Switch Theme:

US Politics: 2017 Edition  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ca
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta




 Frazzled wrote:
Ahem...Ronald Reagan.


Ya he had a great plan, he's the one who started the path of meddling in the middle east and playing pick the dictator. He propped up hussain and bin laden, remember how did that work out? Basically laying the ground work for the mess that the middle east is now in.

But you have to give the blood thirsty guy credit, regan would have bombed assads house by now.

 
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

 whembly wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I cannot think of one single positive thing the USA has achieved foreign policy wise since 9/11.


Obama's meetings and normalizing of relations with Cuba is seen, by those who study political science and foreign policy as a huge success. I will grant you that Academia often seems to be a far cry from "real life," but it is one notable area where I happen to agree with Pres. O on doing at the time.

Also, an article in "The Atlantic" list the Cuba thing alongside his climate deal (that Trump seems to have swiftly backed us away from), and the Iran nuclear deal as being successes. Now, I know the Iran thing was hotly debated on these boards, but again, the people who study international relations for a living are calling it a success while armchair generals and NASCAR fans across the US are claiming we're giving them nukes. I know which group I'd rather believe.


I'm in the camp that thinks the Iran deal was the right thing to do. As I've said before I sat through the Congress and Senate hearings on it.

None the less, I can't declare it a success, because one thing I learned from the Congress and Senate hearings is this:

The GOP are a bunch of morons. They are itching to pull the plug on it, and with Trump at 1600, they will probably succeed.

I'm no John Kerry fan, but that man deserves another medal for turning the tables on clueless GOP Senators.

You don't like the deal, so what would you do instead? asked Kerry...

GOP jaws hit the floor. They didn't have a clue!

These oxygen thiefs couldn't find their rears without a map and compass.

So... paying Iran pallet loads of money wasn't a success... wny do you think it'd work for Syria/ISIS/Bugaboos?


The Iran deal can't and won't be a success for the simple reason that hardliners in the GOP and hardliners in Iran won't allow it to succeed.

"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in us
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard




Catskills in NYS

Meanwhile in the whitehouse
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/04/14/trump-to-discontinue-obama-policy-of-voluntarily-releasing-white-house-visitor-logs/?utm_term=.1b48bbaef11a


I think the big question from this is, who does Trump not want us to know he is meeting?

Edit: and I love how they have the gall to go "This will save us $70K! (in 4 years)", when that is pennies in government terms, and Trump is costing us millions for no reason.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/14 17:33:47


Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
 kronk wrote:
Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
 sebster wrote:
Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
 BaronIveagh wrote:
Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

sirlynchmob wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Ahem...Ronald Reagan.


Ya he had a great plan, he's the one who started the path of meddling in the middle east and playing pick the dictator.

You would be right if he were the first President f the United States. Lets help with history:
Eisenhower: Iran
Johnson: aid to Israel
Nixon: Threatened nuclear war during the 1973 war
Carter: Camp David



He propped up hussain

Worked great.

and bin laden,

No aid went to Bin Laden. Thats a myth.


remember how did that work out? Basically laying the ground work for the mess that the middle east is now in.

No thats Britain.


-"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!
 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

 CptJake wrote:
You original point was " we routinely drop equivalent destruction with lots of smaller bombs all the time."

And it is wrong.
That was part of my statement, but the point it was aiming at was that the MOAB is neither a mininuke nor does it represent a dramatic escalation of arms. In this case, I think we're arguing two different things over the interpretation on "equivalent", If we're getting hung up on that, ok, I'll retract the statement, as I dont have the time (or books on hand) to delve into it as much as I'd like during breaks at work, but the ultimate point was that the MOAB, while big and impressive, isnt changing the big picture, there's no dangerous escalation coming from it, and it's not something for people to get hot and bothered over it being deployed.

 whembly wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I cannot think of one single positive thing the USA has achieved foreign policy wise since 9/11.


Obama's meetings and normalizing of relations with Cuba is seen, by those who study political science and foreign policy as a huge success. I will grant you that Academia often seems to be a far cry from "real life," but it is one notable area where I happen to agree with Pres. O on doing at the time.

