Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
jmurph wrote: I am kind of surprised Gorsuch is getting so much pushback. He seems eminently qualified and certainly no more ideological than Scalia was (and far more principled than Thomas). He has upheld limits on government action in the past, which would seem to be a good thing and is a pretty strong textualist.
I wonder if maybe it indicates more of Trump's weakness politically than any problems with Gorsuch? Also some tit-for-tat for Republicans stalling Obama's solid pick.
He's not getting pushback. The Democrats were always going to object, even if Trump nominated Hillary Clinton. He will pass without problem.
Dunno about that... many red state Democrats are getting hammered in their states to NOT vote for Gorsuch. I think the real key would be how the safe Democrat votes...
Its irrelevant if any Democrats will vote for him. The Nuke option is a full go now. The Dem's opened that Pandora's Box and it won't be closed now.
Yep. It was the Democrats who refused to even hold a hearing for Garland Merrick last year.
Yep. It's all the Democrats' fault. How dare those lefties try to introduce someone!
No its irrelevant because they imposed the 51 rule.
AKA, the Harry Reid rule. If there's anyone to blame, direct your ire to him.
BigWaaagh wrote: China Sea is a territorial matter between several countries, none of which include the USA. Unless, of course, you'd like to see a super power military showdown over some coral reefs on the other side of the world?
The South China Sea is international waters that China attemted to claim ownership of, and when their claim was rejected by international courts they undertook a process of taking them anyway. It absolutely involves the US, and every other country that thinks 'take whatever you can get away with' is a terrible way to run the planet.
What Obama did in addressing this issue, maintaining a hard diplomatic stance and undertaking freedom of navigation, was the right course of action. Push any further and he would have risked war, do any less and you're letting China use brute force to ignore the rule of law.
It only involves us if we want it to. It is up in the air if it is worth dying for.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
BigWaaagh wrote: China Sea is a territorial matter between several countries, none of which include the USA. Unless, of course, you'd like to see a super power military showdown over some coral reefs on the other side of the world?
The South China Sea is international waters that China attemted to claim ownership of, and when their claim was rejected by international courts they undertook a process of taking them anyway. It absolutely involves the US, and every other country that thinks 'take whatever you can get away with' is a terrible way to run the planet.
What Obama did in addressing this issue, maintaining a hard diplomatic stance and undertaking freedom of navigation, was the right course of action. Push any further and he would have risked war, do any less and you're letting China use brute force to ignore the rule of law.
It only involves us if we want it to. It is up in the air if it is worth dying for.
True. As we know there are only a bunch of treaties about support and cooperation on such matters and those are just worthless paper. Just ask Trump.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/21 16:13:07
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Gordon Shumway wrote: I like how Trump was using his Twitter account during the Comey hearing as a running commentary as if he were engaging with an episode of The Walking Dead. Doesn't he have stuff to do? Evidently not. He's got people for that stuff.they are the best, the greatest.
Trump wasn't just commenting, he was leading the Republican question making. Trump tweeted before the inquiry that the real question should be about the leaks, and sure enough Republicans Nunes and Gowdry focused their questions on who might have leaked intelligence findings.
Nunes also undertook a bizarre string of questions to Comey, asking him if the Russians had hacked any state ballots, to which Comey said no, because of course he did no-one has ever suggested that might have happened. But what that pointless, specific question did was allow Trump to lie about it on twitter, where claimed Comey said Russia didn't influence the election at all. Of course, like many Trump schemes it would have been quite clever, except that it was very stupid Democrats saw the tweet, and followed up with a question to Comey, who confirmed that their earlier testimony was nothing like what Trump had claimed.
I think the real story at this point is the lengths that Republicans are going to to protect Trump.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BigWaaagh wrote: Watch your interpretation of the context here. Yes, it involved the US for the reasons mentioned, but it's not an actual territorial matter for the US in the same context as it is for the myriad of SE Asian nations that have overlapping claim to many of the geographic areas in question.
It is international water used by all nations as a trading route. It is as much US as it is Japan or Philippine waters.
The point of my post was that I don't view our response to China's island building as a failure, as stated in the post I responded to. I believe our response was spot on.
Yeah, and I was agreeing with you on that, as I said in the second part of my answer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: This is quite literally, damn if you do... damn if you don't.
Not sure how Obama... or Trump should respond.
Obama struck the right balance, and Trump has picked a pretty decent set of senior military advisors, so hopefully they'll stick to the same policy.
Other than, sending a full pacific fleet through the contested waters and daring China to react? Even that's... dangerous as feth.
The current freedom of navigation operations are enough, I think.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/21 16:23:57
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
jmurph wrote: I am kind of surprised Gorsuch is getting so much pushback. He seems eminently qualified and certainly no more ideological than Scalia was (and far more principled than Thomas). He has upheld limits on government action in the past, which would seem to be a good thing and is a pretty strong textualist.
I wonder if maybe it indicates more of Trump's weakness politically than any problems with Gorsuch? Also some tit-for-tat for Republicans stalling Obama's solid pick.
He's not getting pushback. The Democrats were always going to object, even if Trump nominated Hillary Clinton. He will pass without problem.
Dunno about that... many red state Democrats are getting hammered in their states to NOT vote for Gorsuch. I think the real key would be how the safe Democrat votes...
Its irrelevant if any Democrats will vote for him. The Nuke option is a full go now. The Dem's opened that Pandora's Box and it won't be closed now.
Yep. It was the Democrats who refused to even hold a hearing for Garland Merrick last year.
Yep. It's all the Democrats' fault. How dare those lefties try to introduce someone!
No its irrelevant because they imposed the 51 rule.
AKA, the Harry Reid rule. If there's anyone to blame, direct your ire to him.
