RE: War

RE: War (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: War (2/13/2016 10:32:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux The problem DS is the training camps. More than 120 camps, run by militant groups of all stripes. Most of the Guantanamo detainees had been trained in one or more camps in afghanistan. Places where they trained in weapons, bomb making etc. While I understand the desire to wash our hands of afghanistan, the rather predictable result is the continual training of extremist muslims. Those that might attack us - are perhaps manageable (although I doubt it). But the domino effect in pakistan, bangladesh burundi, indonesia, philipines. This is a problem that closing your eyes to will not make it go away. If not now - when. Much of the sales spiel for these extremists has been provided by the US. We have gone into the Middle East - sometimes overtly, and sometimes not - and really made a mess of things. I can understand why our presence has, is, and will continue to provide angst and fodder for extremists. At some point in time, the cycle has to be broken. If not now - when? Arguing that maintaining our presence and control in an area to hinder the training of extremists is faulty logic when our presence and control in an area is a driving force behind the training of those extremists.

DesideriScuri -> RE: War (2/13/2016 10:44:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Interesting article saying that due to our supine democrat leadership - war is coming between Turkey and Russia. http://observer.com/2016/02/mounting-evidence-putin-will-ignite-wwiii/ There is a few problems with this: 1 ) It would be problem between two countries. A world war implies many nations are involved. WWI started when Austria-Hungary invaded Poland, there were only two countries involved. A few days later, Germany declared war on Russia, making it, by your definition, a "world war." When Germany invaded Poland to start WWII, there were, again, only two countries involved. How is it not possible for WWIII (ignoring the numeric appellation for the moment) to be started by a war between Turkey and Russia? Would Iran and Syria (maybe even China) not get involved? Would NATO sit idly by? quote: 2 ) If many nations are inovlved (directly or indirectly) it would be WW4. Why? Because we already went through WW3. Please cite support for the world already going through WWIII.

Phydeaux -> RE: War (2/13/2016 10:54:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux The problem DS is the training camps. More than 120 camps, run by militant groups of all stripes. Most of the Guantanamo detainees had been trained in one or more camps in afghanistan. Places where they trained in weapons, bomb making etc. While I understand the desire to wash our hands of afghanistan, the rather predictable result is the continual training of extremist muslims. Those that might attack us - are perhaps manageable (although I doubt it). But the domino effect in pakistan, bangladesh burundi, indonesia, philipines. This is a problem that closing your eyes to will not make it go away. If not now - when. Much of the sales spiel for these extremists has been provided by the US. We have gone into the Middle East - sometimes overtly, and sometimes not - and really made a mess of things. I can understand why our presence has, is, and will continue to provide angst and fodder for extremists. At some point in time, the cycle has to be broken. If not now - when? Arguing that maintaining our presence and control in an area to hinder the training of extremists is faulty logic when our presence and control in an area is a driving force behind the training of those extremists. There is no credible reason to believe that us actions are THE driver for extremists. Erdogan is driving turkey away from a secular state. This has nothing to do with us actions. Isis exists to form an Islamic caliphate. They first oppose secular States such as Syria and Iraq, US actions are only a secondary driver. Islamists have taken over the Sinai Peninsula. This is a reactionto Egypt, not us actions. Israel will constantly be a thorn for Islamists. US actions are not a driver for bombings in Bora Bora, or brutality on Moros. Look on the internet and you will see hundreds videos wanting to bring Sharia to the UK or Germany or Sweden. These are not motivated by u.s. actions. Show me one example where American isolationism has made things better...

Phydeaux -> RE: War (2/13/2016 11:05:29 AM)
Us actions are not drivers for bombings in Bora Bora or brutality in Moros. Islamists taking over the Sinai Peninsula isnot a reaction to us actions. Islamists will always have a problem with Israel, regardless of us actions. Look on the internet and you will find hundreds of videos wanting to impose Sharia on the UK on Germany on Sweden, these are not the reaction to us Actions Isis was formed from a desire for an Islamic caliphate. Actions against the US are only a secondary driver. Islamists taking over the Swat valley, were not doing so in opposition to US policy. Iran squashing internal dissent is not a reaction to US policy. Kashmir is not a reaction to US policy. In short there is no objective reason to believe this line that the growth of Islamic extremism is fueled by solely or even predominantly by anti-us sentiment.. A far bigger cause is Saudi Arabia pumping 200 billion dollars a year into wahabbism. Show me one case where American isolationism made things better for the Us...

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: War (2/13/2016 11:22:28 AM)
quote: WWI started when Austria-Hungary invaded Poland Nope. A-H declared war on Serbia.

