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.

 whembly wrote:
What's your solution?

I believe I had this to say on the matter:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I don't know what the answer to this problem is

Ouze justified his tango with me. Both of you are just playing "whack-a-whembly" here.

I gave you the same answer Ouze did, I just use way less words to say it. Also, drop your persecution complex, it isn't helping.

Bombing them: doesn't/isn't working
Invading them (even though they aren't a state): won't work
Occupying them (even though they aren't a state): won't work
Blockading them: won't work

ISIS and radical Islam needs to be stopped, but how can we force that to happen without creating a negative feedback loop? If I knew the answer to that, I'm sure I'd be sitting in the White House right now.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
It's really scary how it only takes 150 deaths to make people who would otherwise disparage the man sound like a Donald Trump stump speech these days.

Well, the best way to prevent deaths is to have even more of your own people die fighting a war that doesn't solve anything.

How many American bodies are underground thanks to avenging 9/11?

"What's you solution?" isn't a good argument whembly. If my solution to end homelessness is to kill all homeless people, it's still a bad solution no matter if you don't have one. Bit of an extreme example there, but you get they picture.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
What's your solution?

I believe I had this to say on the matter:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I don't know what the answer to this problem is

Ouze justified his tango with me. Both of you are just playing "whack-a-whembly" here.

I gave you the same answer Ouze did, I just use way less words to say it. Also, drop your persecution complex, it isn't helping.

Bombing them: doesn't/isn't working
Invading them (even though they aren't a state): won't work
Occupying them (even though they aren't a state): won't work
Blockading them: won't work

ISIS and radical Islam needs to be stopped, but how can we force that to happen without creating a negative feedback loop? If I knew the answer to that, I'm sure I'd be sitting in the White House right now.

So... give up? Take a licking as it comes?

I mean... the next time a Sydney, Paris or 9/11 attacks happen, what's our response?

Send them a sternly worded letter?

 whembly wrote:
What's your solution?

There is no easy solution that can be given in a single forum post. But I can tell you that, whatever the solution is, it almost certainly isn't "kill everyone and let god sort them out".

 Ouze wrote:
I look forward to the Alex Jones False Flag Theory in 3,2,1....

You're late, the highest minds of reddit declared it false within minutes of the news breaking.

For what its worth ISIS can be defeated by military force Al Qeada can not. While ideology drive them both the ideology is very different. ISIS needs a caliphate and a caliph. If you kill the caliph and crush the caliphate the ideology that drives ISIS dies. Al Qeada doesn't have ISIS's goals or format so beating them would require changing culture.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
What's your solution?

There is no easy solution that can be given in a single forum post. But I can tell you that, whatever the solution is, it almost certainly isn't "kill everyone and let god sort them out".

I'm not asking for a whole dissertation.

If you have even a nebulous idea... give me the cliffnote version.

 whembly wrote:
So... give up? Take a licking as it comes?

Give up? Because I don't have a solution to the most difficult question of the 21st century? I'd climb down off that high horse of yours before you get hurt.

I mean... the next time a Sydney, Paris or 9/11 attacks happen, what's our response?

Well, our response to 9/11 didn't really seem to stop the problem, did it?

Send them a sternly worded letter?

I sure am glad some donkey-cave on an internet forum devoted grown ups playing with toys has all of the answers to the world's problems.

I'll be able to sleep soundly tonight, that's for sure.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
"What's you solution?" isn't a good argument whembly. If my solution to end homelessness is to kill all homeless people, it's still a bad solution no matter if you don't have one. Bit of an extreme example there, but you get they picture.

Hey... I threw out some options.

I'm trying to engage conversations where anything is on the table.

In fairness, both scooty and peregrine did say "I don't know".

 whembly wrote:
If you have even a nebulous idea... give me the cliffnote version.

I have no idea. The whole region is such a complicated mess that it's almost impossible to even figure out where to start, short of having a time machine and going back to fix our mistakes.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So... give up? Take a licking as it comes?

Give up? Because I don't have a solution to the most difficult question of the 21st century? I'd climb down off that high horse of yours before you get hurt.

Oh... so having an opinion means I'm on the high horse. Got it.

I mean... the next time a Sydney, Paris or 9/11 attacks happen, what's our response?

Well, our response to 9/11 didn't really seem to stop the problem, did it?

So you answer my question with another question...

Send them a sternly worded letter?

I sure am glad some donkey-cave on an internet forum devoted grown ups playing with toys has all of the answers to the world's problems.

I'll be able to sleep soundly tonight, that's for sure.

