US Politics: 2017 Edition

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.

**BigWaaagh**

I have to give it to our Liar-in-Chief. Every time I think he's truly insane in the membrane, he simply goes and outdoes himself. The level of self-delusion necessary for this remark is historical...or hysterical.

"I think we've had one of the most successful 13 weeks in the history of the presidency," Trump told reporters on Air Force One.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-weve-had-one-of-the-most-successful-13-weeks-in-history/ar-BBzuSXG?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=ASUDHP

**d-usa**

whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
We have been at war for over 14 years, there hasn't been a draft declared and it is still fought by an all volunteer military.

I might sound like a dick here, but the overwhelming majority of our military enlisted or commissioned during a time when we are actively at war in many areas of the world. They knew that our military was sending our men and women to areas where they will be killed, and they made the decision that becoming another statistic was worth it.

I agree that we need to make sure it's worth sending them to their potential death, but I don't feel bad about the basic concept of sending them to their potential death.

If you are not willing to die, don't join the military when we are fighting multiple conflicts already.

What is this in response to?

Frazzled's always present request that we stop volunteering American military members to die in various conflicts.

I don't think anyone has argued otherwise and that the servicemen/women are well aware what may happen when they sign up.

Very true. And it's our job to make sure we are sending to their deaths for a good and worthwhile reason.

My argument is simply that the fact that American servicemen and women will die is not a legitimate reason not to enter any conflict. The conflict is either worth fighting, or it's not. Our military placed their lives in the hands of our leaders, willing to die if called upon to fight. If some people cannot accept that "sending Americans to their death" is the basic tool of the military, then they might need to reconsider the basic purpose of having a military.

**whembly**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:

What is this in response to?

I don't think anyone has argued otherwise and that the servicemen/women are well aware what may happen when they sign up.
Frazzled's post about pulling the United States completely out of the Middle East so American service members don't die defending people that "hate us."

Got it.

Trump may very well send us to war in Syria in retailiation... I pray that he and his flunkies make the case to the american people AND CONGRESS.

But, this is Trump, so he'll flub it. (Mattis/Tillerman/Haley may make this point better)

EDIT: thanks for clarifying too d. Frazzled is probably just fatigued by all the engagement we've had over the years. War fatigue is a thing y'know?

**Frazzled**

We've been at war longer than my kids have been alive and the youngest is about to go to college (and then we're all fethed!!! Frankenstein aint got nothing on her plans...its...its alive ITS ALIVE!!!!). I just think we should consider the novel idea of not dropping bombs and firing rounds on some bad guy somewhere for a wee bit.

By the way, the Chinese are lining up to play Pacific War II and if we're not careful we're going to play the part of the Japanese in this one.

**WrentheFaceless**

Frazzled wrote:
We've been at war longer than my kids have been alive and the youngest is about to go to college (and then we're all fethed!!! Frankenstein aint got nothing on her plans...its...its alive ITS ALIVE!!!!). I just think we should consider the novel idea of not dropping bombs and firing rounds on some bad guy somewhere for a wee bit.

By the way, the Chinese are lining up to play Pacific War II and if we're not careful we're going to play the part of the Japanese in this one.

I dont believe that China has a Navy that can really threaten or compare to ours, all of their strength is in their ground forces

**Frazzled**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
We've been at war longer than my kids have been alive and the youngest is about to go to college (and then we're all fethed!!! Frankenstein aint got nothing on her plans...its...its alive ITS ALIVE!!!!). I just think we should consider the novel idea of not dropping bombs and firing rounds on some bad guy somewhere for a wee bit.

By the way, the Chinese are lining up to play Pacific War II and if we're not careful we're going to play the part of the Japanese in this one.

I dont believe that China has a Navy that can really threaten or compare to ours, all of their strength is in their ground forces

For now. But its their aircraft and antiship missiles that are the threat. They've spotted fighters on those shake and bake islands they just created.,

**d-usa**

No idea if it's true, but I think I have read in various places that while our Deep Water Navy is second to none we might have issue with our navy near coastlines.

China with air power and short to mid-range anti-ship missiles comes to mind.

**WrentheFaceless**

Are any of their current gen fighters beyond a design phase though? I wasnt sure how comparable their air power is to the US.

Anti ship missles are always a threat though. Last I read though the US was developing anti - missle laser systems for their ships, anything ever come of that?

**feeder**

CptJake wrote:
feeder wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
My marriage was illegal 50 years ago, there is nothing wrong with being able to admit when the US fethed up, which it frequently did and still does.

