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.

 Frazzled wrote:

Its amazing how the OSU swept that under the rug as soon as it wasn't the usual on campus shooter monolog.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/four-still-hospitalized-ohio-state-attack-terror-probed-153240153.html

Luckily, no casualties there. I guess the perp didn't get the memo that its easier to get a glock than a book or computer!

edit: had it backwards because that statement still boggles my mind!

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


You mean other than the terrorist attack at OSU?

Its amazing how the OSU swept that under the rug as soon as it wasn't the usual on campus shooter monolog.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/four-still-hospitalized-ohio-state-attack-terror-probed-153240153.html

Probably because nobody died or is even in critical condition at this point in time. So really it is a great example of how ineffective knives are compared to guns when you want to kill a lot of people but other than that?

The attacker being shot to death by a police officer a minute into the attack probably helped reduce his effectiveness as well.

 Hordini wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


You mean other than the terrorist attack at OSU?

Its amazing how the OSU swept that under the rug as soon as it wasn't the usual on campus shooter monolog.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/four-still-hospitalized-ohio-state-attack-terror-probed-153240153.html

Probably because nobody died or is even in critical condition at this point in time. So really it is a great example of how ineffective knives are compared to guns when you want to kill a lot of people but other than that?

The attacker being shot to death by a police officer a minute into the attack probably helped reduce his effectiveness as well.

Good job officer.
Its cheaper than paying for a jail cell for decades.

horrible video about suicide cars

With General Mattis on track for Sec Def.

Are we looking at a change coming in Jan to Feb . ?

He is very experienced general. Served in WOT.
There may be a shake up ir re alignment?

From what I've read of him, he'll probably want to fight IS directly.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
From what I've read of him, he'll probably want to fight IS directly.

Yes. He seems the type to not exactly treat them with velvet gloves.

Though about time someone ended these phycopaths.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
From what I've read of him, he'll probably want to fight IS directly.

Yes. He seems the type to not exactly treat them with velvet gloves.

Though about time someone ended these phycopaths.

The issue is that he's also likely to recommend war with Iran.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
From what I've read of him, he'll probably want to fight IS directly.

Yes. He seems the type to not exactly treat them with velvet gloves.

Though about time someone ended these phycopaths.

I personally think he is probably among the best qualified to serve as SecDef. I am fairly certain that the US military is going to hit a reverse course from it's recent downsizing efforts, and I expect see a much larger boots on the ground presence in Iraq come next year.

 Sasori wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
From what I've read of him, he'll probably want to fight IS directly.

Yes. He seems the type to not exactly treat them with velvet gloves.

Though about time someone ended these phycopaths.

I personally think he is probably among the best qualified to serve as SecDef. I am fairly certain that the US military is going to hit a reverse course from it's recent downsizing efforts, and I expect see a much larger boots on the ground presence in Iraq come next year.

Yeah.... Most experienced sec def for years.
Well direct military experience who has actually seen combat.

I don,t think you will see alot of phony red lines, or second guessing from him.

So, regarding the comment on "phony red lines".

Good friend of mine is a pilot, specializes in weapons and tactics. We talked a little while ago about the red line. He basically explained to me that the air defense network around Damascus is so intense, that the casualties that we'd incur in committing to that "red line" comment, would lead to another Mogadishu.

I don't find myself disagreeing with his assessment. I mention it because I want to make the point that there is a lot going on, a ton of considerations to make. Whether or not you believe in Obama's capabilities as a war time leader, believe that he has a lot more information at his finger tips to make decisions, then any of us. If a decision is made not to make a military strike, there may be a good reason behind it.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
From what I've read of him, he'll probably want to fight IS directly.

Yes. He seems the type to not exactly treat them with velvet gloves.

Though about time someone ended these phycopaths.

The issue is that he's also likely to recommend war with Iran.

Why would you say that?

He lead men into war, so he's very intimate with the costs that the military bears. If anything, I see him being more cautious... and if we *do* engage with our adversary, it'll be a plan with clear objectives and winning conditions.

EDIT: unless... you're referring to him not forgetting about the Beruit bombing?

 whembly wrote:


Why would you say that?