CodeOfSilence -> RE: War (2/13/2016 12:21:33 PM)
There was no Poland then ;-)

Dvr22999874 -> RE: War (2/13/2016 3:26:23 PM)
I believe WW1 was all down to a tangle of treaties as to who would be coming in on the side of whom. Once A.H. declared war on Serbia, Russia honoured her treaty with Serbia and jumped into the fray, at which Germany honoured her pact with A.H. and then the whole mish-mash of secondary treaties began to unfold and it went from a war the politicians couldn't or wouldn't avoid, to a bloodbath the armies of the world couldn't untangle themselves from. Yes, I know, that was a vast over-simplification but a similar situation pertains today with treaties and secondary treaties left, right and centre.

Phydeaux -> RE: War (2/13/2016 9:10:40 PM)
And today Saudis sent aircraft to turkey.

DesideriScuri -> RE: War (2/14/2016 6:40:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Show me one example where American isolationism has made things better... Better for whom? It's not about if it's better for us or not, on it's face. Is it something we have Constitutional authority to do? That's the first and foremost litmus test it has to pass. On what basis do we have the authority to continue to have our military in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban?

DesideriScuri -> RE: War (2/14/2016 6:41:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: WWI started when Austria-Hungary invaded Poland Nope. A-H declared war on Serbia. My bad. Doesn't change my point, though.

Phydeaux -> RE: War (2/14/2016 7:08:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Show me one example where American isolationism has made things better... Better for whom? It's not about if it's better for us or not, on it's face. Is it something we have Constitutional authority to do? That's the first and foremost litmus test it has to pass. On what basis do we have the authority to continue to have our military in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban? I'm not up on the answer. I presume that congress authorized deployment in Afghanistan. After that, the president needs no further authorization as far as I'm concerned. However, I do recognize Congress can choose not to fund. But the question of legal authority is different than the question I posed. When has isolationism worked out better for the US? You might make a case for it early - but thereafter - I think we all agree that problems are better when handled small. This argues for active diplomacy, and active engagement.

DesideriScuri -> RE: War (2/14/2016 7:43:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Show me one example where American isolationism has made things better... Better for whom? It's not about if it's better for us or not, on it's face. Is it something we have Constitutional authority to do? That's the first and foremost litmus test it has to pass. On what basis do we have the authority to continue to have our military in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban? I'm not up on the answer. I presume that congress authorized deployment in Afghanistan. After that, the president needs no further authorization as far as I'm concerned. However, I do recognize Congress can choose not to fund. But the question of legal authority is different than the question I posed. When has isolationism worked out better for the US? You might make a case for it early - but thereafter - I think we all agree that problems are better when handled small. This argues for active diplomacy, and active engagement. Active diplomacy? Absolutely. Active Engagement? That's where the Constitution comes into play. If the authority does not exist for the US to take action, it's wrong for the US to take action, regardless of how much easier it would be to deal with early on.

Phydeaux -> RE: War (2/14/2016 8:51:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Show me one example where American isolationism has made things better... Better for whom? It's not about if it's better for us or not, on it's face. Is it something we have Constitutional authority to do? That's the first and foremost litmus test it has to pass. On what basis do we have the authority to continue to have our military in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban? I'm not up on the answer. I presume that congress authorized deployment in Afghanistan. After that, the president needs no further authorization as far as I'm concerned. However, I do recognize Congress can choose not to fund. But the question of legal authority is different than the question I posed. When has isolationism worked out better for the US? You might make a case for it early - but thereafter - I think we all agree that problems are better when handled small. This argues for active diplomacy, and active engagement. Active diplomacy? Absolutely. Active Engagement? That's where the Constitution comes into play. If the authority does not exist for the US to take action, it's wrong for the US to take action, regardless of how much easier it would be to deal with early on. Desi, we're not disagreeing. But regardless of the authorization - the point remains - when has isolationism benefited the US?

Dvr22999874 -> RE: War (2/14/2016 9:36:16 PM)
Or on the other hand DesideriScuri....................can you give any examples where American NON-isolationism or interventionism DIDN'T make things better, or actually made things worse ? Not necessarily for America but for the local population maybe ?

Phydeaux -> RE: War (2/14/2016 9:53:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 Or on the other hand DesideriScuri....................can you give any examples where American NON-isolationism or interventionism DIDN'T make things better, or actually made things worse ? Not necessarily for America but for the local population maybe ? The answer, logically, is no. Time (0) Time (1) Situation A America Intervenes Situation A1 Situation A America doesn't Situation A2 If america intervenes, we know outcome A1, but we don't know outcome A2 There is no way to compare the two, to know if Outcome A1 is better than Outcome A2. If america doesn't intervene, we know both situation A, and result A2. Most events on an international stage are driven by players -- governments, ngos, businesses people with their own interests and desires. Most of these driven by their own desires, sometime hostile, sometimes friendly. So certainly, there are cases where non intervention results in a positive outcome. We find out Israel is going to bomb Syria's nuclear program. We do nothing; Israel bombs; Syria loses its nuclear program - the US benefits. But the question of isolationism is more than intervention in isolated instances - it is a retranchment of involvement not in a few instances - but widely. I cannot think of isolationism has ever, over a long term, been positive for a nation. 14th century China, 17th century Japan, and the US around 1920 are pretty good examples of the failures of isolationism.