Which has feth all to do with the topic being discussed.
This is why the US should stay out of it. We'll be hated regardless. No reason to get involved and have American women and men killed to protect the people who hate us. We should pull everything out of the Mideast. No good has been achieved there, can be achieved there.

If you think American (or anyone of "the West's") soldiers go anywhere to protect the locals, then I have some waterfront property in New Mexico to sell you. Guaranteed free from rad-mutants, too!

Hate to break it to you, but I have deployed specifically to protect and help locals. More than once. So has my wife.

Really? Sent from the US to somewhere else, 100% to protect the locals?

**Vaktathi**

Frazzled wrote:
We've been at war longer than my kids have been alive and the youngest is about to go to college (and then we're all fethed!!! Frankenstein aint got nothing on her plans...its...its alive ITS ALIVE!!!!). I just think we should consider the novel idea of not dropping bombs and firing rounds on some bad guy somewhere for a wee bit.

*Fingers crossed*

By the way, the Chinese are lining up to play Pacific War II and if we're not careful we're going to play the part of the Japanese in this one.

China has decades of aircraft production, shipbuilding, naval organizational development and operational experience before they could do so. As it stands they have one training carrier based on the same design as the small (by US CVN standards) Russian clunker that had recently had so many issues (though the Chinese would probably have a better showing), and lack the logistics backbone to project force far distances for long time periods, I wouldnt worry about it for a while, though as a long term concern it is absolutely valid.

**djones520**

feeder wrote:
CptJake wrote:
feeder wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
My marriage was illegal 50 years ago, there is nothing wrong with being able to admit when the US fethed up, which it frequently did and still does.

Which has feth all to do with the topic being discussed.
This is why the US should stay out of it. We'll be hated regardless. No reason to get involved and have American women and men killed to protect the people who hate us. We should pull everything out of the Mideast. No good has been achieved there, can be achieved there.

If you think American (or anyone of "the West's") soldiers go anywhere to protect the locals, then I have some waterfront property in New Mexico to sell you. Guaranteed free from rad-mutants, too!

Hate to break it to you, but I have deployed specifically to protect and help locals. More than once. So has my wife.

Really? Sent from the US to somewhere else, 100% to protect the locals?

Just one example, 2014 west Africa.

**jmurph**

BigWaaagh wrote:
I have to give it to our Liar-in-Chief. Every time I think he's truly insane in the membrane, he simply goes and outdoes himself. The level of self-delusion necessary for this remark is historical...or hysterical.

"I think we've had one of the most successful 13 weeks in the history of the presidency," Trump told reporters on Air Force One.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-weve-had-one-of-the-most-successful-13-weeks-in-history/ar-BBzuSXG?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=ASUDHP

Not surprising at all. Trump always want to be perceived as winning, the smartest, the greatest, etc. He is radically insecure and can't tolerate challenge without a kneejerk reaction. Since he lives in a world of lies and flattery to support his ego, this is a precarious position and he is forced to constantly react to the cold intrusions of reality. It is the only thing close to consistency you see in his antics.

**CptJake**

feeder wrote:
CptJake wrote:
feeder wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
My marriage was illegal 50 years ago, there is nothing wrong with being able to admit when the US fethed up, which it frequently did and still does.

Which has feth all to do with the topic being discussed.
This is why the US should stay out of it. We'll be hated regardless. No reason to get involved and have American women and men killed to protect the people who hate us. We should pull everything out of the Mideast. No good has been achieved there, can be achieved there.

If you think American (or anyone of "the West's") soldiers go anywhere to protect the locals, then I have some waterfront property in New Mexico to sell you. Guaranteed free from rad-mutants, too!

Hate to break it to you, but I have deployed specifically to protect and help locals. More than once. So has my wife.

Really? Sent from the US to somewhere else, 100% to protect the locals?

Yes. 100%. Put in wells, built schools, set up vaccination clinics, secured against 'bad elements' though we were not allowed to hunt the bad elements. Have also done disaster relief for hurricanes and earthquakes where were there 100% to protect locals and provide aid and comfort. The only thing is at the time I was stationed overseas so I did not deploy from the US but from the country I was stationed in to other countries in the region. We did bring in engineers, medical units and sometimes ODAs from CONUS though. Most of our aviation assets were stationed where I was though.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Ahtman wrote:
I had a history professor that wanted to teach WWI but students rarely signed up for it but classes on WWII always filled.