Also, an article in "The Atlantic" list the Cuba thing alongside his climate deal (that Trump seems to have swiftly backed us away from), and the Iran nuclear deal as being successes. Now, I know the Iran thing was hotly debated on these boards, but again, the people who study international relations for a living are calling it a success while armchair generals and NASCAR fans across the US are claiming we're giving them nukes. I know which group I'd rather believe.


I'm in the camp that thinks the Iran deal was the right thing to do. As I've said before I sat through the Congress and Senate hearings on it.

None the less, I can't declare it a success, because one thing I learned from the Congress and Senate hearings is this:

The GOP are a bunch of morons. They are itching to pull the plug on it, and with Trump at 1600, they will probably succeed.

I'm no John Kerry fan, but that man deserves another medal for turning the tables on clueless GOP Senators.

You don't like the deal, so what would you do instead? asked Kerry...

GOP jaws hit the floor. They didn't have a clue!

These oxygen thiefs couldn't find their rears without a map and compass.

So... paying Iran pallet loads of money wasn't a success... wny do you think it'd work for Syria/ISIS/Bugaboos?
Paying off ISIS directly is probably a poor idea. That said, paying off everyone around them tends to work very well in the games of empires, but we also have a desire to see a resolution rather than just keeping them out of our hair, which is what causes that strategy to often fail.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






I find it amusing that people are exclaiming how much of a waste this bomb was with only a few tiny scraps of information. '36 fighters they can replace and some tunnels they and re-dig, what a waste!' Aside from the basic logic used that we should not strike anything that an enemy can replace (so it's a waste to strike at anything at all), that is assuming there was absolutely nothing in those tunnels beyond 36 fighters, that they have the means to quickly and effectively dig new tunnels, and that the location​ of the tunnels wasn't​ of value as compared to any other locations. Not to mention the potential who of those fighters, perhaps important targets or leaders were among them.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I find it amusing that people are exclaiming how much of a waste this bomb was with only a few tiny scraps of information. '36 fighters they can replace and some tunnels they and re-dig, what a waste!' Aside from the basic logic used that we should not strike anything that an enemy can replace (so it's a waste to strike at anything at all), that is assuming there was absolutely nothing in those tunnels beyond 36 fighters, that they have the means to quickly and effectively dig new tunnels, and that the location​ of the tunnels wasn't​ of value as compared to any other locations. Not to mention the potential who of those fighters, perhaps important targets or leaders were among them.


Yes, it's easy for armchair generals like me, sitting thousands of miles away to say they should have done A B C instead of X Y Z.

Dropping bombs on an enemy is not the problem.

The problem with the USA and other Western democratic armies, is that they will not commit themselves body and soul to war. This is not necessary a bad thing. War really is hell, and one day, hopefully, humanity will turn its back on it for evermore.

None the less, as things stand, the refusal to commit is a problem.

Sun Tzu, thousands of years ago, said that a nation goes into war 100% or it does not go into war at all. Or words to that effect.

If you take the half-ass approach, the 50%, then disaster follows disaster.

History shows that you cannot win a war from the air. It never worked in WW2, it never worked in Vietnam, and it's not working now.

The US military knows this because it did studies on it!

America has a wonderful advantage in that it has a volunteer military. It can put somebody in a country for years to help nation build.

It did it in Germany, Japan, South Korea, but wouldn't do it in Iraq or Afghanistan.

And there in lay the problem. It went in 50% when in hindsight, it should have put in the hard yards...


"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


The US military knows this because it did studies on it!

The problem is twofold. The US military is subject to civilian control that has different priorities and concerns and want things done in a way that isnt necessarily the best way to actually proceed, and there are many in the military that have either never wanted to acknowledge that lesson or who can further their careers based on others ignorance of that lesson.

Hell, we still have people who think the M14 was the pinnacle of rifle design and that replacing it was the height of stupidity and that the 1911 is an objectively superior weapon to the M9 or almost anything else.

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.  
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






I think both of you made some very good points, and pretty much summarized the root of the issue.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




On a surly Warboar, leading the Waaagh!