He lead men into war, so he's very intimate with the costs that the military bears. If anything, I see him being more cautious... and if we *do* engage with our adversary, it'll be a plan with clear objectives and winning conditions.

EDIT: unless... you're referring to him not forgetting about the Beruit bombing?

No, he's come out and said that Iran is the greater threat and that the best the US can hope for is 'better targeting data' out of any attempted deals.

He's also somewhat shady. As a member of General Dynamics board of directors and as a member of the board at Theranos Corporation, which is currently under investigation for a frankly horrifying number of violations of medical and governmental ethics (selling faulty blood testing services among others). It is serious enough that Mattis was prohibited by the Pentagon for any further discussions of Theranos products with his former colleges or representing Theranos products to the military while serving on their board.

 djones520 wrote:
So, regarding the comment on "phony red lines".

Good friend of mine is a pilot, specializes in weapons and tactics. We talked a little while ago about the red line. He basically explained to me that the air defense network around Damascus is so intense, that the casualties that we'd incur in committing to that "red line" comment, would lead to another Mogadishu.

I don't find myself disagreeing with his assessment. I mention it because I want to make the point that there is a lot going on, a ton of considerations to make. Whether or not you believe in Obama's capabilities as a war time leader, believe that he has a lot more information at his finger tips to make decisions, then any of us. If a decision is made not to make a military strike, there may be a good reason behind it.

Then perhaps Obama should have refrained from announcing red lines that he knew he could not possibly enforce.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Then perhaps Obama should have refrained from announcing red lines that he knew he could not possibly enforce.

You ARE aware that international politics has a lot of bluffing and posturing to it, right? He bluffed, they called. Happens.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
So, regarding the comment on "phony red lines".

Good friend of mine is a pilot, specializes in weapons and tactics. We talked a little while ago about the red line. He basically explained to me that the air defense network around Damascus is so intense, that the casualties that we'd incur in committing to that "red line" comment, would lead to another Mogadishu.

I don't find myself disagreeing with his assessment. I mention it because I want to make the point that there is a lot going on, a ton of considerations to make. Whether or not you believe in Obama's capabilities as a war time leader, believe that he has a lot more information at his finger tips to make decisions, then any of us. If a decision is made not to make a military strike, there may be a good reason behind it.

Then perhaps Obama should have refrained from announcing red lines that he knew he could not possibly enforce.

Any of his red lines where a utter joke.
North Korea testing Nukes still...

SYria and Assad, plus Russia gave no care to what he said and did what they wanted.

If you are going to make a red line. if you falter. why belive any other red lines.
you gave in once, you may again... gives the boldness to push them.

Obama's position would have been far stronger if the Republicans weren't undermining him behind his back.

Tyran wrote:
Obama's position would have been far stronger if the Republicans weren't undermining him behind his back.

No. Not really...

Only thing Congress has is to 'Declare War' or 'ratify a treaty'.

Other than that, Obama's foreign policy is of his own making.

 whembly wrote:

Tyran wrote:
Obama's position would have been far stronger if the Republicans weren't undermining him behind his back.

No. Not really...

Only thing Congress has is to 'Declare War' or 'ratify a treaty'.

Other than that, Obama's foreign policy is of his own making.

They still have to assign funding for operations. The President has authority to say what he wants, but everything needs money.

 djones520 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Tyran wrote:
Obama's position would have been far stronger if the Republicans weren't undermining him behind his back.

No. Not really...

Only thing Congress has is to 'Declare War' or 'ratify a treaty'.

Other than that, Obama's foreign policy is of his own making.

They still have to assign funding for operations. The President has authority to say what he wants, but everything needs money.

;hat tip:

True. But, lately Congress hasn't used their "Purse Powah" to affect foreign policy directions. Unless you can recall an example of Congress forcing Obama to do something differently?

 whembly wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Tyran wrote:
Obama's position would have been far stronger if the Republicans weren't undermining him behind his back.

No. Not really...

Only thing Congress has is to 'Declare War' or 'ratify a treaty'.

Other than that, Obama's foreign policy is of his own making.

They still have to assign funding for operations. The President has authority to say what he wants, but everything needs money.

;hat tip:

True. But, lately Congress hasn't used their "Purse Powah" to affect foreign policy directions. Unless you can recall an example of Congress forcing Obama to do something differently?