I've yet to attend a college with a WW1 course even on the books. One school had a single history professor, and his degree focus was on the Vietnam era. At my current school, none of the history faculty specialize in 20th century anything. (well, my advisor, aside from being Early Modern Europe, is the "history of technology" guy as well, so thats sorta 20th century)

**CptJake**

Wife sent a couple teams to fight Ebola in Africa at one point, and has done disaster relief in the SOUTHCOM and CENTCOM AORs as well.

**Co'tor Shas**

CptJake wrote:
feeder wrote:
CptJake wrote:
feeder wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
My marriage was illegal 50 years ago, there is nothing wrong with being able to admit when the US fethed up, which it frequently did and still does.

Which has feth all to do with the topic being discussed.
This is why the US should stay out of it. We'll be hated regardless. No reason to get involved and have American women and men killed to protect the people who hate us. We should pull everything out of the Mideast. No good has been achieved there, can be achieved there.

If you think American (or anyone of "the West's") soldiers go anywhere to protect the locals, then I have some waterfront property in New Mexico to sell you. Guaranteed free from rad-mutants, too!

Hate to break it to you, but I have deployed specifically to protect and help locals. More than once. So has my wife.

Really? Sent from the US to somewhere else, 100% to protect the locals?

Yes. 100%. Put in wells, built schools, set up vaccination clinics, secured against 'bad elements' though we were not allowed to hunt the bad elements. Have also done disaster relief for hurricanes and earthquakes where were there 100% to protect locals and provide aid and comfort. The only thing is at the time I was stationed overseas so I did not deploy from the US but from the country I was stationed in to other countries in the region. We did bring in engineers, medical units and sometimes ODAs from CONUS though. Most of our aviation assets were stationed where I was though.

Yeah, most of our international distater response comes in the form of the US army.

**d-usa**

CptJake wrote:
Wife sent a couple teams to fight Ebola in Africa at one point, and has done disaster relief in the SOUTHCOM and CENTCOM AORs as well.

Ebola was a very interesting response. I think the military build one of the hospitals where local healthcare staff was treated, with the staffing provided by the United States Public Health Service.

**Ahtman**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
I had a history professor that wanted to teach WWI but students rarely signed up for it but classes on WWII always filled.

I've yet to attend a college with a WW1 course even on the books. One school had a single history professor, and his degree focus was on the Vietnam era. At my current school, none of the history faculty specialize in 20th century anything. (well, my advisor, aside from being Early Modern Europe, is the "history of technology" guy as well, so thats sorta 20th century)

This guys specialty was late 19th century/early 20th century Germany so he knew a thing or two on WWI but rarely got the opportunity to talk about it. We had one professor that specialized in 20th century US history though, so we had that going for us.

**CptJake**

d-usa wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Wife sent a couple teams to fight Ebola in Africa at one point, and has done disaster relief in the SOUTHCOM and CENTCOM AORs as well.

Ebola was a very interesting response. I think the military build one of the hospitals where local healthcare staff was treated, with the staffing provided by the United States Public Health Service.

Built the hospital, brought in tons of supplies and gear (literally tons), set up safe zones, screened patients, helped with waste disposal, and so on. Army docs and medics also treated as well as screened. Also set up decon/holding/quarantine areas for civilians and military redeploying back to the states.

**feeder**

CptJake wrote:
d-usa wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Wife sent a couple teams to fight Ebola in Africa at one point, and has done disaster relief in the SOUTHCOM and CENTCOM AORs as well.

Ebola was a very interesting response. I think the military build one of the hospitals where local healthcare staff was treated, with the staffing provided by the United States Public Health Service.

Built the hospital, brought in tons of supplies and gear (literally tons), set up safe zones, screened patients, helped with waste disposal, and so on. Army docs and medics also treated as well as screened. Also set up decon/holding/quarantine areas for civilians and military redeploying back to the states.

I know you guys do good work, I have friends in the Canadian forces that have done similar. I thought it was always secondary to the real reason the forces were deployed, usually to enforce corporate interests. I didn't know there was purely peacekeeping missions out there still.

**djones520**

d-usa wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Wife sent a couple teams to fight Ebola in Africa at one point, and has done disaster relief in the SOUTHCOM and CENTCOM AORs as well.

Ebola was a very interesting response. I think the military build one of the hospitals where local healthcare staff was treated, with the staffing provided by the United States Public Health Service.