Yeah, no. My ire is and will always be reserved for people like yourself, who cry foul at the drop of a hat when you get called out for supporting such a hypocritical dumpster fire of a party. Who cry foul when you're getting "ganged up on" by people for calling you out for supporting such ridiculously unqualified politicians and dangerously partisan politics like refusing to even give Merrick Garland a flipping hearing. For supporting a party that made it a stated day one goal to ensure that a President would be a one term President. For supporting a party that is currently trying to strip healthcare from people. Who cry foul when you get called out on things like the Benghazi hearings or the constant attempt to do cutesy names like "The Reid Rule", "Obamacare", etc and then cry and cry that people "aren't showing the office of the President respect" when your guy gets derided for picking fights on Twitter.
Those are the persons deserving of ire.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/21 16:24:33
BigWaaagh wrote: But it's consistent and that has to be admired.
The only consistency is that in both cases values and facts were less important than partisan politics.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: I went back... you're right I did state that. I was wrong in this regard.
Thankyou.
Standing was granted in this EO because the states were able to prove harm based on this Executive branch's immigration policy.
Standing was NOT granted to those states, even though I believe those states had a stronger case for standing than this current one, when these states wanted to actually enforce immigration laws (ie, patrol border, build walls, ignore DAPA). The reason TRO was granted to DAPA, was that there was no federal statute that the Obama administration could justify for the DAPA policy.
Standing was granted to Texas in the DAPA case.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: It only involves us if we want it to. It is up in the air if it is worth dying for.
Given that you currently exist in, and benefit from, a world with international law, then yes it absolutely involves you. Whether you want to get involved is a matter of whether you think the world will be okay if the major powers decide to start letting other countries start start taking whatever they want whenever they want.
The answer to that is pretty fething obvious, to be blunt. But whether you or anyone else sees that is up to each of you, I guess.
Yep, and now they have Trump and Ryan and the rest of that collective disaster, and they still don't seem able to own up to what's gone wrong.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/21 16:35:15
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Prestor Jon wrote: Engaging in a military conflict that is unsuccessful at achieving any positive outcome for us is a waste of resources. Why are we intervening in the ME if we're not effecting any positive changes there?
But the worse the mess in the arab countries, the safer Israel. So while it probably is only a conspiracy theory (after all, if stupidity is a sufficient answer why suspect malice?) the worse off the surrounding countries are the better for Israel. Not that anyone could have challenged them anyway, but now there's even less chance.
It is pretty much a fact that you don't become POTUS (or remain POTUS) if you tell Israel it will no longer receive tasty welfare weaponry and diplomatic protection from the USA.
jmurph wrote: I am kind of surprised Gorsuch is getting so much pushback. He seems eminently qualified and certainly no more ideological than Scalia was (and far more principled than Thomas). He has upheld limits on government action in the past, which would seem to be a good thing and is a pretty strong textualist.
I wonder if maybe it indicates more of Trump's weakness politically than any problems with Gorsuch? Also some tit-for-tat for Republicans stalling Obama's solid pick.
He's not getting pushback. The Democrats were always going to object, even if Trump nominated Hillary Clinton. He will pass without problem.
Dunno about that... many red state Democrats are getting hammered in their states to NOT vote for Gorsuch. I think the real key would be how the safe Democrat votes...
Its irrelevant if any Democrats will vote for him. The Nuke option is a full go now. The Dem's opened that Pandora's Box and it won't be closed now.
Yep. It was the Democrats who refused to even hold a hearing for Garland Merrick last year.
Yep. It's all the Democrats' fault. How dare those lefties try to introduce someone!
No its irrelevant because they imposed the 51 rule.
AKA, the Harry Reid rule. If there's anyone to blame, direct your ire to him.
Yeah, no. My ire is and will always be reserved for people like yourself, who cry foul at the drop of a hat when you get called out for supporting such a hypocritical dumpster fire of a party.
Eh? That's the nature of partisan debates. Don't like the heat, get out of the Thunderdome brah.
Who cry foul when you're getting "ganged up on" by people for calling you out for supporting such ridiculously unqualified politicians and dangerously partisan politics like refusing to even give Merrick Garland a flipping hearing.
Merric Garland is not OWED a fething hearing. Just like any fething bill in the House isn't owed a god damned floor vote.
This is simply the fact that you don't like your favored party being in the minority. Guess what? That majority is fleeting... as the Democrats are WELL aware now since Harry Reid nuked most of the filibuster. The GOP is playing by rules instituted by Democrats.
For supporting a party that made it a stated day one goal to ensure that a President would be a one term President.
The Turtle said that in Oct, 2010 boyo... we've seen enough. Yes it's partisan, that's the nature of the beast.
For supporting a party that is currently trying to strip healthcare from people.
God forbid that someone tries to undo that clusterfeth.
Who cry foul when you get called out on things like the Benghazi hearings
Yup. Obama and Clinton is totally faultless. You never have to wonder 'where the buck stops' eh? Pick up a mirror.
or the constant attempt to do cutesy names like "The Reid Rule", "Obamacare", etc
That's... a weird statement.
and then cry and cry that people "aren't showing the office of the President respect" when your guy gets derided for picking fights on Twitter.
Those are the persons deserving of ire.
Cool... keep on banging that deplorable drum... it won't impact the next election, I'm sure*.
BigWaaagh wrote: China Sea is a territorial matter between several countries, none of which include the USA. Unless, of course, you'd like to see a super power military showdown over some coral reefs on the other side of the world?
The South China Sea is international waters that China attemted to claim ownership of, and when their claim was rejected by international courts they undertook a process of taking them anyway. It absolutely involves the US, and every other country that thinks 'take whatever you can get away with' is a terrible way to run the planet.