Well, I do recall Congress Critters sending a letter to Iran after the deal was signed.....

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Then perhaps Obama should have refrained from announcing red lines that he knew he could not possibly enforce.

You ARE aware that international politics has a lot of bluffing and posturing to it, right? He bluffed, they called. Happens.

They called. He looks weaker.
Russia pushing Crimea, east Ukraine. Also Syria.

Iran harassing US warships.

China pushing into pacific.

NK just being morons. But now morons with Working.... Nuclear weaponry.

USA not having a good global time.

Sounds like time to cut our losses and get out of the world policeman game.

 Frazzled wrote:
Sounds like time to cut our losses and get out of the world policeman game.

Unless your willing to back your statements. And enforce your status yes.

Allies like Japan, SK. Etc are different but US has forces deployed and agreements since the 50's.

Europe needs to pay fair price for defense and not rely on US and keep there sub requested by NATO 2% GDP defense spend..

I am more than willing to get out. My family paid the price from WWII to Korea to Vietnam, so yea we're done.

As a nation, we no longer can afford the blood and treasure. You'll miss us when we're gone.
Or not.

 Frazzled wrote:
My family paid the price from WWII to Korea to Vietnam, so yea we're done.

...

I'm not sure how to frame this in the rules of this forum.

Fraz, my family has buried more people than you, personally, know (in all likelihood), in the name of a country not our own, in wars we really had no dog in. From the Mexican War on, we turned up to fight and die for the US, a country that has, on more than one occasion, treated us as subhumans (up to, and including, hunting us for sport, placing us in camps, and stealing our children).

While I can respect your desire to keep your family members alive, bluntly you sound like you're just passing the buck to someone else's family. The reality is that the US, China, and Russia will continue to try and exert influence over other countries, set up puppet regimes friendly to their interests, and create situations like Syria, Donbass, and Somalia.

And one of the go to tools for that is the military.

Are you guys really playing "More of my ancestors sacrificed their lives than yours"?

While I can respect your desire to keep your family members alive, bluntly you sound like you're just passing the buck to someone else's family.

And just why shouldn't he "pass the buck"? Why should more Americans die policing the world and fixing other countries' problems and mistakes? (besides ISIS, which is America's and the UK's mistake). Why should America continue to pay to prop up NATO when European member states continue to fail their defence budget targets?

Why should America be responsible for the "buck", and not Europeans, or Asians, or Middle Easterners? etc

The reality is that the US, China, and Russia will continue to try and exert influence over other countries, set up puppet regimes friendly to their interests, and create situations like Syria, Donbass, and Somalia.

So maybe they should...stop?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

And just why shouldn't he "pass the buck"? Why should more Americans die policing the world and fixing other countries' problems and mistakes? (besides ISIS, which is America's and the UK's mistake).

Because quite a few of the world's problems can be laid at the feet of US Foreign policy. Deposing governments, destabilizing economies and supporting terrorism can cause some REAL problems. Most of the big ones right now connect in some way to the US doing *something* and then not getting the planned result out of it.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

So maybe they should...stop?

'National Interest's are eternal.

So your solution is to...continue the Foreign Policy decisions that contribute to those problems, like using the US Military for foreign adventurism?

Were you in favour of the Iraq and Afghan wars, or bombing the Libyan government and deposit gadaffi, or the failed attempt to bomb the Syrian government? Lots of those hotspots could or still can be attributed to us foreign policy after all.

Frazzled wants to change foreign policy by stopping deployment of american troops, you seem to be arguing for the status quo.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Frazzled wants to change foreign policy by stopping deployment of american troops, you seem to be arguing for the status quo.

My argument is that unless the underlying causes are corrected, the deployment overseas of US troops etc will remain necessary for the survival of US citizens. The likelihood of the US abandoning it's national interests is right up there with me suddenly shooting beams out of my eyes and donning a spandex outfit. 'The People' can demand that the US stop it's foreign adventures, have their entire military abandon every overseas posting, but at this point, the result of that would simply be the very thing they're afraid of, and the US' enemies coming there to fight.

It's why Washington urged them to avoid foreign entanglements in the first place, because once they exist, they can't just be walked away from.