I was 1 man away from going there myself for that. 101st sent a lot of bodies over there, and we sent 2 SWO's along. I was in the process of spinning up to go when they reduced the requirement from 3 to 2, so I got left home.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

feeder wrote:
CptJake wrote:
d-usa wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Wife sent a couple teams to fight Ebola in Africa at one point, and has done disaster relief in the SOUTHCOM and CENTCOM AORs as well.

Ebola was a very interesting response. I think the military build one of the hospitals where local healthcare staff was treated, with the staffing provided by the United States Public Health Service.

Built the hospital, brought in tons of supplies and gear (literally tons), set up safe zones, screened patients, helped with waste disposal, and so on. Army docs and medics also treated as well as screened. Also set up decon/holding/quarantine areas for civilians and military redeploying back to the states.

I know you guys do good work, I have friends in the Canadian forces that have done similar. I thought it was always secondary to the real reason the forces were deployed, usually to enforce corporate interests. I didn't know there was purely peacekeeping missions out there still.

I would appreciate it if you did not refer to my 3 deployments (with the 4th upcoming) as "enforcing corporate interests". Quite frankly, I find that highly offensive.

**d-usa**

CptJake wrote:
d-usa wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Wife sent a couple teams to fight Ebola in Africa at one point, and has done disaster relief in the SOUTHCOM and CENTCOM AORs as well.

Ebola was a very interesting response. I think the military build one of the hospitals where local healthcare staff was treated, with the staffing provided by the United States Public Health Service.

Built the hospital, brought in tons of supplies and gear (literally tons), set up safe zones, screened patients, helped with waste disposal, and so on. Army docs and medics also treated as well as screened. Also set up decon/holding/quarantine areas for civilians and military redeploying back to the states.

Definitely. Didn't mean to diminish the response as a whole, I have just read a lot about the USPHS part of the response. I'm very interested in the things they have done.

**NinthMusketeer**

The numerous missions that go out and do good things, encounter few problems, then come back home successfully are rarely reported about because Americans don't want to watch it on the news. No ratings, no story.

**djones520**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
The numerous missions that go out and do good things, encounter few problems, then come back home successfully are rarely reported about because Americans don't want to watch it on the news. No ratings, no story.

Post Haiti Earthquake for example. Didn't see much coverage of the THOUSANDS of missions the Air Force flew there carrying humanitarian support. I was with the 618th Air Operations Center at the time. We were mission controllers for Air Mobility Command, basically any cargo aircraft that Air Force has, worldwide. Our workload flat out doubled for 2 months, solely due to our efforts with the Haitian relief.

**Korinov**

djones520 wrote:

I would appreciate it if you did not refer to my 3 deployments (with the 4th upcoming) as "enforcing corporate interests". Quite frankly, I find that highly offensive.

Get offended if you want, but there's no denial the US military forces have been deployed overseas to enforce corporate interests, and not just once.

They're not unique in that regard among military corps, of course.

**whembly**

Korinov wrote:
djones520 wrote:

I would appreciate it if you did not refer to my 3 deployments (with the 4th upcoming) as "enforcing corporate interests". Quite frankly, I find that highly offensive.

Get offended if you want, but there's no denial the US military forces have been deployed overseas to enforce corporate interests, and not just once.

They're not unique in that regard among military corps, of course.

I'm sure you can dig up some sources to backup those conjectures... right?

**Korinov**

whembly wrote:
Korinov wrote:
djones520 wrote:

I would appreciate it if you did not refer to my 3 deployments (with the 4th upcoming) as "enforcing corporate interests". Quite frankly, I find that highly offensive.

Get offended if you want, but there's no denial the US military forces have been deployed overseas to enforce corporate interests, and not just once.

They're not unique in that regard among military corps, of course.

I'm sure you can dig up some sources to backup those conjectures... right?

I'm also sure you believe interventions like the one in Irak were totally aimed towards, uhm, freedom.

**djones520**

This is the part where you tell us we went in there so that China could buy up most of the oil, right?

**Ahtman**

Apparently our military isn't really a military but the new Peace Corp and all they do is humanitarian work. I'm sure they gave up all the missiles, mortars, firearms, tanks, combat aircraft, et al so as to not confuse anyone. No, they are corporate thugs out to enforce American corporate interests at all times and help no one at any time.

Or maybe it isn't as simple as that and this thread is veering into spicy areas that is not the purview of a US politics thread.

**d-usa**

The Goodwill Missions and Combat Missions both have political goals, and the military is a tool in that regard.