What Obama did in addressing this issue, maintaining a hard diplomatic stance and undertaking freedom of navigation, was the right course of action. Push any further and he would have risked war, do any less and you're letting China use brute force to ignore the rule of law.
It only involves us if we want it to. It is up in the air if it is worth dying for.
True. As we know there are only a bunch of treaties about support and cooperation on such matters and those are just worthless paper. Just ask Trump.
WWI started because of treaties pulling in all the nations of Europe, and by extension WWII. How'd that work out?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
BigWaaagh wrote: China Sea is a territorial matter between several countries, none of which include the USA. Unless, of course, you'd like to see a super power military showdown over some coral reefs on the other side of the world?
The South China Sea is international waters that China attemted to claim ownership of, and when their claim was rejected by international courts they undertook a process of taking them anyway. It absolutely involves the US, and every other country that thinks 'take whatever you can get away with' is a terrible way to run the planet.
What Obama did in addressing this issue, maintaining a hard diplomatic stance and undertaking freedom of navigation, was the right course of action. Push any further and he would have risked war, do any less and you're letting China use brute force to ignore the rule of law.
It only involves us if we want it to. It is up in the air if it is worth dying for.
True. As we know there are only a bunch of treaties about support and cooperation on such matters and those are just worthless paper. Just ask Trump.
WWI started because of treaties pulling in all the nations of Europe, and by extension WWII. How'd that work out?
Is this a genuine question or weinerspeak?
I'm not a crazy Texan so it's hard to tell the difference
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/21 17:09:45
d-usa wrote: Implying that a 5-4 conservative leaning SCOTUS must be maintained regardless of who is in power?
You think Trump is going to nominate a leftwinger? Thats a big reason why conservatives threw up their hands and voted for him. In an era where government can do anything it wants, Its all about SCOTUS now.
Then why wasn't he a good replacements for Scalia
Are you serious? Scalia was the arch original constructionist. Replacing him would have turned the SCOTUS 5-4 anti Bill of Rights. But if you want to keep the balance he would be a good replacement for those two. If you want to shift it 6-3 conservative you don't.
BigWaaagh wrote: China Sea is a territorial matter between several countries, none of which include the USA. Unless, of course, you'd like to see a super power military showdown over some coral reefs on the other side of the world?
The South China Sea is international waters that China attemted to claim ownership of, and when their claim was rejected by international courts they undertook a process of taking them anyway. It absolutely involves the US, and every other country that thinks 'take whatever you can get away with' is a terrible way to run the planet.
What Obama did in addressing this issue, maintaining a hard diplomatic stance and undertaking freedom of navigation, was the right course of action. Push any further and he would have risked war, do any less and you're letting China use brute force to ignore the rule of law.
It only involves us if we want it to. It is up in the air if it is worth dying for.
True. As we know there are only a bunch of treaties about support and cooperation on such matters and those are just worthless paper. Just ask Trump.
WWI started because of treaties pulling in all the nations of Europe, and by extension WWII. How'd that work out?
Is this a genuine question or weinerspeak?
I'm not a crazy Texan so it's hard to tell the difference
WWI was a good idea?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
BigWaaagh wrote: This whole Libyan debate is a bad penny that just keeps showing up. "It's a failure.", "It accomplished nothing."...bullgak! A terrorist sponsoring, genocidal dictator is gone. Bravo! Genocidal response by said dictator stopped.
Do you remember when, once Republicans had to slowly start admitting that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and they started fishing around for some other way to justify that war? The most common argument was that they deposed Hussein, who was a genocidal dictator that they were still somehow pretending was linked to 9/11.
But with Libya we have Gaddafi, who not only directly sponsored the Lockerbie bombing but was found guilty of such in court, but who was also in the process of gearing up to massacre whole populations that were resisting him... and suddenly the Republicans want nothing to do with that.
The hypocrisy is shameful, really.
There were conservatives and Republicans made that exact argument to support Obama's decision to commit the US to military intervention in Libya. McCain supported intervention in Libya and he was the Republican presidential nominee, Rubio supported intervention in Libya and he ran in 2016, there was prominent Republican support for intervention.
Remember how Bush went to Congress and got a declaration of war against Iraq? Remember how Obama constantly tried to rules lawyer his way out of having to ever ask Congress to authorize military action by denying that the War Powers Act was applicable and that PotUS didn't need Congressional authorization to initiate military action against foreign nations? No UN resolution or argument put forth by a NATO member gives the PotUS unilateral authority to commit the US to military conflicts without Congressional approval. That was the crux of the argument against Libya voiced by Republican opposition.
BigWaaagh wrote: China Sea is a territorial matter between several countries, none of which include the USA. Unless, of course, you'd like to see a super power military showdown over some coral reefs on the other side of the world?
The South China Sea is international waters that China attemted to claim ownership of, and when their claim was rejected by international courts they undertook a process of taking them anyway. It absolutely involves the US, and every other country that thinks 'take whatever you can get away with' is a terrible way to run the planet.
What Obama did in addressing this issue, maintaining a hard diplomatic stance and undertaking freedom of navigation, was the right course of action. Push any further and he would have risked war, do any less and you're letting China use brute force to ignore the rule of law.
It only involves us if we want it to. It is up in the air if it is worth dying for.
True. As we know there are only a bunch of treaties about support and cooperation on such matters and those are just worthless paper. Just ask Trump.
WWI started because of treaties pulling in all the nations of Europe, and by extension WWII. How'd that work out?
WW1 happened for a lot of reasons, alliances and treaties were the surface justification. These nations went to war because they believed it was in their interests to do so. Austria-Hungary wanted to punish the Serbs and consolidate their southern holdings. Russia had to prove herself as protector of the Slavs and curb Austrian expansion or her own security. Germany felt herself surrounded and could not afford for Austria to fall or for Russia to modernize into the Superpower she eventually became. France sought to regain territories and curb Germany before she could overrun France with her superior industry and higher birth rates. Britain went to war not only for treaties but to prevent all the channel ports from falling to a potential continental superpower who could then leveragr that yo threaten Britain. Italy reneged on her treaty obligations and went to war for the highest bidder. Etc ad nauseum.