Again... you have a problem when people don't fit your worldview, so you have to attack me and denigrate just about everyone on this site.

Good job. *slow clap*


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
If you have even a nebulous idea... give me the cliffnote version.

I have no idea. The whole region is such a complicated mess that it's almost impossible to even figure out where to start, short of having a time machine and going back to fix our mistakes.

Okay... fair enough mang.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I look forward to the Alex Jones False Flag Theory in 3,2,1....

You're late, the highest minds of reddit declared it false within minutes of the news breaking.

For what its worth ISIS can be defeated by military force Al Qeada can not. While ideology drive them both the ideology is very different. ISIS needs a caliphate and a caliph. If you kill the caliph and crush the caliphate the ideology that drives ISIS dies. Al Qeada doesn't have ISIS's goals or format so beating them would require changing culture.

What he said.

And WTF about Alex Jones??

 whembly wrote:
Oh... so having an opinion means I'm on the high horse. Got it.

It does when you're trying to claim some kind of moral high ground just for having an opinion, no matter how obviously wrong that opinion is.

Federal loans account for more aid than private bank loans so private bank loans can't exert more influence on the market than federal loans currently.

I don't think they exert more influence on the market. I think they exert more influence on Student Debt (and they do). If I were to point out the highest influence on the market right now it would be that the number of students going to college has risen. However defaults on private loans are extremely high due to ludicrous interest interest rates.





Interest rates on students loans can be outright extortion (as high as 10%) and many require students to start paying before they've even graduated. Now what happens here is that the government has started stepping in and is buying these loans up (this started in the early 90s) because of all the defaults and that's totally the government's fault for not realizing that loan shark interest rates being legal is asinine.

All that defaulting debt is a contributor to rising costs.

And again because I'm still harping on iT!



*shakes fist at university of phoenix*

All of those mitigating factors have to be considered by private lenders who are only going to issue student loans if there is a good chance of the borrower paying them back with interest.

Yeah. Because we can totally look at student loans right now and see how much better that's working out. Free market is not code for businesses will only make sensible decisions. Again, what in the past few years would lead anyone to believe this were true?



There are several countries here with heavily government subsidized education (Germany and France). Way less free market and they're still paying less. We really need to drop this concept in our national discourse that free market = lower costs. It's not that simple.

The government doesn't issue loans to make a profit on the interest they issue loans to enable students to attend schools that would others be unaffordable.

Good. Education is a good thing and more people should get it. If we were smart we'd let everyone get it for a penance because being educated never hurt anyone and maybe the state of our political discourse would go up a few rungs of the ladder.

Federal loans exist specifically to offset the rising costs of tuition which is why costs will continue to rise as long as the government continues to issue loans to cover the increase.

Not really? Federal Aid has been growing since the 40's and 50's (in fact we offer proportionally less government aid now than we did way back then). The current issue we're having with rising tuition costs and student debt didn't start until the late 80's when changes were made to regulations concerning Private Loans! Of course, that change was motivated by increasing enrollment and the inability of other aid sources to keep up with all the people going to college coupled with the market not being as prone to rapid expansion as it was during the golden years.



This is of course ignoring the other issue that over a third of student debt is actually owned by graduate students, not undergrads, especially those in pre-professional programs like law and medicine and their default rate is among the highest of all students (despite their degrees having some of the highest perceived value). These same students also receive less federal aid (as seen in my earlier posted chart) and a lot more private loans (with insane interest). And these programs have been rising in cost faster than others, yet again, involve way less federal aid money. So what is driving up the costs? Much higher enrollment, defaults on student debt, and the perception that these programs are increasing in value.

Realistically many graduate programs are increasing in value. There are more and more people with college educations, and a lot of fiends have realized they can demand more (masters and doctorates) for less than they could in the past. That growth honestly owes a great deal to the success of Federal Aid programs like the GI bill in the 40's and 50's instilling an economic mind set that college = success (i.e. a major part of the rising costs are indeed a natural economic outcome of so many people are going to college now).

Without pressure and incentives to lower costs such as enabling enough students to attend in order to keep the school functioning costs won't decrease.

Except they didn't have to do that. People will pursue education no matter what it costs, because not having one is basically leaving yourself with few if any options. So long as that is true, there is no incentive to lower costs.

And another issue; The government has a vested interest in making sure people can go to college because the economy needs college graduates to function (preferably college graduates without debt would be ideal, but the world isn't perfect). College education promotes and maintains economic growth. Ensuring an educated population and work force actually helps the 'free market' by remove risks associated with labor. If anything the government should be giving out more money to encourage growth in sectors with projected labor shortages... Oh. Like welders

Just because education is important doesn't mean credit will magically appear and be offered to anyone who wants to go to college. As long as schools can get paid at whatever rates they charge they will continue to charge more.