Glad to see that political donkey caves of the past still work hard at being donkey caves even when they've become irrelevant.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/04/14/michele-bachmann-god-helped-trump-win-to-stop-transgender-bathr/22040490/
   
Made in ca
Zealous Sin-Eater




Montreal

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Glad to see that political donkey caves of the past still work hard at being donkey caves even when they've become irrelevant.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/04/14/michele-bachmann-god-helped-trump-win-to-stop-transgender-bathr/22040490/


And yet, the idea that a supernatural power somehow had a hand in putting that man in the Oval Office is oddly comforting.
Plus, it would definitly solve the Problem of Evil.

[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.  
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 BigWaaagh wrote:
Glad to see that political donkey caves of the past still work hard at being donkey caves even when they've become irrelevant.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/04/14/michele-bachmann-god-helped-trump-win-to-stop-transgender-bathr/22040490/
My favorite quote from her: "The founding fathers worked tirelessly, until slavery was no more."

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




On a surly Warboar, leading the Waaagh!

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
 BigWaaagh wrote:
Glad to see that political donkey caves of the past still work hard at being donkey caves even when they've become irrelevant.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/04/14/michele-bachmann-god-helped-trump-win-to-stop-transgender-bathr/22040490/


And yet, the idea that a supernatural power somehow had a hand in putting that man in the Oval Office is oddly comforting.
Plus, it would definitly solve the Problem of Evil.




Actually, if I had any inkling that a supernatural power had anything to do with putting Orangutan-in-Chief in the Oval Office, I'd be terrified beyond rational thought.
   
Made in gb
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair





Beijing

Maybe it needs its own thread. But Trump's recent tweets about North Korea have rapidly turned up the tension, even China is getting nervous.

Trump and Kim Jong-Un share some traits, both are inexperienced with managing international relations, are quick to anger and threaten military solutions, and neither will back down due to pride.

If the US were to go to war with North Korea they'd better be prepared to kill a lot of people. They won't be like Iraq where a lot of people's hearts weren't in it. North Koreans are quite likely willing, or compelled to fight to the death and there's a lot of them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39604361
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 whembly wrote:
So... paying Iran pallet loads of money wasn't a success... wny do you think it'd work for Syria/ISIS/Bugaboos?


Describing the Iran deal as 'paying pallet loads of money' is a political fiction. Total fething nonsense. The only things offered up by the security council members (plus Germany) was the removal of existing sanctions. In exchange Iran agreed to scale back its nuclear facilities and limit enrichment to levels with no military use.

What you are referencing is that some time after the Iran deal, the US agreed to repay money taken from Iran for goods not delivered 40 years ago. US courts had confirmed this money was owed to Iran, and so it needed to be paid, whether there was agreement in place or not.

Republicans dishonestly claimed the payment was part of the Iran deal, and in turn you repeat that here on dakka. Because that's how it works. But it's total bs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Ya he had a great plan, he's the one who started the path of meddling in the middle east and playing pick the dictator.


The Democratic government of Iran was toppled by a covert US/UK operation in 1953. The US had a long history of dicking around in the Middle East before Reagan came to power.

But you have to give the blood thirsty guy credit, regan would have bombed assads house by now.


Reagan is the guy who gave Iran what they wanted to get the hostages back. He dropped sanctions, promised to return any money held by the previous Iranian government. Reagan is also the guy who responded to the Beirut bombing by giving up and pulling the US troops out.

Claiming Reagan was the hard man on middle east politics isn't even revisionism, it's fan fiction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


Well, I'm not sure we can assume someone is hiding stuff just because they stop making information publicly available. Perhaps there's another explanation. Maybe we should ask Trump, who happened to have a few things to say when Obama said he wasn't going to release records all records on vistors, as some were personal family visits, or were particularly politically sensitive guests like potential SC nominees. Wonder what Trump had to say then.

Why does Obama believe he shouldn't comply with record releases that his predecessors did of their own volition? Hiding something?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 30, 2012
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/263348204068810752

Oh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I find it amusing that people are exclaiming how much of a waste this bomb was with only a few tiny scraps of information. '36 fighters they can replace and some tunnels they and re-dig, what a waste!' Aside from the basic logic used that we should not strike anything that an enemy can replace (so it's a waste to strike at anything at all), that is assuming there was absolutely nothing in those tunnels beyond 36 fighters, that they have the means to quickly and effectively dig new tunnels, and that the location​ of the tunnels wasn't​ of value as compared to any other locations. Not to mention the potential who of those fighters, perhaps important targets or leaders were among them.