Treaties just provided convenient excuses to pursue those interests, and most thought war was both inevitable and likely to end in their favor to great advantage. They also had a totally different cultural and social view of war at the time.
Meanwhile, both NATO and the Warsaw Pact kept the peace between great powers for good or ill. There have been no major wars in Europe for going on 80 years now save for the internal disintegration of Yugoslavia and the alliancelesss Ukraine suffering internal strife supplied by her neighbor. Maybe the Hungarian and Czechoslovak uprisings if you count those too, but no major wars between great nations or power blocs.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
d-usa wrote: Implying that a 5-4 conservative leaning SCOTUS must be maintained regardless of who is in power?
You think Trump is going to nominate a leftwinger? Thats a big reason why conservatives threw up their hands and voted for him. In an era where government can do anything it wants, Its all about SCOTUS now.
Then why wasn't he a good replacements for Scalia
Are you serious? Scalia was the arch original constructionist. Replacing him would have turned the SCOTUS 5-4 anti Bill of Rights. But if you want to keep the balance he would be a good replacement for those two. If you want to shift it 6-3 conservative you don't.
Eh, Cons aren't the last bastion of defense for the BoR. While they generally have a huge boner for 2A, their record is spotty on 1A, and to a lesser extent 8A.
Although if your ideal utopia is everyone with a Bible in one hand and a shootin' iron in the other, I can see how the above would be your view.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
d-usa wrote: Implying that a 5-4 conservative leaning SCOTUS must be maintained regardless of who is in power?
You think Trump is going to nominate a leftwinger? Thats a big reason why conservatives threw up their hands and voted for him. In an era where government can do anything it wants, Its all about SCOTUS now.
Then why wasn't he a good replacements for Scalia
Are you serious? Scalia was the arch original constructionist. Replacing him would have turned the SCOTUS 5-4 anti Bill of Rights. But if you want to keep the balance he would be a good replacement for those two. If you want to shift it 6-3 conservative you don't.
Eh, Cons aren't the last bastion of defense for the BoR. While they generally have a huge boner for 2A, their record is spotty on 1A, and to a lesser extent 8A.
Although if your ideal utopia is everyone with a Bible in one hand and a shootin' iron in the other, I can see how the above would be your view.
I guess I should start reporting these things.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
d-usa wrote: Implying that a 5-4 conservative leaning SCOTUS must be maintained regardless of who is in power?
You think Trump is going to nominate a leftwinger? Thats a big reason why conservatives threw up their hands and voted for him. In an era where government can do anything it wants, Its all about SCOTUS now.
Then why wasn't he a good replacements for Scalia
Are you serious? Scalia was the arch original constructionist. Replacing him would have turned the SCOTUS 5-4 anti Bill of Rights. But if you want to keep the balance he would be a good replacement for those two. If you want to shift it 6-3 conservative you don't.
Eh, Cons aren't the last bastion of defense for the BoR. While they generally have a huge boner for 2A, their record is spotty on 1A, and to a lesser extent 8A.
Although if your ideal utopia is everyone with a Bible in one hand and a shootin' iron in the other, I can see how the above would be your view.
I guess I should start reporting these things.
Are you for real?
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Although if your ideal utopia is everyone with a Bible in one hand and a shootin' iron in the other, I can see how the above would be your view.
Just testing the theory that Dakka Rule 1 still applies here or if its Rule #1 for some but not others (on this thread).
That was a direct personal attack, so lets see.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
BigWaaagh wrote: This whole Libyan debate is a bad penny that just keeps showing up. "It's a failure.", "It accomplished nothing."...bullgak! A terrorist sponsoring, genocidal dictator is gone. Bravo! Genocidal response by said dictator stopped. Bravo! A coalition government IS making progress. Bravo! Still, it's a mess because the country is being used as a chew toy between factions that split from after the revolution and are being backed by rival foreign national sponsors to further their agenda in the theatre. Throwing this on Obama or Clinton or NATO or the UN is just gak! This isn't WWII, there isn't a pretty and neat finish and so it's a failure. Oh, grow up! Wake up to the reality of that area of the world and realize we can only impact so much and as such, are probably not going to be getting the nice and tidy results some fantasy-hoping critics think are possible.
Going around the world starting wars with sovereign nations because we've decided that their political leaders are bad people, bombing their infrastructure, creating a power vacuum and leaving that nation a shambolic, bloody mess in the throes of civil conflict isn't my idea of a reasonable, necessary and beneficial foreign policy. There are plenty of governments out there that sponsor terrorism, there are regimes that conduct genocidal pogroms, ethnic cleansing and massive human rights abuses right now, should Trump start dispatching carrier groups around the glob to remove those governments with bombing campaigns and then leave the surviving populace to fend for themselves as best they can?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: You keep on using that word like you know what it means. I do not think it means what you think it means.
*shrug* Then we've reached a fundamental misunderstanding and failure to communicate.
You use ally, as if that doesn't mean a partner in a mutually beneficially alliance but instead means one country can use another to go perpetuate a bombing campaign on somebody the way a manager sends an intern out to get coffee. The US is not the errand boy or leg breaker for our "allies." We don't just go hurt people so that politicians in other nations can keep their hands clean of the mess they want us to create. There was no existential threat to anyone in Libya that needed to be eliminated, it was just EU politicians wanting to flex some muscle that they let go to flab decades ago so they asked us to do it for them and consequently made our PotUS look like a chump.
