suspecting syria, in particular, can live with such a result. 

 

however, more amusing is the chief executive's spontaneous ejaculations resulting in legal problems.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/federal-prosecutors-quickly-cite-trump’s-‘fox-and-friends’-comments-to-help-make-their-case-on-cohen-documents/ar-AAwnlYh?ocid=spartanntp&ffid=gz

 

*chuckle*

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Kh7nLplWo

 

HA! Good Fun!

[HoonDing]

https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/989487281793839104

 

looool

Edited April 26, 2018 by HoonDing

[smjjames]

 

"I have a better idea, wash our hands of the whole mess and let it go."

 

b-b-but you started it

Not exactly. Invading Iraq set a chain of events in motion that led to this. There were other factors along the way. You can't solve a problem by compounding the errors that created it. Fight fire with fire is popular saying but it's not logically sound reasoning. The middle east is brimming full with religious and ethnic factions that hate each each other for reasons the west will never comprehend. Left to their own devices they will do exactly what they are doing. Iraq, an artificial country from the get-go, was only held together at gunpoint. First the British, then Sidiqi, then a never-ending series of coups and revolutions until Hussien and the Baathists. George W Bush got it in his head that inside every Iraqi is a little American just waiting to get out and form an egalitarian republic in the heart of old Babylon. He was dead wrong. In the heart of every Iraqi is a Sunni, Shia, Kurd, etc. Who could be loyal to a country that has brutalized them for a half century? How could the Sunnis accept being a minority in a country controlled by people they helped brutalize? 

 

The invasion broke the ties that bound all this together. Bound in misery no doubt, bound all the same. If the Bush admin had any sense they would have broken up Iraq in three autonomous territories. But once again they failed to understand history and the region. Actually if they had any sense they would have left well enough alone.

 

So now Iraq, Syria, parts of Jordan, are all in civil war. No matter what side the US "helps" they are aiding and abetting enemies. Help Assad you help the Russians. Help the Shia in Iraq you help Iran. Help the various Syrian factions and you are helping either ISIS or Al Qaeda. As far as the humanitarian crisis goes, no matter which side "wins" there will be a mass killing at the end of all this. There is no favorable outcome. Even if there is an armed intervention just to force a peace that peace ends they day the intervening force leaves. Just look at Afghanistan. Next year children who were born while parents were serving in Afghanistan will begin to deploy to the same war their parents fought. None of them were alive to see 9/11 and they are going to fight a war that has gone on their whole lives. It's Orwellian. And the moment we leave, the government there will collapse and all of it will have been for nothing. Once the Taliban was outed we should have let the local warlords reestablish their fiefdoms and left them to it. 

 

I know only one truth, it's time for all this to end.

 

 

I'm all for trying to get out of those places, but the problem is that when terrorists from those places start attacking the West, what are we supposed to do, stand by and do nothing?

 

As for the borders, yeah, blame the British and French for that, but erasing those borders and letting them redraw them themselves is more likely to result in a bloodbath attempting to establish their own borders than a peaceful orderly proccess. You said it yourself, theres too many groups that would rather slit each others throats than agree to a compromise. The fact that Turkey has neo-Ottoman ambitions (so I've heard), and Iran and Saudi Arabia are competing regional great powers wouldn't help any redrawing of borders either.

 

Course, maybe someone will convene a grand pan-arabic group/summit/UN/whateveryouwanttocallit that brings in all of the factions and groups to peacefully redraw borders.

 

You seem to be a little bit of a military historian yourself, certainly you know that most of the worlds borders didn't come about through purely peaceful means (not counting where a stronger power forced a weaker one to do what the stronger one wants without bloodshed).