One important factor that gets missed in just looking at bodycounts is the recruiting effects of casualties. ISIS fighters who die facing down US or allied troops are a huge benefit to subsequent recruiting efforts. But fighters who die alone in the dark in tunnel, from a bomb dropped from miles above... that's not the image anyone pictures for their martyrdom.

It isn't just 92 dead fighters and trashed tunnel system. It's an international story about a very one sided ass kicking of ISIS. That's easily worth 16 million. Hell, the US probably rolled out more than 16 million in PR efforts around this bombing, and it was all money well spent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Sun Tzu, thousands of years ago, said that a nation goes into war 100% or it does not go into war at all. Or words to that effect.

If you take the half-ass approach, the 50%, then disaster follows disaster.

History shows that you cannot win a war from the air. It never worked in WW2, it never worked in Vietnam, and it's not working now.

The US military knows this because it did studies on it!


Total war or nothing at all makes no sense. You can have limited military operations that will naturally require only limited military expenditure. What you're arguing is that the US decides it needs to undertake a stabilising operation, so it either begins rationing nylon and turning the car factories in to tank factories, or it doesn't bother at all. It's a non-argument.

Nor is the issue the presence or lack of troops on the ground. For starters, there are fething troops on the ground. Secondly, in the early stages the US had just a handful of troops active on the ground, by alliances with non-Taliban groups, and overwhelming airpower inflicted massive casualties on the Taliban.

The problem is not with winning the war, it isn't with klling the enemy. The US in Vietnam, in Iraq and in Afghanistan have never had a problem killing loads of the enemy. The problem in each case has been with building a meaningful peace. Building a viable new government, and filling it with leaders who aren't corrupt donkey-caves.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2017/04/15 12:12:27


“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. 
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

Total war or nothing at all makes no sense. You can have limited military operations that will naturally require only limited military expenditure. What you're arguing is that the US decides it needs to undertake a stabilising operation, so it either begins rationing nylon and turning the car factories in to tank factories, or it doesn't bother at all. It's a non-argument.

Nor is the issue the presence or lack of troops on the ground. For starters, there are fething troops on the ground. Secondly, in the early stages the US had just a handful of troops active on the ground, by alliances with non-Taliban groups, and overwhelming airpower inflicted massive casualties on the Taliban.

The problem is not with winning the war, it isn't with klling the enemy. The US in Vietnam, in Iraq and in Afghanistan have never had a problem killing loads of the enemy. The problem in each case has been with building a meaningful peace. Building a viable new government, and filling it with leaders who aren't corrupt donkey-caves.


The US military operations in Afghanistan and the subsequent 'nation building' that went on afterwards were half-hearted at best.

When a president stands up and says I want troops out in 3 years time, that tells the enemy that the USA is not serious and that all they have to do is sit it out for 3 years.

I don't blame the troops on the ground, who performed admirably and went above and beyond. I blame the American civilian and military leadership for the subsequent feth up.

I've read enough about Iraq and Afgnanistan to know that Rumsfeld and the planning at the Pentagon for after the invasions was a complete and utter shambles. Non-existent.

They made it up as they went along. One month it was building a democracy, the next it was standing up for women's rights. Then road building. then education. It was all over the shop.

Thomas E Ricks has written widely on Iraq and Afganistan (excellent books which I'd recommend) and he thinks the US military has a problem in that it does not punish failure at the top.

Not enough generals are getting sacked compared to WW2. So a culture of mediocrity exists, and ordinary troops suffer as a result of poor leadership.

A good youtube video on it can be found here and a memorable quote is this (I don't know if this is true or not, perhaps dakka American military vets can confirm or deny it?)

"As matters stand now, a private who loses a rifle suffers far greater consequences than a general who loses a war."









"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut





Meanwhile, you can always count on propaganda to do its work.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/04/14/why-trump-is-right-on-north-korea.html

Let's watch live how World War III started, shall we? Wonder who will push on the red button first.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







I kinda dunno about this whole North Korea thing.

I can actually see this being a situation where it ends up in Trump's massive world changing foreign policy success.

And that's because the Chinese leadership have now met Trump. Irrespective of what has been said publicly, there's without a doubt now that China, privately are thinking. "OK, right, this guy really IS aff his heid."