But that's the rub, isn't it? If in Syria, just for example, had we just said, "Civil War, it's Syria's to deal with." Obama, or whoever, would have been lambasted as weak on terror, a failure for not standing up to the Russians and a monster for not doing something to alleviate the outrageous suffering of the populace. On the other hand, should it be, "Mobilize the War Machine and let's get the Middle East road show to visit Syria.", in which case we'd be in a clusterfeth and probably hated by even our most moderate Muslim allies. It's a no-win. That's why I find much of this armchair quarterbacking as little more than a means for partisan cheap shots. Obama walked a line of gradual involvement in a situation that had no good guys, LOTS of bad guys and a humanitarian disaster that's still being felt in the West. Doing nothing was not an option and that left us with only a bad or worse option to try and manage.
You're changing the subject to Syria to counter an argument against Obama getting us involved in Libya.
If the primary reason for getting us involved in a Syrian civil war is because the Republicans would have criticized Obama if he hadn't then that's really an argument against getting involved at all. It certainly doesn't cast Obama on a good light if he got us militarily involved in Syria just to appease Republicans. Russia is going to support Assad, they have to because they need Assad in power to protect Russian/Gasprom interests and oppose the Qatari pipeline. We're not going to fight a war with aRussia just to get rid of Assad so we shouldn't waste our time money and lives on half measures. We didn't cause the civil war there and we can't stop it so I don't feel like we have any obligation to the Syrian people and I'm not willing to go to war for them.
I've changed nothing. I've previously responded in length to our involvement in Libya, on this website. I'm not going to go there again and the points being made, whether it's Syria, Libya or any of the other foreign policy "failures" being painted on Obama is that the area of the world in question doesn't allow for pretty and tidy results. It just doesn't and all this finger pointing is, well, pointless. And as far as your last bit about our not owing an obligation to the Syrian people, well, I view them as humans first and most of the world does care when their fellow humans are suffering. The difference with us, is that we can maybe do something to help and depending on your view of altruism, should do something to help.
Wasn't it your response to your libertarian POTUS candidate's monumental *derp* on Aleppo that you said something to the effect of, "Aleppo? Who cares? It's just this week's headline."...off on that a bit, I'd say.
We spent a ton of money moving a vast amount of resources halfway around the world for the express purpose of launching a half assed bombing campaign that netted no positive change and prolonged a disastrous civil war and the reasons you've given for that being a worthwhile foreign policy is because Russia was already involved in Syria and because the Republican would criticize Obama if he didn't do something. Getting involved in Syria but not doing nearly enough to actually thwart Russia's propping up of the Assad regime accomplishes nothing other than showing the world that we're only interested in opposing Russian interests with a token effort for the sake of domestic political expediency. How is that a show of strength? We totally could kick Russia's ass but we're not going to, we're going to let Russia keep doing whatever it wants but we're like totally watching them and if Putin's not really careful then we might maybe do something about it, possibly.
As for the humanitarian crisis there, yeah, that's way beyond our ability to fix and we're actively making it worse. We're aiding the anti Assad forces just enough to drag out the conflict creating more death and destruction but not doing enough to actually topple Assad. If we never got involved in Syria then Assad would have won the civil war already with Russia's help. He'd still be in charge, but he's already still in charge and we aren't going to change that, but the violence would already be over. Instead we're contributing to the problem, bombing people we hope are the real bad guys, arming people we hope are the real good guys and doing both ineffectually. In the meantime we let a tiny fraction of 1% of the 22 million Syrians apply for the 18-24 month long vetting process of being accepted as a refugee immigrant to the US. We accepted less than 39K Muslim refugees in total in 2016 and that was the most Muslim refugees ever accepted in the US. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/30/key-facts-about-refugees-to-the-u-s/
We spend billions of dollars bombing their country and prolonging their civil war when the outcome is never in doubt and doesn't pose any serious threat to the US but we allow a handful of refugees from the conflict to immigrate to the US so we're totally helping. Syria isn't a better place now because of our bombing campaigns there. If we were having a positive effect on their country there wouldn't be an ever increasing number of them trying to flee from it.
Yeah, it's a mess. Thanks for confirming what's already been said over and over, and isn't the point of debate. Very insightful. Again, realistically, what was the option before us? Do nothing as you obviously suggest because if we just took a knee "the violence would already be over."? That's a hell of a bit of prescience there. Unfortunately, that doesn't really have any application in the real world.
Engaging in a military conflict that is unsuccessful at achieving any positive outcome for us is a waste of resources. Why are we intervening in the ME if we're not effecting any positive changes there? We're not improving anything over there and we're in advertently making things worse. It's not prescience, it's common sense, we represent that largest military force opposing Assad and aiding the rebels, without us there the resistance drops off dramatically, the civil war ends and Syria resets to being back where they were before we got involved. Assad has been in charge of Syria since 2000 we didn't need to get involved. We've been more of a force for destabilization in the ME than anything else, going back to the 1970s when we backed the Shah of Iran. The more we meddle the worse things get for everyone.
You think we're actually helping the people in Aleppo? We're doing it nothing to help and just making things worse there. We won't intervene with enough force to overcome Assad and his Russian support but we'll give the rebels just enough support to prolong the conflict and perpetuate the humanitarian crisis. We're not accomplishing anything in Syria and we were never going to accomplish anything in Syria but hey at least Obama did something to appease his Republican critics, right?
If you want to look for causes of destabilization in the ME, you're going to have to open that history book just a bit wider than to the -70's with the Shah. That may have been one of the more pivotal points in recent history that has shaped the path we're on now, but it was just another brick in a very convoluted wall that's been getting built long before our country existed.