Except that removing federal financial aid will not stop that cycle. It never drove down the costs of Healthcare, and it's never driven down the costs of Education because these are things people will pursue regardless of price.

To be clear, I don't really care that prices are going up per se (prices going up is to a degree inevitable). Like I said, education is expensive but its worth it and I think that an educated population is worth the costs required to make it happen. IMO, we should be sending people to school, and not just for the empty soulless notion that it'll help them make money later on.

Tone down the rhetoric / personal language in this thread, please, or else we won't be able to have an area to discuss these issues in. Thanks

 Peregrine wrote:
It does when you're trying to claim some kind of moral high ground just for having an opinion, no matter how obviously wrong that opinion is.

And as a side note - this is not directed at you, but more at that other guy whose post I don't feel like going back and finding - I don't see why not knowing the best plan doesn't preclude you from pointing out the problems with other plans.

I don't know how to do brain surgery, but if you suggest we start by gathering a crowbar, some knitting needles and some baling wire, I feel like I can still say I don't think you know what you're doing.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
If you have even a nebulous idea... give me the cliffnote version.

I have no idea. The whole region is such a complicated mess that it's almost impossible to even figure out where to start, short of having a time machine and going back to fix our mistakes.

To try to phrase it in a way that might make sense to whembly:

If you can't decide which GOP candidate would be the best answer, would you vote for Hillary?

Or would you decide "we tried that, it didn't work, I don't know which GOP candidate would be a solution but I know what doesn't work".

Bombing radical Islam to hell is our Hillary here.

EDIT: RiTides came in to settle things down, so I retract my statement.

Enough with the charts already.

Never!

 Ouze wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
It does when you're trying to claim some kind of moral high ground just for having an opinion, no matter how obviously wrong that opinion is.

And as a side note - this is not directed at you, but more at that other guy whose post I don't feel like going back and finding - I don't see why not knowing the best plan doesn't preclude you from pointing out the problems with other plans.

I don't know how to do brain surgery, but if you suggest we start by gathering a crowbar, some knitting needles and some baling wire, I feel like I can still say I don't think you know what you're doing.

*trying to tone down my responses...*

I guess I'm that "other guy".

You forget me already?

Sure, I don't mind these debates. It's just that, far too often we're held hostage to the idea that we MUST find that silver bullet to solve these issues. Sometimes, you just have to act. Isn't that how the PPACA got passed? Break a few eggs in order to make an omlete?

I feel like Stephen Colbert's "truthiness" bit would be an appropriate response to that sentiment...

"I mean, feth thinking, there's brown people to bomb!"

 d-usa wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
If you have even a nebulous idea... give me the cliffnote version.

I have no idea. The whole region is such a complicated mess that it's almost impossible to even figure out where to start, short of having a time machine and going back to fix our mistakes.

To try to phrase it in a way that might make sense to whembly:

If you can't decide which GOP candidate would be the best answer, would you vote for Hillary?

Or would you decide "we tried that, it didn't work, I don't know which GOP candidate would be a solution but I know what doesn't work"
Bombing radical Islam to hell is our Hillary here.

Very strange hypothetical and I don't know what to think...

*pondering*

EDIT: I don't think like that... Hence why I think why we get stuck in these discussions...

 whembly wrote:
Sometimes, you just have to act.

No, you really don't.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Sometimes, you just have to act.

No, you really don't.

Stop thinking!

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Sometimes, you just have to act.

No, you really don't.

Stop thinking!

I don't know, sometimes when the mood strikes me, I just gotta dance. So I can see where others might feel they gotta act.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Sometimes, you just have to act.

No, you really don't.

Stop thinking!

Some warmongers up in this thread. Can we not do the same mistake we have done so many times now?

 Vash108 wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Sometimes, you just have to act.

No, you really don't.

Stop thinking!

Some warmongers up in this thread. Can we not do the same mistake we have done so many times now?

Which? Warmongering or appeasing? Seems we've done plenty of both. What new course of action do you propose?

Warpeasing.

 whembly wrote:
I guess I'm that "other guy".

You forget me already?

I PM'd you. You're not the other guy but I don't want to start some gak after we were asked to tone it down.

 Hordini wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Though we had this discussion awhile back on classes taken in college (Liberal Arts useless)

General Mattis has a liberal arts degree.

/thread

Kind of a HUGE time frame. 1960's-2015. Draft compare to volunteer.