Other world leaders that have met with him are probably saying the same thing, privately (especially Germany with that alleged 'Nato cheque' stunt.)

As such, if and when Trump ends up up going up against North Korea, I can see a situation where noone wants to step in. Except, maybe South Korea and Japan, for pure survival reasons. But that depends on NK's own insanity.

So yeah, NK and USA go head to head, noone wants to support either or gets involved and America wins... Because, well, America.

How viable those countries would be afterwards, well, that's a fair question. But I really don't think any rational country wants to 'play a game' involving Trump. And, say what you will about China's own goals and thought processes being different, and at times, directly opposing ours, by their own standards, morals, aims and priorities, they are a supremely rational country.

All of this is my own personal opinion, of course.
   
Made in us
Posts with Authority





 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A good youtube video on it can be found here and a memorable quote is this (I don't know if this is true or not, perhaps dakka American military vets can confirm or deny it?)

"As matters stand now, a private who loses a rifle suffers far greater consequences than a general who loses a war."



Look no further than what happens when a private cheats on his wife, vs. when a general uses government travel funds to cheat on his.

Mob Rule is not a rule. 
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

 Compel wrote:
I kinda dunno about this whole North Korea thing.

I can actually see this being a situation where it ends up in Trump's massive world changing foreign policy success.

And that's because the Chinese leadership have now met Trump. Irrespective of what has been said publicly, there's without a doubt now that China, privately are thinking. "OK, right, this guy really IS aff his heid."

Other world leaders that have met with him are probably saying the same thing, privately (especially Germany with that alleged 'Nato cheque' stunt.)

As such, if and when Trump ends up up going up against North Korea, I can see a situation where noone wants to step in. Except, maybe South Korea and Japan, for pure survival reasons. But that depends on NK's own insanity.

So yeah, NK and USA go head to head, noone wants to support either or gets involved and America wins... Because, well, America.

How viable those countries would be afterwards, well, that's a fair question. But I really don't think any rational country wants to 'play a game' involving Trump. And, say what you will about China's own goals and thought processes being different, and at times, directly opposing ours, by their own standards, morals, aims and priorities, they are a supremely rational country.

All of this is my own personal opinion, of course.


Not for a minute do I want a war (it would be another disaster for the human race)

but in any war between the USA and North Korea, there is no threat to the US mainland.

Yes, the US military would probably take casualties in the thousands, and key allies like South Korea, and possibly Japan, would suffer the most and bear the brunt.

Even with Chinese involvement on the North's side, the US can keep the fighting at arm's length and away from continental America.

Ultimately, i believe the USA would win, but as the saying goes: war makes the state and the state makes war...

It would change America, and God knows what unintended consequences would occur in the region...

That's the risk.

Personally, my own solution would be to get the Chinese on board and have them supervise, inspect, and ultimately control the North Korean nuclear arsenal.

It's a compromise which I believe would allow all parties to save face and spin it as victory to their respective populations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A good youtube video on it can be found here and a memorable quote is this (I don't know if this is true or not, perhaps dakka American military vets can confirm or deny it?)

"As matters stand now, a private who loses a rifle suffers far greater consequences than a general who loses a war."



Look no further than what happens when a private cheats on his wife, vs. when a general uses government travel funds to cheat on his.


Good point.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/15 14:19:00


"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in us
Posts with Authority







I have been doing this military thing for a long, long time. Fortunately, retirement is very close.

We Enlisted men have a very uneasy relationship with officers in some ways. I watched high-ranking officers try to bury evidence of each others' misdeeds, when they were out to crucify a NCO for something marginal in comparison but in the same vein. I watched a 1-Star General have a going-away party that ended up running a 5-digit price tag, on the government dollar... but we had Joes down the street eating a slice of ham and a tablespoon of rice and carrots at the Mess Hall, with no AC in their barracks, with brown water coming out of their sink and shower. I've watched officers go completely cutt-throat on each other to deflect blame and throw someone under the bus, and then saw them go completely bananas when they tried to do it to an NCO and we closed ranks and protected our sacred brotherhood and 'take care of it in our own lane' (and when we 'take care of it', it's usually worse than some bad paperwork).