Your view continues to have one critical lapse in observation. You keep repeating it's a mess and we don't commit enough to effect a true change. Well, once again, no gak! I've asked you repeatedly, what's the alternative option and you provide nothing but a parroting of what you've already said which reaffirms what's been stated and isn't the point of debate.
A) You bemoan the billions of dollars being wasted without effect. Okay, let's review the alternatives. Do nothing and hope Assad and the Russians don't go all Chechnya on the opposition? Or go full tilt for effect and level the country risking, and probably getting, a squaring off with Russia? Tactical, limited intervention suddenly doesn't seem so gakky, now does it? Should this more "effective" effort be pursued, a few billion dollars will be the least of anybody's concern.
B) You claim through your prescience that if we'd done nothing the suffering would be over by now. Okay, let's review the alternatives. So we do nothing and, as above, the story so far shows that Assad and the Russians have absolutely no problem using the most diabolical means at their disposal for "dealing" with the opposition. Alternatively, we strike back at every barrel bomb and chemical weapon attack the Russians/Syrians do with overwhelming force and rather than a front for the war, we've got a global situation. I can just hear the suffering dissipate as we speak.
C) You state that we're not accomplishing anything in Syria...and this touches on the whole canard you spin about our not being able to help the civilians. You do understand that the ceasefires which have been helping abate the horrors in Syria are due to one thing and that is the fact that Assad and the Russians face an opposition that they haven't yet beaten and part of that opposition is directly due to our involvement. No involvement, less opposition. Less opposition, no ceasefire. The logic kind of follows...
And I hate to break down that closing partisan swipe, but this isn't a political party thing, it's an adult realization that we don't live in a dream world where isolationism is an option. Conflicts, particularly the ones we find ourselves in, don't allow us the results we often prefer. This is largely due to the simple reality that we, more often than not, find ourselves fighting stateless and borderless enemies, often with ties to regimes and nations that seek to cause us harm. Our responses, in light of this, must be measured and involve a certain restraint and, accordingly, will not always be as effective as we'd like and will be, accordingly, very frustrating for some. That said, I have no doubt that the hide-your-head-in-the-sand isolationist strategy, however, would be exponentially worse on all kinds of levels.
The Assad family has ruled Syria since 1971 and we're not committed to changing that anytime soon. We're not going to exert enough force to depose Assad, we're not going to exert enough force to keep Russia out of Syria so we're not going to exert enough force to actually win. What are we contributing to the anti Assad forces? Enough support to prolong the inevitable and keep the destruction going. Sometimes we conduct productive bombing missions and sometimes we end up sending arms to ISIS splinter groups. Both Assad and Putin know that we aren't going to go all in with Syria so we (and NATO) are just an escalating force, we perpetuate the conflict so Assad/Russia keep escalating their tactics as well but they'll use WMDs and we won't but we will escalate the conflict to the point where Assad/Putin are willing to use WMDs to help achieve their goals. Absent that escalation it's less likely that a decision is made that WMDs need to be used. Of course cease fires won't last, Assad and Putin want to win and crush the opposition and they know we aren't going to stop them so they have no incentive to make peace. We get involved, ratchet up the level of conflict and then stop short of settling it, leaving the ruthlessness of the opposition unchecked.
If we never got involved Assad and Putin would have already have achieved their objective of crushing the opposition and Syria is back to its status quo which while far from perfect was much better for the country than the mess they have now.
You play 40K, it's the same narrative, if Horus had defeated the Emperor on Terra then Chaos would have won and taken over the IoM. Not an ideal outcome but Chaos would have burned it self out and the conflict would have resolved faster than the prolonged death throes of the IoM with the oppressive suffering across the galaxy during the ensuing long war against Chaos. The Cabal weren't isolationists they were pragmatists.
Although if your ideal utopia is everyone with a Bible in one hand and a shootin' iron in the other, I can see how the above would be your view.
That was a direct personal attack, so lets see.
No it isn't.
You asserted that anything less than a 5-4 conservative leaning collection of judges would result in an anti-BoR SCotUS. I interpreted that as a 2A defense, as that is what Cons hammer on about all the time with regards to the BoR.
I don't see the attack and I am sorry you took it as such, that was not my intent.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/21 18:01:25
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Frazzled wrote: Just testing the theory that Dakka Rule 1 still applies here or if its Rule #1 for some but not others (on this thread).
That was a direct personal attack, so lets see.
I don't think you would get even me banned for saying something similar, and I get banned extra-easily, but hey, worth a shot I guess.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
Although if your ideal utopia is everyone with a Bible in one hand and a shootin' iron in the other, I can see how the above would be your view.
Just testing the theory that Dakka Rule 1 still applies here or if its Rule #1 for some but not others (on this thread).
That was a direct personal attack, so lets see.
No, it wasn't. However, if you think it was hit the yellow button of friendship and let's see what happens.
Exactly and I did.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
The irony of one of the most insulting posters having the thinnest skin would be amazing, but since that works for Trump I guess it makes people presidential instead.
BigWaaagh wrote: This whole Libyan debate is a bad penny that just keeps showing up. "It's a failure.", "It accomplished nothing."...bullgak! A terrorist sponsoring, genocidal dictator is gone. Bravo! Genocidal response by said dictator stopped. Bravo! A coalition government IS making progress. Bravo! Still, it's a mess because the country is being used as a chew toy between factions that split from after the revolution and are being backed by rival foreign national sponsors to further their agenda in the theatre. Throwing this on Obama or Clinton or NATO or the UN is just gak! This isn't WWII, there isn't a pretty and neat finish and so it's a failure. Oh, grow up! Wake up to the reality of that area of the world and realize we can only impact so much and as such, are probably not going to be getting the nice and tidy results some fantasy-hoping critics think are possible.