Dvr22999874 -> RE: War (2/14/2016 10:11:28 PM)
so when America intervened in Viet Nam, they knew what the outcome was going to be ? And a few other snarled up hot-spots around the world too......................................May you live in interesting times Fido, may you live in interesting times.

Phydeaux -> RE: War (2/14/2016 10:17:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 so when America intervened in Viet Nam, they knew what the outcome was going to be ? And a few other snarled up hot-spots around the world too......................................May you live in interesting times Fido, may you live in interesting times. You seemed to miss the logic. America intervened - the result is known. What is not know is what the results would have been if America hadn't intervened. It is easy to conclude that the outcome was disastrous - therefore it is easy to hypothesize that the results would be better if we hadn't intervened. But it really is impossible to know. If we did not have vietnam - do we switch from a draft based military? Do we develop the doctrines of Air mobility, med-evac teams? If china/russia didn't suffer huge losses in troops/planes - might they have used them elsewhere? If the US didn't experience such a crushing defeat - would it have emobldened it in other adventures? Would nixon have been elected? No way to know.

Phydeaux -> RE: War (2/14/2016 10:45:53 PM)
Saudi planes sent are F-15's - air superiority fighters that can go toe to toe with Russia's Sukhoi's. The question is: the s300 missile defense systems.... The most likely strategy is for the Turks to bomb the Kurds - with the cover of Saudi. It eliminates Kurds, and rebels, and destroys a russian ally on the ground.

DesideriScuri -> RE: War (2/15/2016 4:59:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 Or on the other hand DesideriScuri....................can you give any examples where American NON-isolationism or interventionism DIDN'T make things better, or actually made things worse ? Not necessarily for America but for the local population maybe ? The answer, logically, is no. Time (0) Time (1) Situation A America Intervenes Situation A1 Situation A America doesn't Situation A2 If america intervenes, we know outcome A1, but we don't know outcome A2 There is no way to compare the two, to know if Outcome A1 is better than Outcome A2. If america doesn't intervene, we know both situation A, and result A2. Most events on an international stage are driven by players -- governments, ngos, businesses people with their own interests and desires. Most of these driven by their own desires, sometime hostile, sometimes friendly. So certainly, there are cases where non intervention results in a positive outcome. We find out Israel is going to bomb Syria's nuclear program. We do nothing; Israel bombs; Syria loses its nuclear program - the US benefits. But the question of isolationism is more than intervention in isolated instances - it is a retranchment of involvement not in a few instances - but widely. I cannot think of isolationism has ever, over a long term, been positive for a nation. 14th century China, 17th century Japan, and the US around 1920 are pretty good examples of the failures of isolationism. By your own logic, there is no way to tell if isolation benefited us or not. We know we isolated ourselves, it didn't work out. Do you know what would have been the result if we had jumped into things? Of course you don't. Had we stayed out of Afghanistan when Russia was fighting the rebels, would we have the Taliban? Would bin Laden have risen to such power? Would al Qaeda have been created? What would have happened if we left Iran alone to continue it's democratic elections? It sure seems like it would have benefited us if AQ, bin Laden, and the Taliban had never been created. Having "installed" the Mullahs in Iran doesn't seem to have worked out for us much, has it? There is a massive difference between diplomacy and physical interaction.

Phydeaux -> RE: War (2/15/2016 8:47:23 AM)
You took the case for intervention, and seemed to ignore the logic case for non-intervention. If we don't intervene in a situation you know situation a, and result a2. We know how much isolation helped or hurt us compared to base case A. We have no way to compare with case A1, since it never happened. In other words, we know whether isolation benefitted us (comparison to base state) - we can't compare to intervention results. While it is tempting to say that AQ bin Laden, and the Taliban would never have been created - I think that is also a fallacy. Most people blame those actors on our actions - but I think it is pretty clear they get created regardless. Khomeini didn't start out reacting against the US (although we were a convenient stooge) he sought, from the beginning, to impose a muslim theocracy. the taliban and bin laden is as much a result of saudi arabia pumping wahhabiism and an awakening islamic movement as it is about us. Muslim caliphs must have a military component; sooner or later with the amount of funding the sauds were throwing at afghanistan, an islamic leader with strict muslim beliefs would arise. Even if the Sauds weren't involved, Paki's ISS have used pashtun recruitment of jihadi's as a counterbalance to india in Kashmere. Sure, bin Laden hated us. But just as much as he hated us - he wanted to bring about jihad - hence the jihad attacks in spain, england.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.445313E-02