"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear considerable watching." - Attributed to the Marine Corps Officer's Handbook, 1812 and the US Army Officer's guide, 1894.

I show that to every Lieutenant and Captain that I work for. "Ha! That's a pretty funny quote", they say.

"It is. But it's an even better warning, sir." I tell them.

Fortunately, I've always had great relationships with them and I think their families tend to spoil me around holidays and my birthday.

Mob Rule is not a rule. 
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


I have been doing this military thing for a long, long time. Fortunately, retirement is very close.

We Enlisted men have a very uneasy relationship with officers in some ways. I watched high-ranking officers try to bury evidence of each others' misdeeds, when they were out to crucify a NCO for something marginal in comparison but in the same vein. I watched a 1-Star General have a going-away party that ended up running a 5-digit price tag, on the government dollar... but we had Joes down the street eating a slice of ham and a tablespoon of rice and carrots at the Mess Hall, with no AC in their barracks, with brown water coming out of their sink and shower. I've watched officers go completely cutt-throat on each other to deflect blame and throw someone under the bus, and then saw them go completely bananas when they tried to do it to an NCO and we closed ranks and protected our sacred brotherhood and 'take care of it in our own lane' (and when we 'take care of it', it's usually worse than some bad paperwork).

"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear considerable watching." - Attributed to the Marine Corps Officer's Handbook, 1812 and the US Army Officer's guide, 1894.

I show that to every Lieutenant and Captain that I work for. "Ha! That's a pretty funny quote", they say.

"It is. But it's an even better warning, sir." I tell them.

Fortunately, I've always had great relationships with them and I think their families tend to spoil me around holidays and my birthday.


Good insight. Thanks.

The tone of my posts may come across as warmongering, but I can assure people that the opposite is the case. Any war or violence is a disaster and tragedy in my book.

I'm from a working-class background, so I've spent a lot of my life defending the working class for obvious reasons.

My opposition to flawed American foreign policy stems from the fact that it is working class Americans, poor white Americans, and poor African-Americans, who send their sons and daughters off to die in these wars and conflicts. Vietnam being a good example of that.

And yet, working class Americans do not start these conflcits, but they always end up dying in them...

And that's the tragedy here...

"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in us
Posts with Authority





 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
My opposition to flawed American foreign policy stems from the fact that it is working class Americans, poor white Americans, and poor African-Americans, who send their sons and daughters off to die in these wars and conflicts. Vietnam being a good example of that.

And yet, working class Americans do not start these conflcits, but they always end up dying in them...

And that's the tragedy here...


Fun little fact, though- if you come from wealth, it's actually a bit challenging to get into the US Military. If your lifestyle supports you financially far more than the [Insert Branch of Service] can, they have to approve waivers. The way it works- they can't threaten your pay to leverage you.

I worked with a guy that inherited a series of diners back in his hometown when his grandfather died, and basically became a millionaire in a matter of days. It was kind of awesome, because he celebrated by hiring a big catering group to feed us, and we had a celebration/paying of respects. However, the weird thing... he had to sign these counselings and get these waivers (I never saw one), because his liquid assets earned him several times more than the Army could ever offer. If he ever screwed up, it would get extra attention and possibly result in him being discharged- they could threaten him with nothing of note, because his Army pay was pocket change... so they saw him as a potential liability.

Mob Rule is not a rule. 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





This is Trump hiring policy.


So Trump started with what he already believed, and then got his son-in=law to go find an economics person who thought the same. This is exactly the process by which you fill your staff of technical advisors with true believers, instead of people who actually know what they're talking about.

As for the guy Trump has appointed to his new National Trade Council, well surprise surprise Peter Navarro is another hack economist who makes mistakes that would flunk an undergrad. Navarro has just been skewered by Dan Ikenson of the libertarian Cato instute.

"The economic illiteracy that animates Navarro’s policy prescriptions is startling. In a white paper published before the election describing some of candidate Trump’s economic policies, Navarro (and co-author, Wilbur Ross, Commerce Secretary-designate) revealed the central misconception that lies at the core of his global economic worldview.

He wrote: “When net exports are negative, that is, when a country runs a trade deficit by importing more than it exports, this subtracts from growth... The structural problems driving the slow growth in the US economy over the last 15 years have primarily been the investment and net exports drivers in the GDP growth equation.”