Going around the world starting wars with sovereign nations because we've decided that their political leaders are bad people, bombing their infrastructure, creating a power vacuum and leaving that nation a shambolic, bloody mess in the throes of civil conflict isn't my idea of a reasonable, necessary and beneficial foreign policy. There are plenty of governments out there that sponsor terrorism, there are regimes that conduct genocidal pogroms, ethnic cleansing and massive human rights abuses right now, should Trump start dispatching carrier groups around the glob to remove those governments with bombing campaigns and then leave the surviving populace to fend for themselves as best they can?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: You keep on using that word like you know what it means. I do not think it means what you think it means.
*shrug* Then we've reached a fundamental misunderstanding and failure to communicate.
You use ally, as if that doesn't mean a partner in a mutually beneficially alliance but instead means one country can use another to go perpetuate a bombing campaign on somebody the way a manager sends an intern out to get coffee. The US is not the errand boy or leg breaker for our "allies." We don't just go hurt people so that politicians in other nations can keep their hands clean of the mess they want us to create. There was no existential threat to anyone in Libya that needed to be eliminated, it was just EU politicians wanting to flex some muscle that they let go to flab decades ago so they asked us to do it for them and consequently made our PotUS look like a chump.
But that's the rub, isn't it? If in Syria, just for example, had we just said, "Civil War, it's Syria's to deal with." Obama, or whoever, would have been lambasted as weak on terror, a failure for not standing up to the Russians and a monster for not doing something to alleviate the outrageous suffering of the populace. On the other hand, should it be, "Mobilize the War Machine and let's get the Middle East road show to visit Syria.", in which case we'd be in a clusterfeth and probably hated by even our most moderate Muslim allies. It's a no-win. That's why I find much of this armchair quarterbacking as little more than a means for partisan cheap shots. Obama walked a line of gradual involvement in a situation that had no good guys, LOTS of bad guys and a humanitarian disaster that's still being felt in the West. Doing nothing was not an option and that left us with only a bad or worse option to try and manage.
You're changing the subject to Syria to counter an argument against Obama getting us involved in Libya.
If the primary reason for getting us involved in a Syrian civil war is because the Republicans would have criticized Obama if he hadn't then that's really an argument against getting involved at all. It certainly doesn't cast Obama on a good light if he got us militarily involved in Syria just to appease Republicans. Russia is going to support Assad, they have to because they need Assad in power to protect Russian/Gasprom interests and oppose the Qatari pipeline. We're not going to fight a war with aRussia just to get rid of Assad so we shouldn't waste our time money and lives on half measures. We didn't cause the civil war there and we can't stop it so I don't feel like we have any obligation to the Syrian people and I'm not willing to go to war for them.
I've changed nothing. I've previously responded in length to our involvement in Libya, on this website. I'm not going to go there again and the points being made, whether it's Syria, Libya or any of the other foreign policy "failures" being painted on Obama is that the area of the world in question doesn't allow for pretty and tidy results. It just doesn't and all this finger pointing is, well, pointless. And as far as your last bit about our not owing an obligation to the Syrian people, well, I view them as humans first and most of the world does care when their fellow humans are suffering. The difference with us, is that we can maybe do something to help and depending on your view of altruism, should do something to help.
Wasn't it your response to your libertarian POTUS candidate's monumental *derp* on Aleppo that you said something to the effect of, "Aleppo? Who cares? It's just this week's headline."...off on that a bit, I'd say.
We spent a ton of money moving a vast amount of resources halfway around the world for the express purpose of launching a half assed bombing campaign that netted no positive change and prolonged a disastrous civil war and the reasons you've given for that being a worthwhile foreign policy is because Russia was already involved in Syria and because the Republican would criticize Obama if he didn't do something. Getting involved in Syria but not doing nearly enough to actually thwart Russia's propping up of the Assad regime accomplishes nothing other than showing the world that we're only interested in opposing Russian interests with a token effort for the sake of domestic political expediency. How is that a show of strength? We totally could kick Russia's ass but we're not going to, we're going to let Russia keep doing whatever it wants but we're like totally watching them and if Putin's not really careful then we might maybe do something about it, possibly.
As for the humanitarian crisis there, yeah, that's way beyond our ability to fix and we're actively making it worse. We're aiding the anti Assad forces just enough to drag out the conflict creating more death and destruction but not doing enough to actually topple Assad. If we never got involved in Syria then Assad would have won the civil war already with Russia's help. He'd still be in charge, but he's already still in charge and we aren't going to change that, but the violence would already be over. Instead we're contributing to the problem, bombing people we hope are the real bad guys, arming people we hope are the real good guys and doing both ineffectually. In the meantime we let a tiny fraction of 1% of the 22 million Syrians apply for the 18-24 month long vetting process of being accepted as a refugee immigrant to the US. We accepted less than 39K Muslim refugees in total in 2016 and that was the most Muslim refugees ever accepted in the US. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/30/key-facts-about-refugees-to-the-u-s/
We spend billions of dollars bombing their country and prolonging their civil war when the outcome is never in doubt and doesn't pose any serious threat to the US but we allow a handful of refugees from the conflict to immigrate to the US so we're totally helping. Syria isn't a better place now because of our bombing campaigns there. If we were having a positive effect on their country there wouldn't be an ever increasing number of them trying to flee from it.
Yeah, it's a mess. Thanks for confirming what's already been said over and over, and isn't the point of debate. Very insightful. Again, realistically, what was the option before us? Do nothing as you obviously suggest because if we just took a knee "the violence would already be over."? That's a hell of a bit of prescience there. Unfortunately, that doesn't really have any application in the real world.