Of course, Navarro is referring to the national income identity, Y = C + I + G + X – M, which accounts for the disposition of GDP.

The accounting identity says that national output is either (C)onsumed by households; consumed by businesses as (I)nvestment; consumed by (G)overnment as public expenditures; or e(X)ported. Those are the only four channels through which national output is disposed.

But the identity is not a GDP growth equation. Imports have nothing to do with GDP – other than the fact that they increase when the economy is growing and they tend to decrease when the economy is contracting.

Then why do we subtract M, which signifies i(M)ports? We subtract M because imports are embedded in the aggregate spending of households, businesses, and governments. If we didn’t subtract M, then GDP would be overstated by the value of spending on imports.

But there is no inverse relationship between imports and GDP, as Navarro asserts. In fact, there is a strong positive relationship between changes in the trade deficit and changes in GDP."
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international-affairs/311683-navarros-trade-views-misguided-dangerous

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The US military operations in Afghanistan and the subsequent 'nation building' that went on afterwards were half-hearted at best.


Wrong-o friend-o. The money and commitment was always there. Afghanistan is now America's longest war, and the funds poured in to reconstruction are obscene. The money poured in to Iraq was even greater.

The problem in both cases, and Vietnam before that, is that the governments the US backed to take over were corrupt and incompetent.

When a president stands up and says I want troops out in 3 years time, that tells the enemy that the USA is not serious and that all they have to do is sit it out for 3 years.


You're complaining about setting a time line for operations. I don't think you understand how military planning, or any kind of planning works. There's always a timeline. Note that there was never a single line that said it was 3 years no matter what. And note that when local capabilities were deemed insufficient, the US always pushed those time limits back. The only exception being Iraq, where the US wanted to stay longer but Iraq wanted the US troops out, believing they were capable (which gets back to my point about the real issue that the US keeps backing incompetent idiots to govern).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/15 17:15:41


“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. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 sebster wrote:
 whembly wrote:
So... paying Iran pallet loads of money wasn't a success... wny do you think it'd work for Syria/ISIS/Bugaboos?


Describing the Iran deal as 'paying pallet loads of money' is a political fiction. Total fething nonsense. The only things offered up by the security council members (plus Germany) was the removal of existing sanctions. In exchange Iran agreed to scale back its nuclear facilities and limit enrichment to levels with no military use.

What you are referencing is that some time after the Iran deal, the US agreed to repay money taken from Iran for goods not delivered 40 years ago. US courts had confirmed this money was owed to Iran, and so it needed to be paid, whether there was agreement in place or not.

Republicans dishonestly claimed the payment was part of the Iran deal, and in turn you repeat that here on dakka. Because that's how it works. But it's total bs.


What's total horse gak here seb is believing that there's no link between the two.

I mean, you're basically saying:
-Iran: feth you 'Murrica! Imma build this nuke gak.
-USA: feth you back! You better not!
-Iran: ...hey... about that thing back in the day, could you pay us back?
-USA: sure thing bro!

Seriously seb, that's some epic failure there... (on the US part)


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/15 17:27:35


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Funds doesn't mean commitment. To build stability we need more boots on the ground, many more than we are committed to sending.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
Never Forget Isstvan!





Chicago

 whembly wrote:
 sebster wrote:
 whembly wrote:
So... paying Iran pallet loads of money wasn't a success... wny do you think it'd work for Syria/ISIS/Bugaboos?


Describing the Iran deal as 'paying pallet loads of money' is a political fiction. Total fething nonsense. The only things offered up by the security council members (plus Germany) was the removal of existing sanctions. In exchange Iran agreed to scale back its nuclear facilities and limit enrichment to levels with no military use.

What you are referencing is that some time after the Iran deal, the US agreed to repay money taken from Iran for goods not delivered 40 years ago. US courts had confirmed this money was owed to Iran, and so it needed to be paid, whether there was agreement in place or not.

Republicans dishonestly claimed the payment was part of the Iran deal, and in turn you repeat that here on dakka. Because that's how it works. But it's total bs.


What's total horse gak here seb is believing that there's no link between the two.