Engaging in a military conflict that is unsuccessful at achieving any positive outcome for us is a waste of resources. Why are we intervening in the ME if we're not effecting any positive changes there? We're not improving anything over there and we're in advertently making things worse. It's not prescience, it's common sense, we represent that largest military force opposing Assad and aiding the rebels, without us there the resistance drops off dramatically, the civil war ends and Syria resets to being back where they were before we got involved. Assad has been in charge of Syria since 2000 we didn't need to get involved. We've been more of a force for destabilization in the ME than anything else, going back to the 1970s when we backed the Shah of Iran. The more we meddle the worse things get for everyone.
You think we're actually helping the people in Aleppo? We're doing it nothing to help and just making things worse there. We won't intervene with enough force to overcome Assad and his Russian support but we'll give the rebels just enough support to prolong the conflict and perpetuate the humanitarian crisis. We're not accomplishing anything in Syria and we were never going to accomplish anything in Syria but hey at least Obama did something to appease his Republican critics, right?
If you want to look for causes of destabilization in the ME, you're going to have to open that history book just a bit wider than to the -70's with the Shah. That may have been one of the more pivotal points in recent history that has shaped the path we're on now, but it was just another brick in a very convoluted wall that's been getting built long before our country existed.
Your view continues to have one critical lapse in observation. You keep repeating it's a mess and we don't commit enough to effect a true change. Well, once again, no gak! I've asked you repeatedly, what's the alternative option and you provide nothing but a parroting of what you've already said which reaffirms what's been stated and isn't the point of debate.
A) You bemoan the billions of dollars being wasted without effect. Okay, let's review the alternatives. Do nothing and hope Assad and the Russians don't go all Chechnya on the opposition? Or go full tilt for effect and level the country risking, and probably getting, a squaring off with Russia? Tactical, limited intervention suddenly doesn't seem so gakky, now does it? Should this more "effective" effort be pursued, a few billion dollars will be the least of anybody's concern.
B) You claim through your prescience that if we'd done nothing the suffering would be over by now. Okay, let's review the alternatives. So we do nothing and, as above, the story so far shows that Assad and the Russians have absolutely no problem using the most diabolical means at their disposal for "dealing" with the opposition. Alternatively, we strike back at every barrel bomb and chemical weapon attack the Russians/Syrians do with overwhelming force and rather than a front for the war, we've got a global situation. I can just hear the suffering dissipate as we speak.
C) You state that we're not accomplishing anything in Syria...and this touches on the whole canard you spin about our not being able to help the civilians. You do understand that the ceasefires which have been helping abate the horrors in Syria are due to one thing and that is the fact that Assad and the Russians face an opposition that they haven't yet beaten and part of that opposition is directly due to our involvement. No involvement, less opposition. Less opposition, no ceasefire. The logic kind of follows...
And I hate to break down that closing partisan swipe, but this isn't a political party thing, it's an adult realization that we don't live in a dream world where isolationism is an option. Conflicts, particularly the ones we find ourselves in, don't allow us the results we often prefer. This is largely due to the simple reality that we, more often than not, find ourselves fighting stateless and borderless enemies, often with ties to regimes and nations that seek to cause us harm. Our responses, in light of this, must be measured and involve a certain restraint and, accordingly, will not always be as effective as we'd like and will be, accordingly, very frustrating for some. That said, I have no doubt that the hide-your-head-in-the-sand isolationist strategy, however, would be exponentially worse on all kinds of levels.
The Assad family has ruled Syria since 1971 and we're not committed to changing that anytime soon. We're not going to exert enough force to depose Assad, we're not going to exert enough force to keep Russia out of Syria so we're not going to exert enough force to actually win. What are we contributing to the anti Assad forces? Enough support to prolong the inevitable and keep the destruction going. Sometimes we conduct productive bombing missions and sometimes we end up sending arms to ISIS splinter groups. Both Assad and Putin know that we aren't going to go all in with Syria so we (and NATO) are just an escalating force, we perpetuate the conflict so Assad/Russia keep escalating their tactics as well but they'll use WMDs and we won't but we will escalate the conflict to the point where Assad/Putin are willing to use WMDs to help achieve their goals. Absent that escalation it's less likely that a decision is made that WMDs need to be used. Of course cease fires won't last, Assad and Putin want to win and crush the opposition and they know we aren't going to stop them so they have no incentive to make peace. We get involved, ratchet up the level of conflict and then stop short of settling it, leaving the ruthlessness of the opposition unchecked.
If we never got involved Assad and Putin would have already have achieved their objective of crushing the opposition and Syria is back to its status quo which while far from perfect was much better for the country than the mess they have now.
You play 40K, it's the same narrative, if Horus had defeated the Emperor on Terra then Chaos would have won and taken over the IoM. Not an ideal outcome but Chaos would have burned it self out and the conflict would have resolved faster than the prolonged death throes of the IoM with the oppressive suffering across the galaxy during the ensuing long war against Chaos. The Cabal weren't isolationists they were pragmatists.
Okay, so now you're going to WH40K to present an argument in favor of turning a blind eye to events in the real world. That I haven't seen before. Well done!
You're still pushing the prescience card and it's played out. As you're an obviously prescient being, tell me, what would the body count be with Assad and Putin running unchecked by the international community on dissenters? Assad's family has such a wonderful track record in such matters, after all. Reality calls for real responses to real problems and that means getting dirty at times in less than ideal situations. Thats adult foreign policy, not a Games Workshop piece of fiction.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/21 18:51:35
whembly wrote: Dang... Gorsuch embarrassed DiFi in this exchange...
What an absolute shock that a video, showing a small bit of a hearing, is from a Youtube Channel called "America Rising Squared"...whose videos are all pro-Trump nominees or "gotcha!" moments like "Puzder Protestor doesn't know who Puzder is".
Democrats saw the tweet, and followed up with a question to Comey, who confirmed that their earlier testimony was nothing like what Trump had claimed.