I mean, you're basically saying:
-Iran: feth you 'Murrica! Imma build this nuke gak.
-USA: feth you back! You better not!
-Iran: ...hey... about that thing back in the day, could you pay us back?
-USA: sure thing bro!

Seriously seb, that's some epic failure there... (on the US part)




See whembly only believes in listening to the courts when it conveniences him. See he is okay with Citizen United and its direct results of corporations pouring billions into the election scene, but when a court rules we have to pay something back to a terrible regime he is against it

Ustrello paints- 30k, 40k multiple armies
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/614742.page 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Ustrello wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 sebster wrote:
 whembly wrote:
So... paying Iran pallet loads of money wasn't a success... wny do you think it'd work for Syria/ISIS/Bugaboos?


Describing the Iran deal as 'paying pallet loads of money' is a political fiction. Total fething nonsense. The only things offered up by the security council members (plus Germany) was the removal of existing sanctions. In exchange Iran agreed to scale back its nuclear facilities and limit enrichment to levels with no military use.

What you are referencing is that some time after the Iran deal, the US agreed to repay money taken from Iran for goods not delivered 40 years ago. US courts had confirmed this money was owed to Iran, and so it needed to be paid, whether there was agreement in place or not.

Republicans dishonestly claimed the payment was part of the Iran deal, and in turn you repeat that here on dakka. Because that's how it works. But it's total bs.


What's total horse gak here seb is believing that there's no link between the two.

I mean, you're basically saying:
-Iran: feth you 'Murrica! Imma build this nuke gak.
-USA: feth you back! You better not!
-Iran: ...hey... about that thing back in the day, could you pay us back?
-USA: sure thing bro!

Seriously seb, that's some epic failure there... (on the US part)




See whembly only believes in listening to the courts when it conveniences him. See he is okay with Citizen United and its direct results of corporations pouring billions into the election scene, but when a court rules we have to pay something back to a terrible regime he is against it

Citizen United happened at Scotus...

Didn't that Iran payment court case happen in the international courts? Ya know... the court we're not a signature to?

But, hey Ustrello, you must feel good about your self to erroneously criticize me. Good for you ol' bean.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/15 20:51:13


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

No, not the court we didn't sign on to.

But the tribunal we created voluntarily with Iran. The tribunal we agreed with that previously forced Iran to give us money and forced the US to give Iran money. The same tribunal that had allows private citizens to file claims against Iran.

http://www.iusct.net

http://time.com/4441046/400-million-iran-hostage-history/

   
Made in us
Never Forget Isstvan!





Chicago

 whembly wrote:
 Ustrello wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 sebster wrote:
 whembly wrote:
So... paying Iran pallet loads of money wasn't a success... wny do you think it'd work for Syria/ISIS/Bugaboos?


Describing the Iran deal as 'paying pallet loads of money' is a political fiction. Total fething nonsense. The only things offered up by the security council members (plus Germany) was the removal of existing sanctions. In exchange Iran agreed to scale back its nuclear facilities and limit enrichment to levels with no military use.

What you are referencing is that some time after the Iran deal, the US agreed to repay money taken from Iran for goods not delivered 40 years ago. US courts had confirmed this money was owed to Iran, and so it needed to be paid, whether there was agreement in place or not.

Republicans dishonestly claimed the payment was part of the Iran deal, and in turn you repeat that here on dakka. Because that's how it works. But it's total bs.


What's total horse gak here seb is believing that there's no link between the two.

I mean, you're basically saying:
-Iran: feth you 'Murrica! Imma build this nuke gak.
-USA: feth you back! You better not!
-Iran: ...hey... about that thing back in the day, could you pay us back?
-USA: sure thing bro!

Seriously seb, that's some epic failure there... (on the US part)




See whembly only believes in listening to the courts when it conveniences him. See he is okay with Citizen United and its direct results of corporations pouring billions into the election scene, but when a court rules we have to pay something back to a terrible regime he is against it

Citizen United happened at Scotus...

Didn't that Iran payment court case happen in the international courts? Ya know... the court we're not a signature to?

But, hey Ustrello, you must feel good about your self to erroneously criticize me. Good for you ol' bean.


Nah cause I actually realized it came down from a court we agreed to and actually read stuff before I posted

Ustrello paints- 30k, 40k multiple armies
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/614742.page 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: